This video is lethal; if it was widely circulated, it would destroy Palin.

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 5:54:37 AM

  (0+)

There is nothing radical about hating the U.S FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THIS GOVERNMENT SOLD THIS COUNTRY TO THE GLOBAL CRIMINAL SYNIDICATE, WHO ARE NOW IN LATER STAGES OF THEIR PLAN TO DESTROY THE U.S ECONOMY AND THE BILL OF ROGHTS. OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE NOTHING BUT COMMON THIEVES AND DESERVE NO RESPECT AT ALL.

by gerard styles (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 8:33:04 AM

  (0+)

Unfortunately, you are right. Our goverment in Wash DC, BushCo, is the absolute pits. So, wanting to succeed from the USA is not all that bad. I wish we could declare Wash DC a separate country and make the everywhere else, a federation of states with leadership coming from some agreed on location. The Constitution and most amendments would be the blueprint. We do not need the Fed or income tax. We might do it better the 2nd time around especially if minority parties are not relegated to the sidelines.

by deenie corvier (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 10 comments) on Sunday, Oct 12, 2008 at 5:00:34 AM

  (0+)

Didn't the American colonies secede from England?

Didn't American troops fight to help Kosovo secede from Yugoslavia?

Didn't America politically support the former Soviet states' secession from the USSR?

Isn't the Declaration of Independence, the first official document prepared by the several states in America, actually a sound argument for secesson, as well as self-government?

So what is so wrong with Secession?

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 518 comments [79 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:28:21 PM

  (0+)

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Quoted, including links, from Wikipedia.

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 518 comments [79 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 12:35:17 PM

  (0+)

I thought Secession was inherently American.

If a person or their locality is unable to throw off oppressive government through Secession, then what will prevent tyranny?

Should we prevent the kidnapped from escaping their captors, next?

Perhaps we should require papers of everyone who wants to travel outside the domain of the government they were born under, in order to prevent such government from thus losing its power and legitimacy?

At what point does a free person stop being free?

It has been said that no one is more hopelessly enslaved, than the one who falsely believes himself to be free.  So, are we free as long as we think we are free and declare ourselves to be free, even under an oppressive government?  Or does our freedom depend on our ability to withdraw support for such an oppressive government?

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments draw their JUST powers from the consent of the governed.  So where do they draw their UNJUST power from?  And should we continue to respect such UNJUST power, simply because we have consented to their JUST powers?

by UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 518 comments [79 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:28:06 PM

  (0+)

We fought a Civil War over the secessionist issue.  There were many people in the North who thought that the South had an inherent right to seceed, but Lincoln disagreed and using slavery as a rallying cry, he successfully fought the Southern sessionist states and maintained the Union.  Before the Civil War, the United States was referred to in the plural as a country made up of many semi-autonomous states.  After the Civil War, the United States was referred to in the singlar. When Alaskans voted to become a state instead of a territory, they assumed certain responsibilities associated with statehood. 

While the U.S., as most Conservatives will point out, is not a true democracy, it is a representative republic, and as such, the government of the United States represents the desires of the people of the United States.  In a representative government, there is no difference between the government and its people.  If you don't like the government, it is your obligation to try to change it.  Otherwise, you have no moral or ethical reason to complain about it.   If you hate the U.S. Government, then you hate the American People who voted it into power.  You hate America.

The issue is hypocracy.  Rev. Wright, speaking in the prophetic manner, said that there were things that the U.S. government was doing that he detested.  The founder of the Alaskan Independence Party said the same thing, only he went further than Rev. Wright, who never said that he wanted the State of Illinois to seceed from the U.S. nor did he say that he didn't want to be burried under its flag.  I would say that Sarah Palin and her husband's association with the AIP was certainly as close as Obama's association with the Rev. Wright.  Obama has refutiated his association with Rev. Wright, but I haven't heard Palin refutiate her or her husband's association with the AIP.

by Joe Parko (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 4:46:58 PM

  (0+)

I couldn't have said it better myself!

THAT is a true patriot!

Cheers!

by INtooDeep24 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:55:00 PM

  (0+)

Come on people, you are missing the point...It's the hypocracy, stupid!

She tries to imply that Obama is pals with terrorists (who hate America)... while having a long and enthusiastic relationship with a party whose founder articulated his hatred for America. Not that he wanted to change it from within,which is patriotic, but wanted nothing to do with it.
This is like Idaho Senator Larry"Wide Stance" Craig authoring and co-sponsoring strong Anti Gay "Pro-Family" legistation in the Senate while soliciting anonymous gay sex in the men's room of an airport! 

by Rob Magee (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 12 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:19:08 PM

  (0+)

That somebody who is the wife of a secessionnist has the nerve to run for VP is totally outrageous.

If Alaskan secessionists don't like the government, then why is she trying to become part of the government?  How can she claim to be a true patriot while she is sleeping with someone who wants to amputate the US from a significant part of its territory? The founder of this party says in essence that he hates the American flag and does not want to be burried near it. How do you reconcile that statement with patriotism?

Their motto is "country first" but it's a lie; in the case of Palin, it should be "Alaska first".

by francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 385 comments) on Saturday, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:33:10 PM

  (0+)