|
Grex > Storage > #35: United States to Alaska: keep putting out and we won't have a problem. |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
variable
|
|
United States to Alaska: keep putting out and we won't have a problem.
| 
Sep 7 01:33 UTC 1994 |
Believe it or not, the daysof our fore fathers is long over. And with
it any real hope for justice in this country. For years the propaganda
machine of the American government has sought to convince us that the
revolution that birthed our country was a battle for rights rather
than a war founded on greed. At the same time it maintians that
the civil war was about slavery rather than the rights they falsley
attribute the revolution to.
This may sound like history, but both of these topics are
affecting the country today. The United States government is guilty
of robbing the state of Alaska of any of its consitutional rights by
illegaly locking up lands without the states permission, by extorting
mineral rihgts for big oil companies through threat of cut off federal funds,
and now by imposing a large military presence upon the state in order ot ensure
cooperation. This may effect few of us at the moment, but with policies
such as these I would strongly urge everyone to reconsider blindly handing
over their private weapons to a government that has no intention of putting
the petrol before the people.
|
| 31 responses total. |
carson
|
|
response 1 of 31:
|
Sep 7 16:21 UTC 1994 |
specifics. facts. situations. examples. reasoning.
|
variable
|
|
response 2 of 31:
|
Sep 8 04:41 UTC 1994 |
More will be coming, but first I will be taking a brief soujorn to the
last frontier to gather exact bibliographies for my facts.
Any specific questions you would like asked?
|
variable
|
|
response 3 of 31:
|
Sep 8 21:50 UTC 1994 |
One thing I can point out currently is a law on the books called
the Smith Act. The Smith Act directly prohibits Alaska from
conducting its own comercial affairs by making it impossible to
deal with other countries without going through continental U.S.
ports. Under this act, no ship may leave Alaska with destination
to a foreign port. Said ship must first put in at an continental
U.S. port for full inspection before leaving to another country.
This in effect has caused numerous problems withselling natural
resources to countries around the pacific rim.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 4 of 31:
|
Sep 9 20:43 UTC 1994 |
What problems? Natural resources = Walrus tusks & bear bladders? Or what?
Who are the Alaskans? Please tell me it's not a bunch of guys from
California and New Jersey that just want their own space to live off the land.
|
variable
|
|
response 5 of 31:
|
Sep 13 23:13 UTC 1994 |
The majority of those who call themselves Alaksans are either indigenous
peoples or folks who have grown tired of the general cultural
developement of the continental US. With the exception of Anchorage
and Wasilla residents, the only people who live in Alaska are people who
want to. It requires different priorities due to the lack of tecnology.
It demands accepting a strength of will to endure the harshness of the clim
climate(somehthing you Mchigan folk can appreciate) Alaskan still revere
much of the spirit that conquered the West and has now been smothered
by land developement.
|
kentn
|
|
response 6 of 31:
|
Sep 14 05:24 UTC 1994 |
Michigan people bitch when the temperature hits 0 F.; I wouldn't call
them appreciative of really cold weather/climate. Of course, my experience
has been with SE Michigan people, and not Yoopers... :)
|
wh
|
|
response 7 of 31:
|
Sep 16 05:45 UTC 1994 |
Federal lands remain federal lands until released by the federal
government. It was they same way for Michigan and other states.
Much of Alaska remains undeveloped. The dispute is over whether
this land should be released or not. The same political fight
has been going on out West for some time now. Some people want
it released so they can develop it and make money. Others want
to keep large areas the way they are now.
It was my impression that Alaska wanted oil companies to keep
on pumping. I lived there 1980-1984 and that's what raised enough
revenue for us to not have either a sales tax or a state income tax.
I was not aware of any large military buildup recently. The big
buildup was during World War II. The military has kept a large
presence there ever since. It was considered a strategic place,
especially for the Air Force.
|
variable
|
|
response 8 of 31:
|
Sep 20 22:01 UTC 1994 |
EVERYONE liived there between 1980-1984, and the people who
did loved the pipeline because it brought developers and
merchants their so that Alaska resembled the lower 48
alot more than it did in the previous years. An interesting
statistic though, today less than 15% of the people emplaoyed
in some way with the pipeline are residents of Alaska, most
of that money is going out of state. The people who were there
before the boom and still remain saw little more than increased
inflation and population congestion during those years.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 9 of 31:
|
Sep 20 22:38 UTC 1994 |
A fair description of the boon and gloom of the boom the world over. And
Alaska has had its share from Bearing on down.
|
variable
|
|
response 10 of 31:
|
Sep 21 18:56 UTC 1994 |
Very true. In fact anytime anyone has seen something to gain in Alaska
it is the peole who lived there before that pay the price. Ergo, the
people who live there require greater power over thier environment
to protect their interests. From the Alaskan point of view that means
seccesion. (I would be interested in the opinions of any residents
of British Columbia, Yukon, or North West Territories as to the
thoughts of seccession in those areas.)
|
mwarner
|
|
response 11 of 31:
|
Sep 21 22:32 UTC 1994 |
In choosing seccesion, you have selected the *least* likely remedy, at
least in the U.S. B.C. could leave the Canadian federation, just as Quebec
threatens to do. The N.W.T. are already somewhat separate, being largely
under the authority of various Native groups, as are parts of Alaska, but
I'm not sure what all the distinctions are and what it's worth to the
people in question in terms of not being exploited.
In any event, U.S. citizens can leave any time they wish, but aren't free
to take states and such with them. That's just the indelibly
established fact o' the matter. The suggestion is so impractical that
if this were, say, forty years ago I'd be forced to think that you were
some government operative out stirring up the bushes, looking for
political "criminals" to spy on. :) (snort) :)
|
kentn
|
|
response 12 of 31:
|
Sep 22 03:29 UTC 1994 |
Funny, this country was formed because its citizens felt put upon
by their govt. When they got no worthwhile response to their
petitions for redress, they claimed the right to abolish their ties
with England. What a hypocritical country we are...
|
carson
|
|
response 13 of 31:
|
Sep 22 04:37 UTC 1994 |
agreed.
side note: did anyone bother to welcome variable to Grex?
|
mwarner
|
|
response 14 of 31:
|
Sep 22 22:40 UTC 1994 |
By all means, welcome, variable, to the great State of Grex, even if it is
just a state of mind, with precious few animal, mineral or vegetable
resources to cart away.
|
jdg00
|
|
response 15 of 31:
|
Sep 23 01:55 UTC 1994 |
re 11: regarding seccesion. There's one state that can legally leave the
U.S. under it's own volition. It also has the right to divide itself into
as many as five smaller states, if it wishes. It's the only state that
joined the U.S. by treaty, 'cause it was once it's own country.
(I think I've given more than enough hints.)
|
carson
|
|
response 16 of 31:
|
Sep 23 04:28 UTC 1994 |
(I know! I know!)
|
variable
|
|
response 17 of 31:
|
Sep 23 04:51 UTC 1994 |
You mean Texas can go but we can't? Oh my God!!!
During the pipeline days there was a saying in Alaska:
"Happiness is a Texan heading home with an Okie under each arm."
by the way, thanx for the welcome. this is the first place
I heard about when I got onto the internet, and so far it has been
the most interesting.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 18 of 31:
|
Sep 23 06:04 UTC 1994 |
I knew Texas could S P L I T, but I didn't know they could *split*.
|
carson
|
|
response 19 of 31:
|
Sep 23 06:37 UTC 1994 |
one of the big differences between Alaska and Texas is that we purchased
Alaska from the Russians. I forget the date.
|
variable
|
|
response 20 of 31:
|
Sep 23 18:01 UTC 1994 |
Historical note
Alaska was purchased without the knowledge of the President or
the Congress. Secretary of State Seward, in his quest to turn the
entirety of the Western hemisphere into one nation, hid the purchase
acts within a number of pre-existing bills being passed through
Congress. The treaty was hidden amonsts a stack of Bills to be
signed by the President and was not aanounced to the government
unitl Russia had already been paid and was commencing abandonment
of the territory.
|
mwarner
|
|
response 21 of 31:
|
Sep 23 19:25 UTC 1994 |
"Seward's Folly"?
|
variable
|
|
response 22 of 31:
|
Sep 23 19:44 UTC 1994 |
Also "Seward's Icebox". Now it seems "Lower 48's Treasure Chest"
|
carson
|
|
response 23 of 31:
|
Sep 24 22:35 UTC 1994 |
wow! thanks for the historical tidbit!
|
variable
|
|
response 24 of 31:
|
Sep 26 19:04 UTC 1994 |
Yeah, I know it was the wrong forum, but anyway. Because
of the illegal ceasure of state lands by the Ferderal Government,
Alaska now had a valid case against the U.S. for violatingthe
read 24
|