The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates an in-state referendum which includes the option of Alaska becoming an independent nation. The party also advocates positions similar to those of the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party, supporting gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and limited government.
Click Here to Advertise on My Blog
It has been alleged that some of its members in the past have also proposed that the state explore the possibility of joining Canada. Some other members have expressed opposition to joining Canada in its present form but are open to the possibility of joining an independent Western Canadian state including the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Neither of these scenarios have ever formed any part of the party's platform.
At the national level, the party is affiliated with the paleo-conservative Constitution Party
Registered members
As of June 2006 the party had 13,542 registered members, making it the state's third largest; the Republicans had 111,526 members and the Democrats had 66,218.
Todd Palin association
On September 2, 2008, the Associated Press reported that the Alaska Division of Elections said that Todd Palin had registered as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party in 1995 until 2002.
His wife, Alaska Governor and 2008 Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, a member of the Republican Party since 1982, delivered a taped welcome message as Governor to the party's convention.
2006 ballot initiative
In 2006, members of the AIP collected the one hundred signatures needed to place on the fall ballot an initiative calling for Alaska to secede from the union or, if that was found not to be legally possible, directing the state to work to make secession legal. However, in the case of Kohlhaas v. State (11/17/2006) sp-6072, 147 P3d 71
Monday, March 2, 2009
History
The Alaskan Independence Party was originally founded with the goal of getting Alaskans a right to vote on their statehood, much the same way Puerto Rico has a vote on its statehood. Referring to Alaska's 1959 admission to the union, the AIP charter states: "The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four choices: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."
Since its founding, the AIP has radically changed with respect to the issue of secession. At present, it does not support secession, though, at its founding, it did. In 1973 Joe Vogler began arguing about the validity of the Alaskan statehood vote. Early in that year, he began circulating a petition seeking support for secession of Alaska from the United States. Alaska magazine published a piece at that time in which Vogler claimed to have gathered 25,000 signatures in 3 weeks.
Vogler has been quoted as stating "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."
During the 1970s, Vogler founded Alaskans for Independence to actively pursue secession for Alaska from the United States. In 1984, he founded the AIP to explore whether the 1958 vote by Alaskans authorizing statehood was legal.
Vogler would serve as the AIP's standard-bearer for most of the party's first two decades. He ran for governor in 1974, with Wayne Peppler as his running mate. Jay Hammond was elected over incumbent governor William Egan, with Vogler trailing far behind. Typical political discussion of the day contended that Vogler was a "spoiler," and that the result would have been different had he not been in the race. However, this campaign opened up the doors for non-major party candidates to run for major offices in Alaska, and generally this accusation is leveled during every election cycle.
Vogler's running mate in 1986 was Al Rowe, a Fairbanks resident and former Alaska State Trooper. Rowe took out a series of newspaper ads, fashioning himself in the image of Sheriff Buford Pusser. These ads were a major attention getter during the race. Between Rowe's ads and the turmoil existing in the Republican Party over the nomination of Arliss Sturgulewski, the AIP gained 5.2 percent of the vote, becoming a recognized party in Alaska for the first time.
Since then, AIP candidates have disapproved of initiating a state-wide vote revisiting the status of Alaskan statehood. In 1990, Walter Joseph Hickel, a former Republican, won the election for governor as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, along with Jack Coghill as his running mate. This was the only time since Alaska joined the union that a third-party candidate has been elected governor. Hickel refused a vote on secession called on by a fringe group within the AIP loyal to Vogler's original vision. He rejoined the Republican Party in 1994, with eight months remaining in his term.
The party did not get involved in presidential elections until 1992, when it endorsed Howard Phillips, the candidate of the U.S. Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party). The AIP is listed as an affiliate of the Constitution Party on the latter party's website
Puerto Rican Independence Party
The Puerto Rican Independence Party (Spanish: Partido Independentista Puertorriqueño, PIP) is a Puerto Rican political party that campaigns for the independence of Puerto Rico from the United States.
Those who follow the PIP ideology are usually called independentistas, pipiolos, or sometimes just pro-independence activists in the anglosphere.
History
The party began as the electoral wing of the Puerto Rican pro-independence movement. It is the largest of the independence parties, and the only one that is on the ballot during elections (other candidates must be added in by hand).
Foundation
The party was founded on October 20, 1946 by Gilberto Concepción de Gracia (deceased in 1968). He felt the independence movement had been "betrayed" by the Partido Popular Democrático, whose ultimate goal had originally been independence.
Custom Search
Those who follow the PIP ideology are usually called independentistas, pipiolos, or sometimes just pro-independence activists in the anglosphere.
History
The party began as the electoral wing of the Puerto Rican pro-independence movement. It is the largest of the independence parties, and the only one that is on the ballot during elections (other candidates must be added in by hand).
Foundation
The party was founded on October 20, 1946 by Gilberto Concepción de Gracia (deceased in 1968). He felt the independence movement had been "betrayed" by the Partido Popular Democrático, whose ultimate goal had originally been independence.
Custom Search
International support - Gabriel García Márquez and others
The PIP cause receives ample moral support by international organizations and world-renowned figures. Examples of these are the Socialist International (the largest organization of political parties in the world), including fifteen political parties which are in power in Latin America, and, also Cuba as well as the President of Panama, Martín Torrijos, as well as a wide group of world-recognized writers and artists.
On January 26, 2007, Nobel Prize laureate Gabriel García Márquez joined other internationally renowned figures such as Mario Benedetti, Ernesto Sábato, Thiago de Mello, Eduardo Galeano, Carlos Monsiváis, Pablo Armando Fernández, Jorge Enrique Adoum, Pablo Milanés, Luis Rafael Sánchez, Mayra Montero and Ana Lydia Vega, in supporting independence for Puerto Rico and joining the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico's Independence, which approved a resolution favoring the island-nation's right to assert its independence, as ratified unanimously by political parties hailing from 22 countries in November 2006; García Márquez's push for the recognition of Puerto Rico's independence was obtained at the behest of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. His pledge for support to the Puerto Rican Independence Movement was part of a wider effort that emerged from the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico's Independence.
PIP anti-war mobilization and protests
As reported in the Canadian press, for the past half-decade, the PIP's leadership and active members have participated in anti-war protests and mobilization to resist the war in Iraq and oppose the U.S. government's efforts to encourage Puerto Ricans to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces: "The Puerto Rican Independence Party five years ago began distributing leaflets encouraging high school students to prevent military recruiters from obtaining their personal information. Last year, 57 percent of this Caribbean island's high-school sophomores, junior and seniors signed the forms to keep their information from recruiters.
PIP stance on Puerto Rico's economic crisis and taxation system
During the 2005-2007 Puerto Rico economic crisis, the Puerto Rican Independence Party submitted various bills that would have taxed corporations making $1 million or more in annual net profits an extra ten percent, above from the actual taxation average these corporations pay, which hovers around 5%. The PNP and the PPD parties amended the bill, taxing the corporations the traditional lower rate, while the general population was taxed at a ceiling of about 33.3% for income tax plus a 7.5% sales tax. Despite objections presented by the PIP, the PNP and PPD also allowed the companies to claim the additional tax as a credit on next year's bill, making the "tax", in effect, a one-year loan. Puerto Rico has been said "There is no place in the territorial limits of the United States that provides such an advantageous base for exporters. " because of this many US companies moved their headquarters and manufacturing facilities there this is why the PNP and PPD believed the tax increase would exacerbate the problems
United States citizens residing in the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico are not counted in the U.S. Census and do not hold the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections. Although Puerto Rican residents elect a Resident Commissioner to the United States House of Representatives, that official may not participate in votes determining the final passage of legislation. Furthermore, Puerto Rico holds no representation of any kind in the United States Senate.
Both the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the New Progressive Party officially oppose the island's political status quo and consider Puerto Rico's lack of federal representation to be disfranchisement. The remaining political organization, the Popular Democratic Party, is less active in its opposition of this case of disfranchisement but has officially stated that it favors fixing the remaining "deficits of democracy" that the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations have publicly recognized in writing through Presidential Task Force Reports.
Controversies
Many among the general public have associated the Independence parties, including the Partido Socialista Puertorriqueno with violent acts of terrorism such as those committed by Los Macheteros. However, the party has never acknowledged links to any attacks, insisting that it pursues independence through peaceful means. No proof has ever been found to corroborate these sporadic allegations. The PIP has participated in frequent congresses of international non-Marxist socialist parties corresponding to its supranational-affiliation, the Socialist International (SI).
On January 26, 2007, Nobel Prize laureate Gabriel García Márquez joined other internationally renowned figures such as Mario Benedetti, Ernesto Sábato, Thiago de Mello, Eduardo Galeano, Carlos Monsiváis, Pablo Armando Fernández, Jorge Enrique Adoum, Pablo Milanés, Luis Rafael Sánchez, Mayra Montero and Ana Lydia Vega, in supporting independence for Puerto Rico and joining the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico's Independence, which approved a resolution favoring the island-nation's right to assert its independence, as ratified unanimously by political parties hailing from 22 countries in November 2006; García Márquez's push for the recognition of Puerto Rico's independence was obtained at the behest of the Puerto Rican Independence Party. His pledge for support to the Puerto Rican Independence Movement was part of a wider effort that emerged from the Latin American and Caribbean Congress in Solidarity with Puerto Rico's Independence.
PIP anti-war mobilization and protests
As reported in the Canadian press, for the past half-decade, the PIP's leadership and active members have participated in anti-war protests and mobilization to resist the war in Iraq and oppose the U.S. government's efforts to encourage Puerto Ricans to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces: "The Puerto Rican Independence Party five years ago began distributing leaflets encouraging high school students to prevent military recruiters from obtaining their personal information. Last year, 57 percent of this Caribbean island's high-school sophomores, junior and seniors signed the forms to keep their information from recruiters.
PIP stance on Puerto Rico's economic crisis and taxation system
During the 2005-2007 Puerto Rico economic crisis, the Puerto Rican Independence Party submitted various bills that would have taxed corporations making $1 million or more in annual net profits an extra ten percent, above from the actual taxation average these corporations pay, which hovers around 5%. The PNP and the PPD parties amended the bill, taxing the corporations the traditional lower rate, while the general population was taxed at a ceiling of about 33.3% for income tax plus a 7.5% sales tax. Despite objections presented by the PIP, the PNP and PPD also allowed the companies to claim the additional tax as a credit on next year's bill, making the "tax", in effect, a one-year loan. Puerto Rico has been said "There is no place in the territorial limits of the United States that provides such an advantageous base for exporters. " because of this many US companies moved their headquarters and manufacturing facilities there this is why the PNP and PPD believed the tax increase would exacerbate the problems
United States citizens residing in the U.S. commonwealth of Puerto Rico are not counted in the U.S. Census and do not hold the right to vote in U.S. presidential elections. Although Puerto Rican residents elect a Resident Commissioner to the United States House of Representatives, that official may not participate in votes determining the final passage of legislation. Furthermore, Puerto Rico holds no representation of any kind in the United States Senate.
Both the Puerto Rican Independence Party and the New Progressive Party officially oppose the island's political status quo and consider Puerto Rico's lack of federal representation to be disfranchisement. The remaining political organization, the Popular Democratic Party, is less active in its opposition of this case of disfranchisement but has officially stated that it favors fixing the remaining "deficits of democracy" that the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations have publicly recognized in writing through Presidential Task Force Reports.
Controversies
Many among the general public have associated the Independence parties, including the Partido Socialista Puertorriqueno with violent acts of terrorism such as those committed by Los Macheteros. However, the party has never acknowledged links to any attacks, insisting that it pursues independence through peaceful means. No proof has ever been found to corroborate these sporadic allegations. The PIP has participated in frequent congresses of international non-Marxist socialist parties corresponding to its supranational-affiliation, the Socialist International (SI).
FBI surveillance of Puerto Rican Groups
In 2003, The New York Times reported the following about the Federal Bureau of Investigation's public recognition of a directing "tremendously destructive" efforts against various organizations, including the Puerto Rican Independence Party:
"They include a 1961 directive from Mr. Hoover to seek information on 12 independence movement leaders, six of them operating in New York, "concerning their weaknesses, morals, criminal records, spouses, children, family life, educational qualifications and personal activities other than independence activities." The instructions were given under the domestic surveillance program known as Cointelpro, which aimed at aggressively monitoring antiwar, leftist and other groups in the United States and disrupting them.
In the case of Puerto Rican independence groups, Mr. Hoover's 1961 memo refers to 'our efforts to disrupt their activities and compromise their effectiveness." Scholars say the papers provide invaluable additions to the recorded history of Puerto Rico. "I expect that this will alter somewhat the analysis of why independence hasn't made it,' said Felix V. Matos Rodriguez, director of the center at Hunter. 'In the 1940's, independence was the second-largest political movement in the island, (after support for commonwealth status), and a real alternative. But it was criminalized.'
The existence of the F.B.I. papers came to light during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing in 2000, when Representative Jose E. Serrano of New York questioned Louis J. Freeh, then F.B.I. director, on the issue. Mr. Freeh gave the first public acknowledgment of the federal government's Puerto Rican surveillance and offered a mea culpa.
'Your question goes back to a period, particularly in the 1960's, when the F.B.I. did operate a program that did tremendous destruction to many people, to the country and certainly to the F.B.I.,' Mr. Freeh said, according to transcripts of the hearing. Mr. Freeh said that he would make the files available 'and see if we can redress some of the egregious illegal action, maybe criminal action, that occurred in the past'.".
The FBI's surveillance of any person or organization advocating Puerto Rico's independence has been recognized by the FBI's top leadership.
The FBI's past surveillance of the pro-independence movement is detailed in 1.8 million documents, a fraction of which were released in 2000.
Then FBI Director Louis Freeh made an unprecedented admission to the effects that the FBI had engaged in egregious and illegal action from the 1930s to the 1990s, quite possibly involving the FBI in widespread crimes and violation of constitutional rights against Puerto Ricans.
[edit] 1970s
In 1971, the PIP gubernatorial candidate, Rubén Berríos led a protest against the U.S. Navy in Culebra.[7][8] During the 1972 elections the PIP showed the largest growth in its history while running a socialist, pro-worker, pro-poor campaign. One year later during a delegate assembly Rubén Berríos declared that the party was not presenting a Leninist-Marxist platform and took the matter to the PIP's assembly which voted in favor of the party's current stance in favor of Social Democracy. The Marxist-leninist faction called the "terceristas" split into several groups the biggest of them went into the Movimiento Socialista Popular, while the rest went into the PSP.
"They include a 1961 directive from Mr. Hoover to seek information on 12 independence movement leaders, six of them operating in New York, "concerning their weaknesses, morals, criminal records, spouses, children, family life, educational qualifications and personal activities other than independence activities." The instructions were given under the domestic surveillance program known as Cointelpro, which aimed at aggressively monitoring antiwar, leftist and other groups in the United States and disrupting them.
In the case of Puerto Rican independence groups, Mr. Hoover's 1961 memo refers to 'our efforts to disrupt their activities and compromise their effectiveness." Scholars say the papers provide invaluable additions to the recorded history of Puerto Rico. "I expect that this will alter somewhat the analysis of why independence hasn't made it,' said Felix V. Matos Rodriguez, director of the center at Hunter. 'In the 1940's, independence was the second-largest political movement in the island, (after support for commonwealth status), and a real alternative. But it was criminalized.'
The existence of the F.B.I. papers came to light during a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing in 2000, when Representative Jose E. Serrano of New York questioned Louis J. Freeh, then F.B.I. director, on the issue. Mr. Freeh gave the first public acknowledgment of the federal government's Puerto Rican surveillance and offered a mea culpa.
'Your question goes back to a period, particularly in the 1960's, when the F.B.I. did operate a program that did tremendous destruction to many people, to the country and certainly to the F.B.I.,' Mr. Freeh said, according to transcripts of the hearing. Mr. Freeh said that he would make the files available 'and see if we can redress some of the egregious illegal action, maybe criminal action, that occurred in the past'.".
The FBI's surveillance of any person or organization advocating Puerto Rico's independence has been recognized by the FBI's top leadership.
The FBI's past surveillance of the pro-independence movement is detailed in 1.8 million documents, a fraction of which were released in 2000.
Then FBI Director Louis Freeh made an unprecedented admission to the effects that the FBI had engaged in egregious and illegal action from the 1930s to the 1990s, quite possibly involving the FBI in widespread crimes and violation of constitutional rights against Puerto Ricans.
[edit] 1970s
In 1971, the PIP gubernatorial candidate, Rubén Berríos led a protest against the U.S. Navy in Culebra.[7][8] During the 1972 elections the PIP showed the largest growth in its history while running a socialist, pro-worker, pro-poor campaign. One year later during a delegate assembly Rubén Berríos declared that the party was not presenting a Leninist-Marxist platform and took the matter to the PIP's assembly which voted in favor of the party's current stance in favor of Social Democracy. The Marxist-leninist faction called the "terceristas" split into several groups the biggest of them went into the Movimiento Socialista Popular, while the rest went into the PSP.
2004 election
During the 2004 elections, the PIP was in serious danger of losing official recognition, obtaining 2.4% of the gubernatorial vote and 10.5-25.5% of the legislative vote.
The party's historic leader, Rubén Berríos, announced that if that happened, party leaders and its wide-periphery constituency would make sure that it would be quickly re-instated. True to his commitment, in less than two weeks after the election, the PIP's leadership and its membership obtained more than one-hundred and five thousand notarized signatures (105,000) from Puerto Rico's able voters. Popular island-wide support for the PIP's legislative candidates hovered around 10%-25% and the PIP elected one Senator and one Representative (at the island-wide level) who are the respective spokepersons for the Puerto Rican Independence Party at the Puerto Rico Senate and the Puerto Rico House of Representatives. On a positive note, María De Lourdes Santiago made history that year by becoming the first woman of the PIP to be elected to the Puerto Rico Senate. Victor Garcia San Inocencio, for his part, was re-elected for a third term at the Puerto Rico House of Representatives where he has served as a Representative and PIP Spokesperson since January 1997.
2008 election
During the 2008 elections, the PIP loses official recognition, obtaining 2.04% of the gubernatorial vote. Lose of recognition was official on January 2, 2009. The minimum vote percentage to keep official recognition is 3.0% as per the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico law.
Custom Search
The party's historic leader, Rubén Berríos, announced that if that happened, party leaders and its wide-periphery constituency would make sure that it would be quickly re-instated. True to his commitment, in less than two weeks after the election, the PIP's leadership and its membership obtained more than one-hundred and five thousand notarized signatures (105,000) from Puerto Rico's able voters. Popular island-wide support for the PIP's legislative candidates hovered around 10%-25% and the PIP elected one Senator and one Representative (at the island-wide level) who are the respective spokepersons for the Puerto Rican Independence Party at the Puerto Rico Senate and the Puerto Rico House of Representatives. On a positive note, María De Lourdes Santiago made history that year by becoming the first woman of the PIP to be elected to the Puerto Rico Senate. Victor Garcia San Inocencio, for his part, was re-elected for a third term at the Puerto Rico House of Representatives where he has served as a Representative and PIP Spokesperson since January 1997.
2008 election
During the 2008 elections, the PIP loses official recognition, obtaining 2.04% of the gubernatorial vote. Lose of recognition was official on January 2, 2009. The minimum vote percentage to keep official recognition is 3.0% as per the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico law.
Custom Search
Second Vermont Republic (SVR)
Second Vermont Republic (SVR) is a secessionist group within the U.S. state of Vermont which seeks to return to the formerly independent status of the Vermont Republic The organization was founded in 2003 by Thomas Naylor, a former Duke University economics professor who published the book The Vermont Manifesto that same year.Previously in 1987, University of Vermont professor Frank Bryan, who is on the Advisory Board of Second Vermont Republic, had co-authored with Bill Mares OUT! The Vermont Secession Book, a tongue-in-cheek scenario for secession that begins with the exploding of bridges connecting Vermont with its neighboring states.
In 1989, Bryan, with John McClaughry, president of Vermont's Institute for Liberty and Community and who, during the administration of Ronald Reagan, was Senior Policy Advisor in the White House Office of Policy Development, authored a call for the restructuring of Vermont democracy in their book The Vermont Papers, Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale. In it they propose replacing the structure of Vermont towns with decentralized shires that maintain more local decision-making akin to British county councils. The ideas put forth in this book were not reliant upon, nor called for, Vermont's separation from the federal union. In a September, 2006 Los Angeles Times story about SVR, John McClaughry said, "This really is a good-natured cult. Intellectually, they've got some horsepower, but mostly this is the whole left-wing litany, seen through an interesting prism." Secession, said McClaughry, "is not going to happen, and no one believes it is going to happen." However, in June 2007 Bryan stated that " the cachet of secession would make the new republic a magnet" and "People would obviously relish coming to the Republic of Vermont, the Switzerland of North America."
The Second Vermont Republic web site asserts the group is "committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union." Supporters of the Second Vermont Republic endorse Vermont's current commitment to small and sustainable towns, farms and businesses, and encourage residents of the state to buy products made locally and sold in small locally-owned stores. They also believe in direct democracy at the local level and desire to turn back as much power as possible to local communities.
Though the group no longer issues memberships, as of January 2005, the Second Vermont Republic "boasted" it had 125 card-carrying members. As of January 2008 the organization's website claimed "nearly 1,000 supporters."
The Second Vermont Republic hosted a "radical consultation" in Middlebury, Vermont in November, 2004 which resulted in the creation of the Middlebury Declaration and the establishment of the Middlebury Institute. In April, 2005 members of Second Vermont Republic started the Vermont Commons quarterly publication. In November 2006 its representatives attended the First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington, Vermont which brought together secessionists from a broad political spectrum. The convention issued the Burlington Declaration.
In May 2008 Feral House published Thomas Naylor's book Secession: How Vermont and all the Other States Can Save Themselves from the Empire. Author Kirkpatrick Sale wrote the foreword. Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University writes: "A serious examination of our God given right of self governance and that right’s implication for secession. Dr. Naylor has made a persuasive case of the identical response to today’s ‘train of abuses’ that led the Founders to secede from King George’s tyranny."
In 1989, Bryan, with John McClaughry, president of Vermont's Institute for Liberty and Community and who, during the administration of Ronald Reagan, was Senior Policy Advisor in the White House Office of Policy Development, authored a call for the restructuring of Vermont democracy in their book The Vermont Papers, Recreating Democracy on a Human Scale. In it they propose replacing the structure of Vermont towns with decentralized shires that maintain more local decision-making akin to British county councils. The ideas put forth in this book were not reliant upon, nor called for, Vermont's separation from the federal union. In a September, 2006 Los Angeles Times story about SVR, John McClaughry said, "This really is a good-natured cult. Intellectually, they've got some horsepower, but mostly this is the whole left-wing litany, seen through an interesting prism." Secession, said McClaughry, "is not going to happen, and no one believes it is going to happen." However, in June 2007 Bryan stated that " the cachet of secession would make the new republic a magnet" and "People would obviously relish coming to the Republic of Vermont, the Switzerland of North America."
The Second Vermont Republic web site asserts the group is "committed to the peaceful return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic and more broadly the dissolution of the Union." Supporters of the Second Vermont Republic endorse Vermont's current commitment to small and sustainable towns, farms and businesses, and encourage residents of the state to buy products made locally and sold in small locally-owned stores. They also believe in direct democracy at the local level and desire to turn back as much power as possible to local communities.
Though the group no longer issues memberships, as of January 2005, the Second Vermont Republic "boasted" it had 125 card-carrying members. As of January 2008 the organization's website claimed "nearly 1,000 supporters."
The Second Vermont Republic hosted a "radical consultation" in Middlebury, Vermont in November, 2004 which resulted in the creation of the Middlebury Declaration and the establishment of the Middlebury Institute. In April, 2005 members of Second Vermont Republic started the Vermont Commons quarterly publication. In November 2006 its representatives attended the First North American Secessionist Convention in Burlington, Vermont which brought together secessionists from a broad political spectrum. The convention issued the Burlington Declaration.
In May 2008 Feral House published Thomas Naylor's book Secession: How Vermont and all the Other States Can Save Themselves from the Empire. Author Kirkpatrick Sale wrote the foreword. Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University writes: "A serious examination of our God given right of self governance and that right’s implication for secession. Dr. Naylor has made a persuasive case of the identical response to today’s ‘train of abuses’ that led the Founders to secede from King George’s tyranny."
The legal status of Alaska is the standing of Alaska as a political entity.
The legal status of Alaska is the standing of Alaska as a political entity. Generally, the debate has primarily surrounded the legal status of Alaska relative to the United States of America. Alaska is considered to be a state under the sovereignty of the United States of America. Nonetheless, U.S. sovereignty over Alaska has been disputed at times, most recently by a movement launched by Joe Vogler and the Alaskan Independence Party. In disputes over the legal status of Alaska, a key issue has been the tension between its de facto and de jure international standing.Joe Volger began arguing about the validity of the statehood vote in 1973. Early in that year, he began circulating a petition seeking support for secession of Alaska from the United States. Alaska magazine published a piece at that time in which Vogler claimed to have gathered 25,000 signatures in 3 weeks.
During the 1970s, Vogler founded the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) and Alaskans For Independence. The AIP and AFI, as Vogler explained, were intended to function as strictly separate entities — AIP primarily to explore whether the 1958 vote by Alaskans authorizing statehood was legal, and AFI primarily to actively pursue secession for Alaska from the United States.
Vogler would serve as the AIP's standard-bearer for most of the party's first two decades. He ran for governor in 1974, with Wayne Peppler as his running mate. Jay Hammond was elected over incumbent governor William Egan, with Vogler trailing far behind. Typical political discussion of the day contended that Vogler was a "spoiler," and that the result would have been different had he not been in the race. However, this campaign opened up the doors for non-major party candidates to run for major offices in Alaska, and generally this accusation is leveled during every election cycle.
Vogler also ran for governor in 1978, 1982, and 1986. Several incidents during these campaigns raised his profile as a "colorful character." In the 1982 race, Vogler was taken to task for comments made during a debate. The issue of moving Alaska's capital appeared during the election, as it has on and off since 1960. The media and political pundits took great fun over Vogler's debate remarks that Alaska should "nuke the glaciers" along the coast of the Gulf of Alaska and build a freeway to Juneau. Vogler would later contend that what he said was misinterpreted.
Vogler's running mate in 1986 was Al Rowe, a Fairbanks resident and former Alaska State Trooper. Rowe took out a series of newspaper ads, fashioning himself in the image of Sheriff Buford Pusser. These ads were a major attention getter during the race. Between Rowe's ads and the turmoil existing in the Republican Party over the nomination of Arliss Sturgulewski, the AIP ticket was able to garner 5.5 percent of the vote, gaining the AIP status in Alaska as a recognized political party for the first time.
In 1990, Walter Joseph Hickel, a former Republican, won the election for Governor of Alaska as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. This was the only time in the 20th century that a non-major party candidate won the governship in Alaska, though Hickel's lack of enthusiasm for the party's secessionist goals contributed to his decision to rejoin the Republican party shortly before the end of his term in offi
During the 1970s, Vogler founded the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) and Alaskans For Independence. The AIP and AFI, as Vogler explained, were intended to function as strictly separate entities — AIP primarily to explore whether the 1958 vote by Alaskans authorizing statehood was legal, and AFI primarily to actively pursue secession for Alaska from the United States.
Vogler would serve as the AIP's standard-bearer for most of the party's first two decades. He ran for governor in 1974, with Wayne Peppler as his running mate. Jay Hammond was elected over incumbent governor William Egan, with Vogler trailing far behind. Typical political discussion of the day contended that Vogler was a "spoiler," and that the result would have been different had he not been in the race. However, this campaign opened up the doors for non-major party candidates to run for major offices in Alaska, and generally this accusation is leveled during every election cycle.
Vogler also ran for governor in 1978, 1982, and 1986. Several incidents during these campaigns raised his profile as a "colorful character." In the 1982 race, Vogler was taken to task for comments made during a debate. The issue of moving Alaska's capital appeared during the election, as it has on and off since 1960. The media and political pundits took great fun over Vogler's debate remarks that Alaska should "nuke the glaciers" along the coast of the Gulf of Alaska and build a freeway to Juneau. Vogler would later contend that what he said was misinterpreted.
Vogler's running mate in 1986 was Al Rowe, a Fairbanks resident and former Alaska State Trooper. Rowe took out a series of newspaper ads, fashioning himself in the image of Sheriff Buford Pusser. These ads were a major attention getter during the race. Between Rowe's ads and the turmoil existing in the Republican Party over the nomination of Arliss Sturgulewski, the AIP ticket was able to garner 5.5 percent of the vote, gaining the AIP status in Alaska as a recognized political party for the first time.
In 1990, Walter Joseph Hickel, a former Republican, won the election for Governor of Alaska as a member of the Alaskan Independence Party. This was the only time in the 20th century that a non-major party candidate won the governship in Alaska, though Hickel's lack of enthusiasm for the party's secessionist goals contributed to his decision to rejoin the Republican party shortly before the end of his term in offi
The dispute dates back to events in the 20th century. In 1959
The dispute dates back to events in the 20th century. In 1959, Alaska was admitted to the Union. However, opponents believe this was done contrary to international law as the vote for statehood did not follow United Nations rules. Specifically, the vote did not allow Alaskans the option of independence. Although this argument has no de facto legal standing because the various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states. International law does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state.
Alaska became a territory of the United States in 1867 when it was purchased from the Russian Empire. Events in the 20th century such as World War II and the Cold War led to the decision to add Alaska as a state to the American Union. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Alaska Statehood Act into United States law on 7 July 1958, which paved the way for Alaska's admission into the Union on January 3, 1959.
The vote for statehood was held in 1958. Voters approved the measure by a 6 to 1 margin [1]. Critics of Alaskan statehood, though, claim the vote was flawed [2]. The United Nations Charter requires that a non-self governing territory be given ballot choices of remaining a territory, becoming a separate and independent nation, accept Commonwealth status, or becoming a state. The options on the ballot were for statehood or to remain a territory. There was no option for independence on the ballot. Other people argue that there is no such provision in the UN Charter and that the corresponding UN Articles in Chapters XII and XIII of the United Nations Charter relate to former colonial territories.
Critics of the vote also note that American military personnel voted in the election. This is also pointed to as a violation of international law which specifies that only the civilian population of a territory may vote. Despite the criticism, the United Nations decolonization committee later removed Alaska from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The debate is considered by some to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including arguments around the legal status of Hawaii and the legal status of Texas.[3][4] The situation most closely resembles Hawaii as the Hawaiian statehood vote also lacked an option for independence.
Alaska became a territory of the United States in 1867 when it was purchased from the Russian Empire. Events in the 20th century such as World War II and the Cold War led to the decision to add Alaska as a state to the American Union. President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Alaska Statehood Act into United States law on 7 July 1958, which paved the way for Alaska's admission into the Union on January 3, 1959.
The vote for statehood was held in 1958. Voters approved the measure by a 6 to 1 margin [1]. Critics of Alaskan statehood, though, claim the vote was flawed [2]. The United Nations Charter requires that a non-self governing territory be given ballot choices of remaining a territory, becoming a separate and independent nation, accept Commonwealth status, or becoming a state. The options on the ballot were for statehood or to remain a territory. There was no option for independence on the ballot. Other people argue that there is no such provision in the UN Charter and that the corresponding UN Articles in Chapters XII and XIII of the United Nations Charter relate to former colonial territories.
Critics of the vote also note that American military personnel voted in the election. This is also pointed to as a violation of international law which specifies that only the civilian population of a territory may vote. Despite the criticism, the United Nations decolonization committee later removed Alaska from the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
The debate is considered by some to resemble the same academic discourse being argued by several other activist groups in the United States, including arguments around the legal status of Hawaii and the legal status of Texas.[3][4] The situation most closely resembles Hawaii as the Hawaiian statehood vote also lacked an option for independence.
Hawaiian sovereignty movement (ke ea Hawai‘i)
The Hawaiian sovereignty movement (ke ea Hawai‘i) consists of organizations and individuals seeking some form of sovereignty for Hawai'i. Generally, the movement's focus is on self-determination and self-governance for people of whole or part Native Hawaiian ancestry or, in some cases, for "Hawaiian nationals", without regard to race or ancestry.[citation needed] In some instances the focus also includes redress from the United States for the 1893 overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani, and for what is seen as a prolonged military occupation beginning in 1898 with the annexation of the Republic of Hawaii to the United States, and continuing until the present day. The movement generally views both the overthrow and annexation as illegal, and holds the U.S. government responsible for these actions. The historical and legal basis for these claims is one of considerable dispute. While the groups that comprise the movement share these common concerns, their views on how such goals should be achieved vary greatly, ranging from the establishment of some form of "Nation within a Nation" government (similar to the government of some Native American tribes) such as proposed in the Akaka Bill, to reparations from the U.S. government for historical grievances and an end to American military presence, to outright independence from the United States.
Custom Search
Custom Search
Ka Pakaukau: Kekuni Blaisdell
Dr. Richard Kekuni Akana Blaisdell is a medical doctor and professor of medicine who strongly advocates for the total independence for Hawaiʻi. The position of Dr. Blaisdell's group, Ka Pakaukau, is that Hawaiʻi does not need to secede from the U.S., for the U.S. has the moral obligation to "return what it has stolen" and to remove its "occupying forces" (i.e. the U.S. military) from Hawaiian lands. Blaisdell advocates putting continual non-violent pressure on the U.S. military to vacate Hawaiʻi. He also feels that the military has an unmet obligation to clean up the pollution it has left in areas such as Pearl Harbor and Kaho'olawe. Blaisdell has travelled numerous times to the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland to advocate for international recognition of Hawaiʻi as a rightful independent nation under illegal colonial occupation, and to lobby for international assistance with the process of decolonization.
In 1993, Blaisdell convened Ka Hoʻokolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, the "People's International Tribunal", which brought indigenous leaders from around the world to Hawaiʻi to put the U.S. Government on trial for the theft of Hawaiʻi's sovereignty, and other related violations of international law. The tribunal found the U.S. guilty, and published its findings in a lengthy document filed with the U.N. Committees on Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs.
The Nation of Hawaiʻi made the news in 1993 when its members occupied Kaupo Beach, near Makapuʻu, Oʻahu (they had occupied the area surrounding the Makapuʻu lighthouse in 1989). Dennis Pu‘uhonua "Bumpy" Kanahele was a primary leader of the occupation, as well as the leader of the group overall. A descendant of the Kamehamehas, Bumpy was given the title "Head of State" of the Nation of Hawaiʻi in order to gain international recognition for Hawaiian sovereignty. The group ceased their occupation in exchange for the return of ceded lands in the adjacent community of Waimānalo, where they established a village, cultural center, and puʻuhonua (place of refuge). The group nearly lost its land several times, due both to sentiment fostered by activists opposing the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and questions regarding rent and liability insurance. As of 2006, however, it is still home to at least forty people.
Kanahele made headlines again in 1995 when his group gave sanctuary to Nathan Brown, a Native Hawaiian activist who had refused to pay federal taxes in protest of the illegitimacy of the U.S. presence in Hawaiʻi. Kanahele was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to eight months in federal prison, along with a probation period in which he was barred from the puʻuhonua and from participation in his sovereignty efforts.
Following his release from prison, Kanahele became involved in more specific aspects of nationhood, such as the development of independent banking systems, and the cultivation of relationships with other nations. He holds the seat on the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) formerly held by sovereignty pioneer Kawaipuna Prejean, and has worked closely with Hawaiʻi's current governor, Linda Lingle
In 1993, Blaisdell convened Ka Hoʻokolokolonui Kanaka Maoli, the "People's International Tribunal", which brought indigenous leaders from around the world to Hawaiʻi to put the U.S. Government on trial for the theft of Hawaiʻi's sovereignty, and other related violations of international law. The tribunal found the U.S. guilty, and published its findings in a lengthy document filed with the U.N. Committees on Human Rights and Indigenous Affairs.
The Nation of Hawaiʻi made the news in 1993 when its members occupied Kaupo Beach, near Makapuʻu, Oʻahu (they had occupied the area surrounding the Makapuʻu lighthouse in 1989). Dennis Pu‘uhonua "Bumpy" Kanahele was a primary leader of the occupation, as well as the leader of the group overall. A descendant of the Kamehamehas, Bumpy was given the title "Head of State" of the Nation of Hawaiʻi in order to gain international recognition for Hawaiian sovereignty. The group ceased their occupation in exchange for the return of ceded lands in the adjacent community of Waimānalo, where they established a village, cultural center, and puʻuhonua (place of refuge). The group nearly lost its land several times, due both to sentiment fostered by activists opposing the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, and questions regarding rent and liability insurance. As of 2006, however, it is still home to at least forty people.
Kanahele made headlines again in 1995 when his group gave sanctuary to Nathan Brown, a Native Hawaiian activist who had refused to pay federal taxes in protest of the illegitimacy of the U.S. presence in Hawaiʻi. Kanahele was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to eight months in federal prison, along with a probation period in which he was barred from the puʻuhonua and from participation in his sovereignty efforts.
Following his release from prison, Kanahele became involved in more specific aspects of nationhood, such as the development of independent banking systems, and the cultivation of relationships with other nations. He holds the seat on the International Indian Treaty Council (IITC) formerly held by sovereignty pioneer Kawaipuna Prejean, and has worked closely with Hawaiʻi's current governor, Linda Lingle
Free State Project
The Free State Project (FSP) is an internet-based political movement, founded in 2001, to get at least 20,000 libertarian-leaning people to move to New Hampshire in order to make the state a stronghold for Libertarian ideals. Although as of 2006, only 200 people had actually made the move, the movement achieved a victory in 2006 when one of its members, Joel Winters, was elected to the New Hampshire state legislature. Winters, however, ran as a Democrat and may have won primarily due to a sweeping win of Democrats in that election. As of February, 2009, the organization reports having 9098 participants, 668 in New Hampshire, and has been averaging a gain of 20.2 new members per week for the past six months.The Free State Project was founded in 2001 by Jason Sorens, then a Ph.D. student at Yale University. Sorens published an article in The Libertarian Enterprise highlighting the failure of libertarians to elect a any candidate to federal office, and outlining his ideas for a secessionist movement, and calling people to respond to him with interest. The organization since then come to emphasize secessionism much less strongly, with Sorens publishing a note in the journal to this effect in 2004. Sorens has stated that the movement is following the examples of Mormon settlers in Utah, French separatists in Quebec, and Amish religious communities.
The group originally was founded without a specific state in mind. A ballot in september of 2003 was held to choose a state to focus the movement's efforts on. The ballot used the innovative Condorcet method to choose the target state. New Hampshire was the winner, with Montana coming in second (in a 55 to 45 margin). Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, and the Dakotas were also on the list.
The state of New Hampshire was chosen by the movement because the existing individualist culture of New Hampshire was thought to resonate well with Libertarian ideals. The movement, however, has drawn criticism from New Hampshire residents, mostly Democrats and those in towns with budget problems, concerned about population pressure and funding for education. Republicans, on the other hand, have responded more favorably to the project, due to their agreement on small government.
The group originally was founded without a specific state in mind. A ballot in september of 2003 was held to choose a state to focus the movement's efforts on. The ballot used the innovative Condorcet method to choose the target state. New Hampshire was the winner, with Montana coming in second (in a 55 to 45 margin). Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Vermont, and the Dakotas were also on the list.
The state of New Hampshire was chosen by the movement because the existing individualist culture of New Hampshire was thought to resonate well with Libertarian ideals. The movement, however, has drawn criticism from New Hampshire residents, mostly Democrats and those in towns with budget problems, concerned about population pressure and funding for education. Republicans, on the other hand, have responded more favorably to the project, due to their agreement on small government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
