The Ideological Terrorist Fallacy is when you call a person or act “terrorism” when terrorist acts are applied to an ideology you support as well. But fail to call it terrorism when the same acts are committed to an ideology which you do NOT support.

When John McCain and Sarah Palin were being interviewed by Brian Williams he brought up their new technique of linking the word “terrorist” to “Obama” by stressing Obama’s questionable political relationship with Bill Ayers.

Bill Ayers political involvement began during the Vietnam war era and he was one of the biggest protesters of the war. Many people protested what was called the Vietnam Conflict, and Ayer’s group decided to protest the war through non-peaceful means, which by definition put them into the “terrorist” category. But the general public never called Ayers a terrorist because their understanding of terrorist is usually a foreign person who wants to do harm to the United States. It is obvious that when people think of a terrorist they think of Muslim terrorist who attacks the United States. The terrorist word isn’t used with domestic attacks.

Now Sarah Palin and John McCain are strong supporters of the Pro-Life position. Sarah Palin is so strong of a supporter that she wants abortion completely banned with the exception of saving a woman’s life. But Palin doesn’t want to use the word terrorist in describing someone who commits terrorist acts against abortion clinics.

Brian Williams: Back to the notion of terrorists and terrorism, this word has come up in relation to Mr. Ayers — hanging out with terrorist – domestic terrorists. It is said that it gives it a vaguely post uh 9-11 hint, using that word, that we don’t normally associate with domestic crimes. Are we changing the definition? Are the people who set fire to American cities during the ‘60’s terrorists, under this definition? Is an abortion clinic bomber a terrorist under the definition?
Sarah Palin: There is no question that Bill Ayers via his own admittance was um one who sought to destroy our US Capitol and our Pentagon — that is a domestic terrorist. There’s no question there. Now others who would want to engage in harming innocent Americans or um facilities, that uh, it would be unacceptable — I don’t know if you could use the word terrorist, but it’s unacceptable and it would not be condoned of course on our watch. I don’t know if what you are asking is if I regret referring to Bill Ayers as an unrepentant domestic terrorist. I don’t regret characterizing him as that.
Brian Williams: I’m just asking what other categories you would put in there. Abortion clinic bombers? Protesters in cities where fires were started, Molotov cocktails, were thrown? People died.
Sarah Palin: I would put in that category of Bill Ayers anyone else who would seek to destroy our United States Capitol and our Pentagon and would seek to destroy innocent Americans.

In this particular example of political rhetoric, notice how Plain makes it perfectly clear that Bill Ayers is a terrorist. The motive is either because he opposed the Vietnam war, which she may support, or because it conveniently adds fear to the idea of Barack Obama. Maybe it’s simply because Ayers is a terrorist by definition. But Anti Abortion is an ideology that she supports, so she doesn’t want to use the term terrorist to describe bombings which have injured and killed innocent people at abortion clinics. If you don’t think these acts aren’t terrorist acts by definition take a look at Eric Rudolph.

Eric Robert Rudolph (born September 19, 1966), also known as the Olympic Park Bomber, is an American radical described by the FBI as a terrorist who committed a series of bombings across the southern United States which killed two people and injured at least 150 others.

Rudolph declared that his bombings were part of a guerrilla campaign against abortion and what he describes as “the homosexual agenda.” He spent years as the FBI’s most wanted criminal fugitive, but was eventually caught. In 2005 Rudolph pleaded guilty to numerous federal and state homicide charges and accepted five consecutive life sentences in exchange for avoiding a trial and the death penalty. Rudolph was connected with the white supremacist Christian Identity movement. Although he has denied that his crimes were religiously or racially motivated, Rudolph has also called himself a Roman Catholic in “the war to end this holocaust” (of abortion).

Rudolph has also confessed to the bombings of an abortion clinic in the Atlanta suburb of Sandy Springs on January 16, 1997, a gay and lesbian nightclub, the Otherside Lounge, in Atlanta on February 21, 1997, injuring five, and an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama on January 29, 1998, killing part-time security guard Robert Sanderson and critically injuring nurse Emily Lyons. Rudolph’s bombs were made of dynamite surrounded by nails which acted as shrapnel.

He is said to have targeted the health clinic and office building because abortions were performed there, and targeted the” Otherside” Lounge because it was a predominantly lesbian nightclub.

It is obvious that Eric Rudolph is a terrorist by definition and is far worse than Bill Ayers in comparison. But Sarah Palin’s comment is one example in which she separates these two people through ideological differences. Another example of this fallacy is the view of “state sponsored terrorism.”

The State Department of the U.S had Iran and Iraq on their list of state sponsored terrorism for their involvement in political killings inland and abroad. Iranian terrorist operations have aimed at members of the Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK) and the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI). Iran has also supported groups in Palestine who want to stop the Middle East peace process. Taha Kirmeneh, who was a member of the KDPI was killed by gunmen in Coru, Turkey. Another member of the KDPI was killed by a letter bomb in Stockholm, Sweden. Their goal is to suppress the actions of this Democratic party and kill their leaders.

Iraq has had it’s share of Political killings and terrorist actions directed against civilians, foreign relief workers, journalists, and opposition leaders. A prominent Iraqi expatriate oppositionist residing in Beirut, Lebanon, was assassinated. The Government of Lebanon stated that it had firm evidence linking the killing to the Government of Iraq and arrested two Iraqi diplomats in connection with the incident. Lebanon subsequently broke diplomatic relations with Iraq. Their Goal is also to suppress the efforts of actions of political opponents inside or outside their country.

These actions have qualified them on the list of State Sponsored Terrorism. Since we are going strictly by the definition, then the United States should also be on this list.

One of the United States terrorist operations was aimed at the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The Sandinistas is a left wing political party that was accused of being funded by the Soviet Union and Cuba and was thus in violation of U.S policies in accordance with the Reagan Doctrine. So the U.S.A. looked to unite the Guerrilla Terrorist opposition called the Anti Sandinistas which later was called the Contras. The CIA with Congress approved funds trained the Contras and provided them with equipment. Throughout the Contras efforts to overthrow the Sandinistas they engaged in

· targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination.
· kidnapping civilians.
· torturing civilians.
· executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat.
· raping women.
· indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian houses.
· seizing civilian property.
· burning civilian houses in captured towns

Despite these atrocities the United States continued to fund them over 100 million dollars until they killed an American Engineer, which wasn’t enough to stop Reagan from requesting another 30+ million dollars, but Congress rejected it.

Attacking innocent civilians for political purposes is terrorism by anyone’s definition. But you won’t get anyone from one of the two major political parties calling the United States a terrorist-sponsoring country. And anyone questioning this stance is often called Anti American. In 1994, Iran and Iraq both made the U.S.A.’s state departments list of State sponsored terrorism for doing the exact same thing that the U.S.A. had done. The difference between the United States and these Middle Eastern countries is whether or not their actions are supporting US backed ideologies or not. We find this same mentality when calling people domestic terrorists in the United States, when Palin discussing abortion-bombings and Bill Ayers. However, the use of ‘terrorist’ should not be a contextual or ideological qualifier. Either everyone who commits these atrocities are terrorists or nobody is. Selecting when you want to use the label terrorist solely on when it benefits your agenda is illogical and doing so commits yourself to the fallacy.

Dreadsen is a regular contributor for YouDecide2008.com

The bigotry of many Republicans and other far right supporters earlier was only common among scary emails, Fox News and right wing radio hosts. McCain’s actual campaign steered away from this in the beginning by throwing shock jock Bill Cunningham under the bus for using Obama’s middle name with out using McCain’s. But now that there isn’t much time left the McCain camp has decided to make bigotry against Muslims a central part of their campaign, disregarding the Muslim constituents who are voting for McCain.

The recent theme of McCain’s campaign rhetoric fuels the Muslim-hating-base, reaffirming that it is now okay to not just express anti-Muslim rhetoric by forwarding an email, but also by voicing it outside AND inside McCain campaign rallies. This hatred has turned off some voters yet some people don’t seem to understand why. While they yell Obama is a Muslim, McCain and his campaign (or other prominent Republican figures for that matter) won’t stand up in support of Muslims and point out that there is nothing wrong with being a Muslim

Earlier in McCain’s campaign when he denounced the shock jock Bill Cunningham he sought out the endorsement of Pastor Rod Parsley a right wing open and loud Muslim hater who advocates violence. This got the attention of the Islamic world immediately. Not good when we are on Middle Eastern soil fighting wars in two countries and in a delicate situation with a third country.

Even after warnings from some supporters that McCain shouldn’t deal with Rod Parsley, McCain defended his association with him several times, claiming that he denounced the words, but not the man. After a couple of months went by a few media outlets decided to report on this for 48 hours. After this, McCain finally denounced Parsley. Some of McCain’s supporters claim that McCain only did this for political gain because he has a lot of supporters. This begs the question. Why can a man who wants the genocide of Islam bring support to the Republican base? And why would you want this kind of support?

Another republican Islam hater is celebrated and Syndicated right wing radio host Mike Savage who is broadcasted in over 300 radio stations nation wide spewed fiery venom about Muslims live on the air. Here is an excerpt of one rant from October 29, 2007:

I don’t wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don’t wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I’m sick of you.

What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don’t tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don’t need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation.

Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave.

Rush Limbaugh, the syndicated right wing radio personality, has been using Muslim bigotry in the past by putting emphasis on Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein, but when that didn’t work Limbaugh actually fabricated a story during his September 22, 2008 broadcast, claiming that Obama wasn’t African American but an Arab.

These polls on how one-third of blue-collar white Democrats won’t vote for Obama because he’s black, and — but he’s not black. Do you know he has not one shred of African-American blood? He doesn’t have any African — that’s why when they asked whether he was authentic, whether he’s down for the struggle. He’s Arab. You know, he’s from Africa. He’s from Arab parts of Africa. He’s not — his father was — he’s not African-American. The last thing that he is is African-American. I guess that’s splitting hairs, I don’t — it’s just all these little things, everything seems upside-down today in this country.

After McCain’s campaign and the RNC adopted the Muslim hate as the core of their campaign, this hatred which was only being expressed in emails or right wing radio surfaced to the main stream of the rallies. The “American News Project” started doing stories and getting footage outside of the McCain rallies and most of the people going in expressed their Islamic bigotry by expressing that Obama was bad because he was a Muslim. Not one person stood up and said that hating Muslims is wrong. Until this rally on October 18 in Woodridge, Virginia where some Muslim McCain supporters took a stand against a group preaching Muslim Hate.

Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama and made a clear case why he is not voting with the Republican party. One of those reasons is the Republican endorsed bigotry towards Muslims. Here is an excerpt from Colin Powell on “Meet The Press,”

I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say. And it is permitted to be said such things as, “Well, you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim.” Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, “He’s a Muslim and he might be associated terrorists.” This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

I feel strongly about this particular point because of a picture I saw in a magazine. It was a photo essay about troops who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. And one picture at the tail end of this photo essay was of a mother in Arlington Cemetery, and she had her head on the headstone of her son’s grave. And as the picture focused in, you could see the writing on the headstone. And it gave his awards–Purple Heart, Bronze Star–showed that he died in Iraq, gave his date of birth, date of death. He was 20 years old. And then, at the very top of the headstone, it didn’t have a Christian cross, it didn’t have the Star of David, it had crescent and a star of the Islamic faith. And his name was Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan, and he was an American. He was born in New Jersey. He was 14 years old at the time of 9/11, and he waited until he can go serve his country, and he gave his life. Now, we have got to stop polarizing ourselves in this way. And John McCain is as nondiscriminatory as anyone I know. But I’m troubled about the fact that, within the party, we have these kinds of expressions.

It is really sad that in our country a major party like the Republicans and their supporters would not want everyone of all groups to enjoy what they have to offer. Why would they embrace hate-filled rhetoric against Muslims, instead of making a stand against it? Republicans are showing how unpatriotic they are for our Muslim soldiers who are fighting for our country and, in the process, alienating their Muslim constituents. You would think that having military bases in the Middle East, fighting a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, conflicts in Pakistan, and tensions with Iran that the last thing they would want to display to everyone over there is that they hate them just for who they are. Not only does this disregard the safety of our troops, foreign relations and Muslim’s who support McCain, but it is also counter productive for the War on Terror by supporting the image that the United States is disingenuous in its intentions, and furthermore making the case for Al Queida in their attempt to recruit more volunteers.

Note: Dreadsen is a frequent commenter on YouDecide2008.com and now guest commentary contributor.

The commentary section features opinions and articles which do not necessarily represent the views of YouDecide2008.com as a whole. So enjoy their articles and argue with them or agree with them.

Recently there has been talk of race and how, or if, it will affect the race. But no one is talking about if SEX will affect the race. Are there people who will vote for Obama if there was a woman is on his ticket? I doubt it. But there are a lot of people who will definitely vote against their life long commitment to the Democratic party because a black man is on the ticket.

Between the two campaigns only one side has overwhelmingly made the case that their attacks were based on how their candidate was born. The Democrats have had a woman and black man to fight through the primaries with tons of sexism and racism leveled at them but for what ever reason they didn’t say a word. We definitely can’t say that about the Republicans. They didn’t play any games at all. It was their first time in history breaking a social barrier at that level and they were sure going to let us know about it and if you forgot they were going to remind you. This is something the Democrats didn’t use as much at all. But now that the race is coming closer to an end and Obama has a large lead people getting skeptical of the closet racist and just how accurate can these polls be.

Politico.com, 8/11/2008

1. Race. “The idea that Obama was going to win in a blowout was always preposterous,” says former Nebraska senator and onetime presidential hopeful Bob Kerrey, an Obama backer. “A big piece of this, of course, is whether white people are going to support a black guy. … If (Obama) is a tall, skinny white guy named Paul Jones, it’s a different story.”

Obama is running nearly neck-and-neck with McCain among white voters in most polls, a major cause for optimism considering that John Kerry lost the white vote by 17 points and that Al Gore lost it by 12 points. Among whites, he does well with women, the affluent and college grads but fares poorly among low-income earners and Catholics — key swing groups that handed Hillary Rodham Clinton stunning blowouts in both West Virginia and Kentucky.

Pat Buchanan spars with Chris Matthews about Race in the primaries. They touch on a lot of untouched relevant issues.

Palin Factor
When Sarah Palin was first introduced, some of her defenders wanted to talk about policy now that the same policies of John McCain has a new pitch woman, but wasn’t that the case before Palin got here? The style of the urban legends, which have probably shattered records for a presidential candidate are no coincidence to Obama’s policies. We all have had plenty of time to raise hell about his policies. I have seen and read policies of his which have almost had me pass out. But no one was talking about it. Lets not try to fool ourselves. I know it’s embarrassing to think of the amount of people who were polled in West Virginia exit polls and in the AP/Yahoo poll who either made it clear that race was a factor or that they feel negatively towards Blacks. The amount of people who feel this way that resulted in someone actually being honest should give someone something to think about when it comes to the people who would be ashamed to admit that this is the reason they aren’t voting for the black candidate but keep quiet. This is called the “Bradley Effect”. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect) But for the first time we have had “The Reverse Bradley Effect” where people claimed they were voting against Obama and secretly went and voted for him.

A lot of people wanted to find a way to hide behind their racism by blaming it on some of the purely debunked urban legends or other racial related fairy tales which couldn’t be possible by any stretch of the imagination. Evidence of this is the reasons one race gives for not voting for Obama versus the other one. I’ve seen black people online, black people who were interviewed at the RNC and black people who were interviewed at the DNC and none of them peddled their reasoning for not voting for him on some illogical connected urban legend. Almost all if not all of the people you see online or sending these emails,bloggers, posting comments and hosting the hate websites of these urban legends of past and present are all white. Ask yourself. Has a black person who is not voting for him claimed that they aren’t going to vote for him because he is a Muslim, has some radical connection, or because he is a racist? If these same people who want to claim that they have the moral authority to disqualify someone because they feel they are a racist where were they all of these years? And why is it an issue now?

The Clinton Years
Where we these high moral Republicans and Democrats when Bill Clinton was running?

Bill Clinton worked as an intern for Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright who was a segregationist and an avid racist. Bill Clinton has written in his book that Fulbright was his mentor and they have remained close since the 60s. He even gave Fulbright an achievement award in 2002 and a 7ft statue honoring him. It is very, very easy to find some hateful policies that Fulbright stood for. While Bill Clinton was a Governor the Confederate Flag flew nice and high above his state building, (not to say that there is anything wrong with the flag, but many remark that it is a symbol of racial oppression). Why didn’t these same republicans who were supporting George Bush senior or Bob Dole raise the argument that Bill Clinton isn’t fit to be president because he may be a racist? Is it because their candidate could have been a racist or had links to a racist as well? (which is almost a lose, lose situation for a black voter) Whoops! We can’t use that tactic now can we?

Some of their claims of opposition to Obama were the same issues which were plain and clear the same with all of the past white candidates male and female and even the current one now. Once one raises this point they just ignore it and continue to accept their candidate and devote themselves to pot calling kettle black concepts with no shame. Usually when someone points out that the identical boogieman is in both closets on an issue it is dropped and everyone finds something new to attack on. But to ignore it for the white candidate but claim it is an issue for the Black candidate begs the question. “Is it an issue because he is black?” or are we singling this one guy out because he is black?

I hate to admit that even Ron Paul has some radical racial associations and his excuse was almost as bad as some felt Obama’s was. Yet even still some of his supporters were on the “point out the other guy is a racist” bandwagon while knowing that their guy was arguably one as well. Maybe it is merely a tactic for some. But the passion of the hate for some people was just obviously more deeply rooted.

One of the usual rebuttals is that Obama has 90% of the black vote so aren’t those people racist? Well Bill Clinton and pretty much most of the democratic candidates for years have been getting numbers like that. Now if Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas or Condileeza Rice were on the Republican ticket would you think they would get 90% of the black vote? And if they did it would be a sure indication that race is the reason because the usual amount of Black people who vote Democratic would be totally voting against their interest.

When the primaries first began Hilary had the entire black vote, even well after Obama was announced. When blacks were polled many said they weren’t sure about Obama because they didn’t know anything about him. Well as time went on everyone got a chance to know who Obama was and an all white state like Iowa gave him the nod and by South Carolina Hilary still had a nice chunk of the black vote. But as time went on and Obama was being vetted things changed. Now you have two candidates: one, a White woman, and the other a Black man with identical stances on issues. Being that the issues are the same it would be quite natural for some democratic white women or women in general to go towards Hilary. And it isn’t a sin for a Democratic Black person to notice how lock step they are with each other and decide on Obama because of his race. Both of these types of voters would normally have voted Democratic. And the vast majority of them said if their candidate didn’t win they would still vote democratic.

Wrap
Let’s not play games. Those are not the people we are talking about. The people we are talking about are the people who are going to vote against the platform they agree with for a platform they strongly disagree with simply because of race. The idea that John McCain is most likely to deliver and Obama cannot is not a logical reason to vote against your best interest. You would be no better if Alan Keyes, who is an extremely conservative African American, decided he is going to vote for Obama because he wants him to be the first black president. Imagine that! Because if you were against the Republican party’s platform or stances that they hold now are you are willing to vote for the guy who is most likely going to deliver those promises you disagree with in exchange for the guy who actually represents your ideas and views simply because he is Black? Well, if so, you are the person the pollsters need to contact so that they could collect their data.

Could you imagine if Obama or his supporters were to cry racism? They cannot. Just like Blacks all though history who were trying to get ahead they have to play it cool and ignore it out of fear of being viewed as an angry black man. We can drag up all the things Palin is getting a pass on that Obama surely did not but this is not the point. The false or legit cry of sexism is much more acceptable in society than the false or legit claim of racism. But if the same people who are crying were the moral monsters they claim to be they would have raised the same point when it happens to any person in this day and age in American and not just the person whom they like (or who they look like).

So race is a factor in this election no question about it. The unknown question is if it will be an overwhelming factor or just a small one. Like the above article mentioned you have no way of polling this factor but let’s not pretend that this unknown factor can’t have a little impact or a very large one. It is a nice sign that our country has come a long way from the dreaded days of 40 years ago and Obama is an obvious symbol that the new generation of people don’t have the same prejudices as the days of old. But he also helped bring to light that we still have a lot of work to do.

Dreadsen is a regular commenter and guest commentary author for YouDecide2008.com

The guilt-by-association litmus test has been unevenly applied during this election cycle.

Gov. Sarah Palin and her husband have been courting the A.I.P. (Alaskan Independence Party), a treasonous Anti-American group who’s founder up to his death in 1993 cursed the American Flag. This is not being taken out of context either. This is not based on sound bites. You have to ask yourself: If someone knows what this groups intentions are before joining or having close associations with them, then what do they think of the United States? Don’t worry, this isn’t spook boogey man stuff that we have been seeing lately on the internet about other candidates. Here are the actual members talking about Gov. Palin and her husband by name and their draw of a plan of infiltration into the hierarchy of our Government.

Vice Chairman of the AIP Dexter Clark talking about Sarah Palin at the secessionist convention.

(citation via Part 1, 5:59 – 6:45)

Our current governor who I mentioned at the last conference, the one we were hoping would get elected, Sarah Palin, did get elected there’s a joke she’s a pretty good looking gal there a joke going around that we are the coldest state with the hottest governor. And there’s a lot of talk about her moving up. She was an AIP member before she got the job as a mayor of a small town. That was a non partisan job.But you get along to go along she eventually joined the Republican Party, where she had all kinds of problems with their ethics, and well, I won’t go into that. She also had about an 80 percent approval rating, and is pretty well sympathetic to her former membership.

Now you just saw it for yourself. The Vice Chairman of the AIP, Dexter Clark stating in October 3rd of 2007 that Sarah Palin was a member. Also note that they were talking about her at their last conference in hopes that she would get elected. Would the Democrats cheer for Joe Lieberman if he got elected into a high office as a Republican? No! COULD this means they knew that she couldn’t get elected as Governor being part of the AIP so she had to change her party affiliation to help further the good and cause of the AIP. And if she is already Governor what is this TALK they are talking about her moving up? Would this be the position she is in now? How would they know this all the way back in October of 2007?

(citation via Part 1, 7:20 to 9:14)

The people of Alaska from what I’ve heard in this room and several other areas are fed up. And if ever there was a time that is ripe for change, this is it. On our own situation, we’ve discussed several options. Do we try to get our case into the International Court of Justice? Or to the World Court ? Several of the native Alaskan organizations are taking that route independent of us. They want to do it on their terms. They haven’t realized in my mind what the potential of their own political party which there are pitfalls of an organized political party. You don’t have any control over who joins that party. They put the X next to it on the registration form, and if they join they pri- they go into the primary and win that primary, they’re your candidate, like it or not. That they uh.. I think Ron Paul has kinda proven that – he’s a dyed-in-the wool libertarian, he came to Alaska and spoke as a libertarian, and put the Republican label on it to get elected, that’s all there is to it. And any one of your organizations should be using that same tactic. You should infiltrate I know that the Christian Exodus is in favor of it, the Free State movement is in favor of it. I don’t know if they even care which party it is. Whichever party seems in that area you can get something done, get into that political party, even though it does have its problems. Right now that is one of the only avenues. And you get a few people on a city council or a town court you can have some effect. I kind of digressed there a little bit.

But the problem remains that you have to be at the table in the existing political realm you have to be a Demopublican or a Republicrat is what we call it.

So you see they give specific instructions and even give an Example of Ron Paul. As a Libertarian he couldn’t have gotten on the big stage in the Primary debates so he had to register as a Republican. He would be in the same position as Bob Barr. They are telling other Anti-American people to enter into politics as trojan horse, under another brand. Like a Republican or Democrat, you can further the agenda of the AIP, meaning you have to pretend you are for the Republican platform when in actuality you have another agenda. Later in the same video they talk about children who dislike America but like Alaska.

From AIP’s Website this is Gov. Palin addressing the convention:

(citation via clip)

I’m Governor Sarah Palin and I am delighted to welcome you to the 2008 Alaskan Independence Party Convention in the golden heart city of Fairbanks. Your party plays an important role in our state’s politics. I’ve always said that competition is so good, and that applies to political parties as well. I share your party’s vision of upholding the constitution of our great state. My administration remains focused on reining in government growth so individual liberty and opportunity can expand. I know you agree with that. We have a great promise to be a self-sufficient state, made up of the hardest-working, most grateful Americans in our nation. So as your convention gets underway I hope that you all are inspired by remembering that all those years ago, it was in this same city that Alaska ’s constitution was born. And it was founded on hope and trust and liberty and opportunity. I carry that message of opportunity forward in my administration, as we continue to move our state ahead and create positive change. So I say good luck on a successful and inspiring convention. Keep up the good work, and God bless you.

Palin shares the Party’s vision, she talks about the Alaskan constitution, but what about the United States constitution? You can see their doctrine and goals embedded through her address to the convention.

Well lets look at their Party’s Vision right from their website:

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.

Here are two excerpts from an interview of their Founding Father Joe Vogler expressing his deep hatred for America

What they’ve done to my state my country, what they’re doing to it every day They don’t even give you time to forgive and forget! They come along with another regulation but you get to thinking. Why the hell do I owe them anything?! And then you get mad. And you say the hell with them and you renounce allegiance and you pledge your efforts, your affects, your honor, your life to Alaska . That’s how I do. I’m an Alaskan see. And I they know it. I’ve told them so to go to hell in every way I can in a nice way. I took a case to the Supreme Court believing in the Supreme Court that I’d rather be tried in a Whore house with a Madam as a Judge there’s more Justice! If they don’t like it then they know where they can go!

The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American Government. And I won’t be buried under their damned flag I’ll be buried in Dawson . And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home.

The Alaska Independent Party holds Joe Vogler’s views in high regard another damaging anti American quote from Joe right on the introduction of their website. They want to make this message loud and clear.

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

On CNBC when asked about the buzz of her being a V.P. you can see where her priorities are.

(citation via clip)

As for that V.P. talk all the time, I tell ya I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me. What is it exactly that a V.P. does every day? I’m used to uh, being very productive and working real hard in administration. We wanna make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans, and for the things we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the US , before I can even start addressing that question.

The Motto of the AIP “Alaska first – Alaska always” and even though as the Governor of a State she had no idea what a V.P. does but she wanted to make damn sure that the position is something which would be in Alaska’s best interest. Why is this such a major concern?
So up to this point the A.I.P. believes that she along with her husband were members of this group. But now she has been selected as V.P. and things are going to change.

Jack Tapper of ABC news tries to investigate this he asked McCain’s campaign if she belonged to this group. They refrained from addressing this charge until the NEXT DAY. (Being that they didn’t know an answer to this makes a person wonder about their vetting process.) Finally they asserted that she was never a member of the AIP. But in response..

“Lynette Clark, the chairman of the AIP, told ABC News on Monday that Palin and her husband Todd were members in 1994, even attending the 1994 statewide convention in Wasilla. Clark was AIP secretary at the time.”

But it appears they were mistakenly under impression she was a registered member regardless of her being a registered Republican.

“Gail Fenumiai, director of the Alaska Division of Elections, tells ABC News that regardless of the impression given to members of the Alaskan Independence Party, “Gov. Sarah Palin first registered to vote in the state in May 1982 as a Republican, and she has not changed her party affiliate with the Division of Elections since that time.”

But the next day McCain’s camp claims that she wasn’t a member and it is also false that she attended the 1994 convention. But another member verifies that this is false and that she WAS at the convention.

But Fenumiai adds that Palin’s husband Todd was a member of the AIP from October 1995 through July 2002, except for a few months in 2000. He is currently undeclared. As part of their pushback against the charges of Lynette and Dexter Clark of the AIP, the McCain campaign says that Palin did not even attend the AIP convention in Wasilla in 1994.

But another former AIP official — Mark Chryson, chairman of the AIP from 1995 to 2002 — tells ABC News that “Palin was at the convention in 1994. She was there.

Was she a member?

Chryson can’t say. “She may have been, I do not know,” he says. Their records don’t go back that far.

“Ask Sarah,” he suggests.

I’d love to. But she hasn’t exactly been making herself available to the press.

Is this a pattern?
We have Palin the Governor and Palin the V.P. Candidate.

*Palin the Governor was happy to cooperate with the Troopergate investigation. She even said her staff would comply.
*Palin The V.P. Candidate will not cooperate with the investigation at all what so ever and now her staff who she volunteered has also changed it’s mind and ignored subpoenas.
*Palin the Governor was happy to take interviews from the press, she has given press conferences, we’ve seen her on Glen Beck, CNBC and at the Governors convention when she was more than happy to give her comments on Hilary Clinton being a whiner.
*Palin the V.P. Candidate does not give press conferences or take any questions from the press. Only recently has she taken a few interviews.
*Palin the Governor has given a very warm welcome and opening for the AIP convention of 2008 with nothing but smiles, has attended the conventions of 2000, 2006 and there was no dispute about her being at the 1994 convention.
*Palin the Governor was talked about in high regards at the 2007 and 2006 secessionist convention and was stated on the AIP’s website of being a member and attending the 1994 convention
*Palin the V.P. candidate has never been a member and since she has been announced as V.P. now the AIP has retracted their statement that she was a member and now claim that their talk in 2006 and 2007 at the secessionist conventions about her were all in error. McCain camp now claims that her visit in 2000 was only a courtesy as a mayor even though her husband was a member.

Is there a possible cover up post the V.P. announcement? Is it possible that the AIP is covering things up because they realize that if they want her to succeed for their cause they can’t show direct ties to her? They are more accepted in Alaska but they may not have realized that on the national level they would not be accepted supporting anti American views. These are questions that need to be answered but Jake Tapper of ABC news has hit a wall.

Is she a Trojan Horse for a treasonous organization? She obviously likes and respects these people. Where are all the conspiracy theorists who have flooded my email box and burned up snopes with urban legends? This is not that far of a reach from possibly being a real conspiracy and a dangerous one. Why isn’t any one asking these questions?

What are we to think of the McCain camp for keeping this issue from being vetted? And for those in the media who would like to know to what extent is she associated with them, why aren’t they covering this with the same nature as other candidates?(or candidate) I don’t think anyone doesn’t know who William Ayers is. But his actions are of the past and the press fully vetted his connections. Never the less people from the Right still bring his name up. Trying strike fear that someone associated with this man may SECRETLY want to further his agenda from 40 years ago in the white house. Well as loose and far of a stretch his connections are no where near as strong as the connections of the AIP with Gov. Palin.

The common rebuttal is to answer these questions with another question about someone else. But the question about someone else still doesn’t clear up the fear. One person may have motive while the other person does not. Obama has been vetted though the media for 20 months, 20 plus debates, press conferences, questions from the media, many interviews with pundits around the world and has gained the confidence of his supporters and enough skeptics to win a Primary and hold the lead in the General election. All of this tedious work was for himself. And was not intended to be a bill passed to protect all up and coming candidates who have questionable associations. If one person is found innocent of an crime by no means are all future violations by new offenders pardoned. To be fair this issue should be put on trial just like other issues. And anyone who felt it was okay to put Obama on trail but not Palin must have been disingenuous in the first place.

Note: Dreadsen is a frequent commenter on YouDecide2008.com and now guest commentary contributor.

The commentary section features opinions and articles which do not necessarily represent the views of YouDecide2008.com as a whole. So enjoy their articles and argue with them or agree with them.

They are protected by the Pakistan government with our billions of dollars in anti terrorism aid and the ….U.S.A…..knows about it.

According to the BBC News, on September 5, 2008:

The agreement brokered by a grand council (jirga) of tribal elders in North Waziristan comes five years after Pakistani troops went after Taleban and al-Qaeda elements on the Afghan border.

Senior army officers and militants hugged and congratulated each other after signing the agreement at a college football ground in Miranshah, the main town in the North Waziristan region.

Details of the deal signed by the two sides were given in a brief speech by local MP Haji Nek Zaman, a member of the council of elders which was authorised to negotiate on behalf of the Pakistani government.

Under the accord, the Pakistani military promises to end major operations in the area.

The Pakistani government signed a peace treaty with the Taliban, you know, that area at the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan where the Taliban keeps coming over and killing U.S troops and allies? You know, the same area where Osama Bin Laden is believed to have escaped to and is still hiding at? That area is protected by the Pakistani government.

Want proof that their government is involved? Bronwell Roberts of the AFP (Agence France-Presse), reported on August 10, 2008:

Pakistan’s intelligence agency is helping the Taliban to pursue an insurgency in Afghanistan that has seen a 50 percent hike in attacks in some areas this year, the NATO commander here told AFP.

This is the Pakistani intelligence agency, you know, the branch of the government that should be helping the United States gather intelligence on the Taliban? Well they are using our money to attack us!

Want to know how much money it is? Around 5 billion dollars or more being used on conventional weapons best suited against India when it is supposed to be for anti terrorism. So while these guys are assisting the people responsible for 9/11 they are using U.S money to strengthen their own military for their own agendas. Which is almost natural. Why should they care about what may happen to use all the way over here? When their tensions are with their neighbor, India?

Now let me put some more things together for you. The Taliban broke into an Afghan prison in the Kandahar province, helping other Taliban prisoners escape. And, according to CNN on June 14, 2008:

Militants attacked a main prison in Afghanistan’s Kandahar province Friday night, blowing its entrance open and allowing a large number of inmates to escape, provincial authorities said.

The militants used suicide truck bombs loaded with about two tons of explosives to blast holes in the mud brick walls of the Soviet-era prison, a Taliban spokesman said.

A gun and rocket battle between the militants and prison guards lasted several hours and ended with dozens of militants rushing inside on motorcycles to free all prisoners inside — including about 400 Taliban fighters, the Taliban spokesman said.

Sounds pretty scary doesn’t it? Especially knowing that the Pakistani intelligence is involved. The Pakistani government also assisted with the bombing of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan.

Job Warrick of the Washington Post reported on August 1, 2008:

U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that elements of Pakistan’s military intelligence service provided logistical support to militants who staged last month’s deadly car bombing at the Indian Embassy in Afghanistan’s capital, U.S. officials familiar with the evidence said yesterday.

Now after all of this the Afghan president grew bigger balls than us! He is sick of them coming over the border and attacking his country and then running back to their save haven in Pakistan. He is threatening to send troops over the border to attack. On June 15, 2008, the BBC reported that:

He said that when militants crossed over from Pakistan to kill Afghans and coalition troops, his nation had the right to retaliate in “self-defence”. Mr Karzai’s remarks came two days after Taleban fighters attacked an Afghan jail, freeing hundreds of prisoners. Pakistan warned it would not tolerate outside interference in its affairs.

Following this, Barack Obama announced,
“If we have actual intelligence on Al Qeida operatives including Bin Laden and President Musharif cannot act, then we should.”

Obama got attacked by EVERYONE from the left and the right. Sen. Clinton misrepresented his argument by saying that he wants to Bomb Pakistan. His response to her in one of the primary debates was,

With respect to Pakistan I never said I would bomb Pakistan.What I said was that if we have actionable intelligence against Osama Bin Laden or other key Al Qaeda officials and we and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to strike against them, we should. And just several days ago, in fact, this administration did exactly that and took out the third-ranking Al Qaeda official. That is the position we should have taken in the first place.

And it gets better than this. CIA Agent Michael Scheuer who was the head of the search for Osama Bin Laden actually agreed with Glenn Beck’s misrepresentation of the argument.

Rachel Maddow, following in the same vein, declared: Scare us but don’t protect us!

So of all the fear tactics and this war on terror. What good is this war with this type of madness going on? Well it’s good for scaring us that’s for sure. While most of the evidence is months old, the issue is still largely unaddressed by the Bush administration, as well as the McCain campaign.

Looks like Barack Nostradamus Obama strikes again. He brought this up almost 2 years ago and he was just talking about his policy on this on The O’Reily Factor. More importantly, none of his current opponents have even mentioned anything about this. If he brings this up on the campaign trail just like the other things he has been right about, they will try to twist and spin this into something they can take credit for.

Dreadsen is a frequent commenter and contributing guest commentary author for YouDecide2008.com

When I saw this commercial this is not what came to mind at, all but after looking at it again I do see the subliminal messages which are similar to the Harold Ford ad. Of all the famous people like Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Brad and Angelina they chose two sleezy famous women. Paris appears to be posing at a destination and Britney is arriving at a particular destination as she is getting out of a car. Next you see the large crowds, which are supposed to be attributed to Obama, but the Washington Monument is in the background.

So is one of the many messages that these two very rich, famous, sleezy women would not have been interested in appearing at an Obama victory rally until after he has won in Washington? And if he doesn’t win then you don’t have to worry about these two women or women like this showing any interest in him? (or others like him)

I believe that the rise of interracial relationships that include lower class whites is due to the popularity of Rap and R&B. Through heavy commercialization of the Thug Image through the media, politics, world class musical awards the black thug has increased it’s appeal world wide. But what does that leave out? The black educated. Usually the educated black is pushed aside because the thug fetish is not there. Calling him uppity or too white. Even some lower class black women have a turn off from the Educated class of Black men. They may try it out for financial stability but sexual the attraction is still for the thug.

There isn’t a commercial thrive to push the educated black mans status to the same level of the thug rap artist. But like Rap it took a flood of the 70% White sales and a lot of acceptance in the pop culture to acquire it’s current status.

But now you have Sen. Obama, an educated Black man who has both charisma and oratory skills, causing some people to cry and even pass out in his rallies. He is threatening the suppression of the appeal for the Educated Black man and if he gets all the way into the Oval office not only will it set an example for others to possibly follow but the psychological effect of seeing lots of young WHITE women screaming over an educated black man display of his intellect is something SOMEBODY doesn’t want to happen. The spot light will be on the part of the black community which the media pays little attention to and the negative stereotype will take a major hit.

What better way to instill those fears? The inclusion of Nicole Richie would have been counter productive because she is bi racial. Or maybe she was left out because the intent of the message would have been TOO obvious or it would have taken away from the effect of two blond rich White women who are now showing an interest in someone who is not a musical artist. And you know what other thoughts lead from that with the two women they selected.

You know what they say the difference is between a whore and a bitch? A whore screws everybody. A bitch screws everybody but you! Now of all the people Paris has been with have you ever seen her with a Black guy? How about Brittney? Well the subliminal message is ( or could have been) Vote for Obama and you will possibly transform them from being the bitches to equal opportunity whores.

If you didn’t see the ad here it goes. Notice all the flashes and images:

Herbert explains his piece in these two videos.

Bob Herbert on Morning Joe Part 1

Bob Herbert on Morning Joe Part 2

Now let place these comments in this context

“You’re not supposed to see them consciously. This is marketing 101. Every tenth of every second of a high-profile advertisement is scrutinized by those who create them. You want some evidence? Look at about any beer/cigarette ad in existence, and you will find suggestive shadows, angles the beers are set in the ice to look like spread legs. It’s more overt in ads for those things but this is basic info if you have taken a high-school level psychology class. No detail is accidental in an ad.
Mr.Herbert’s so called “drivel” is clearly obvious to anyone who knows anything about marketing. I am serious. This is literally public high-school level psychology. This is settled science. There is no detail too tiny to scrutinize in an advertisement, and absolutely nothing in a high-price advertisement is accidental. The reason everyone “didn’t see it” is that they weren’t supposed to “see” it. It’s all about back-ground and subtext. The business of influencing the public is an exact science.”

Click here for the Bob Herberts piece.

And for more info on subliminal ads look up Harold Ford’s run for senate and the ads run against him, and then compare the two.

The editorial board apologies for the delay in this guest commentary by Dreadsen, which was supposed to be posted on August 9, 2008. Any dated information is the fault of YD2008 Editorial Board, and not the writer.