Alaskan Independence Party - FAQ's (Sarah Palin used to be a member)

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT ALASKAN INDEPENDENCE

Q: What is the Alaskan Independence Party?

A: An Alaskan political party whose members advocate a range of solutions to the conflicts between federal and local authority; from advocacy for state's rights, through a return to territorial status, all the way to complete independence and nationhood status for Alaska.

Q: Aren't most Alaskan Independence Party members a bunch of radicals and Kooks?

A: The party has its share of individualists, in the grand Alaskan tradition. No longer a fringe party, the A.I.P. is a viable third party with a serious mission and qualified candidates for elected offices.

Q: If Alaska became independent, wouldn't we lose a lot of federal money?

A: No. If Alaska returned to territorial status, most federal money would still be available. If Alaska were to attain complete independence, its revenues from oil and other natural resources would far exceed the amounts currently received from the federal government, at our current level of resource utilization.

Q: If Alaska were independent, what would happen to my social security check, federal pension, or military retirement?

A: People receive these checks around the world, regardless of their place of residence. In most cases eligibility for such checks would not be effected by Alaskan independence.

Q: If Alaska became independent, would U.S. military bases leave?

A: The strategic location of Alaska would indicate that it would serve U.S. interests to maintain a presence in Alaska. The military are good neighbors. There would be no compelling reason for the military to leave Alaska.

Q: Didn't we vote for statehood already?

A: The vote for statehood was invalid because the people were not presented with the range of options available to them. Further, the federal government has since breached the contract for statehood on numerous occasions in over a dozen serious and substantial instances.

Q: Under independence, what would happen to all the federal controls and regulations?

A: We believe that controls should be exerted by the lowest possible governmental unit. The people of Alaska can better decide what controls need to be in place than can bureaucrats in Washington. Specific local regulation might be either more or less restrictive than current federal regulation. The point is that it will be our regulation, not Washington's.

Q: Would I lose my U.S. citizenship?

A: Depending on the form of independence, several forms of citizenship would be possible, including the retention of U.S. citizenship or dual citizenship. However, considering the moral, educational, and economic decay of the U.S., Alaskans' who hold themselves to a higher standard might very well decide to at least maintain an arm's length distance from a country in decline.

Q: What will happen to major U.S. stores such as Sears, Safeway, and McDonald's?

A: Any company which found it profitable to sell in Alaska would remain. Without the constraints of the deteriorating U.S. economy, and with the enormous wealth of Alaska, international as well as local companies will prosper.

http://www.akip.org/faqs.html

Edited September 2, 2008 by A.J.

[pedroh 21]

alaska is LOLz

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

alaska is LOLz

Secession is no laughing matter

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

The late Joe Vogler, founder of the Alaskan Independence Party.

[pedroh 21]

does someone care about alaska? besides teh crab king leg eaters?

[HAL 9000 96]

alaska is LOLz

Secession is no laughing matter

So would this mean, given the light that we had a hoopla about guilt by association not too long ago in this campaign season...

that if McCain were to be elected by sheer voter silliness... and then croaks in office...

that new President Palin would undermine the national integrity of the USA by pandering to secessionist sentiments in Alaska????

I think first party-secessionism gets harsher treatment than comments made by a second party-pulpit in church.