Comments on: Debunking the myths/lies about Gov. Sarah Palin http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/ Covering the fallout of the 2010 elections Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:36:45 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-230987 chip Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:58:57 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-230987 ?Good luck and thanks for asking hope you got the down load ok ?Good luck and thanks for asking hope you got the down load ok

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-230929 Bill Hedges Thu, 08 Jan 2009 22:10:27 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-230929 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 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

Report Comment

]]> By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-230923 chip Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:55:34 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-230923 ?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 ?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

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-229984 Bill Hedges Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:15:35 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-229984 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

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.

Report Comment

]]> By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-229980 chip Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:04:55 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-229980 ?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. ?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.

Report Comment

]]> By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-229968 chip Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:48:13 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-229968 ?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. ?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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-229578 Bill Hedges Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:31:54 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-229578 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

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.

Report Comment

]]> By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-229468 chip Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:26:28 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-229468 ?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,

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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-204109 Bill Hedges Sat, 22 Nov 2008 21:03:35 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-204109 Chip What road are you talking about and where. Who maintances the road Chip

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

Report Comment

]]> By: chip http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-203954 chip Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:28:39 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-203954 ?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. ?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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Babs http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-175101 Babs Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:47:39 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-175101 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. 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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Dreadsen http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-174991 Dreadsen Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:48:09 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-174991 "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 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. “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/wa.....ODT4y90k90

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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Independent Woman http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-174973 Independent Woman Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:25:48 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-174973 "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 “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

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172236 Bill Hedges Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:42:18 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172236 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..... 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…..

Report Comment

]]> By: Deb http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172225 Deb Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:32:48 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172225 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, You forgot to mention that Obama was second only to Hillary as far as introducing pork spending into bills. I’m with you.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172209 Bill Hedges Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:18:02 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172209 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. 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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172119 Bill Hedges Mon, 20 Oct 2008 03:59:53 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172119 Rich- You use the term,,diffenent ties,, towards Sarah. In that same respect I compare Obama to Farahcon, Ayers, Rev. Wight, ACORN, etc. Rich- You use the term,,diffenent ties,, towards Sarah. In that same respect I compare Obama to Farahcon, Ayers, Rev. Wight, ACORN, etc.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172055 Bill Hedges Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:56:49 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172055 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. 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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Bill Hedges http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-172037 Bill Hedges Mon, 20 Oct 2008 02:37:39 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-172037 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. 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.

Report Comment

]]> By: Deb http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/2008/10/12/debunking-the-lies-about-gov-sarah-palin/#comment-171992 Deb Mon, 20 Oct 2008 01:50:16 +0000 http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/?p=2413#comment-171992 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. 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.

Report Comment

]]>