Will America still be here after Y2K?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
I have read speculation that the Federal Govt. is well aware of Y2k and intends to use it as a rationale for drastic revisions in nearly every facet of American life, from the elimination/reduction of Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security to travel permits to suspension of what we light-heartedly think of as our civil rights (like freedom of the press and habeus corpus) to drafting computer programmers for the duration of a declared "National Emergency" to repudiation of the national debt. Under various presidential general orders, (which the current administration seems inordinately fond of), the government can do anything with anyone -or anything they possess. I have been told that Pres. Clinton's recent ban on imported "sporterized" semi-automatic firearms had less to do with a reaction to the murders in Jonesboro, Arkansas than appeared on the surface. A premptive move in preparation for Y2K, perhaps? I do not believe in all the right wing paranoia regarding U.N. jackbooted thugs marching in the streets, or equally, a helpless, dithering government bureaucracy looking for someone to blame while "washington burns". That having been said, what WILL the government do? I vote for early moves to tighten and maintain control.
-- Greg Lawrence (greg@speakeasy.org), April 07, 1998
My guess is that they will orchastrate public opinion to believe that y2k is "the end of civiliztion" unless the Feds step in and do something. After the public begs for the Feds to do something, I expect martial law to be declared no later than July 4, 1999. After that, I think we have President Clinton for life and that he will turn all power over to the UN (probably not immediately).
-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), April 08, 1998.
Greg: I agree with you 100%. I too am not a right wing paranoid, however I must admit that I am just a few steps from it. The Oklahoma bombing resulted in some of the most draconian laws and measures to combat terrorizm, who can argue that without seeming a nutcake? The Jonesboro shooting has resulted in the assault weapon crack down. The y2k situation will result in the country being governed by Fiat via the "Executive Order" laws now in place. The President can involve us in war without congressional approval. Wars now days only last a few weeks. At the risk of sounding like a real loon, allow me to suggest: The government's delay in trying to do something about y2k, could be intentional. A politician would be in "pig heaven" if record of all of his errors and "pork barrel" votes and alliences just disappeared along with everything else. It would be their "National Duty as Patriots" to remain in office until the vote counting and communications systems get back on line, no matter if it takes years. In simpler days, like 1936 or 1937, all Hitler had to do, to convince the German people, Was to burn down the Reichtag and blame a communist. I guess it's more complicated now days. I fear for America I think more than you do because you seem to think we still have time to do something about it.
-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), April 08, 1998.
Food for thought:In order to impose the martial law and a suspension of basic freedoms (freedom of speech, habius corpus, freedom of assembly, etc.) you need the support of the military. The military in this country is sworn to uphold the constitution above all else, even above the orders of the Commander In Chief (.i.e the Prez).
Even if the executive powers-that-be wanted to do the things you suggest (which, personally, I find about as likely as flying pigs), would the military follow them? There is precendent for U.S. military officers refusing to follow orders that would violate the basic tenants of the constitution. Do you believe that, in the absence of hard proof that martial law was necessary to safeguard the population, the military would follow orders such as would be necessary to impose martial law?
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.
This thread raises some questions in my mind. To get to the questions, two points are required.1) The original question and the first two responses indicate a fear that the current form of the U.S. Government will be be dissolved and replaced with a different, more militaristic style of government where many of the freedoms and rights we currently expect as a basic part of our lives will vanish.
2) Gary North is often quoted in this site (and many other places I have seen) as an authority on how bad the Y2K problems will be. His site is one of the most refrenced I have seen anywhere on the web. Almost without exception, he is sited as a reference by those expecting major social, politcal and economic upheaval due to Y2K. Dr. North is also highly known in fundametalist Christian circles. One of his consistent themes in that arena is the dissolution of the U.S. government and the installation of a fundamentalist Christian theocracy where many of the same rights mentioned here (freedoms of religion, press, etc.) would not be present.
Given this, I have the following questions:
1) Are those here who fear martial law, takover by the U.N., or other scenarios involving drastic changes in the U.S. governmental structure using Dr. North as a source of Y2K information?
2) If so, are you aware that he advocates the very thing you fear?
3) If the answer to both questions 1 and 2 are "yes", do you see a conflict?
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.
Hmm. Maybe that last posting wasn't such a good idea. In less than two hours, my e-mail inbox has received numerous messages, two with Word macro-viruses in the attachments (nice try, folks!), several calling me (figuratively, of course) an ignorant fathead who allows himself to be a puppet of the corrupt establishment, one quoting scripture as to the the events leading up to and just after the Second Coming, and one wishing me a good time as I burn in Hell for daring to besmirtch the good Dr. North. Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order.While I do not even remotely agree with Dr. North's religious, political or economic views, I do find some of his Y2K points interesting and thought provoking. In reading his material, it caused me to ask questions I had not thought to ask before. Therefore, even though I do not agree with the bulk of his conclusions, I feel I have profited from reading his work.
Furthermore, I do not in any way condem his views, nor do I believe others should. He is exercising what I believe to be one of the most vital of all the rights we currently enjoy: Free Speech. In addition, I respect Dr. North for one thing: His beliefs appear deeply held, and he appears to be living his life according to them. In my opinion, if he believes in what he writes and his actions follow his beliefs, then he has elevated himself above most of the population. My comments were not intended to debate Dr. North's views or his devotion to them. They were intended only to raise a question regarding the objectivity of his Y2K analysis and writings.
As I have in the past, I will respond to email from people who want to discuss Y2K issues as best I can, but please don't flood me with either hate mail or attempts to draw me into a religious discussion. The hate mail only serves to degrade the sender and I will not debate religion.
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.
To Paul and others who believe that the imposition of martial law is unlikely, I invite you to peruse these executive orders (these links were copied from an entry in a discussion forum that is "somewhat to the right of Atila the Hun", but the facts speak for themselves if one will ignore the window dressing).Executive Order 10995, ASSIGNING TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS
Executive Order 10997, ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
Executive Order 10998, ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
Executive Order 10999, ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF COMMERCE
Executive Order 11000, ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
Executive Order 11002 ASSIGNING EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS TO THE POSTMASTER GENERAL
Executive Order 12919, NATIONAL DEFENSE INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS
Everything is lined up. All that is needed is a plausible reason to put them into action. After the general public has become terrified that they will loose their way of life, they will demand that something, anything, be done. I believe that what will be done is to invoke these executive orders.
-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), April 08, 1998.
I botched the link to 12919. Sorry about that. Here is another try.test link to 12919
-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), April 08, 1998.
The other question is: does Russia and our other 'peace loving' friends have the same problem? If so, given the depleted and weakened state of our military, would they choose to exercise the 'nuclear option' in anticipation of their own systems failure? Hmmmmm...
-- rory moore (israel@telis.org), April 08, 1998.
Here's one more link, and let me say that these links are provided without warranty and don't necessarily reflect the opinions of the management.More FEMA and EO information
-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), April 08, 1998.
George,There is a key phrase repeated in those orders which I selected from one of them and quote here: "Under the direction of the President, be responsible for the preparation of nonmilitary plans and preparedness programs with respect to organization and functioning of the Federal Government under emergency conditions and with respect to specific areas of Federal activity necessary in time of war which are neither performed in the normal operations of the regular departments and agencies nor assigned thereto by or under the authority of the President."
The key words here are "in time of war." These orders were intended to keep the governmnet functioning if under attack, an attack which was considered to have a high likelyhood of being nuclear in nature. Please note the origination date of these orders: 1962. Kennedy. Let's examine the world situation at that time.
The Soviet Union was building a wall around West Berlin. The number of hydrogen bombs on ICBMs was growing rapidly on both sides. The Bay of Pigs fiasco was a recent memory, and the Cuban missle crisis was only a few months in the future. In short, the Cold War was very, very close to becoming "hot." It would have been irresponsible of any President not to issue orders to prepare for war and the disruption of the normal flow of government operations. And don't blame Kennedy for issuing those orders: Many of the orders you cite superceed similar orders issued by Eisenhower and even Truman before him.
Could these orders be misused during the next two years? Heck, darn near anything can misused, so the answer would have to be yes. Do they grant broad powers to declare martial law and alter the normal operation of the government? No. They only provide for the continued functioning of the government after a national emergency, and that emergency is frequently specified to be a war resulting in direct attack on the U.S.
One more thing. A frequent theme here is that 90+ percent of the population does not now, nor is ever likely to, give a damn about the Y2K problem. If that is the case, then exactly which masses are they that are going to rise up and demand the government do something liek declare martial law?
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 08, 1998.
Paul,I will try to reply to some of the points that you raise.
I will concede that the original intent of the orders may have been to survive a nuclear attack. They have grown since then, under the guise of preparing for terrorist attacks to where it is now possible for the president to completely suspend the constitution (abolish -- since it will never be restored). Just because an automobile was designed to carry people from place to place doesnt prevent it from being used to intentionally run over a bunch of pedestrians. That is, the purpose to which a tool is put can be changed, without changing the tool. I think that this is a very real possibility now.
You said, Do they grant broad powers to declare martial law and alter the normal operation of the government? No.
I think you better read the EO in their entirety. As a matter of fact, you are wrong. They DO grant broad powers to declare martial law and alter the normal operation of the government. This is discussed in some detail in the last link I posted. It is also discussed at several other points on the web. -- I will concede that I may have left out a significant EO or two, but they can be found, and when found they show that it only takes a perceived threat to allow the EO to be implemented. When that happens, the constitution is gone.
You said, One more thing. A frequent theme here is that 90+ percent of the population does not now, nor is ever likely to, give a damn about the Y2K problem. If that is the case, then exactly which masses are they that are going to rise up and demand the government do something liek declare martial law?
My reply is to repeat my earlier statement: My guess is that they will orchastrate public opinion to believe that y2k is "the end of civiliztion" unless the Feds step in and do something I am assuming that the powers that be, specifically the president and his associates, will engineer public opinion by taking advantage of incidents as they occur to point out that only the president and his associates can save the public. The techniques for this are not unlike the techniques for the protection racket, and they can be expected to be as effective.
Just because Joe six-pack doesnt know or care about y2k today does not mean that someday he wont. After six months of public service announcements that tell him that unless *somebody* does something his poor mother will no longer get her social security check he will not only care, but he will also believe that the Feds have the answer. You watch what happens over the next six to nine months and at the end of that time I bet you will agree with me that they have done what I predict.
George
-- George Valentine (georgevalentine@usa.net), April 09, 1998.
I guess you really need to define what you mean by 'America'.Gary North, right and left wing conspiritists, and others aside, the simple fact is that AMERICA as it was known 200 years ago, or 100 years ago, or even yesterday, does not exist anymore. The same can be said for our Constitution.
As legal documents go, the Constitution and the bill of rights are written in plain english. Despite this they have been wrangled over and bastardized over the centuries to the point where they have little meaning in todays America. At least, to the government that is.
I think we need to get past this and deal with the reality of the situation. ALL government works at the point of a sword, the muzzle of a gun. ALL of them. Even ours. 'Authority' has nothing to do with 'power'. Our own Government has proven time and time again they will do what they have the POWER to do, and dare the public to challenge their authority. That's reality.
I consider it one of my tasks as a family man to keep my dependants out from under the foot of our goliath government. I don't want them crushed.
I have known people destroyed by our own government in flagrant violations of the 'Constitution' and the 'law'. When you are at the wrong end of a gun, no paper will serve to protect you. Not even the Constitution.
History shows us, I think, that moves to freedom come in convulsive rushs, while moves to slavery are gradual.
If I can say only one thing about the upcoming few years, it would be this: It will be damn interesting.
-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), April 09, 1998.
I guess it depends on how you look at things. Obviously, the prevailing view here is that the government is a molevelant behometh out to destroy and enslave the population.Outside of the IRS (which does, in fact, seem hell-bent on crapping all over the Constitution on a regualr basis) I tend to view the government as I would a kind but eccentric old uncle who was never too bright to begin with and seems to be slipping with age. It usually means well, but tends to be either so inept or so out of touch with the realities of life that even it's best intentions end up have effects that are both unexpected and undersirable.
Ah, variety. The spice of life.
By the way George, I have begun keeping a diary of Y2K events and opinions as I discover them. Why don't you do the same, and on July 4, 1999 we can compare notes. I believe that was the latest date you expected marital law to have been declared? (Of course, if you are right, the chances of or being *able* to compare notes aren't that great, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it.)
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 09, 1998.
I strongly suggest to anyone discussing this issue to read the article at this link:http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/97autumn/lujan.htm
-- Art Welling (artw@lancnews.infi.net), April 09, 1998.
With all due respect to all participants in this discussion (no email viruses, please!), it's arguments and speculation like this that have convinced me not to hit my friends and family too hard with Y2K issues (I usually just refer them to the Yourdons' book and leave it at that).And on a lighter note, I think my ex-wife would have preferred it if "marital law" had already been declared!
-- Mike Gunderloy (MikeG1@mcwtech.com), April 10, 1998.
You guys can seriously believe in this "end of civilization" martial law nonsense! What's so terribly ominous about the US government? The same guys that brought us rural electrification and child vaccination subsidies aren't going to be declaring martial law anytime soon. And you guys seriously believe this Gary North fellow is a legitimate source?? I thought he was more of a comedian (check out his web page... it's hilarious!) tim
-- Timothy Rue (timrue@mindspring.com), April 10, 1998.
re Timothy's dismissal of Dr. G. North: i too was sceptical of gary north's position at first. however, after researching everything on Y2K i could find in print or on the web in the past year, i have to say that i have been unable to "refute" Dr. North even once. don't sactimoneously dismiss G. North because he is a conservative christian. i am a card-carrying materialist (philosophically) and my politics are in the anarcho-syndicalist vein,(despite - or maybe because i was an enlited infantryman & later an officer in uncle sugar's army); but North is one of the few honest and competent commentators on Y2K. ( Yourdon & Ed Yardeni are two others.) try reading North and checking his sources. he's telling the truth. JT
-- jim taylor (jtaylo6078@aol.com), April 12, 1998.
I can't speak for others, but let me assure you that I have not "dismissed" Gary North because of his conservative economic views or his religious views. And like you, I have not been able to refute anything he has posted regarding Y2K. Of course, there are three different reasons for this.The first is the guy knows more about some things (history for sure and probably economics) than I do. I may disagree with his conclusions, but he has presented no evidence in these areas that I am qualified to refute.
The second is the guy has presented a great deal of factual information. He didn't earn a Ph.D. without learning how to do research, and he has oviously done some on this subject.
Third, and the one that concerns me, is that at times he makes no arguments and presents no evidence to refute! The more cataclysmic his conclusion, the less factually based is his reasoning. If you carefully follow his postings, you see a pattern of speculation built on speculation. As the arguments grow towards his conclusion of catastrophe, the reasoning behind them becomes weaker and weaker until they are no longer truly reasoned arguments but merely reflections of his personal beliefs and biases.
I guess my complaint is that he presents the downfall of civilization from Y2K as invetable and is presenting what people are accepting as hard evidence to back him up. In fact, he is presenting hard evidence only of certain *potential* occurences in isolated situations based on current information. When he attempts to tie the information together, his logic becomes weaker and weaker, until there is none left by the time he calls for the end of modern civilization as we know it.
This is where I have trouble regarding North as credible when I have no problem finding Ed Yourdon and his daughter credible in this discussion. The Yourdons are saying "Here is some hard evidence and some educated guesses on what *could* happen and why. Here is what we believe and here is what we are doing about it. Think, analyse and react as you see fit." North is saying "Here is some hard evidence and some educated guesses on what *could* happen. By the way, the inevitable conclusion is that the Apocolypse is due on 1/1/2000. Better start praying and laying in supplies!"
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 12, 1998.
I've watched the dialogue on this thread for the past week, but have not had time to contribute anything because I've been on the road non-stop.Any discussion about politics tends to become argumentative and controversial, and occasionally a bit emotional. There seems to have been some of that in this thread, but overall, I think the discussion has been reasonably civilized -- no worse than what you would expect at a cocktail party, where people begin arguing about politics after they've had a martini or two.
I'd like to add two items for consideration in this thread: first, whatever the government does about Y2K or anything else requires it to be in a functioning, operational state. Given the current estimates from OMB that the Federal government will only finish 67% of its mission-critical systems, and that another 66,000 non-critical systems may not be fixed at all, it raises the question of whether the government will be capable of accomplishing very much of a practical nature -- whether good or evil -- in the period right after 1/1/2000. It would be interesting to find out, for example, what contingency plans the military is making for conducting its business (whether for martial law inside the U.S., or for more traditional military activities outside the U.S.) if its highly computerized weapons systems, communications systems, and logistics systems are experiencing Y2K failures.
A second point for consideration: if indeed the government does impose any emergency measures -- regardless of whether these measures are interpreted as being good, necessary, or evil -- it seems to me that the chances are that they'll be imposed upon the major urban centers first. After all, it's these areas that are likely to have the greatest Y2K-induced infrastructure problems, and thus the greatest risk of looting, riots, starvation, freezing (especially in the northern cities). Thus, to whatever extent you might look upon the government's putative emergency actions as unwanted, unneeded, unwelcome, or inefficient ... it's one more reason for welcoming in the new millennium from the vantage point of a small community.
Of course, small communities will be subject to their own problems...
-- Ed Yourdon (yourdon@worldnet.att.net), April 12, 1998.
Paul, one precedent for the unconstitutional suppresion of civil rights by the military was under Lincoln in Maryland during the Civil War. Another was General MacArthur, Major Eisenhower, and Major Patton against the War Bonus Marchers in DC under Hoover. I am not arguing that martial law is necessarily coming, only that any student of US history can provide illustrations counter to your proposition in this regard.
-- Victor Porlier (vporlier@aol.com), April 12, 1998.
Since the world has never gone through the Y2K problem before, no one knows what exactly will be the results. Therefore, Gary North, Ed Yourdon, Peter de Jager, etc, are forecasting the failure of systems but only speculating about the full ramifications. Any of us thinking about this need to do the same for ourselves. The important thing that each of these people contribute is pointing out how vulnerable various institutions and functions of modern life are.If you look at all the facts and opinions about the readiness of the FAA, airplane manufacturers and airlines for the millenium change, there seems a strong likelihood that air travel will be interrupted for at least a period of time, if for no other reason that I have yet to meet anyone fully informed about Y2K that will be willing to fly for the first few weeks after 1/1/2000. How long will the airlines take to go bankrupt if they have no passengers for 30 days? And all the related businesses, like airline food service, air terminal restaurants and stores, rental car companies, shuttle bus services, etc.
Similarly, there seems a strong probability that nuclear power plants will have to shut down for at least a few months.
This past Tuesday evening, Dr. Edward Yardeni, chief economist of Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, a world renowned economist, spoke to the bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, saying, "Let's stop pretending that Y2K is not a major threat to our way of life." And "As representatives of the world's banking and financial community, you are in a position to prepare the public for the coming upheaval". And "The division of labor could be radically upset by Y2K. This process is the very foundation of economic prosperity and progress." This is not some nut talking.
If we lose substantial parts of the transportation system, the power system and the financial system, then something bad is going to happen. Who really knows how bad? No one. Don't fault those waving the warning flags because they don't know exactly how it will all fall out.
-- Dan Hunt (dhunt@hostscorp.com), April 12, 1998.
Dan,I'm not faulting anyone for not knowing how things will turn out and saying so. I fault only those who don't know how things will turn out and say that they do.
-- Paul Neuhardt (neuhardt@compuserve.com), April 12, 1998.
First, as to Gary North.I've plodded through his website. No one can claim he is not thorough. Certainly there is a big problem here, and the documentation speaks for itself.
However, it is very clear that he wishes for the worst result. That is, the fall of the US government and its replacement with a vicious Christian dictatorship (LOTS of examples of these in history - makes communism appear attractive!!). Therefore, it is hard to treat him as an objective source. In fact, I would go so far as to say is that he is trying to inspire public fear and chaos. Even if y2k itself doesn't appear, maybe the mob fear will? Then Gary's objectives might be realized after all.
Second, as to the end of American civilation. I really think the Clinton-UN haters should get an education. Actually, I don't like Clinton either, or am particularly crazy about the UN, but all these conspiracy theories about UN invasions and Clinton dictatorships indicates a serious lack of intelligence. And such postings only make a joke of y2k (which is indeed a serious matter).
Third, it seems to me the biggest problem the US government will have is with the IRS. If this fails, everything is problematic. If it continues, then all can be held together (albeit with lots of trouble). So I'd be interested in informed posts on this matter.
Peace.
Giant Squid
-- Giant Squid (cminson@devonian.com), May 02, 1998.
Giant Squid: You wrote "That is, the fall of the US government and its replacement with a VICIOUS CHRISTIAN DICTATORSHIP".Everything,there is a reason,for you,like most people are followers of life wanting to hold on,to your life,people speak,type about history, about events they do not want to let go.You like most will hold on, fight to the very end about events which have occured and yet to occur.Just by people to have to do tests to Machines that "WILL" fail which,you do no about,"Right", "Otherwise you would not be reading my reply".Should let you in on the inside track,where you as do most want to be "Right" To know,understand not to point fingers.Just By US being here should tell you what you want to know.One of the reasons why I am replying to you is,you like most type with knowledge this is all you know,I am a christian,I push my faith on no Man my belief my own not "your's".For those who do push are like you finger pointers a need to blame,be it christian or as in some of the "Ethnic" polls OTHER.I'm replying to you because when you get hurt what do you say,what is the first words out of our mouths "OH GOD PLEASE HELP ME".Since you recognized the christian,Knowledge is working in you and thats all you know."IGNORANCE" definition simply put, "Not Knowing and doing" And also "STUPIDITY" definition simply put,Knowing and still doing". Which are You,Which would you rather be,Which is the lesser of the two Or the more.
BTW:I myself am on a Y2K team where I work.I found out about Y2K in mid 1994 have tested PC And Code,Am a self taught programmer C,C++, personal COBOL,VRML,Am a Hw,Sw Tech Asministrator I purchase PCs, Software for my firm,Am a 20yrs+ Electrician,High school teacher 9th, 12th,From bascic's to motor winding.
Respectfully
Albert Rosado S.I.N.Y
-- Albert Rosado (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 03, 1998.
Giant squid: As to the United Nations Did you "Know"In OUR country LAND is being taken from US by a faction of the U.N. Known" as The UN Biosphere Reserves or world Heritage sites,If you did not,now you do.We as a people are left out of this decision making process.Did you Know that Mikhail Gorbachev has set up a Foundation in OUR country called "the Gorbachev Foundation" which discusses the State of the World in OUR country.Where are you What have We been doing to allow not only our elected officials but foriegn officials decide what is good for US Why?Because we are led to believe ONE IS NOT ENOUGH. Yellow stone Park is under the UN Umbrella yes PEOPLE will say,think, SO WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL,that's just it there was'nt any.PEOPLE will say it's for the good of the planet what do they know about US no less a Foriegn Official who wants.Their was a BILL Trying to be PASSED to stop the UN from Aquiring land but was struck down WHY? The Bill was "THE AMERICAN SOVEREIGINTY PROTECTION ACT" H.R.3752.So when you speak of theories or posting's like this make a joke out of Y2K because of your fellings,GAIN "IGNORANCE"Again, then you will GAIN knowledge.BTW:Acreage taken 65 Million. Respectfully
Albert Rosado S.I.N.Y
-- Albert Rosado (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 03, 1998.
Giant Squid: When I say our COUNTRY I include ALL,as I am indigenous to This country be it a little,I still am. to my last post Excuse typo,Administrator.Respectfully
Albert Rosado S.I.N.Y
-- Albert Rosado (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 03, 1998.
I can also be reached at arosado@pratt.eduAlbert Rosado
-- Albert Rosado (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 03, 1998.
Al, I would be very interested in finding out where you get your U.N. information. Have you bothered to look up HR 3752 on AOL Netfind? You will see that its one big misinterpretation from the beginning. The reason I'm airing my veiws on this matter was that I recommended this site to a couple people to give the Y2K problem some credibility. It didn't work out as plan just because they stumbled upon the religious end-of-the-world and prophecy rantings of certain individuals on this forum. And when I asked them what they thought of this website the following day their response was "Do you expect us to believe in that doomsday sh**! C'mon, government weather machines, U.N. take-overs, now Y2K-hah!" I asked him why he felt that strongly about it later on that evening over at his place. Well, we got online and he brought up this subject and the other religious oriented ones here and pointed them out to me while exclaiming "This is the reason I can't take this for serious!" Gee was my face red. Now I know that this is going to be a tougher sell than ever before. So can we tone down the conspiricy theories, and religious prophecy before we lose any more people we are trying to educate?
-- Connie L. (Cofkee@aol.com), May 04, 1998.
Becase of the "coincidence" of the computer problem and the biblical prophecies, I can see no way of seperating the intellectual arguments from the religious ones. If the truth be told, I have been able to interest more people from the biblical aspect. A lot of folks are much more comfortable and familiar with the Bible than with what could be called a "Revolt of the Computers" (sounds kinda Sci Fi) I really don't care about the motives of the people that become aware of the enormous ramifications of y2k as long as they get the message.
-- Bill Solorzano (notaclue@webtv.net), May 04, 1998.
Cofkee:I had written an epic for you but by the grace of god,you were spared by my disconnection from aol,no warning just disconnected. So here is a site that you may or may not have been to,http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r104:h26se6-481: http//:thomas.loc.gov
This is a congressional mega site that I frequent every bill ever argued,passed struck down is here. Once you are their you will not see one iota of "Religion".Just so called FACT. Whether I found this through a christian site or non,the problem still exsists just like Y2K. I was not preaching to anyone or am a doomsayer If you are a christian you don't look for JC you wait humbly. But in the mean time,I like you,am here to discuss,ignore what ever is thrown into this arena.When Ignorance rears it's head,I will answer. And again my posts were to G.Squid to his writngs .Whether these writings belong or not well,thats another thread. if these men who fence with one another in our gov,be for or against good or bad,bills, which we as americans choose to pick up our flag and voice our opinion does not matter,the thought is their it is real,like Y2K.
Here is a little of HR3752:Mr Speaker more than 51 million acres in this country has been designated by the U.N.,with the agency's consent ,without congressional consent,as either World Heritage sites or Bio sphere reserves.An area nearly the size of colorado,that the U.N has taken control of without Congressional involvement and legitimate public participation. [Mrs.Chenoweth]Idaho.
Mr.Speaker I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from N.Y.[Mr.Solomon] Mr.Speaker I come from a place in New York consisting of the Hudson Valley,The Catskills Mts.They snuck this thing into the Adirondack Mts before we even knew about it.They tried to do this in the catskill mts,and we caught them.we stopped them dead in their tracks.Let me point this out mr. Speaker.Back in 1986,UNESCO,that arm of the United Nations that has always been a hot bed of extreme leftwing internationalism,decided that OUR Adirondacks would become a U.N. Bio Sphere reserve.What an outrage,Mr Speaker Since when does the U.N. or UNESCOhave the right to do this? and since when does tje department of the Interior have the right to,in turn,declare these areas a U.S. Bio Sphere Reserve without congressional Authorization.
So if the people you are trying to convince that this,U.N.or any other topic has no place here be they left or right wing,will never understand Y2K.
BTW:Are either you or G.Squid making any contingency plans other than Advice.
Respectfully
Albert Rosado S.I.N.Y
I also can be reached arosado@pratt.edu
-- Albert Rosdao (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 04, 1998.
It was brought to my attention that the link which I posted did not function,I have revised the link to,for those who could not find this Bill H.R.3752.http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r104:1:./temp/~r104pQ5K62:: This will bring you directly to the bill which was struck down.
Respectfully
Albert Rosado
-- Albert Rosado (ARESURRECT@aol.com), May 04, 1998.
Greg: Check out this article at: http://www.wfs.org/wfs/year2k.htmIt's from the World Future Society, a Washington D.C. futurist organization that pushes world government.
-- Ron McCamey (rmccamey@usa.net), June 23, 1998.
All this blather about UN black helicopters was first annoying, then amusing, then boring. Even so, it's a LOOOOOOOOOOONG stretch from a "Biosphere" reserve to a UN takeover of the country.C'mon, people, think for yourselves instead of believing people who tell you what you want to hear. If everything crashes at the stroke of midnight on 2000/1/1, how do the UN troops get here? How do they travel from their bases? Why do you think the individuals making up this putative force would even come here? Don't you think that there'll be enough trouble back home for them, too?
The UN. Geez. "Let's wring our hands some more; maybe those boys will stop fighting. If that doesn't work, we'll threaten to scold them." THAT is the UN, folks.
If you want to worry about a foreign invasion, worry about China. But I think they'll have too much going on with Taiwan, Siberia, Korea, Vietnam, etc. to want the kind of headache that extended supply lines & a nation full of guns would give them.
Our own gov't? The committee dealing with Y2K is bipartisan... hmmmm, if Democrats & Republicans actually agree on something, in PUBLIC no less, there's no telling what could happen. Hey, here's a conspiracy for y'all to chew on: maybe the military operations in Bosnia & Somalia, food distributions, peacekeeping, etc. are warm-ups for similar post-y2k actions here?
-- Larry Kollar (lekollar@nyx.net), June 24, 1998.