From: donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin)
Subject: Re: National Police Force (was Re: National Health Care)
Organization: TOSHIBA America MRI, South San Francisco, CA
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 18:36:52 GMT

In article <1992Aug14.033349.3458@infonode.ingr.com> pat@fitz.uucp
(Patrick Fitzgerald) writes:
>>What is this "National Police FOrce" you're talking about and how is it
>>supposed to work?  How will it be different from the FBI?  How do we
>>prevent it from abusing its power, as the FBI has been wont tp do?
>
>Here's what Clinton said about his National Police Corps, in his
>economics speech:
>
>-----8<-----begin text-----8<----------8<-----begin text-----8<-----
>Fight crime by putting 100,000 new police officers on the streets.
>We will create a National Police Corps and offer unemployed veterans and
>active military personnel a chance to become law enforcement officers
>here at home. We will also expand community policing, fund more drug
>treatment, and establish community boot camps to discipline first-time
>non-violent offenders.
>------>8-----end text----->8------------>8-----end text----->8------
>
>This is frightening.

No kidding!

>Here's some more, from the Dem. platform:
>-----8<-----begin text-----8<----------8<-----begin text-----8<-----
>America's police are locked in an unequal struggle with crime:
>since 1951 the ratio of police officers to reported crimes has
>reversed, from three-to-one to one-to-three.  We will create a
>Police Corps, in which participants would receive college aid in
>return for several years of service after graduation in a state
>or local police department.  As we shift people and resources
>from defense to the civilian economy, we will create new jobs in
>law enforcement for those leaving the military.  
>------>8-----end text----->8------------>8-----end text----->8------
>
>This is very frightning.  Just what we need:  bunches of unenthusiastic
>police officers, being paid diddley-squat, paying X% of diddly-squat for
>their college loans.  Training costs alone would be high.
>
>Plus, since these people are not really police officers (they're just
>ordinary citizens) they obviously cannot be trusted to wield a dangerous
>assault weapon.  They would just end up killing someone in their own
>police department by accident. [<-- sarcasm for the Brady bunch]

That does it.  No way I'm voting for this bozo!!!!

[Portion below was not part of Gov Clinton's speech]
>But he said, deadly serious, he said, "Governor, where I came from, in
>my home country, we were much poorer, but at least we were free. Now we
>are not free. SWAT teams burst down my door and shoot my family.  Police
>confiscate my home and belongings, though I am charged with no crime.
>Violent men threaten me, but I cannot purchase a weapon for defense.  My
>dying father cannot receive a life-saving drug, because the 
>FDA will not approve it for years.  And strange people on USENET say
>things like 'if you have nothing to hide, why do you not let them search
>your home'."

Dangerous days, my man.  I say shut down Bush AND Clinton.

pick a third party, while they're still legal...

   don

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc