We're sorry, but the page you were seeking does not exist. It may have been moved or expired. Perhaps our search engine can help.
I write in response to Maj. Gen. Oates' My Turn of April 17 regarding lack of legislative cooperation for homeland security. One first has to remember that it's a federal responsibility to guard our borders from foreign aggression - the states aren't supposed to be burdened.
My Turn: Legislative cooperation is needed for homeland security
So unbiased evaluation will show that the Bush Administration's homeland security solutions are militaristic. Naturally! All know from history that the highest security for a populace lies in the techniques of a strong monarchy - backed by an effective military using its distilled aristocratic and feudal principles.
Security is the opposite in meaning to freedom/liberty! Our Founding Fathers were so antagonized by King George III's successes (at suppressing "subversion" and anti-British "terrorism" per modern U.S. definitions) that his methods are specifically forbidden in detail in the Bill of Rights! However, British arrogance from being rich in military/economic power permitted consistent intelligence failures. They had sure belief in resorting to force to fix any messes affecting Britain. This helped let America win the Revolutionary War.
Now since Alaska is fortunately removed from the vulnerability and hysteria of the Lower 48, our state should study an alternative. I speak of the democratic recommendations of Thomas Jefferson, Harry S. Truman and Ronald Reagan for universal military training. Modify them with modern practical interest in emergency and public safety-security response. Then propose the resulting plan for universal defense and emergency response training for Alaska use. Such a plan would have the specific philosophical and constitutional (AK Const. Article I, Sec. I) authority to legally compel the cooperation and contributions of all able-bodied citizens. Alaskans could do something democratically about the terrorist threats and public security instead of giving up freedoms to hide behind big guys with guns and submitting to greater federal control of our lives. Obvious opposition would be from A) military/pseudo-military special interests complaining about democratic inefficiency and B) Alaskan anarchists.