Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: xzins; kosta50; Forest Keeper
It is not disloyal to want to return to territorial status. This group believes they were not granted the statehood vote.

FWIW, I figured that the movement was the result of having DC bureaucrats and politicians control the natural resources they live on. The greatest source of income in the state is from oil and natural gas, but they aren't being allowed to fully develop those resources. I resent DC interfere in an ever expanding part of my life, why not them?

456 posted on 09/07/2008 10:33:19 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]


To: wmfights; Forest Keeper; kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe
I'm here in S. Ohio just across the river from E. KY, and I resent it when the Fed sends down directives about the development of coal. They've got all kinds of restrictions on the use of that natural resource that would take away a lot of the poverty in this area.

So, I fully understand anyone resenting the Fed taking away their land either directly or through seizing control of the land by declaring it national property.

It's something I've long felt about the elites on the coasts, particularly the Boston, NYC, to DC crowd. We are just flyover country to them, except when they want a park. They like to declare us their amusement/entertainment areas, so they can camp and hug trees, and show us their oh so wise. The truth is that they've paved over their own paradise and have no intention whatsoever leaving their concrete jungles, but they sure like to steal the property of others, so they can maintain their phony earth-friendly self-images.

Hypocrites.

462 posted on 09/07/2008 6:08:09 PM PDT by xzins (ZerObama: zero executive, military, or international experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]

To: wmfights; Forest Keeper; kosta50; Dr. Eckleburg; P-Marlowe
I'm here in S. Ohio just across the river from E. KY, and I resent it when the Fed sends down directives about the development of coal. They've got all kinds of restrictions on the use of that natural resource that would take away a lot of the poverty in this area.

So, I fully understand anyone resenting the Fed taking away their land either directly or through seizing control of the land by declaring it national property.

It's something I've long felt about the elites on the coasts, particularly the Boston, NYC, to DC crowd. We are just flyover country to them, except when they want a park. They like to declare us their amusement/entertainment areas, so they can camp and hug trees, and show us they're oh so wise. The truth is that they've paved over their own paradise and have no intention whatsoever leaving their concrete jungles, but they sure like to steal the property of others, so they can maintain their phony earth-friendly self-images.

Hypocrites.

463 posted on 09/07/2008 6:08:19 PM PDT by xzins (ZerObama: zero executive, military, or international experience)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]

To: wmfights; Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis
I figured that the movement was the result of having DC bureaucrats and politicians control the natural resources they live on.

Well, if you really want to push that issue, consider that those resources belong to the Alaskan Natives, not white settlers who took that land from them. Othwerwise, we all must agree that robbery becomes legitimate over time.

By what right are those white settlers opposed to the Federal Government controlling some of those resources? It's turf wars at the expense of Native rights, no matter how you look at it.

The white settlers comprise 69.3% of the population (2000 census), while the Alaskan Natives make up only 15.6% (same census). If you really want to be an advocate of "rights" of Alaskans, justice would be served only if Alaska were to be turned into a Native reservation, because it is a stolen land by whites regardless if they are government or not.

But that won't happen, because those who took it form the Natives are fighting amongst themselves in their name. If they think it's so wrong, why don't they make Alaska a Native Reservation?

The greatest source of income in the state is from oil and natural gas, but they aren't being allowed to fully develop those resources

Part of being in the Union is that State rights and laws are subject to Federal Laws. This is not a commonwealth, or a Confederation of States, but a Federation.

Alaskans have been asking for Statehood for decades. The bills presented to US Congress were rejected by Republicans who feared that Alaskans would be heavily Democrats and they didn't want the balance to shift in their favor.

This is one of those obscene aspects of our past that most Americans don't know about; another one being Robert Kennedy's and LBJ's reform of the immigration laws in order to cause demographic changes favorable for the Democrats; the result: by 2040 the US will no longer have a majority white population; illegal immigration which flourised under the current Administration notwithstanding.

The Republicans continued to block statehood all the way until 1958 when Hawaii petitioned for Statehood. Firmly convicted that Hawaii would be Republican, the Eisenhower administration worked out a compromise bill that brought both states into the Union.

The Alaskan Independence Party argues that the people were never given a chance to vote for union. They did, immediately after World War II. It's all turf wars, and AIP's founder, whose principles and views the Party relishes, was an outspoken Anti-American.

467 posted on 09/07/2008 7:33:37 PM PDT by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 456 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson