Debunking the myths/lies about Gov. Sarah Palin

It seems that even the most debunked myths and lies about Governor Sarah Palin still haven’t been entirely destroyed by facts so here is another shot at it to give you Palin supporters some ammo!

The first, most pervasive lie I’ve seen floating around, and recently seen repeated, has to do with the charge that, as mayor, Sarah Palin created a policy stating that rape victims had to pay for their forensic testing. The second myth has to do with Sarah Palin and Todd Palin’s association with the Alaska Independence Party, which some wrongly claim is a treasonous party which supports secession, it does not.

Myth #1: Todd and Sarah Palin were members of the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) which is treasonous and advocates secession. The myth also says that Sarah Palin was, and still is secretly a member of the AIP and believes in Alaska’s secession from the union.

Truth: The AIP does NOT support or advocate Alaska’s secession and is just another third-party run on the state level. Todd Palin was a member for 7 years though Sarah Palin was never a member and has been a registered Republican since 1982. She did address their convention a few times as mayor of Wasilla and while running for governor.

Plus, as the kicker, the AIP has endorsed Chuck Baldwin for President, the Constitution Party candidate, not John McCain and Sarah Palin.

Here’s the explanation and why the lie originated:

First, where did this claim that the AIP is a secessionist party originate from? Here’s the answer. The AIP founder, Joe Vogler, was disgusted by the United States government acquiring Alaska and making it a state of the union in 1958. Vogler held strong disgust toward the United States government and was most distraught because the citizens of Alaska were not given a true opportunity to choose whether they wanted to become part of the United States of America, or remain a territory, or not join at all. Vogler made many statements condemning the United States, many of which I find deplorable, however, the AIP does not hold Vogler’s personal views as part of it’s platform, which is explained below.

FactCheck.org made mention of the AIP and described it in this manner:

She (Sarah Palin) was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.

Note that FactCheck.org did not describe the AIP as “treasonous” or a “secessionist” party, they simply described it as a party which wants Alaskans to have a a true vote on whether they were to become part of the United States, the same right Puerto Rico has today. FactCheck.org simply states that the AIP supports the right to a vote, not that the AIP advocates secession or supports secession as a result of the vote. The AIP has abandoned pushing for the vote as part of their platform since they now focus on putting the state of Alaska first, along with individual and property rights.

The AIP’s website even addresses the criticism and explains where the secessionist claim arose from:

“Although it is widely thought to be a secessionist movement, the Party makes great effort to emphasize that its primary goal is merely a vote on secession, something that Party advocates say Alaskans were denied during the founding of the state. A plebiscite was, in fact, held in Alaska at the state’s inception in 1958, but AIP members argue that voting was corrupt and that residents were not given the proper choice between statehood, commonwealth status, or complete separation — something they say has been granted to other U.S. territories such as Puerto Rico.”

The AIP does not support secession, they simply wanted the state to have an option before becoming part of the United States.

I don’t blame Joe Vogler, the AIP founder, for his disgust on feeling like the federal government took control of Alaska without giving Alaskans a choice. I disagree with his statements condemning America and would never defend him personally or what he’s said, however, the AIP does not hold a secessionist platform, as is wrongly claimed by the myths and lies circulating the internet.

Much to the contrary of Joe Vogler’s beliefs, the AIP founder, the party now honors the United States constitution and adheres to it’s laws, they just support the rights of Alaska as a state being put first for individual Alaskans.

The AIP website lists their current platform which does not even discuss the right to vote on secession as a part of what they advocate for. The AIP has become a conservative-leaning state-level party with the interests of Alaska’s rights as a state before the federal government’s.

Here’s the Alaskan Independence Party platform, all 20 parts of it with my personal explanation, from their website:

Platform
We pledge to exert our best efforts to accomplish the following:

1. To effect full compliance with the constitutions of the United States of America and the State of Alaska.

First and foremost, they comply with the constitution of the United States of America, which means they do not support secession, they believe in the United States of America and honor it’s laws, despite their founders’ past sentiments.

2. To support and defend States’ Rights, Individual Rights, Property Rights, and the Equal Footing Doctrine as guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States of America and the state of Alaska.

They believe in states’ rights, individual rights, and property rights, these are fundamental rights to all people and all states. They support our rights as individuals as guaranteed under the US constitution.

3. To advocate the convening of a State Constitutional Convention at the constitutionally designated 10 year interval.

They want the state of Alaska to have a state constitutional convention every 10 years, something every state should do. Maybe voters would learn more about how they’re governed.

4. To reinforce the unalienable rights endowed by our Creator to Alaska law, by eliminating the use of the word “privilege” in the Alaska statutes.

They believe in God as a creator and would like it acknowledged in their state constitution.

5. To amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska so as to re-establish the rights of all Alaskan residents to entry upon all public lands within the state, and to acquire private property interest there in, under fair and reasonable conditions. Such property interest shall include surface and sub-surface patent.

They want the public to be able to use state-owned public land. They believe in individual rights to access the land with “fair and reasonable” restrictions. Again, more states should take that attitude.

6. To foster a constitutional amendment abolishing and prohibiting all property taxes.

They want to do away with property taxes entirely, a perfectly legitimate political position. Most Americans would agree property taxes should at least lowered, if not eliminated.

7. To seek the complete repatriation of the public lands, held by the federal government, to the state and people of Alaska in conformance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, of the federal constitution.

The want the US government to give federal land back to the state of Alaska because they believe in states’ rights and that Alaska should be in charge of public land, not Washington.

8. To prohibit all bureaucratic regulations and judicial rulings purporting to have the effect of law, except that which shall be approved by the elected legislature.

They want to stop judges from legislating from the bench as they believe the judiciary should interpret law, not author it.

9. To preserve and protect the Alaska Permanent Fund, Permanent fund earnings, earnings reserve fund and individual Permanent Fund Dividends.

They want to keep public money in Alaska, though I’m not familiar with the “Alaska Permanent Fund,” but I’m sure it’s a states’ right and individual rights issue.

10. To provide for the direct popular election of the attorney general, all judges, and magistrates.

They want the attorney general and judges elected by, and accountable to, the people. I completely agree! I hate unelected, unaccountable politicians.

11. To provide for the development of unrestricted, statewide, surface transportation and utility corridors as needed by the public or any individual.

They want development of transportation and utility corridors for public use.

12. To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.

They want the state of Alaska to control state and public land, not the federal government, I don’t blame them. States should control their own land, not foolish politicians in Washington.

13. To support the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

They believe in the 2nd amendment of the US constitution on keeping and bearing arms, God bless them, couldn’t agree more!

14. To support the complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants.

They want public servants accountable and not immune to scrutiny or lawsuits, we need more accountability in public service, everyone would agree. The AIP is on the right track, no more immunity for public officeholders!

15. To support the rights of parents to privately or home school their children.

They want parents to have the right to home school children, as parents should have the right in every state.

16. To support the privatization of government services.

They want to privatize poorly run government agencies and services. The AIP is a free market, capitalist party, not a big government party, no surprise here.

17. To oppose the borrowing of money by government for any purposes other than for capital improvements.

They believe government should be mostly debt free! Every politician should believe government should be debt FREE! More political need to adopt this stance! Ever heard people complain about the deficit? I wish McCain and Obama believed in debt-free government.

18. To strengthen the traditional family and support individual accountability without government interference or regulation.

They want to strengthen families and moral values, again, God bless them! We need stronger traditional families and strong individual accountability.

19. To support the right of jurors to judge the law as well as the facts, according to their conscience.

Jurors should judge the law and the facts, according to conscience, not a big deal here either.

20. To support “Jobs for Alaskans…First!”

They support expanding jobs for Alaskans, good for them!!

Missing from this list is secession, since they do not wish to accomplish it. The AIP does NOT advocate Alaska’s succession from the United States, that claim is simply false. The Alaskan Independence Party is nothing more than a conservative Alaskan state party which advocates the interests of Alaska as a state, not for secession.

The AIP does, however, acknowledge that their party was founded with the goal of getting Alaskan’s a right to vote on their statehood, much the same way Puerto Rico has a vote on its statehood. The AIP explains their goal under the goals section of their website, seen here, which is separate from their platform or political positions:

The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:

1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.

The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

Note the word “was” since the AIP no longer supports what Joe Vogler stood for with regard to secession. While it seems shocking to anyone in the lower 48 that the AIP would even discuss the topic of secession, Alaska only became a state of the union in 1958, which is 50 short years ago. The state-level politics in Alaska were, and still are very different from what we see here in the lower 48. The goal discusses the desire for a vote as a right of the people, not the desire for secession or the desire to advocate for secession.

The bottom line is that Joe Vogler, the AIP founder, supported Alaska’s secession and despised the United States federal government, however, the current AIP does not advocate secession nor do they include secession as part of their party’s platform. The AIP is not pushing for the vote nor are they pushing for secession, it’s just simply not true.

Furthermore, the AIP recognizes the constitution of the United States as the law of the land, just above the Alaska state constitution. The AIP supports Alaska’s rights as a state, the same rights every state has as part of the United States.

Finally, throughout Alaska, the AIP is simply known as an average third-party organization which advocates for the rights of Alaskans. Todd Palin’s membership was well known when Sarah Palin was mayor and while she was governor and, of course, Alaskans do not see an issue since the AIP is a legitimate state-level third-party in Alaska.

Go read more and research yourself at the Alaskan Independence Party website.

There is no secret, no cover up, and nothing to hide with regard to Todd and Sarah Palin’s association with the Alaskan Independence Party. For the record, Todd Palin is no longer a member of the AIP and Sarah Palin never was.


Myth #2: As mayor, Sarah Palin created or supported a policy which forced rape victims to pay for their own forensic testing.

Truth: Palin did not create this policy, nor did she endorse it as Mayor of Wasilla.

Here is the explanation and discussion of this myth. The background of this claim is that the city of Wasilla, and numerous other municipalities in Alaska, had charged a victim’s insurance company for the cost of forensic analysis related to a rape kit. This practice, which was used rarely as rape rarely occurred in Wasilla, was not instituted by Sarah Palin as Mayor nor did she ever endorse the policy.

LifeNews.com reports on this myth:

At least since September 8 the extreme left has been pushing a lie that Governor, then Mayor, Sarah Palin “charged rape victims for rape kits” performed upon them in the Alaskan town of Wasilla.

The charge stems from a May 22, 2000 article in the local Wasilla paper The Frontiersman and has been spun from a comment made by the Wasilla Police Chief. This comment was somehow made into a Sarah Palin policy.

Evidence of the incident, though, shows no involvement by Palin at all. Still, many Old Media outlets continue to keep illegitimately linking this rape kit billing claim to Sarah Palin, even though the truth is easily discovered.

As mentioned, first up was The Frontiersman story from 2000.

In that story Police Chief Fannon was quoted as standing against legislation that would force local municipalities to pick up the costs of rape kits being performed. In the interview Fannon said that, upon conviction, he favored the criminals being charged for the costs.

The story mentions that Fannon claimed that at the time Wasilla did have a policy that rape victims’ insurance would be charged for the kits being performed but there was no mention that victims themselves were charged and no claim that any ever were.

It should be pointed out that The Frontiersman is the local Wasilla paper, so, consequently, the story did not mention what the policy was in any other Alaskan city outside the area the paper covers other than to say that “most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams.” This last phrase has been focused on by Palin’s detractors and spun from “some municipalities” into “all” (except Wasilla) and presented as some sort of proof that she hates rape victims.

On top of all of that, there are no stories prior to Sarah Palin being offered the billet as VP by John McCain that makes the claim that Palin was informed of or involved in this policy of charging rape victims for rape kits. And, since there was only one rape reported in the city between 1996 and 2000 when the story first came to the papers, it’s no wonder she wasn’t aware of the policy. When would it ever have come up? Does anyone think that any given mayor of any American town is fully cognizant of every single policy or law in their city, especially if it is a law not in use because of a lack of situations to bring it to light?

For her part, Palin spokeswoman Maria Comella has said that the governor “does not believe, nor has she ever believed, that rape victims should have to pay for an evidence-gathering test.”

In the end, it seems that this story is a wild exaggeration about Palin’s role in this policy. There is no proof that she ever knew about the policy until long after the situation hit the news, it is untrue that her town was “unique” in blocking the measure, no evidence that she, herself, was notorious for the policy, and no proof that any victims were ever charged for rape kits. In fact, according to the Uniform Crime Report there were only 5 rapes reported in the 6 years she was mayor of Wasilla and four of those happened after the state law in question was passed.

Once again, this rumor was started by rampant speculation and misreporting of the facts, if you can call them that. Sarah Palin never created or condoned the practice of charging rape victims for a forensic exam, it just isn’t true. Furthermore, there was only 1 rape actually reported in Wasilla during the years of 1996 to 2000, while Palin was mayor. Therefore, the issue of rape victims being charged for a forensic kit clearly wasn’t as big of an issue as the media and Palin-haters are now making it out to be.

For the record, I vehemently oppose forcing rape victims to pay for a forensic exam and Sarah Palin opposes it as well.

While we’re on the subject, I’ll use this opportunity to let FactCheck.org debunk even more Palin lies and myths:

* Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she increased funding and signed a bill that will triple per-pupil funding over three years for special needs students with high-cost requirements.

* She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.

* Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesy” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.

* Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”

Lies, lies, and more lies, debunked! The Palin-haters have tried to destroy her by attaching false rumors to her record. The book-bannig lie has been repeated as well, however, it’s also completely untrue and was a smear started by a liberal blog, not even remotely rooted in fact.

Unfortunately voters today don’t take the opportunity to research things for themselves, rather they rely on the media, which is failing us this election season.


Conservative Gal is a regular commentator for YouDecide2008.com

  • You said that “They want the state of Alaska to control state and public land”

    But platform item #12 of Palin’s anti-American group says “To affirm and assert every possible right-of-way established under R.S. 2477 of July 26, 1866, before its repeal by the Federal Land Management Policy Act of October 21, 1976.

    Here’s the problem. Many “possible” RS 2477 rights-of-way are privately owned. RS 2477 is being used by many authoritarians and bureaucrats in state governments to seize private property for public use. This is socialism of the worst kind. I don’t want states like Alaska to become socialist republiks, like Cuba, but this seems to be what the Palins are hoping for.

  • First let me debunk this Article.
    The Author only showed you the “Platform”. From their website.
    http://www.akip.org

    The platform of the Klu Klux Klan is actually just as mild. That’s why you have to look at the rest of their site and take their rhetoric in context.

    Lets look at the other areas of the website.

    From the “Introduction” section

    “Political parties, both Republican and Democrat, dominate from Washington, D.C., and [don’t] quite understand the political problems, or opportunities, in an arctic and subarctic country.”
    Walter J. Hickel

    “I’m an Alaskan, not an American. I’ve got no use for America or her damned institutions.”
    Joe Vogler

    From the “Goals” Section

    The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
    1) Remain a Territory.
    2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
    3) Accept Commonwealth status.
    4) Become a State.
    The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party’s founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

    Did you notice selection number 2? Do you notice the word “was”. They do not put emphasis on this like it is past tense like the Author of this article wants to lead you to believe. If this was a past tense believe they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE LIST OF GOALS HERE in the first place. I mean just read it again. “The Call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of Alaskans Independence Party’s founding father Joe Vogler.

    That vote is for no other reason but secession.

    From the “By Laws Section”

    continued…..

  • Colorado Rancher,

    Thanks for the information. Being from the east I’ve never encountered RS 2477 so thanks for sharing.

    This, according to the AIP website, is why they discuss RS 2477:

    Most highways and roads in the other states started as trails.

    The federal government has stopped people from accessing their lands and properties over historical use trails. What we were able to drive to in years past now cant be accessed anymore.

    RS2477 acess roads are the begining of our road system. Since most land here is owned by the federal government, the federal government can stop access and development in perpetutity by refusing to allow the trails to cross “their” land even though we as Alaskans have used these trails for years.

    The road to Kantishna is one example of their arrogance and attempts to destroy private property in Alaska.

    Almost every member of the Alaska Reclamation Crew who drove to Kantishna without Federal permits were members of the AIP.

    They are concerned the federal government has too much control over access to these roads, that’s all. The AIP does not want to confiscate land, they want to us RS 2477, speficically in Alaska, to give land owners access back to their own land, not seize it as some kind of socialist policy.

  • From the “By Laws Section”

    3.02 Goal

    The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is to let the people vote on the question they were entitled to but were denied in 1958.

    And you saw above what those options were.

    From the “Basic Questions” Section

    Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?
    A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state’s rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

    Uh um. Secede? Is that what they are talking about as their goal? Complete independence and nationhood status?

    Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?
    A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans’ who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm’s length distance from a country in decline.

    The “State Hood Primer” section
    ( Let me add This is what was supposed to be presented to the United Nations through IRAN’S platform. Why this is still on their site is obvious)

    To Whom it may be of concern:
    This document is meant to be only a synopsis at best; to list some of the grievances of Alaskan’s with regard to our political connections with the United States of America, as it deals with our rights as inhabitants of a former non-self-governing territory, under Article 73 of the United Nations Charter.
    Read the rest on their site for yourself.

    continued……..

  • The “AIP Store” section
    They sell a shirt “Joe was right”. Okay this means they still promote this guys values.

    Now lets take into context their rhetoric. If you want to get a glimpse of their rhetoric like when they hold meetings with other secession groups take a look here.
    http://www.youdecide2008.com/2008/10/02/palin-as-the-treasonous-trojan-horse-for-the-aip/

    FactCheck.org made mention of the AIP and described it in this manner:
    She (Sarah Palin) was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
    This is true but factcheck is only going by her political registration records. The author doesn’t tell you that the Vice chairman of the Alaskan Independence Party Dexter clark has been recorded on Video stating that Sarah Palin and her husband was a member of this party. Yes they retracted this statement. What had them under the impression that she was a member? We don’t know.
    The author of the article wrote
    “Note that FactCheck.org did not describe the AIP as “treasonous” or a “secessionist” party, they simply described it as a party which wants Alaskans to have a a true vote on whether they were to become part of the United States, the same right Puerto Rico has today.”
    Factcheck did in fact right there point out that this group wants the vote on whether they secede from the United states. So call it what you want.
    Treasonous. Lets look up the word treason from Wikipedia
    “In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation.”
    Let me ask you is this loyalty? Joe Vogler their founder who they still hail on their site right now, sell audio of him and a shirt which says “Joe was Right” went around the United States and as a citizen of the United states had talks with Iran not long after Iran

    continued……

  • Dreadsen,

    I discussed the “goals” section as well and gave people a link to explore for themselves, sorry, beat you to it.

    Let me beat you to the bylaws:

    3.02 Goal

    The Alaskan Independence Party’s goal is to let the people vote on the question they were entitled to but were denied in 1958.

    Did I misread that? I didn’t see “secession” listed as a goal, perhaps because secession is not their goal. They believe Alaska was denied the right to vote on it in 1958, that’s pretty much it.

    That is just the way FactCheck.org described them, a party which wishes to give Alaskans the right to vote the same way Puerto Rico votes about statehood. Wow, shocking, and nothing I didn’t already discuss on the article.

    Dreadsen, admit it, you lost this time. There is nothing new you shared with us, you’re just repeating what I wrote in the article and trying to spin it to fit your point of view.

    Your claim that Palin is a “trojan horse” for the AIP is debunked.
    Your claim that the AIP advocates secession is debunked.
    Your claim that the AIP is “treasonous” is debunked.
    Your claim that the Palins are hiding something is debunked.

    Your entire story concerning the Palins and the AIP is debunked.

    You’re treading water on this issue now, head for shore and come back another day on another topic.

  • C.G.

    “Dreadsen, admit it, you lost this time. There is nothing new you shared with us, you’re just repeating what I wrote in the article and trying to spin it to fit your point of view.”

    The problem is this is what you are doing. You are spinning something to fit your point of view as well. You present things as Myth and fact when it is only you presenting a selective set of facts and giving your opinion on what all of it means. I just presented facts and made the point that we need to ask questions.

    Trojan horse has not be debunked. because the only person who can tell us that is Sarah Paln which is not available for questioning. The idea of being a Trojan horse is so no one knows your intentions. How can you debunk that with out asking?

    Is Palin hiding something. The only way we would know is if we ask her herself. You and I both do not know. But not answering questions about the topic is something which needs to be addressed. We want to ask her why does this group who advocates infiltrating other political parties believe you were a member when you were never registered? Do you and I know the answer to this. NO we do not. we have to ask her.
    This has not been debunked.

    Treasonous well lets take a look

    Factcheck did in fact right there point out that this group wants the vote on whether they secede from the United states. So call it what you want.
    Treasonous. Lets look up the word treason from Wikipedia
    “In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of disloyalty to one’s sovereign or nation.”
    Let me ask you is this loyalty? Joe Vogler their founder who they still hail on their site right now, sell audio of him and a shirt which says “Joe was Right” went around the United States and as a citizen of the United states had talks with Iran not long after Iran has held our citizens hostages. A country who has cursed the United states. He went round the united states to use Iran as a platform to present his “Statehood Primer” ( which I pointed out you can read from their site.) to the United Nations. This undermines the United States Government and their wishes. Now look at the definition of Treason and ask yourself in your opinion what is this act. And ask them why haven’t they repudiated these acts and moved away from this guy by not having anything about him on their site or the selling of his audio tapes. Treason is not a totally inaccurate description but it is also safe to say that this is a matter of opinion. but debunked??? That’s a stretch.

    But we have some facts which was layed out. Which we need to answer some questions.

  • Too much attention is being paid to a non-voted vice-presidential candidate.

  • Babs

    Too much attention, Michael??? She’s running for VP on the Republican Presidential ticket! It seems to me that MUCH attention has been paid to her by the Democratic pundits. The latest out this morning is that there is now a PORNO movie out starring yet another Palin look alike, with Palin’s name in the title of the movie!

    Dreadsen, you’re beating a dead horse. YOUR commentary slanted the AIP issue to oblivion, CG has listed facts. You will never admit the truth, so let it go. You both can copy and paste til hell freezes over, it doesn’t change the facts. And comparing the AIP to the KKK is way off base. This is a non-issue, or you would hear Obama/Biden harping on it daily.

    Good commentary, CG. 😉

  • Stalin

    Michael:

    You got it exactly right, now just tell that to the MSM and the Obama minions that have been speading these disgusting lies about Palin.

  • Cwren

    People who live in glass houses should not pitch boulders.
    Google: “Steve Stoll” and “Palin”.
    Extreme? You must judge for yourself.
    DO WE REALLY KNOW SARAH?
    PLEASE do you own research
    Do your own homework.
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/10/10/palin_chryson/

  • Ilia

    Hmmm…

    Could you please give some references to the first myth: who ever told that Governor Palin was a member of AIP. Otherwise it sounds that you created this myth and successfully debunked it.

    Thanks!

  • Michael,

    Does this sound familiar:

    Palin’s God Too Much for Presidency?
    The Palin Pick: Benefits and Baggage

    Those are your commentaries! We’ve all written a few about Sarah, haven’t we?

    Ilia,

    I’ve heard the myth repeated several times all over the internet, especially from email forwards and liberal blogs. Plus, the media has repeated it giving no context or background. That is where it originated. Plus, one of our guest commentary writers, named Dreadsen, also wrote about it so I wanted to counter his post. just do a google search for “Palin AIP” and you will find hundreds of websites propogating this lie.

  • Independent Woman

    I think with respect to Sarah Palin, many of you are missing the point here.
    This candidate was chosen for her gender. Whether you share her views or not, she has, clearly, very little experience. Few would argue that her limited experience qualifies her to be President of the United States. Given John McCain’s age, this issue is more relevant then in any past election.

    John McCain must attract independent voters in order to win this election. Sarah Palin represents the far right religious faction of the Republican party. Her public speeches are rousing, but is she not trying to convert the already converted? Which audience is she targeting with the “mob scene tactics”. Would John McCain have been better served with a running mate who represents the middle ground of the party? Perhaps someone who could bridge the gap between parties. The religious right would never vote for a democrat, much less a black man anyway. I’d say this strategy is terribly flawed.

    Finally, Conservative Girl- What is this about winning? Isn’t a blog about sharing ideas and learning?

  • Babs

    Independent Woman, your second sentence is false, Sarah Palin was not chosen for her gender, she just happens to be a woman. Barack Obama was not chosen for his color, he just happens to be black.

    She was chosen for her record as a reformer. And her executive experience exceeds Barack Obama’s Senatoral experience.

    Mutated versions of feminists envy her and mistakenly think they hate her. Pro-abortionists really do hate her because she is a reminder of their own weakness in character. Obama hates her because she reflects the same phenomenom that catapulted him to stardom, and he resents sharing the stage. The Republican base loves her, and accepts her. The Democratic base fears her influence, thus they cruify her.

    Typical politics in a typical election year. If you can’t beat ’em, beat ’em up.

  • Independent Woman

    Babs,
    I respect every bloggers opinion, but do any of you bloggers believe that Ms Palin would have been chosen as a running mate with her brief stint as a governor had she been a man? How much of a record could she possibly have? I mean no disrespect to her or her supporters.

    I think I’ve heard the “executive experience” debate before. Where did Ms Palin get her education? How many universities did it take to get her undergraduate degree. I didn’t see a graduate degree on her CV.

    Are Americans opinions black or white? Where does this word hate come from, Babs? You used it three times. If someone doesn’t share your opinion, you hate them. (or at least they have a weakness of character) Did I get that right? Is this what you want for America?

    I’m independent here. Did I not here “Kill him” at a Palin rally? I suppose that is how The Republican Party aims to get my vote.

    This is counter productive. Even Gordon Brown can unite The Labour and Tory parties.

  • Babs

    “If someone doesn’t share your opinion, you hate them.”

    Let’s get this one out of the way first. In no way did I even hint such a thing, and I’m offended at the accusation. I don’t, however, hate you.

    ” Babs,
    I respect every bloggers opinion, but do any of you bloggers believe that Ms Palin would have been chosen as a running mate with her brief stint as a governor had she been a man?”

    I just said so, didn’t I? I believe if Bobby Jindal had been Palin’s age, he would have been the choice. And he’s not a woman, but a reformer, a conservative, and a governor just like Sarah Palin.

    “How much of a record could she possibly have?”

    More than Barack Obama. As a governor, you can’t pass on voting. You have to make real decisions. Even as a mayor, you have to make real decisions. You can’t just vote “present”, which Obama has done 130 times. Obama has absolutely no experience in business or politics that has required him to take any executive responsibility whatsoever. I don’t believe he’s ever even run a lemonade stand.

    I don’t think you’ve been listening very well. Have you not heard the vulgar chants concerning McCain and Palin at Obama rallies? Or seen them on the internet? Or heard them on the news? I’m an independent myself, and I hear both. You should as well.

  • Babs

    “Dreadsen, you’re beating a dead horse. YOUR commentary slanted the AIP issue to oblivion, CG has listed facts. You will never admit the truth, so let it go. You both can copy and paste til hell freezes over”

    I also posted Facts Babs.
    C.G. slanted to your liking. I presented the things she wants to cover up.
    The comparison is not saying AiP is like the KKK> But to show you that you can paste facts about the KKK from SELECTIVE SECTIONS FROM their site which makes them seem to be a pretty harmless group.
    The KKK’s platform is almost completely harmless if you go to their site. Their Platform is not an accurate representation of them. With the exception of wanting to outlaw homosexuality their platform has no indication of Terrorism or Hate.

    Here is their platform. 90% of that is no different than any other political platform.

    http://www.kkk.bz/program.htm

    What is different from their platform and What Bill O’Reily said here about the White Christian power structure.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYmnSRLJkt4

    My point is you can select facts to present someone to be bad or good. It’s the Bad that is always questioned. Not the good. And the good doesn’t dismiss the bad. Example Rev. Wright. The RHETORIC is what gets you in trouble. Rev.Wrights sound bites are not reflected on Trinity’s Website nor is it reflected on the Denomination Website. If we are going to go purely by what websites present and ignore conduct in public, meetings, rallies, etc. Then the KKK is a peaceful group as well. Take a look at their site. They say they do not hate anyone.

    The facts presented above in this article are omitting the other facts from their own website. It only looks at portions. To be fair mine did too. But her argument is to dismiss my facts from their site as false because of other facts she has found from the same website. Does this make sense?
    .
    She is making an attempt to make AIP to be completely nice.
    I was merely presenting the evidence she ignores and asking for Sarah Palin to be questioned on it. If we are going to question Candidates on their associations and surrounding of the bad dismissing the good then she should get treated the same way.

  • Independent Woman

    I would be interested in some links, Bab, if you wouldn’t mind passing them on. I’d appreciate it. The more information, the better.

    With regards to experience, what I was referring to was the fact that Ms Palin has been governor for a very short time.

  • Babs

    “Babs,
    I respect every bloggers opinion, but do any of you bloggers believe that Ms Palin would have been chosen as a running mate with her brief stint as a governor had she been a man? How much of a record could she possibly have? I mean no disrespect to her or her supporters.

    I think I’ve heard the “executive experience” debate before. Where did Ms Palin get her education? How many universities did it take to get her undergraduate degree. I didn’t see a graduate degree on her CV.

    Are Americans opinions black or white? Where does this word hate come from, Babs? You used it three times. If someone doesn’t share your opinion, you hate them. (or at least they have a weakness of character) Did I get that right? Is this what you want for America?

    I’m independent here. Did I not here “Kill him” at a Palin rally? I suppose that is how The Republican Party aims to get my vote.

    This is counter productive. Even Gordon Brown can unite The Labour and Tory parties.”

    I only see two facts here: “I’m independent here” and “This is counter productive”. The rest is question or opinion. What facts are you referring to? And what links are you asking me for?

    Yes, Mrs. Palin has been a governor for two short years. Mr. Obama has never been a governor a day.

  • Joe Thomson

    I take it that Conservative Gal didn’t think that readers would have the initaitive to read the AIP website complete with special tribute to its founder Joe Vogler and a Home page which talks of its aims as being in pursuance with the ideals of its founder – guess who- the man to whom the fires of hell are as frozen glaciers compared to his hatred for the USA.

    But then again he was a right wing anti – American so no dount to CG that makes it all OK

  • Independent Woman

    “I don’t think you’ve been listening very well. Have you not heard the vulgar chants concerning McCain and Palin at Obama rallies? Or seen them on the internet? Or heard them on the news? I’m an independent myself, and I hear both. You should as well.”

    Please kindly send links of chants concerning rally chants. I would appreciate it.

    My only reference to a FACT was that Sarah Palin has been a governor for a short time (as you stated, two short years). Not clear on the reason for animosity in your response.

  • Babs

    Sorry, IW, I don’t have any links to Obama rallies or his supporter videos in my bookmarks. Youtube is full of them, though. Try a visit there. It will make you sick.

    There is no animosity, although it still offends me to be called a hater. I also find it difficult to follow your train of thought. It rambles a bit.

  • Executive Experience is not the standard by which the republicans have set before Palin came on the scene.
    They were trumping foreign Policy.
    The Biggest argument was Obama wasn’t experienced enough. To use him as a comparison to legitimize Palin would be admitting that he was qualified all along.

    Executive Experience is only a TYPE of experience. Not a trump all. You also have to look at Relevant executive experience.

    Experience is like slices of a pie. Executive is one of them.

    There is also National Experience. Palin has 0

    There is also International Experience. Palin has 0

    When Pain as asked about the 700 Billion Dollar bail out we got to see her Economic Experience. Or her willing to learn.
    All of us here on this site could have answered that. Hell i’ve learned other angles of the bail out from members right here. There is no excuse for her at least no knowing about that when all of us including the other candidates were on an even playing field when learning about it. It was new to everybody. Prior Experience was not as relevant as some other issues.

    I am also interested in these angry mobs at Obama Rallies.

    What is the comparison? Are they advocating Violence towards McCain?

    Also is Obama’s Rhetoric directly related to the outbursts in the crowd like McCain and Palin’s?

    Interesting watch right here. Same argument was raised that Obama has some people shouting things as well. Shouting No McCain is different from “off with his head”, “kill him” and “terrorist”. There have been outburts at McCain rallies for a while too but We weren’t hearing these things until after this terrorist Rhetoric was introduced and not condemned.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8m_TeHatuM

    McCain’s camp rushed to ask Obama to denounce McCain being compared to a racist governor.

    But when McCain was asked to denounced Obama being compared to Osama

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v1i8PbU_9M

    he wouldn’t. Is this helping? We all know what the intent is.

  • Independent Woman

    Thank you very much for the links, Dreadsen. For Americans abroad, the internet is vital.

  • Babs, Obama wasn’t “picked,” he was selected by U.S voters in the national primaries. Palin was picked by the McCain camp— and there is quite a lot of identity politics involved in that pick, when McCain himself admitted he was not too familiar with Palin weeks prior to the decision.

    CG– I did write two commentaries on Palin, one when she was picked, another about the religious tendencies– but you failed to note the one in-between, which talked over how Palin was serving as a distraction.

    Stalin, if you chart the amount of publicity Palin and Biden are generating, Palin unquestionably is receiving more. In fact, according to a BBC analyst, Palin has received more searches on the Internet than all the candidates combined. This intense interest works both ways– it brings about interest and disgust. At the same time, I do not see Palin shirking away from this publicity, nor toning down her rhetoric.

  • Babs

    “Babs, Obama wasn’t “picked,” he was selected by U.S voters”

    I didn’t say he was “picked”, I said he was chosen – I assumed anyone reading it would be intelligent enough to know he was chosen by voters. Give me a break, I’m not a second grader. You misconstrued the point entirely.

  • Babs

    Well, you gotta love Hank, Jr. You betcha. 😉

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-YuyTXZs58&feature=related

  • Babs, you are correct– you did say chose, but you still tried to compare Obama to Palin in this regard:

    “Independent Woman, your second sentence is false, Sarah Palin was not chosen for her gender, she just happens to be a woman. Barack Obama was not chosen for his color, he just happens to be black.”

    Again, different scenarios.

  • Babs

    The context was that IW believes Palin was chosen – by McCain – because she is a woman. My argument was that Palin was not chosen – by McCain – because of her gender any more than Obama was chosen – by US VOTERS – because of his color. I don’t see a problem with my point. Neither McCain nor US voters made their individual choices because of color or gender.

    You over analyze, Michael. *LOL*

  • True, I do this sometimes. It can be a curse, especially when reflected inward. 🙂

  • Independent Woman

    Candidates select running mates to round the ticket and enhance their chances on election day. Normally they are chosen from states known to be swing states or those states with a large number of electoral votes. It’s strategic, plain and simple.

    McCain (or rather his campaign advisers) took a risk and chose someone who was little known. It would be naive to conclude that her gender had no relevance. A new strategy, designed to attract the disgruntled female electorate could and indeed did rejuvenate the ticket.

  • C-Low

    Babs,
    OK, I searched youtube (as per your suggestion) for Obama Rally chants that might be even faintly construed as remotely similar to the hateful, life threatening, outbursts being heard almost daily in the mob-like McCain rally crowds. I can’t find any. Is there any chance you would share just one or two with us? I know you don’t bookmark them and I hate to ask you to perform the same grueling task that lead you to find hundreds of them in the past, but maybe just a couple? Please? I’m sure that the satisfaction of being able to back up your claims will make those excruciating 4 to 6 minutes of searching, copying, pasting, and possibly even typing well worth the effort!
    Or is the fact that “It will make you sick” going to serve as your final excuse for not being able to provide any?

  • CNN Covers Sarah Palin and the ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE PARTY.

    Yall praised them for their coverage of Acorn well i hope you praise them tipping the iceberg on this.
    They confirm the obvious that they are a secession party.
    They also raise the question of them wanting to INFILTRATE OTHER PARTIES( like they SAID IN THEIR seccessionist meeting which is on video and documented) like i was asking about. And their possible desire to push Sarah Palin through the ranks. They were talking about her in 2004.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MODT4y90k90

    MSNBC Rachel Maddow covering Palin’s association with the AIP. Lots of information. Taking EVERYTHING IN CONTEXT. For those who want to believe other wise don’t look at these two seperate networks report. I saw MSNBC’s cover of it but figured everyone would just say they are Liberal. But now we have two sources.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnzvy2q5ciQ

  • Robin Roscoe

    Just another lame attempt to put lipstick on the barracuda/ maverick/ pit bull/, well, whatever she is lately, by a cherry-picking blogger… next!

  • Independent Woman

    C-Low, you made my day.

  • Babs

    C-low,

    As to Obama supporters vularity, here’s an excerpt from a recent report, link included:

    “An array of T-shirts, for instance, displaying the image of Sarah Palin and some variation of the “C-word” are gaining new popularity as Election Day nears. A group of protesters outside Palin’s fundraiser in Philadelphia Saturday wore shirts emblazoned with the words, “Sarah Palin Is a C–T.”

    http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/13/election-day-nearing-distasteful-rhetoric-party-problem/

    There was also a group of Obama supporters at a rally in NC last week standing outside shouting continuously “McCain is a murderer”.

    As to my reference “or his supporter videos” (that’s what I said was on youtube), I’ve taken to time to search a few for you.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuVVunac37E&feature=related

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxwhaC4xr5c&feature=user

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-QevraCQUc&feature=related

    And this one is Obama supporters disrupting a McCain rally, it happens all the time.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gO_TR4juiw8&feature=related

    That’s all I’ve got the stomach to look at today, go to youtube and search “McCain sucks”. You’ll probably enjoy what you find.

    To everyone else reading, be WARNED that the videos I’ve given contain explicit and vulgar language.

    Glad to help you, C-low, since you asked so politely.

  • patrick Johnson

    Funny, the right keeps screaming the liberal media is dragging all this crud around about Caribou Barbie!..
    how about these ones you conservative nuts?
    Obama can’t be president because he was born in Kenya!
    .. he went to school at a militant Muslim training academy.. He is the Anti Christ who will be a balck muslin man in his 40’s!..

    you fools are getting testy because finally WE are playing your brand of low down politics and WINNING!
    see you all in 12 and please put palin on that ticket too! will be an honor to smear her and her ilk adain!

  • Babs

    Patrick, maybe when you learn how to spell you can come back and play with the grown ups.

    I get testy at people who call me a fool. As to the Obama rhetoric you spouted, I’ve not said it. He is just not fit to be President. And I’ve already voted, so don’t bother with bullying me.

    For Patrick to refer to Sarah Palin as “Caribou Barbie” just proves my point, C-low and IW.

  • Rich

    Lol…at the people still defending Sarah Palin after everything that has come up the last month, including “bold-faced” lying to the public (Troopergate). She is a perfect example of people voting against their own interests…intelligence being one of those interests.

    Todd Palin was a member of a party whose goal is to seceed from the union. Sarah Palin’s ties are not clear, but there are DEFINITELY ties. End of story.

    Now the voters will decide.

  • Deb

    Independent Woman, you don’t think that Sarah Palin would have been chosen except that she is a female. I don’t believe that a white man with the little experience Obama has would be where he is right now. She was governor of a state. What has Obama done to show leadership? She also worked with the oil company to get money back for the citizens of Alaska. And if you look back in history when Bill Clinton was nominated he was being briefed for an extended period of time because he knew little about foreign affairs. Pelosi and Reid can’t wait to have Obama in the White House. They are already getting their list of bills they want to push through. I wonder how much more our taxes will go up once they are done. And I have a problem working my butt off to get ahead just so I can give it to someone who hasn’t worked as hard. I work for a small company who employees about 20 people. They are very concerned about Obama’s tax plan for people making over $250,000. They have already warned us that we could see changes. I hope everyone will be happy when more people get laid off and small businesses start to go under because of the increase in taxes.

  • Deb

    Rich, and you aren’t concerned about the lies Obama has told. Let’s see if we can get everyones name. Rezco, Ayers, ACORN, Wright and Odinga. Someone Obama not only campaigned for in Kenya while he was a US Senator, but also raised campaign money for him. This guy was going to do whatever he had to to win the Prime Minister of Kenya.
    Odinga’s 2007 presidential campaign strategy called for exploiting anti-Kikuyu tribal sentiments, claiming victory and charging voter fraud even if the campaign knew the election had been legitimately lost. Odinga also was willing to fan the flames of ethnic tribal tensions and use violence as a last resort by calling for mass action that led to the destruction of properties, injuries, loss of life and the displacement of over 500,000 Kenyans. The purpose was to compel the Electoral Commission of Kenya to declare him the winner or enable him to declare himself the winner by force.”
    Who will show up next? And when he is asked about these people he lies and then changes his story every time someone else questions him.

  • Bill Hedges

    Rich- You should study trouper-gate & A.I.P… For fun a trouper stuns a young boy. His superior was fired by Sarah. The job he held was at the pleasure of the Governor, meaning he could be fired for nny reason. You may notice nothing is being done against Saeah, because she boke no law. In fact, I want an investigatin on why that trouper was not fired. AIP is a legal organzation believing in the laws of Alaska and the United States. And have broken no laws. They do not want to leave the United States. They are a third party likened to Democrats and Republicam.

  • Bill Hedges

    Rich- Since the investigation is cmplete, a crimminal act would have been turned over to a prosecutor to decide if charges would be made. Have not head of this being done. Another choice would be taken the matter to the State Congress. That to has not surfaced yet. Instead all is quiet. Prehaps dead.

  • Bill Hedges

    Rich- You use the term,,diffenent ties,, towards Sarah. In that same respect I compare Obama to Farahcon, Ayers, Rev. Wight, ACORN, etc.

  • Bill Hedges

    Rich– Actions speak louder than words. We know Obama is good at giving money aways, using Ayers grants. Now tell me his history of cutting taxes for the middle class in Senate. McCain has a long career of fighting PORK. Obama has short record of wanting PORK. Sarah has a short record of giving excess funds to all Alaskan citizens. Sarah has a short record of cutting fat from State budget. I wonder why you want Obama going into possible recession. Bush and McCain warned of sub-prime, which took us out of the longest BULL MARKET in American history. And caused more than $700 Billin bail-out. Which is just the begining.

  • Deb

    Bill, You forgot to mention that Obama was second only to Hillary as far as introducing pork spending into bills. I’m with you.

  • Bill Hedges

    Deb- You are right. Since you brought it up…After all McCains many years, his total Pork is $000.00..ZERO. McCain says he will VETO any bill with PORK. And he will name those that added PORK. Wonder why Congress people hate him ! Wonder why news media hate him. Wonder why he has so little contributions. Why Obama will be the new King of Donations…..

  • Independent Woman

    “When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

    Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

    That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.”

    Ken Adelman

  • “AIP is a legal organzation believing in the laws of Alaska and the United States. And have broken no laws. They do not want to leave the United States. They are a third party likened to Democrats and Republicam. ”

    They do want to leave the united states. Why do they ask for the VOTE. Ask them to take the option of secession off of their VOTE request for Alaska. Ask them to STOP ATTENDING SECESSIONIST conventions.

    CNN AIP

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MODT4y90k90

    Here we go again. Rev. Wrights church is a legal organization. So is the KKK. Both are legal organizations. And if you go to http://www.kkk.bz you will see nothing but mild things on their site. They say they do not hate people. They also say on their site that they don’t burn crosses and this is a myth.
    Being legal doesn’t mean anything. Nor does it explain away anything. Your still stuck on failed logic.

    Rev. Wright has broken no laws. Paster Pledger also has broken no laws. But it’s their RHETORIC that was the problem.

    Now do you want to compare the RHETORIC of the AIP at their conventions? Or the Rhetoric on the other sections of their website?

    Now while we are on Pork. If someone is against pork then they shouldnt’ vote for any pork bills. McCain claimed that he didn’t vote on Hurricane Katrina related bills because pork was in there. Well we should ask him about all the OTHER BILLS which he has voted on that has pork in them. When does he approve a pork bill and when is he against it?
    After all he has voted on a lot of pork bills. So this “he didn’t draft a pork bill” non sense is a fallacy.
    The Department of defense lost 2.4 TRILLION dollars in two years. they LOST IT. yet you all are worried about 10-18 billion of pork barrel.

    Troopergate. You can string all the stuff on the trooper but don’t forget a Judge warned their family to leave him alone TWICE. He was disciplined for the actions which he has done.
    Using the logic of REINVESTIGATION anyone who has done 1 year in jail or only probation should get their punishment brought back in court because certain people didn’t feel it was the proper punishment.

  • Babs

    Well, Dreadsen, have you seen the youtube video out today where a policeman tasered a kid who asked him to a birthday party? He was fired immediately. Go figure, there’s still justice in some places in this country. Obviously not in Alaska.

  • chip

    ?Rs2477 roads are public roads set aside as they were traveled over lands under the control of the
    federal government .

    What was said in the 1851 law and the 1866 restriction on the 1851 law was that title was removed
    from the land under the right of way and it became public, not Federal or State. It was and is to be
    protected from abuse by the counties, but the title was in the common man or, We the People, those
    guarantors of all property in the United States and its territories.

    The road is 60 feet wide by law can never be bought or sold as it belongs to the public.

  • Bill Hedges

    Chip

    What road are you talking about and where. Who maintances the road

  • chip

    ?Bill Hedges,

    Sorry for the slow reply.

    I am talking about the roads and trails developed across federal lands, and whether the lands became
    State owned or private. The roads remained public and 60′ wide as the federal title to that road had
    been extinguished at the traversing of the road. The law applied to all federal lands even in the original
    states created from the colonies. There is no division among land acquired by the federal government.
    The constitution states the federal government may acquire land by force, by succession, or by
    purchase.
    Counties were to mark every mile along the road or trail with a post and record the centerline and keep
    a map showing all trails and roads. There were no laws governing maintenance. Most roads and trails
    were maintained by the user. Most of the trails were those traveled by the existing native population.
    The roads were constructed by rolling rocks out of the way and cutting or burning down trees and
    sometimes digging a ditch for the uphill wheel. If a log was blown down across a trail or road it was
    usually burned out of the way. A good pack trail is as wide as a wagon road.

  • Bill Hedges

    Chip

    This government land. If I build a home on government land, I don’t have a deed ? Right ? My placing a road on government land, what right do I have to do that ? Just because the land belongs to, we the people, does not not give me sqatter’s right ? Is there laws that differ with my opionion.

    Are the people using these trail living on government land ? Are they legal? Are these roads legal ? You seem to be saying the trails are mantained privately on government land. If these trails were meant to be used by the public, wouldn’t government be maintaning ?

    Little big horn is government land. I am, we the people. That does not mean I can build a trail on the big horn public land next to the Custers graves.

  • chip

    ?My original response was to a Colorado rancher, Oct 12, 2008. He mistakenly stated that the public road disappeared when the homestead was proved up. This could not happen as the road was established before the homestead. Otherwise, he received title to the ground subject to the road. The
    easement is granted by the public to graze the public road but not restrict its use. This is clearly
    established in court rulings.

    We are talking about roads and trails that were created efore 1976. It is possible to build on federal land but you must first file a mining claim and show an essay proving that your claim is legitimate.
    Before the formation of the Forest Reserves there were housands of cabins throughout the United States from coast to coast, some built by native people, fir trappers, miners, and hermits who had a general disgust for their fellow man. There were even a few outlaw types. When the Oregon River
    country existed, before the United States laid claim to it, there were native people traversing back and forth across the whole of the land mass and had been for thousands of years. This pattern exists throughout the world. In England each year people traverse their trails in the spring to renew their rights.
    In the United States and it’s Territories laws were passed to make these rights permanent. The first law was written in the newly established Oregon Territory by fir traders and trappers who knew the critical value of transport, as the Territorial government dealt with only local jurisdiction. They were required to submit all laws they created to Congress. The problem was that new settlers were arriving every day, and they were staking claims across the roads and trails claiming the land as their’s, causing mayhem in the community. These claims were not government sanctioned. In fact, these claims were the very reason the U. S. could lay legitimate claim to the Oregon River Country. The law set aside all trails and roads 60 feet wide for the public. The width was critical to allow wagons to turn around without trespassing.

    When the Homestead Act became law and Gold was discovered this road law governed.
    In 1866 California, Nevada, and Oregon asked Congress to bring the laws they had written and Congress had accepted into the government register as federal laws. They had been all along but this made Congress responsible for enforcement, as the constitution required. These laws emained in effect until 1976 when the road part of the law was repealed.

    Before it was repealed you could drive across federal land from one location to another, say, from an existing road or town to another distant spot for a land claim or a mineral claim, or to another town. As you drove, the federal title was removed from the road and it became public, the nderlying title to all land. It could not be sold by the federal government as they did not own title to it. This all changed with the repeal in 1976 but all roads and trails existing at that time continue on and cannot be extinguished.
    There are laws, and I have assembled them and a few court cases on my web site.
    http://www.westbrookent.com/upload.php click on RS-2477-road-ca.pdf

    Are the people using these trail living on government land ?
    Are they legal? Are these roads legal ?
    Traversing a road or trail is a use, not an occupation. But the action may take you several days or
    month’s. In a sense you are living on the trail.

    You seem to be saying the trails are mantained privately on government land. If these trails were meant
    to be used by the public, wouldn’t government be maintaning ?

    These roads and trails are not on federal land. They are on public land as the federal title was removed as they were established. If you wish to maintain them it is up to you. The Government is a governing body. It has agents like B.L.M. and the U.S. F S. that manage federal lands.

    Little big horn is government land. I am, we the people. That does not mean I can build a trail on the big
    horn public land next to the Custers graves.

    No, you may not create a road to a grave. But if a road xisted there before 1976 it is a public road. We are here venturing into some not so clear waters caused by politics. The Forest Reserves and the National Parks were established by Presidential decree and there was no constitutional base for their establishment. The constitution only grants Congress that right. The lands under these ‘set asides’ have
    roads running through them and there is active mining going on within their boundaries.

    Hope this clears up some of the confusion. I have three apple boxes full of documentation. It has taken me two years to encapsulate how the law works and why it was written.
    I am available to give group lectures.

  • chip

    ?My original response was to a Colorado rancher, Oct 12, 2008. He mistakenly stated that the public
    road disappeared when the homestead was proved up. This could not happen as the road was established before the homestead. Otherwise, he received title to the ground subject to the road. The easement is granted by the public to graze the public road but not restrict its use. This is clearly established in court rulings.

    We are talking about roads and trails that were created before 1976. It is possible to build on federal land but you must first file a mining claim and show an essay proving that your claim is legitimate.
    Before the formation of the Forest Reserves there were thousands of cabins throughout the United States from coast to coast, some built by native people, fir trappers, miners, and hermits who had a general disgust for their fellow man. There were even a few outlaw types. When the Oregon River
    country existed, before the United States laid claim to it, there were native people traversing back and forth across the whole of the land mass and had been for thousands of years. This pattern exists throughout the world. In England each year people traverse their trails in the spring to renew their rights.
    In the United States and it’s Territories laws were passed to make these rights permanent. The first law was written in the newly established Oregon Territory by fir traders and trappers who knew the critical value of transport, as the Territorial government dealt with only local jurisdiction. They were required to submit all laws they created to Congress. The problem was that new settlers were arriving every day, and they were staking claims across the roads and trails claiming the land as their’s, causing mayhem in the community. These claims were not government sanctioned. In fact, these claims were the very reason the U. S. could lay legitimate claim to the Oregon River Country. The law set aside all existing and those to be created, trails and roads 60 feet wide for the public. The width was critical to allow wagons to turn round without trespassing.

    When the Homestead Act became law and Gold was discovered this road law governed.
    In 1866 California, Nevada, and Oregon asked Congress to bring the laws they had written and Congress had accepted into the government register as federal laws. They had been all along but this made Congress responsible for enforcement, as the constitution required. These laws remained in effect until 1976 when the road part of the law was repealed.

    Before it was repealed you could drive across federal land from one location to another, say, from an existing road or town to another distant spot for a land claim or a mineral claim, or to another town. As you drove, the federal title was removed from the road and it became public, the underlying title to all land. It could not be sold by the federal government as they did not own title to it. This all changed with the repeal in 1976 but all roads and trails existing at that time continue on and cannot be extinguished.
    There are laws, and I have assembled them and a few court cases on my web site.
    http://www.westbrookent.com/upload.php click on RS-2477-road-ca.pdf

    Are the people using these trail living on government land ?
    Are they legal? Are these roads legal ?
    Traversing a road or trail is a use, not an occupation. But the action may take you several days or
    month’s. In a sense you are living on the trail.

    You seem to be saying the trails are mantained privately on government land. If these trails were meant
    to be used by the public, wouldn’t government be maintaning ?

    These roads and trails are not on federal land. They are on public land as the federal title was removed as they were established. If you wish to maintain them it is up to you. The Government is a governing body. It has agents like B.L.M. and the U.S. F S. that manage federal lands.

    Little big horn is government land. I am, we the people. That does not mean I can build a trail on the big
    horn public land next to the Custers graves.

    No, you may not create a road to a grave. But if a road existed there before 1976 it is a public road.
    We are here venturing into some not so clear waters caused by politics. The Forest Reserves and the National Parks were established by Presidential decree and there was no constitutional base for their establishment. The onstitution only grants Congress that right. The lands under these ‘set asides’ have
    roads running through them and there is active mining going on within their boundaries.

    Hope this clears up some of the confusion. I have three apple boxes full of documentation. It has taken
    me two years to encapsulate how the law works and why it was written.
    I am available to give group lectures.

  • Bill Hedges

    Chip

    I believe in law. Athough law can be wrong. In such cases, it should and can be changed.

    I certaintly know little and have not spent a day studying this. In my uneducated mind, there is private and public land. Public land implyed limited rights to people.

    I have limited knowlege of “right away”. I might live next to you and have limited right to enter upon your property to access my land.

    I have learned from your comments. Understand just a little more.

  • chip

    ?You are correct, the law can be changed, and in this case it was changed from a law ‘to remove federal title in order to create public rights-of-ways’, created under a cabinet position of Territorial Governor to a law ‘to remove federal title in order to create public rights-of-ways’ created in congress as the constitution required.

    On land rights there is the person or persons who rants ‘the King of England or Crown granted Penn Land based upon his army being able to protect his granting’. In the U. S., We the people grant title and we pledge to defend that grant. Our government elected by the people echo our combined voice.
    So, We the people guarantee every square inch of the United States and it’s Territories. Now over this land lays three kinds of land title, that which the federal government holds title to, that which is private title granted from federal land title, and public land that which the government has removed title. The first two titles can be bought and sold, as there are no titles on public land. It cannot be bought or sold.
    In the writing of the law the government required Counties to record and protect these lands as the representatives closest to the land.

    To your question about rights-of-way, it is muddled by the courts. It is sometimes referred to as easements in court cases, but there is a clear distinction. Easement (a right or privilege that a person may have in another’s land) usually recorded on the deed.. Rights-of-Way (titled land over which a public road passes), because it is public no title is filed. Drummond from the Land Court ruled in 1871
    that the right of all parties to the use of said highway will be as secure under the law as if the title had
    remained in the Government.

    NO HOMESTEAD EXISTED WITHOUT A PUBLIC ROAD LEADING TO IT, AND IN MOST CASES THROUGH IT, AND THERE CAN BE SEVERAL PUBLIC ROADS

  • Bill Hedges

    Dale

    I meant easement, just could not remember the word. It is all interesting. I suppose public land have many of the old laws that the city I now live in has laid waste to

  • chip

    ?Good luck and thanks for asking hope you got the down load ok

  • I like it when folks come together and share ideas. Great blog, keep it up!