Leaping back to the topic of this thread, I offer the following article.

-pull quote-

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

-and the response (from the article)-

Every generation has its test of principle in which people of good faith can no longer remain silent in the face of authoritarian ambition. If we cannot join together to fight the abomination of American camps, we have already lost what we are defending.

It'd seem that Mssr. Ashcroft, et al feel fairly confident that the fourth turn is upon us. The test, as always, will be in the public's reaction...

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Ending our depedency on oil is a necessary must, we can do now huge strides to ending it. Engineers at BMW have proven that Hydrogen fuel cell engines can be put into conventional automobiles. One government offical in government thinks it is possible to phase out petrol fuelled cars by 2020.

This sort of fits the cyclical pattern. Crisis forces a major change in society, with a new infrastructure being built in the following boom. Switchover seems likely enough, though protecting hydrogen fuel supplies in an auto crash might present another engineering challenge.

"The test, as always, will be in the public's reaction..."

Which is it:

OPTION 1:

Public doesn't react: 4T
Public reacts: 3T

or

OPTION 2:

Public doesn't react: 3T
Public reacts: 4T

This is not a simple question. While "apathy" is supposedly a 3T trait, favoring OPTION 2, "trust in government" is supposedly a 4T trait, favoring OPTION 1.

IMO, option 1 is closer to what S & H say: People during 4T give more power to the government in ways that would be not acceptable during other times. "Apathy" doesn't enter into it: the people don't react because they think the extreme means are justified by the crisis, and trust the leadership not to abuse the power.

In the present context, "trust" would manifest itself in people accepting that only true "enemy combatants" would be effected.

Originally Posted by Sanford

While "apathy" is supposedly a 3T trait, favoring OPTION 2, "trust in government" is supposedly a 4T trait, favoring OPTION 1.

This is a common mis-statement of the nature of community during a 4T. They are most definitely not known for faith in existing government; rather a 4T sees a resurgence of group activism (though in the last 4T, this was mostly centered around the government). A simple illustration of this point can be seen in the Revolutionary 4T, where the overwhelming (victorious) sentiment was against the legitimate government of the day.
In any case, the evidence for 4T would be a surge of either active support -- like volunteering to help create or maintain the infrastructure or stock the camps -- or a community-rooted strong opposition to the usurpations of power.
Both the CCC and the Comittees of Correspondence were 4T signs...

Originally Posted by Earthshine

Alas, too much of US policy is based on the oil. In an ideal world, we could encourage democracy without forcing it upon those not wanting it, or not ready for it. In an ideal world, we should put the economic, cultural and political well being of the people of Saudi Arabia up there in importance with the cost of oil.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems as if you are saying it is the fault of the US that the Saudi people are under the thumb of the ruling house.

It is not.

It is not our place, or responsibility, to win freedom for the people of that country. You can't just give freedom; it has to be earned.

If they don't like the house that is in charge, let them revolt and change their form of government.

This did happen in Iran. In Iran, US support of an oil monarchy with a less than stellar regard for its people led to extreme dislike of the United States. I see a similar pattern in Saudi Arabia. Bin Ladin's primary concern is for his own culture, but oil money keeps the House of Saud firmly in control.

I agree it is not our responsibility (or right) to change foreign governments, to force all countries to become democracies, but we should not be propping up governments disliked by their own people, governments which also show no reflection of our human rights and democratic values. It is no accident that most of the 9.11 hijackers were Saudi. It is notable that they were willing to die to strike a blow against the United States.

During the cold war, the United States would accept out and out tyrants as allies, send them considerable foreign aid, if said tyrant would give lip service to the cause of democracy and promise to resist communism. Maybe this was necessary during the Cold War, a betrayal of our values in order to gain advantage in a bipolar struggle. We might want to rethink this policy. In an age where minor powers and revolutionaries might use terrorist planted weapons of mass destruction, overt support of tyrants might not be prudent. The cheap oil might not be worth it economically, any black marks on our collective soul notwithstanding.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you, but still, the question is not as clear as you make it out.

In all of the last 4T's, there was arguably an increase of trust in the leadership to do highly unusual things. The people rallied around FDR and gave him incredible power to do things government had never done before. Lincoln was allowed to override long established legal traditions in fighting the Civil War. The Founding Fathers were granted power to break English law quite drastically, and trusted to develop a whole new form of government from scratch.

You would probably dispute the last sentence by associating the Founding Fathers with a rebellion against the English government, which would of course be reasonable. However, the Founders were also the accepted leaders of American society before the revolution.

Also, I quite dispute your implication that the last 4T did not represent an example of people trusting the existing government. FDR represented the legitimate government. He was not rebelled against; while much of his efforts were fruitless for years, people kept trusting him.

Sure, there was Hoover, but he was seen as not wanting to change much, and merely wait out the Depression. This didn't appeal to the prevailing mood for drastic remedies, and he was voted out of office. Thus, I don't think he counts. FDR was seen as changing things, as was Lincoln, as were the Founders.

Does Ashcroft's initiatives represent a change? It would appear so. Will a "Don't just stand there, do something!" mood allow the change to go forward? If so, wouldn't this be 4T-ish?

Herr Ashcroft obviously will not listen to Jesus. Perhaps he will listen to Martin Niem?ller. I doubt it, but perhaps....


serendipity.magnet.ch/cda/niemoll.html

According to Harry W. Mazal, the exact text of what Martin Niem?ller said, and which appears in the Congressional Record, 14, October 1968, page 31636, is:

When Hitler attacked the Jews I was not a Jew, therefore I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the Catholics, I was not a Catholic, and therefore, I was not concerned. And when Hitler attacked the unions and the industrialists, I was not a member of the unions and I was not concerned. Then Hitler attacked me and the Protestant church ? and there was nobody left to be concerned.

Sanford:

Also, I quite dispute your implication that the last 4T did not represent an example of people trusting the existing government. FDR represented the legitimate government. He was not rebelled against

No, he was the leader of the rebellion. The existing order of the 3T was overthrown in the 4T. The rebellion occurred within the context of the Constitution, true, but it was a rebellion just the same.

The governing regime of that saeculum's 3T was a deference to business interests that approached totality. All government policies were designed to maximize the profits of American corporations and the privileges of the wealthy. Roosevelt led a successful revolt against this regime. That such a revolt could occur without overthrowing the Constitution is a tribute to the success of the framers; in no way does it refute Bob's argument.

Does Ashcroft's initiatives represent a change? It would appear so. Will a "Don't just stand there, do something!" mood allow the change to go forward? If so, wouldn't this be 4T-ish?

That depends. If the sole overriding issue of the 4T is, as Bush League would like us to believe, national security and terrorism, or if people believe so, then yes. As other issues emerge, however, perhaps not. My own belief, of course, is that the terrorist attack is a symptom and not a cause. We face a number of overwhelming challenges, and terrorism is only one of them. Global economic doldrums and the global environment are at least as important. There are two links connecting all of them. One is the globalization of the world and the increasing irrelevance of the nation-state. The other is the growing power of corporations, and the challenge to that power which forms the crucible of this Crisis.

Bush is really not very well situated to provide leadership, considering the problems that we face. He is too entrenched in, and too much a spokesman for, corporate interests himself. He represents the established order of the 3T, and is attempting to respond to this first flurry of Crisis problems so as to defend that order. An impossible task. The rebellion has begun, but has yet to find its leader. Once it does, it will congeal as a rebellion against Bush himself.

In the opinion of one of Daddy Bush's former employees, not only is the Bush administration already consigned to one term, but the Bush administration already knows that it is looking at one term. I do not know how he can be so certain but I will excerpt his column below:


www.almartinraw.com/column67.html


BEHIND THE SCENES IN THE BELTWAY
by Al Martin

The End of the Bush Cabal? More Consolidation of Money and Power

(August 14) Donald Rumsfeld has announced that he wants to suppress the special report on Saudi Arabia initiated and paid for by the Department of Defense. It has always been a guideline of Republican Administrations, starting with Richard Nixon, to suppress the truth about Saudi Arabia. This new study actually states that Saudi Arabia is the "kernel of evil," that the Saudi government has supported terrorism at all levels since the 1970s, and that the United States has been aware of this but because of a mutually beneficial relationship has refused to do anything about it. This new study states that Saudi Arabia funds most of the terrorist groups in the Middle East and as the Middle East's major oil producer, it has a vested interest in maintaining perpetual tension in the Middle East.

Rumsfeld pointed out that if suddenly there were peace (if American peace initiatives were successful) it would knock $10 off the price of a barrel of oil.

You would take out the "uncertainty premium" out of a barrel of oil and Saudi Arabia certainly doesn't want that, considering that the Saudi Royal family has misspent or misappropriated a great deal of Saudi oil revenues over the years. That's why Saudi Arabia currently finds itself in a deficit position - because the Saudi government has so corrupted governmental processes regarding oil revenues.

In fact, Republican administrations have a collateral interest in seeing that the price of oil remains high because so much of Republican money comes from domestic oil companies because they need a price of $20 per barrel of crude or better to make a profit. They don't want to see the price of crude sink to $17 a barrel because it would choke off Republican money.

I was actually surprised about Rumsfeld's admission of the truth, when he pointed to the report and said that the Saudi regime has taken advantage of the American taxpayers. We have militarily supported Saudi Arabia. We have extended our defense shield to Saudi Arabia. At the same time, Saudi Arabia continues to finance terrorism. Rumsfeld's statement in effect makes it open season on the Saudis.

The study points out the entire concept of the 1973 Nixon-Kissinger accord with the Saudis, which encouraged them and other Middle East oil producers including Iraq to sextuple the price of a barrel of oil under the idea of petro-dollar recycling. That was the concept that Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia would recycle their petro-dollars by purchasing high technology weapons systems through US defense contractors in order to become first world nations in terms of their military capability.

They were also ever mindful that defense contractors' profits are the most lucrative source of revenue for the Republican Party, oil and gas being the second most lucrative source.

Therefore the Nixon-Kissinger policy had a two fold agenda - to jack up the price of oil and to recycle those petro-dollars into enormous defense spending, purchase orders coming from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq to US defense contractors, which in turn would enrich the Republican Party.

Does this mean that Rumsfeld is publicly abandoning this policy? I think it does because Rumsfeld was actually critical of the policy. If the current US policy toward Saudi Arabia, that is, to protect and coddle and lie for Saudi Arabia, is no longer continued, then what is likely to happen is that US peace initiatives may actually have a chance in the region. If that happens, we may be able to finally instill some stability in the region, in which case the price of oil is going to fall.

On a global level, this policy would increase political volatility and military instability within the Middle East region (that is what the Nixon- Kissinger policy called for) as well as the purposeful increase of tensions in the region in order to enrich the Republican Party in the United States.

His speech indicates that Rumsfeld is actually splitting from the Bush Cabal. Perhaps Rumsfeld finally understands that the days of the all- powerful Bush Cabal are coming to an end - and that, in fact, he is hedging his political bets. Both Rumsfeld and Colin Powell act as if they want to remain on the outside of it, shall we say.

We are seeing this again and again, and we see this counterweight growing. I believe that there is an increasing feeling in Washington that the days of the Nixon- Kissinger-Schlesinger-Bush Cabal is coming to an end.

It would, of course be more encouraging if there were rumblings in the top levels of the military that an invasion of Iraq is a bad idea. Our Department of Defense isn't saying that yet, but all of our allies, like Great Britain, Germany, France, and Netherlands immediately expressed their opposition, when the Bush Regime insisted that our allies were with us on this issue. Even Tony Blair stated that it's time for the Bush Administration to stop lying -- for the sake of domestic American political consumption.

The lying of the Bush Administration has become transparent to everyone around the world. It is only in the United States that we, the people of the United States, the great na?ve flag-waving sado-masochists that haven't caught on yet. Despite the fact that the value of our IRA and 401(k) accounts has diminished by 50%.

All of the rest of the world has figured out what George Bush is doing, but for some reason we in the United States don't seem to be able to figure it out.

Our response to hard times and difficult situations (unlike the rest of the world) is to take more Prozac. The rest of the world faces reality, but the American concept of facing reality is to take more Prozac.

For Rumsfeld to announce that he wanted to suppress a study that the DoD itself funded - it is astounding that he said something like that.

For Treasury Secretary O'Neill to have said that Uruguay was close to economic collapse (he said this after he had gotten a White House spanking for saying Argentina was close to collapse) - it's surprising they haven't gotten rid of him. He's becoming a problem because he keeps telling the people the truth.

It's interesting that they haven't gotten ridden of O'Neill. What it tells you is that the administration is becoming increasingly nervous about too many people within the various agencies of the administration telling the truth. It used to be under the Bush Cabal that anybody telling the truth would be immediately gotten rid of, but that's not happening now. The Bush Administration is afraid that if they do start getting rid of people who tell the truth, there will be too many questions raised. They're gradually losing control over Pro-Gov-Net Media (Pro Government Network Media) and they understand that this will be the last term of a Bush Administration.

Why do you think they're trying to accelerate their tax cut policies for the rich? The tax cuts for the rich which were not supposed to go into effect until 2004 - George Bush said we're going to try to bring those forward in order to "provide some economic stimulus." That's a lie because tax cuts for the rich provide almost no economic stimulus - and he knows it.

I think that the Bush Administration believes not only that it will be one term, but also that the Bush Cabal is coming to an end. Therefore they are simply trying to accomplish their agenda. They have made the top 1% control two-thirds of the nation's private wealth and their second goal is to turn the United States into a defacto tax-free nation for the Republican Rich. And I think that's where they're going.

The War on Terrorism is just a constant diversion, and that's the way we're fighting it. All of General Tommy Franks' (he's the commander of allied forces in Afghanistan) requests for troops in Afghanistan are denied. The War on Terrorism has become the raw naked beast it was always intended to be - a diversion.

The Bush Cabal has given up and all they're doing is trying to put in place as much of their agenda as possible.

They are appropriating money with reckless abandon and complete disregard for the economy - as if they don't care any more. Even the Washington Post has noticed, having published an article called "Spend spend spend."

Then, when everything falls apart in the United States, that money from Republican offshore accounts will be repatriated and the Bush Cabal will simply buy up all American publicly traded businesses and industries for ten cents on the dollar. We see this massive conversion of Republican scamscateer money into gold, in anticipation of further declines in the dollar.

People should understand that despite the fact that the Bush Cabal will be a one-term regime, nevertheless, they are going to win. Why? Because they control all of the money.

They are purposely throwing the monkey wrench into the economy to sabotage everything, so they can buy everything at ten cents on the dollar. Then they short the market to create the capital they're going to use to buy everything up at ten cents on the dollar. The reason they can be so certain in their trading policies of generating fresh cash is because it is the administration itself, which is wreaking the economic havoc.

It is all a very neat circle, and therefore we reiterate - there is only one thing you can do for now. Continue to short market rallies. Convert your profits into gold and into offshore accounts and remember that the ultimate Bush Cabal Survival Kit is Spam ?, Prozac ?,
and Krugerrands?. And that remains unchanged.

Meanwhile in Louisiana, Bush was bragging that the Homeland Security Agency has control over a hundred other federal state and local agencies and has become the most powerful agency in the land. He said we shouldn't be frightened of this (and I don't think he meant it to come out the way it did), he said, "The Office of Homeland Security cannot be hampered by a thick book of rules." I think it came out the wrong way.

Bush also said that now is not the time to worry about civil liberty issues because we have a war to win against terrorism. He said that if we were defeated by terrorism their civil liberties wouldn't mean anything anyway. He talks about the "terrorists," as if they're the Soviet Army of old. His audience, a lot of young JC's and high school student rabid Republicans with flattop haircuts clapped. You know the kind with buttons that say, "I support the electric chair." You can tell where these kids are coming from. He said we've already captured two thousand terrorists, then he said there were two thousand more who weren't so lucky. They clapped for that, and then these blond haired blue-eyed boys got up and started waving their hands yelling, "Kill them, kill them, kill them." After that I think he tried to tone it down a little.

Bush also said the more authority that we give the Office of Homeland Security the better job they can do in protecting our nation. The closer we move to giving the Office of Homeland Security ABSOLUTE authority the closer to absolute security we will have. That's the first time I've heard anybody in the Bush Administration use the word absolute power and absolute authority.

When Cheney addressed the California Commonwealth Club, which is essentially a haven of Right Wing Scamscateers, some students tried to heckle him and tried to put up some sign. I haven't seen anything like this. Usually the police will try to escort them out. But the cops came in there in force and tackled these kids and pummeled them. They showed about five seconds then the tape went blank. Cheney said that those who refuse the Bushonian policies on security are the "terrorists' best friend." That's another story they like to weave now.

Cheney said that when it comes to protesters let this be an example that the government has decided that protesters will be treated with increasing severity, that they will no longer "coddle" protesters no matter how na?ve and misguided they may be, that from now on they will take a very tough approach with all who would dare disagree with the State.

Cheney could bring back that old Kent State Gambit, i.e., "Shoot 'em in the Streets." But that's probably not necessary.


[snip]


After Bush's speech they said the Office of Cyberspace Security would be given the power to ban commercials, which express any anti-State or civil libertarian attitudes.

You can tell that somebody at the White House has been reading this column because when he signed the trade act, they were showing close-up shots of George Bush and you can tell that there's extra make-up under his cheekbones. The light hits underneath his cheekbones and you can tell that there's an extra layer of make-up to cover-up the facial discolorations. As we mentioned previously, when George Bush lies, you can see red splotches appear on his face. (See "Think Like a Bush: Lie Coordination Bureau Needed")

Another inside source has told us that they're also giving salt tablets to Bush before he does interviews so he won't sweat as much. After all it just doesn't look right when he's up there sweating with all those splotchy red marks on his face. Of course, cosmetic treatment won't help the lying, but it will prevent the telltale signs.

As we've noted before, Jeb Bush sweats at his hairline when he lies publicly. Now when Jeb Bush speaks on camera, they put a white rouge base under his hairline.

But they're just treating the symptoms (not the disease) of lying.

The IMF under US pressure has agreed to lend Brazil another $30 billion to keep it afloat. They're going to refinance our emergency loan to Argentina and give them an extra $5 billion. The entire amount of defaulted debt in Central and South America, the IMF announced, now exceeds a trillion dollars. Yet the IMF and the World Bank and individual countries like the US, Germany and Japan have to continually lend these nations money although they already have a cumulative trillion dollars of defaulted debt. They're not even pretending to roll over the debt. Even the pretense is gone.

We are in the midst of an enormous worldwide debt deflation as we have stated before. That's why we are not seeing inflation in the United States. The reason we don't see it here is because it's done against a backdrop of a worldwide debt deflation.

There has been a shift in Bushonian policy to stop placing restrictions on IMF loans and to approach IMF and World Bank lending and direct lending by the US and other nations simply as direct band aid measures to keep these countries afloat as long as possible prior to a worldwide economic collapse.

What we should do is just act to stabilize and gradualize the worldwide economic decline and as much as possible to push out this collapse into the future by band-aid solutions. Even the crustiest Republicans understand this now because the world is essentially sinking in a quagmire of debt.

This whole planet -- every nation, every treasury, all business and industry, all capital marketplaces -- is drowning in a sea of defaulted debt.


[snip]


POSTSCRIPT: The remnants of Global Crossing have been bought out for three cents on the dollar by the shadowy Chinese investment group Hutchison Whampoa, which is majority owned by the Pilgrim Investment Trust, which in turn is controlled by the Bush Family. In the past, Hutchison Whampoa also got the Panama Canal deal.

It was also announced that since US Air collapsed, Hutchison Whampoa will buy them out as well -- for three or four cents on the dollar.

This completes the Republican cycle and illustrates what George Bush meant by "the continuous consolidation of money and power into higher, tighter and righter hands."

You short the market during a Bushonian Administration, knowing that Bushonian economics will cause the markets to fall. You take the profits from those shorts, which is essentially nothing but a transfer of wealth from the American people to you. You stick it in your offshore accounts, hedge it with gold to protect yourself (because obviously the value of the dollar falls during a Bush Administration) then you convert those dollars back out when they're cheap and the price of gold is high and use them to buy corporations that your own economic policies caused to fail, for three or four cents on the dollar, thus completing the entire Republican cycle of control.

It is diabolical and it is brilliant. It is the constant transfer of wealth from the American people to the Bush Cabal because it is the American people who are, by and large, long the market through their 401(k)'s, IRA's and personal trading accounts. It is traditionally Bush Cabalists and other Republican Scamscateers who are short the market.


AL MARTIN is America's foremost whistleblower on government fraud and corruption. A retired US Navy Lt. Commander and former officer in the Office of Naval Intelligence, he has testified before Congress (the Kerry Committee and the Alexander Committee) regarding Iran-Contra. Al Martin is the author of "The Conspirators: Secrets of an Iran Contra Insider" (2001, National Liberty Press, $19.95; Toll FREE order line: 1-866-317- 1390) He lives at an undisclosed location, since the criminals named in his book have been returned to national power and prominence. His column "Behind the Scenes in the Beltway" is published regularly on Al Martin Raw: Criminal Govt Conspiracy (http://www.almartinraw.com)

Stonewall, how credible is this Al Martin? His columns keep getting creepier and creepier. Is he telling it like it is, or does he have a personal axe to grind with the Bushies or something?

This is really scary stuff if it's true.

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
....."grab a fence post hold it tight, whop your partner will all your might, hit him in the head, hit him in the shin, hit him again, the critter aint dead".....- Bugs Bunny

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Stonewall, how credible is this Al Martin? His columns keep getting creepier and creepier. Is he telling it like it is, or does he have a personal axe to grind with the Bushies or something?

This is really scary stuff if it's true.

Kiff, I have the same questions you do. I can tell you that he does indeed have an axe to grind in that the Bushes owe him $200,000 or something like that from something having to do with Iran-Contra, and he openly stated this in a column a few months back. Furthermore, I think we have seen evidence in his past columns of that axe influencing him. If you recall his comparing of a new US postage stamp to Nazi symbology, that was definitely a little over the top. Without a doubt, he has an axe to grind, he has freely admitted it and explained the nature of it, and I think it is fair to say that it has affected his objectivity in the past.

HOWEVER...he has revealed "exclusive" information in the past which was later revealed to be true in the mainstream media. You may recall that he nailed some things with respect to fraud at the Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, AL as well as some things having to do with the "War on Terror" and "Homeland Security" which were later implemented by the Bush administration. So not everything he reveals is BS borne of betrayal. While he does have an axe to grind, he has also revealed himself to be a good source who has continuing access to good sources.

So this leaves us in a bind. He simultaneous reveals truthful and reliable insider information while going off on wrong tangents with respect to other things. The trouble is that you and I are not in a position to distinguish which is which. We have to wait to hear what comes out later in the media in order to tell what information was on the money and what was not. So he is to be taken with a grain of salt. But given that some of his information indeed bears out, I think it is important to at least put it out there since it is usually not being heard in the mainstream media.

The global economic situation is what creeps me out and I think we see plenty of evidence to corroborate what he is saying, although it is never really portrayed in that light in the mainstream media. Additionally, the spendthrift nature of this Bush administration in the face of massive national debt is eerie. I think he has a point. When we cannot even pay the debts we already have, why on earth is the Bush administration running up massive deficits which we can never hope to pay? The Bush administration is behaving precisely as they would if they indeed knew that we were heading for collapse and they were milking things for all that they are worth until that time, as Martin alleges. We will find out soon enough. If it bears out, then we already heard it, thanks to Martin.

Originally Posted by justmom

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
....."grab a fence post hold it tight, whop your partner will all your might, hit him in the head, hit him in the shin, hit him again, the critter aint dead".....- Bugs Bunny

Jesus!

[quote="Croaker'39"]

Originally Posted by justmom

For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that who ever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.
....."grab a fence post hold it tight, whop your partner will all your might, hit him in the head, hit him in the shin, hit him again, the critter aint dead".....- Bugs Bunny

Don't cha think Jesus would hate this?

Suppose for the sake of argument that Martin's scenario-or something like it-were to come to pass. With so many people angered could we end up with a Libertarian Right/Libertarian Left/Authoritarian Left alliance? And who else might join?

Yes, I do think Jesus would hate that. I also think that Jesus would hate it if someone misrepresented him. 'IF' someone read his book, and chose to pick and choose what they liked about it. Jesus said "If you are not for me you are against me". He didn't say, " If you like some of the stuff I say, 'cool' ."

?Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the frog,
He is croaking in the cattails and the lilies of the bog??

justmom?stay cool. There?s piranha in your pool.

If Al Martin is correct, and it can be plausibly demonstrated that the U.S. economy was deliberately trashed by Bush and the "Smart Money" Republicans, then I would guess, come the next High, the survivors better hope for a Napoleon to let them back in the country (without their property, of course).

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Hi!

It does look like the US is doing its best to piss off just about everyone. Even our good buddy Vicente Fox isn't too happy with us right now.

JDS, although I think your fears are a bit exaggerated, I don't think I care for this "us against them" mentality that is growing in this White House.

Hey Kiff, Thanks. That's great news. ( For us closed boarders crowd).
I hope they continue to not get along. With 10,000 illeagle people coming here daily, that's right folks, everyday. Today we have 10 Million undocumented, illeagle people in our country.
I hope Fox and Bush continue to "snub" each other. I hope their amnesty program falls apart and crumbles. I hope we start enforcing our boarders.

As has been discussed on the "Invasions from Latin America/China" topic in the "Future" section, the issue is extremely complicated and hits the nature of Anerica.

What happens to our national soul, if the borders are closed or nearly closed? The hope that America has signified to the huddled masses, indeed reified, throughout the centuries, will be gone.

There is an educational/economic issue with immigration also: given the crisis in the schools over the last decades, we need the Indians and other Asians who are willing to to do the work in the sciences and technologies, since the U.S. grads are not there. (e.g. A former student of mine recently told me that he was the only native-born American in a third-year mathematics class at his university. I have heard similar stories from some new math teachers at my school.) And at the other end of the economic scale: how many Americans are going to take jobs picking tomatoes and lettuce in the fields?

The situation for everyone cannot really continue. I read today that smugglers of illegal immigrants will drive at high speeds on the wrong side of freeways in the San Diego area to avoid inspections at the border. Dozens have been killed in the past months. But it shows the desperation of those wanting the American hope.

And so how do you close the border? Do you really station troops from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico to shoot anyone trying to cross over? Would our soldiers really kill unarmed peasants from Mexico/Latin America? No American would answer yes to this. Do you scoop them up in bulldozers as in Soylent Green and ship them back in trains? What happens if some charismatic type wants to lead 500,00 or 5 million impoverished people away
from the Latin American garbage dumps to the promised land of the gringo? What will we do?

One option is already in the wind from the W. Bush administration: develop Latin America economically so that people will not need to emigrate from their countries. They can build a "better life" in their own countries. This is why Europeans rarely come to America anymore as immigrants: they can find the good life at home now.

But this has already been discussed in the earlier pages of the "Invasions" topic in the Future section (q.v.). Personally, I am not looking forward to an America of 500 million people - caused by immigration or not-, since I think we are stressed by the population we have now.

And I think we have no answers because we are loathe to contemplate the questions at all. Is illegal immigration seen as a pressing #1 national problem right now? It does not seem so from the polls. But perhaps the polls are not asking the question.

Your absolutely right it is a hard question. I never said I was against immigration or immigrants. Just "closed boarders". Here's the deal. If you live in Europe you have to fill out all the paperwork, jump through hoops and pay for filing papers to come here. You have to wait your turn and sometimes get a sponser, etc, etc... If you happen to live in South America, you walk 3 days through the desert. ( Where America's put out fresh water for you.) And then you're here. That's it. The immigrants from Asia, Europe, are of better quality than the grunt workers.
You might protest that last sentence, but, it is true. If one want's to make the assertion that we need cheep farm labor. One could. But, we have it. There are 10 million undocumented here already. And during the Reagan administration they gave blanket amnesty to 8 million undocumented. Also I have seen studies showing that mechanized farm equiptment for many crops initially cost's a lot, But, once paid for cost's considerably less than paying humans and needs less human workers.

If an American want's to immigrate to most any other country, they have to prove they have something to offer society, a skill or trade of use and quality to benefit the new country. ( Ask,oh what's his name?....In Austrailia...J..something) It's certainly that way if an American want's to go to Austrailia or New Zealand. Why shouldn't we ask the same of the people who wish to come here?

I live in Southern California about 3 hours from the boarder. Yes, people do storm the gates ( by the 100's at one time)and run through the cars. It's because boarder patrol won't shoot into traffic. Running in the traffic gives them a way better chance of survival and a faster pace of getting here. Because the drivers slow down, and they can get into the closest Mc Donalds or mall or store within 10 minutes and virtually disapear. You can drive your car if your Mexican on a day pass through our boarder. It's not un-common to see "BC" licence plates on the freeways here. (BC is Baja California)

In the days after 9/11 I saw report after report on the open boarders. Many if not all said the make up of the people walking across was up to 15% non South American. Coyotes were afraid of the Middle Easterners offering to pay up to30,000 to get them across. I saw one article that interviewed a couple who lived on the Arizona boarder. The have a giant gate around their house, and bars on their windows to protect them from the nightly tide of people walking through their property. It showed pictures of , diapers, trash, bottles, clothes, just littering their property where people walk through.

But, what do we do about it? Good question. The general feeling is, well, they're here, we should give them food, medicine, money if they need it.
We can't be unkind or unfeeling, they are people. Although I do understand that thinking. I also believe if it were cut off tomorrow, the flow of people would stop too. Not all together, but, certainly substantially less. It's a start.

"What happens to our national soul, if the borders are closed or nearly closed? The hope that America has signified to the huddled masses, indeed reified, throughout the centuries, will be gone."

Actually, immigration into America has from time to time increased to a lot and decreased to nearly nothing. America has survived both the "low immigration" times and the "high immigration" times.

It is supposed to be part of the turnings cycle, you know.