Well, doesn't this bring back some memories....

my college thesis on Joe Vogler

Had to bring the old man of the gold mine out, didn't they? Probably not a good idea...

In this campaign we've heard a lot about guilt-by-association, but most have been using that phrase incorrectly. Thanks to the two authors, we finally have a real example of guilt-by-association. It's also tremendously bad reporting because - besided apparently trying to get a comment from the Palin camp - they don't appear to have interviwed anyone with an opposing point of view. Instead, they're basing this entire report on the (probably) inflated recollections of Chryson, combined with the self-interested comments of Palin's local enemies.

"Reporting" like this is stock in trade for Blumenthal; see my name's link for an example of an article from him that was so full of lies and misleading statements that I stopped discussing them after the first page.

http://www.operator101.com/blog/?p=176

As a long-time Salon reader I really should have known better.

Maybe they're onto something. If MCPailin wins (Ewwww I just threw up a little in my mouth) we really have to figure out a way for the blue states to secede.

Sorry people, but I am still a bit stunned that this whole Palin thing is going on. The $$$ crisis is distracting good intelligent people away from just how disturbing this is.

Say your prayers (even if you aren't much into religion, like me)

http://www.theweeklydonut.com/index.php/2008/10/06/you-betcha/

Palin would not be a US citizen, therefore ineligible for the presidency.

Hmmmm.....

Salon Palin attack #6421 -- Yawn

This is getting truly bizarre. You know, I bet Palin eats Communist peanut butter too....

-- Stubbornly Rational

_____

Communism is far-LEFT wing. You're current unattainable heart-throb Palin is extremist RIGHT-wing -- the HITLER end of the political spectrum.

ANYONE who is for violence against our gov't is not only a criminal but a TRAITOR.

One last fact, IR"Rational": the facts in the article come from one of the American-hating AIP nutcases in whose behalf you are yawning. Let me guess: your real name is Todd Palin, high school graudate and DWI.

The question someone needs to ask Palin

Though I know it is difficult to get an interview with Palin or to otherwise catch her in a candid moment, I would nonetheless like to see someone, somehow ask the following question or a variant thereof:

Governor Palin, do you support the right of Alaska or any state to peacefully secede from the Union?

-- sitka0230

_____

Secession is UNCONSTITUTIONAL, regardless how attempted.

It isn't complicated: beginning with the Original Thirteen, a state must PETITION CONGRESS -- the Union -- for admission. If Congress/the Union says, "No," the state is not admitted. Even if it throws tantrums.

If a state wanted to secede, it would have to undergo the same process, in reverse: ask permission of Congress/the Union. And if Congress/the Union said, "No," No it would be.

Now, there are a few states I'd like to see THROWN out for persistently lowering the national IQ to the level of embarrassing, and self-destructive.

None of the pseudo-law gibberish one will hear from such as the AIP has any validity; it is the sort of religiosmut ginned up by the functionally illiterate, to prove which they then seek ONLY that which APPEARS to prove it -- without regard for whether such apparent "prrofs" are true or false. And cherry picked out of everything which disproves the fantasy.

That's why they need guns: they hope to force their bullshit into being reality by might, because, having no relationship with reason, they cannot accomplish it by means of reason.

These are lunatic fringe -- hateful people who are wholly clueless, but who are especially dangerous because they are confident in their ignorance; because they haven't the last clue that they are in reality clueless.

Remember Tim McVeigh? There are the people who attempted initially to build him up as a martyr. That's how out of touch they were and are: it took them weeks before they caught wind of the fact that the vast majority in the world did NOT consider McVeigh's crime a great idea, and a blow for "freedom".

Salonistas are rejoicing over an article that unearths associations between Palin and the (perfectly legal) AK secessionist movement - whose members are described in exaggerated, dramatic terms like "ultraconservative far right". It seems these deeply rotten, pathologically immoral, murderously violent people want a lawful referendum on Alaskan secession.

To be precise: "The Alaskan Independence Party is dedicated to ultimate independence of Alaska and its people by peaceful and lawful means" (thank you, Akdoggie)

Well, leftsoes fainting in all directions.

Now, this is supposed to be equivalent to associations to terrorists who (illegally and criminally) actually bombed targets, including homes of people ("pigs") where children slept, induced riots, and murdered cops. These people who were self-admittedly marxists, are not described at all, let alone in terms like "ultraradical far-left". Obama's associations, which have been amply documented on numerous websites, are simply dealt with as "well, it is discredited".

Ayers & Dohrn were leaders of an illegal organization whose "founding document called for a white fighting force to be allied with the Black Liberation Movement and other radical movements[ to achieve the destruction of US imperialism and achieve a classless world: world communism." (thank you, Wikipedia)

Leftsoes yawn.

One ultranaive soul (7amosprop) even wrote here: come on, how bad Ayers could have really been if he is a college professor today.

And (s)he votes, I bet!

Historical Revisionism

It's just as logical to call the Civil War the "War of Southern Surrender" as anything else.

-- marik7

_____

Have you READ the "Constitution of the Confederate States of America"? I thought not.

I recommend doing so: it is fascinating in that it is in all particulars but one identical with the US Constitution. That one difference is the language which prohibits laws adverse to the institution of slavery -- and language which prohibited amending that constitution in any way which would adversely affect the institution of slavery.

The Civil War, in the view of the South -- the secessionists -- was in fact CENTRALLY about SLAVERY. The code words for that have always been: "states' rights".

And those code words -- "states' rights" -- ignore a key precept in the US Constitution: the supremacy clause, which nullifies all laws, and state constitutional provisions, which are inconsisent with or contrary to the US Constitution.

There's another stipulation in the US Constitution that that codespeak endeavors to ignore: the prohibition against states forming confederacies . . .

Last but not least: the pro-Confederacy/slavery assertion that the Civil War was a "war between the states" IGNORES this question: If it were in fact a war between the states, then what did the Federal gov't, Lincoln, and the Union army do while that was going on?