This Kos Diary is worth a read. Not sure if this was already posted, so I apologize if it was.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/9/2...

Palin's Former Party Links to White Supremacists
by Larry Madill

Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:00:33 PM PDT

As has been rumored for days now and confirmed by ABC News, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, now John McCain's V.P. Pick, was once a member of the far right, fringe Alaska Independence Party.

It also seems that the Alaska Independence Party (AIP) is also affiliated with, or have at least "rubbed shoulders" with some of the worst elements of the Southern White Supremacist movement as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

While nothing I've found ties Sarah Palin directly to any White Supremacist Organization, her membership in the Alaska Independence Party, and AIP's relationship with other explicitly racist secessionist groups, raises some more serious questions about Sarah Palin's judgment, character, and her own political beliefs.

* Larry Madill's diary :: ::
*

As I am sure every knows by know, the AIP's main goal is for Alaska to secede from the U.S.A. and become its own country. To achieve this goal the Alaska Independence Party finds itself in some fairly shady company; company such as the Neo-Confederate, White Supremacist "League of the South", whose founder, J Michael Hill, according to a Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, once said,

"It is time for us, as Southern whites, to look to our own well being and defense against these thugs,"

speaking of an attack s on white women by African American and Hispanic youth. Adding,

"Moreover, it is time we demand that respectable members of the 'minority community' control their debased 'brothers and sisters.' If they refuse, then we can only believe that they secretly condone such behavior. Let us not flinch when our enemies call us 'racists'"

On October 3rd and 4th, 2007, almost a year into now Republican Sarah Palin's first year as Alaska's Governor, the Alaska Independence Party attended The Second North American Secessionist Convention, sponsored by the League of the South and the Middlebury Institute, in Chattanooga, Tennesse. The gather also include the Free Hawaii Party, and several other minor groups including,

Christian Exodus, a theocracy-minded outfit headed by a former league leader from Texas; and the Abbeville Institute, which was established by Donald Livingston in 2003 after he finally left the League of the South due to its "political baggage." Livingston's institute is devoted to the "Southern tradition," including what it describes as the ignored "achievements of white people in the South."

However, The League of the South was the spark-plug behind the gathering of Secessionist Groups that members of the Alaskan Independence Party cheerfully attended. The League of the South is an organization that, again in the words of The Southern Poverty Law Center's Summer 2008 Intelligence report, entitled "North Meets South" is...

The Alabama-based group is against interracial marriage, believes the old Confederacy never surrendered, and wants to reestablish "the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions" in a newly seceded South. It seeks to accord different classes of people differing legal rights in what sounds very much like a medieval theocracy of lords, serfs and clerics. League intellectuals have defended both slavery (which was "God-ordained") and segregation, a policy described as protecting the genetic "integrity" of both blacks and whites. Right after Hurricane Katrina, league members put up "whites only" housing offers, including one from Alabama offering a trailer to a "white family of three or four," and another from Tennessee offering to temporarily house a "White Christian family."

Yet the Alaska Independence Party has no problem rubbing shoulders with White Supremacists groups such as the League of the South. In fact AIP's Vice Chair, Dexter Clark, who went to the 2007 Second North American Secessionist Convention, went out of his way to legitimize groups like the League of the South when interviewed by the Anchorage Press:

“We’re not talking about a bunch of Klans-people walking around with white sheets and pointed hats,” Dexter said. “These are some pretty legitimate people with some legitimate concerns about our government.”

Give you two guesses who Dexter Clark's wife is? Give up? Dexter Clark's wife is Lynette Clarke, chairman of the AIP, who also attended the 2007 Second North American Secessionist Convention as an ambassador, and the person who identified Sarah Palin as a member of the Alaskan Independence in the late 90s to ABC News.

Dexter Clark can also be seen in this video, extolling the virtues of Sarah Palin, and implying she is still sympathetic to the AIP (about six minutes in):

(Hat Tip to Marc Ambinder's blog at The Atlantic for the video, although he incorrectly identifies Dexter Clark as Dexter Carter)

When you lay down with dogs you get up with fleas, and right now the Alaskan Independence Party is covered in a lot of Fleas in White Sheets. It is clear that, by their willingness to associate with and legitimize White Supremacist organizations like the League of the South, the Alaska Independence Party is more than just a "fringe party", it is an extremist party that openly and freely associates with elements of the White Supremacist movement. I would also venture out on a limb and say this sympathy towards elements of the Racist Secessionist movement did not spring to life in 2007, it is a sympathy that has most likely been present since the party's inception.

So what does Sarah Palin know and when did she know it? Why did she join the AIP precisely? Does she still endorse AIP's ridiculous Secessionist Platform? Why, after the AIP publicly associated itself with known White Supremacist Organizations, did Sarah Palin record the greeting for AIP's Convention earlier this year? And is she prepared to "reject and denounce" her former political party and its links to the Southern White Supremacist Movement?

Let's examine:

A very extreme devotion to ideology: The Soviets wanted to make Communist ideology a part of every aspect of their lives, American Conservatives want to make Conservative ideology a part of every aspect of American life.

Control of the means of production: Now the Soviet government controlled everything in the name of the people, but in reality that was just a warped form of Conservative-Capitalism, which is to have the means of production in the hands of a small elite to gouge the workers and line their pockets.

Suppression of culture: You find many Conservatives who think people who come to this country (I'm not talking about illegals) should abandon their culture and religion and fully assimilate to our way of life. The Soviets oppressed every single one of the ethnic groups within it's borders from openly expressing their culture. While there is no forced suppression here, there is a desire from Conservatives to stifle diversity and culture.

Combining party, ideology and state: The Soviet Union's Communist Party and government were one entity. The Republican Party, by packing the courts and other actions, wants to turn this nation into a one-party state where there is no difference between government and ideology. They want to make the Republican Party and America one thing, they actually believe that a requirement of patriotism is being a Republican.

The propaganda: Just like the Soviet Communist Party had Pravda, The US Republican Party has FOX News. Sure, FOX hasn't gone as far as Pravda, but it's none less a propaganda agency.

The need to spread their ideology all over: The Republican Party belongs to the International Democrat Union, a group of Conservative parties from around the world that exchanges ideas to promote conservative policy. Sounds a lot like the Soviet Union's COMECON, which included Communist nations from around the globe.

Needless war: The Soviets started a needless war with Afghanistan, which in part triggered the long civil war and the eventual rise of the Taliban. The US Neo-Conservatives started the Iraq war which created a complete collapse of stability in Iraq.

Central economic planning: The Soviets were more open about their manipulation of their economy, but the US Republicans choose to be more subtle. Through corporate subsidies, tax cuts, free trade agreements, lack of regulation and bending the rules, they manipulate economics for the elite and also allow that elite to do whatever they please. It's a new form of central planning, but it's just as damaging.

No dissent: Soviets regarded dissent as treason to the nation, the US Republicans hold dissent in the same regard.

Excessive nationalism, allegiance to party and connecting it to everything else: The Soviets regarded their nation as everything, blindly supporting it's actions. Now the Republicans have not merged the party and state, but they do hold strong nationalist beliefs and a strong allegiance to party and have attempted to merge those beliefs with faith and religion.

Worship of leaders: Soviets put their leaders on a high pedestal, to the point of worship. US Conservatives have put George W. Bush on a level of worship.

Feel free to add to the list........

This is when you tell a lie and that lie causes a catastrophe and then you don't admit to your lie, allowing the catastrophe to continue longer and longer, allowing other people to pay for you duplicitous act. On top of that, the people who do know what you said was a lie, try to support that lie with more lies and bogus conspiracies about how what you said was true. And when people call you on your lying, you try and take vengeance on them somehow, no matter how wrong or dangerous or illegal your action of vengeance might be.

In the meantime, all these actions combined with your lie, make the snowball bigger and bigger and bigger, until you have even more problems than just your initial lie and that snowball starts to roll down the hill. It rolls slowly, but one by one, it chases away the people who have helped you, because they don't want to be around when the snowball causes the avalanche. Then, the people who supported your idea, but didn't know it was a lie, start to slowly walk away and give leverage to that snowball to roll closer to causing the avalanche. That is the Bush syndrome. If November turns out good for Democrats, then that snowball has been pushed over the edge and the avalanche begins.

You say you have nothing to hide and don't mind being tapped? Then tape all your telephone conversations, save your internet history and gather up all the personal information (even credit cards) you have and put it online. That way Bush can have an easier time finding terrorists, since he needs personal information from all citizens to protect the country

I saw this over at FreakRepublic and it is so sick, it's basically putting Bush on the level with god and legitimizing troops deaths.

A mother asked President Bush, "Why did my son have to die in Iraq?"

Another mother asked President Kennedy, "Why did my son have to die in Viet Nam?"

Another mother asked President Truman, "Why did my son have to die in Korea?

Another mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt, "Why did my son have to die at Iwo Jima?"

Another mother asked President W. Wilson, "Why did my son have to die on the battlefield of France?"

Yet another mother asked President Lincoln, "Why did my son have to die at Gettysburg?"

And yet another mother asked President G. Washington, "Why did my son have to die near Valley Forge?"

Then long, long ago, a mother asked... "Heavenly Father, why did my Son have to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem?"

The answers to all these are similar -- "So that others may have life and dwell in peace, happiness and freedom."

That songs seems to be appropriate for her right now.

The dirty filthy piece of trash


http://www.kpbj.com/opinioneditorial/artic...

POLITICS
Why do blacks continue to support Democrats?
By Adele Fergusen
One of these days before I die, I hope to see a shift in the attitudes of so many of my black brothers and sisters in this great country we share, from perpetual victimhood, to pride in their achievements on the road from slave to American citizen.

Remember Ronald Reagan’s story about the kid who had to shovel a huge pile of manure? He went about it with such joy he was asked why and said, “With all that manure, there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.”

The pony hidden in slavery is the fact that it was the ticket to America for black people. I have long urged blacks to consider their presence here as the work of God, who wanted to bring them to this raw, new country and used slavery to achieve it. A harsh life, to be sure, but many immigrants suffered hardships and indignations as indentured servants. Their descendants rose above it. You don’t hear them bemoaning their forebears’ life the way some blacks can’t rise above the fact theirs were slaves.

Besides freedom, a job and a roof over their heads, they all sought respect. But even after all these years, too many have yet to realize that to get respect, you have to give it.

The treatment given President Bush at Coretta King’s funeral was shameful. And these weren’t poor, uneducated black people who “dissed” him. They were among the country’s top-drawer blacks, there to bury black royalty. While Bush got the cold shoulder, former President Clinton was welcomed as if he still held the office.

It mystifies me why the black population remains in thrall to the Democratic party. Black parents want a good education for their children yet they are consistently denied two opportunities that have proven enormously helpful in the few places where they are allowed because the D’s oppose them. School vouchers and charter schools.

The teacher unions, among top contributors to the Democratic party, oppose them for fear of losing control of the public schools which continue to turn out kids who have to be slipped through graduation by finding alternatives to standard requirements for learning, and where black kids fall behind whites. And what the teacher unions are against, the Democrats are against. Many a school board member is a Democratic activist there to be on the ground floor against vouchers and charter schools.

In the few places where vouchers to attend private schools and innovative charter schools are allowed, the unions file lawsuits claiming damage to the public schools by diverting the voucher money to poor families and limiting as much as possible the number of students who can attend the charters. They won one in Florida last month.

Sure, the ultimate solution is to jack up the performance of the public schools, but so long as the unions are running the show, that isn’t going to happen. The unions don’t care if you’re a good teacher, just that you’re a member and pay your dues. It is nearly impossible to get rid of an incompetent teacher. Their interest is themselves, not the kids, and their answer to the poor performance of the schools is more money.

Black students regularly trail white students because they get the more inexperienced and less qualified teachers and are plagued by low expectations. Results of the use of vouchers and charter schools have been outstanding, yet the Democrats say no, so why do black parents support them? Why do they act the victim?

Blacks have no Cesar Chavez. Jesse Jackson isn’t going to buck the Democratic Party. Neither is the NAACP. Black parents should confront Democratic leaders at all levels and demand these tools of learning be made available or expanded or don’t count on our vote for your candidates. You’ve let the unions keep your kids down too long already.

(Adele Ferguson can be reached at P.O. Box 69, Hansville, Wa., 98340.)

They always scream about preserving life, but their socio-economic policy is horrible. If a poor child gets sick and doesn't have healthcare, they could die. Or if a child's parent loses his or her job do to Republican outsourcing, that child could go hungry. I could go on and on, but I know others here can add to this and show the hypocrisy of the anti-choice crowd. Not one anti-choicer I've seen supports universal healthcare or decent wages.

Diane Farrell: Challenging Chris Shays again for CT-04. She pulled an impressive 48% last year and with the anti-Bush sentiment high, coupled with this is a district Kerry won she could defeat Shays. She's the First Selectwoman for Westport, CT.



Monica Lindeen: She's a state Representative and is challenging Denny Rehberg for his House seat. Rehberg has faced nominal opposition since his 2000 election, but Lindeen should be a strong candidate. Gov. Brian Schweitzer will most likely support her and his popularity is high in the state.



Lois Murphy: PA-06 is the most competitive of all races. Lois Murphy pulled an outstanding 49% in '04 and Gerlach is highly vulnerable even with out anti-Bush sentiment.



Jill Derby: NV-02 has been represented by Republicans since it's creating in 1982 and has had only two Representatives. Democrats have never run seriously in this district, until now. Jill Derby is the best candidate we've had in this district and she's been the underdog before and prevailed.



Patricia Madrid: Democrats have the edge in NM-01 and Heather Wilson has never pulled more than 54%. Madrid is the best challenger yet in this district, her popularity and Hispanic heritage will put her over the top.



Brad Ellsworth: Extremist Congressman John Hostettler has been impossible to defeat, but Ellsworth might be able to do it. He's the Sheriff of a county in the district and is popular.



Elwyn Tinklenberg: MN-06 is being vacated by Mark Kennedy who's running for Senate. Tinklenberg is the best candidate for this open seat and his Evangelical roots could sway some voters.



Ron Klein: Klein, who is the Florida Senate minority leader is the best choice to knock off extremist Rep. Clay Shaw who's views are way out of touch for the district.



Baron Hill: Defeated in 2004 by Mike Sodrel, Hill could make a comeback like David Price of NC did when he was defeated in 1994. Sodrel was helped by Bush coattails in a red state, not in 2006 though.



Angie Paccione: Marilyn Musgrave has abandoned her districts need to attack social conservative issues and voted for CAFTA. Angie is a State Rep. and will most likely get more support than Stan Matsunaka got.



Tim Dunn: Robin Hayes changed his vote on CAFTA, which is bad for this district. Dunn is an Iraq war veteran and Hayes has never pulled big victories.



Christine Cegelis: Her 44% against a 30 year incumbent while having very little money proves she is a strong candidate. Her likely opponent has ties to Tom Delay and is more extreme than retiring Hyde.



Heath Shuler: Rep. Charles Hayes sluggish numbers against weak opponents make this a good race. Shuler is a strong opponent and will have strong support.



Coleen Rowley: The FBI whistleblower has a good shot at unseating Rep. John Kline, in a district that has only a slight GOP edge. Her actions as a whistleblower might increase her chances.