Joe Vogler and the Alaska Independence Party

[Philly_SWAT]

The Sarah Palin thread is getting too long and difficult to navigate, so here is a new one. The Alaska Independence Party is a third party in the State of Alaska that calls for Alaska to secede from the United States and become an independent nations. Here is a link to their official website:

http://www.akip.org/

Here is a quote from that website:

The formation and history of the AIP largely revolve around Joe Vogler, a plain-spoken gold miner, non-practicing attorney and charismatic icon of local politics who ran unsuccessfully for governor three times between 1974 and 1986. After getting 4,770 votes and 5% as an independent in the 1974 election -- a race decided by less than 300 votes -- Vogler formed Alaskans for Independence (AFI) in 1978 in order to promote the idea of an "Independent Nation of Alaska."
Here is a video of Sarah Palin giving a taped speech to their party's state convention.....in 2008!!!! This video was not subjected to the "filter of the mainstream media.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZwvPNXYrIyI&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZwvPNXYrIyI&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
It was said in the other thread that Sarah Palin had more "balls" then any of the three men involved in the Presidential race. I have to agree with that. It does indeed take big, huge, hairy balls to intimate that someone else is "pallin' around with terrorists" due to a brief relationship they had by serving on a charity board with a college professor who engaged in radical activities nearly 40 years ago, while at the same time giving speeches at a party convention IN THE SAME YEAR you are running for Vice-President of the US, using an "America First" theme, while the party you give a speech for has an "Alaskan First" Motto, and wants to withdraw from the United States.

[krakenslayer]

In all fairness, as much as I find her a hilariously inappropriate choice of running mate, she doesn't actually say anything in the video that suggests she supports the AKIP, beyond stating that she enjoys the competition and supports their constitutional rights to protest against the American government. It looks to me like she's trying to coax the AKIP voters over to the Republican Party, by talking about reigning back government, etc.

[Philly_SWAT]

In all fairness, as much as I find her a hilariously inappropriate choice of running mate, she doesn't actually say anything in the video that suggests she supports the AKIP, beyond stating that she enjoys the competition and supports their constitutional rights to protest against the American government. It looks to me like she's trying to coax the AKIP voters over to the Republican Party, by talking about reigning back government, etc.

I submit that if you prepare a video speech to be played at an organization, by definition that is showing support. No organization, political or otherwise, would allow you to give a speech at their meeting when your purpose was to encourage people to leave that organization and join yours. A quick look at the AIP website will let you see exactly what they are about. They are for reigning back government...to the point of leaving the US so they do not have to be subjected to the US federal government.

[krakenslayer]

I submit that if you prepare a video speech to be played at an organization, by definition that is showing support. No organization, political or otherwise, would allow you to give a speech at their meeting when your purpose was to encourage people to leave that organization and join yours. A quick look at the AIP website will let you see exactly what they are about. They are for reigning back government...to the point of leaving the US so they do not have to be subjected to the US federal government.

Yeah, I know where you're coming from, man. I don't know if that shows support by definition though - would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Robert Mugabe sending a videotape of one of their rants to the UN be showing support? Sure, she's a lot more friendly with them than Mugabe would be with the UN, but do opposing politicians not allowed to be civil to each other? Plus in the video she's still trying to crowbar her Republican values into something resembling AKIP's ideology. I just think that what she's trying to do there is proselytise to them by the back door, I don't see why she'd put her neck on the line like that if she didn't think she'd get some return on it.

Please do not take this as a suggestion that I agree with her on anything she's ever said or done, I'm just saying it as I see it.

[Philly_SWAT]

Yeah, I know where you're coming from, man. I don't know if that shows support by definition though - would Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Robert Mugabe sending a videotape of one of their rants to the UN be showing support? Sure, she's a lot more friendly with them than Mugabe would be with the UN, but do opposing politicians not allowed to be civil to each other? Plus in the video she's still trying to crowbar her Republican values into something resembling AKIP's ideology. I just think that what she's trying to do there is proselytise to them by the back door, I don't see why she'd put her neck on the line like that if she didn't think she'd get some return on it.

Please do not take this as a suggestion that I agree with her on anything she's ever said or done, I'm just saying it as I see it.
In a political sense, the UN would not show a video made by Ahmadinejad as a welcoming video to those in the UN. It would not make political sense. Unless they truly felt that the ideas he was expressing coincided with theirs.

I dont think she is trying to crowbar her ideas into something resembling theirs. They both share similar ideas to begin with, i.e less government, etc. This video was made before she was tapped as the VP candidate. I say only one of two things can be taken from it. Either is was purely a case of trying to curry any and all local favor in the State, to further her own political future (remember at that point she had no idea she was soon to be, or ever would, be tapped into the national spotlight) or a case of totally not checking any facts about an organization before agreeing to give a speech to its members. I dont think she has the intellectual fortitude to be devious, or to think about the world around her too much. She saw an opportunity to be in the spotlight, which in theory would help her in local politics, and she took it. It does not demonstrate any thinking abilities at all.

Just as when the prank "French President" makes a comment about how he loved the documentary on her life called "Nailin' Palin", she shows no demonstration of thinking ability. Anyone who has ever seen/heard about porn would know immediately that is a porn sounding movie. If you werent familiar with porn, you would say something like "Oh I never heard of that", not "Oh thank you!". It is a sign of ignorance when someone just goes along with whatever someone else is saying, because when you know you are stupid, you dont want to prove it by admitting that you dont know something. This is especially troublesome for the ignorant when the thing the other person is saying is totally rediculous, you cant tell the difference.

[thxleo]

Wait a minute Philly, are you trying to change the subject? This post came about because of Obama's link to a known terrorist. Surely you aren't trying to change the subject to Palin now are you? Tisk tisk, you should practice what you preach.

[Philly_SWAT]

Wait a minute Philly, are you trying to change the subject? This post came about because of Obama's link to a known terrorist. Surely you aren't trying to change the subject to Palin now are you? Tisk tisk, you should practice what you preach.

I would think that a new thread would be ample indication of whether my intent was to change the subject or not......

[AcesandEights]

I thought I'd heard something about Todd Palin having been a registered as a member of the AIP, but I never saw any real documentation on it, just a report about it and that some newspaper was reporting it.

Anyone have any details?

[SRP76]

Good for them. If they can manage to secede without getting invaded and conquered like the Confederacy did, they won't have to put up with all the bullshit that comes with being in the United States. Not like the rest of America respects Alaska anyway, so why shouldn't they want to leave?

[Publius]

For a while the Alaskan Independence Party was a major party in Alaska. They elected the only third-party governor in post-WW2 history. And the Independence Party governor didn't try to declare independence from the US. You see, the AIP has grown by becoming more of a big tent, broadening into a Ross Perot-type populist reform party. Many (probably a great majority) AIP members don't support secession. These days the party only actually calls for a referendum to see what the population of Alaska thinks about secession versus statehood.

[Mike70]

some of the alaska indepence rhetoric and stance on things reminds me a lot of the people who think the election in newfoundland was rigged and that newfoundland would be better as a part of UK (which it was until 31 mar 1949).

i can't quite put my finger on it as to why but that is what it reminds me of.

[Publius]

some of the alaska indepence rhetoric and stance on things reminds me a lot of the people who think the election in newfoundland was rigged and that newfoundland would be better as a part of UK (which it was until 31 mar 1949).

Very interesting, I didn't know about that. I'm sure there are people outside of Newfoundland who wish the Newfies still belonged to the UK too. ;)

[DubiousComforts]

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American."

How exactly does one claim citizenship to a state?

[Publius]

How exactly does one claim citizenship to a state?

You don't have to claim it, you have it automatically.

14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

[DubiousComforts]

14th Amendment, Section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Then apparently, Volger didn't quite grasp the "and" part.

So does this mean the 14th Amendment was written with the intent for state citizens to protest their national citizenship? After all, the very next sentence reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

[Publius]

Then apparently, Volger didn't quite grasp the "and" part.

So does this mean the 14th Amendment was written with the intent for state citizens to protest their national citizenship? After all, the very next sentence reads "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

Volger's a little nuts, IMO. Before the 14th Amendment, though, the dominant idea was that people were citizens of their state first and citizens of the U.S. as a consequence of their state citizenship. So, for example, if a state did not consider slaves to be citizens of that state, they would therefore not be citizens of the U.S. either. The original privileges and immunities clause (in Art IV Sec 2) says "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The 14th Amendment kept the idea of dual (state and U.S.) citizenship, but flipped it. Now U.S. citizenship is explicitly defined, and state citizenship flows from that. Among right-wing and libertarian fringe types, the "sovereign citizen" movement holds that either the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, or that 14th Amendment citizenship is optional, and you can choose instead to be a pre-14th Amendment "sovereign citizen" of your state rather than the United States.

[DubiousComforts]

Volger's a little nuts, IMO. Before the 14th Amendment, though, the dominant idea was that people were citizens of their state first and citizens of the U.S. as a consequence of their state citizenship. So, for example, if a state did not consider slaves to be citizens of that state, they would therefore not be citizens of the U.S. either. The original privileges and immunities clause (in Art IV Sec 2) says "the Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

The 14th Amendment kept the idea of dual (state and U.S.) citizenship, but flipped it. Now U.S. citizenship is explicitly defined, and state citizenship flows from that. Among right-wing and libertarian fringe types, the "sovereign citizen" movement holds that either the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, or that 14th Amendment citizenship is optional, and you can choose instead to be a pre-14th Amendment "sovereign citizen" of your state rather than the United States.
We agree on Volger. Is there really any U.S. citizen that wouldn't prefer less government interference, other than possibly those already in the U.S. government?

Volger sounds like just another guy making the case to do whatever he feels like, and to hell with everyone else that shares the same country.

[Philly_SWAT]

There was a movement in Texas a few years ago that wanted Texas to secede from the US. They said something about the "paperwork" ( dont remember if it was a treaty, legislative thing, or what) that made Texas a state was never ratified, or some such improper thing, and that in fact Texas was not a legal state currently.

[DubiousComforts]

There was a movement in Texas a few years ago that wanted Texas to secede from the US. They said something about the "paperwork" ( dont remember if it was a treaty, legislative thing, or what) that made Texas a state was never ratified, or some such improper thing, and that in fact Texas was not a legal state currently.
There is a similar independence movement in Puerto Rico. Even Hawaii isn't very happy being a state.

[Mike70]

Very interesting, I didn't know about that. I'm sure there are people outside of Newfoundland who wish the Newfies still belonged to the UK too. ;)

:lol:

i think you could probably file most canadians in that group. newfoundland is little more than the butt of a huge amount of jokes to most canadians.

whenever the subject comes up when we are around my wife's family (she is from ontario) the words lousy, bitching, newfies usually get used in the same sentence.

a lot of people in canada probably wish that the UK would take newfoundland back or that it would sink into the north atl.


anyhoo, at one time newfoundland was a dominion within the british empire on equal standing with canada, australia, new zealand, etc. the first vote had 3 options: a dominion within the empire, become part of canada, stay under direct rule from london through a commission (newfoundland's dominion status had been revoked in 1934) . none of these options got a clear majority 44% chose to remain a dominion, 41% to become part of canada, 15% for the commission . in the next runoff the third option was dropped and rumours began to fly that chicanery was afoot among the people favoring joining canada. next election 51% for canada, 49% for the UK and there's been boohooing ever since.

i can understand some of it. one minute you are part of the UK. the next minute you are a province of a country where most of the people could give a shit less about you and wish you simply either a. shut up b. go away c. do both..

[Purge]

Sarah Palin was little more than eye candy to woo Conservative males. Speaking as one, it didn't work for me.

I'm all for Conservative politics, but successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned.

[AcesandEights]

successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, I'd be more likely to support of a revolution than secession. Secessionists...pfeh :rant:

[Philly_SWAT]

I'm all for Conservative politics, but successionism is treason, as far as I'm concerned.


Yeah, I'd be more likely to support of a revolution than secession. Secessionists...pfeh :rant:
I understand your patriotic points here, but so much of this country is supposedly based on "what the founding fathers wanted". The founding fathers did not want a huge, overbearing federal government dictating an overwhelming number of dictates to the individual States. It was supposed to be a bunch of independent states binded together through a federal system, not held around the neck by a federal system. Our country is not one word....like Spain, France, Russia, etc. it is "The United States of America". The new world continents being named "America", and the individual States that banded together were "the united states of". So it seems logical to me that individual states ought to be able of the will of its citizens to separate from the United States if that is their wish. I am not suggesting that I think it would be a good idea for any state to do so, but I dont know of any moral or legal justification for not allowing it.

[Mike70]

I am not suggesting that I think it would be a good idea for any state to do so, but I dont know of any moral or legal justification for not allowing it.

i think that depends on whether you see the constitution as a binding and permanent contract between the state and the federal govt. if it is then there really is no basis for secession.

i am not against allowing states to secede from the union but i don't think it should merely be at the whim of the state. yes, i consider ohio to be my country and to me it is more important that the US but i also realize that ohio is part of something much bigger and that as americans we all should have a share in a such a decision.

but, i am not a constitutional law expert. my education is as an ancient historian, so all that i've just said is nothing more than my opinion on the matter.

now, i look off into the distance and await publius' return to the thread.