Yesterday, CNN reported that once officially nominated, Sarah Palin will receive high level security briefings
from the office of the Director of National Intelligence, according to officials at the campaign and at the DNI’s office. DNI spokesman Richard Willing said the briefings were on “topics of national security interest.”
The founder of the Alaska Independence Party — a group that has been courted over the years by Sarah Palin, and one her husband was a member of for roughly seven years — once professed his “hatred for the American government” and cursed the American flag as a “damn flag. . .
Palin has courted the group over the years. Three years after the controversial interview, in 1994, Palin attended the group’s annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News’ Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign is disputing her presence there, but Tapper found two people to attest to it. . .
Palin’s husband, Todd Palin, was a member of the party from 1995-2002 with a brief exception in 2000.
Although the McCain camp denies it, according to the AIP, Palin herself was a member.
Officials of the Alaskan Independence Party say that Palin was once so independent, she was once a member of their party, which, since the 1970s, has been pushing for a legal vote for Alaskans to decide whether or not residents of the 49th state can secede from the United States.
Should we really be sharing state secrets with someone who has ties to radical groups which advocate the removal of American sovereignty over at least a portion of American soil? I’ve noticed that many on the right think the answer is no:
If Mr. Obama were to apply for a job with the FBI, CIA, or a company manufacturing a top secret product for the U.S. Government, because of his past associations, activities and friends, he would not be able to get a TOP SECRET security clearance.
When conducting a background investigation for a security clearance, one of the questions investigators ask is whether you have had contact with individuals or groups who advocate overthrowing the government of the United States.
Barack Obama has had extensive contact with Bill Ayers, unrepentant terrorist who advocated overthrow of the US government by force. Obams conducted fundraisers at Ayers home, and they sat on a board of directors for the Woods Fund of Chicago.
So when the investigator asks Obams, “Have you ever had contact with individuals or groups who advocate overthrowing the government of the United States?” Obama will have to say “yes” and describe the whole thing.
So…when Obama cannot get a security clearance, who will take the daily National Security Brief…Biden?
We are living witnesses to an incredible media double standard, whereby a Republican vice-presidential candidate’s personal life is being torn apart, while the Democratic presidential candidate continues to get a free ride. Obama has a 30-year history of associating with unsavory characters, beginning with communist Frank Marshall Davis and continuing with Jeremiah Wright and communist terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, which should disqualify him from getting a security clearance in the government that he wants to run.
A reader makes this great point:
Can you imagine how crazy the right wing would be if Michele Obama was, in fact, a member of a black separatist party? Imagine if that party believed that some isolated enclave of African Americans should secede from the union. How how is that any different than Todd Palin?
is all bent out of shape about this story.
Which is more nuanced, the Covenant House nonsense or the fact that the NYT reporter who pushed the story about Palin being a member of the Alaska secessionist party is still standing by it even though the Times itself has now retracted it? (On its blog, of course, not in the paper itself.)
Isn’t the exit question exactly what my correspondent asked in the first update? How would the media and the right wing blogosphere react if Michele Obama had belonged to the Black Panther Party
? Look at how worked up they got over her Princeton thesis
. If she’d belonged to an anti-American party (note to patriotism questioners: the Democrat [sic] party doesn’t count), they’d go ape shit.
Sure there’s been some sloppy reporting in the campaign (video evidence below) and maybe the Times ought to clarify where it stands on the AIP story, but isn’t the right being a bit disingenuous?