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.

specifics. facts. situations. examples. reasoning.

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?

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.

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.

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.  

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...   :)

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.

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. 

A fair description of the boon and gloom of the boom the world over.  And
Alaska has had its share from Bearing on down.

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.)

  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)  :)

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...

agreed.

side note: did anyone bother to welcome variable to Grex?

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. 

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.)

(I know! I know!)

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.

  I knew Texas could S P L I T, but I didn't know they could *split*.

one of the big differences between Alaska and Texas is that we purchased
Alaska from the Russians. I forget the date.

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.

"Seward's Folly"?

Also "Seward's Icebox".  Now it seems "Lower 48's Treasure Chest"

wow! thanks for the historical tidbit!

        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

Sorry about that.
Alaska now had a valid case against the U.S. for violating the terms
of statehood.  To bring the case before the U.N. requires 17
signatures by U.N. ambassadors.  A man called Joe Vogler acquired
12 such signatures before disappearing from his home never to be
seen again.  

To quote the horse from Ren and Stimpy
"No sir, I don't like it.  I don't like it one bit."

all rather frightening I would say.  Other than oil, what natural resources
does Alaska have to exploit?

        Natural Gas, Uranium, Coal, Gold.
All of these pale in comparison to the most coveted by the lower 48...
WATER!!!
Southern California is lobbying hard to have a fresh water pipeline 
built from Alaska so that they can continue to over water their great
golf courses.  In the meantime, the drained water will lead to great
permafrost melting making[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D[D
much of the state a huge marsh pit and therefore uninhabitable.

re #25:  What would be the UN's jurisdiction?  Would the U.S. representative
         have to stand before the assembly and argue with himself?

 (Or *herself*, you evil, SEXIST! honky!)

In truth the U.N. could do very little but bring the problem to an 
international forum.  Alaska could then request for diplomatic pressure
against the U.S. by other countries.  This may nbot have immediate
results, but it would be a start.

Hi kids...defender of Alaskan freedom here...
I will be going to Alaska tomorrow and gone for a few weeks...
I hope to bring back some juicy documentation to post here...
Stay tuned...

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss