So, according to what I am reading, hillary won California by around 3.5 million. lol at the left.

[BluesLegend]

Hillary should run for Mayor of San Francisco, something more in line with her abilities.

 

[Freewill]

and once the Democrats get even for the GOP filibustering of the past 8 years,

I think it should go.

ROFLMAO! you can't avoid being a fucking hypocrite even when you're trying your hardest to do it, can you?

Allow me to paraphrase your stance

"I think the filibuster should go because it's anti-democratic but we should keep for now because the fact that my party is in the minority makes it advantageous for us, as soon as it's no longer advantageous for us, it should go.".... that about sum it up ?

BTW what are you and Mrs. Hitler doing for Thanksgiving?

So you don't believe in justice. Big surprise.

"Justice" as in "Partisan Political Revenge" , no I don't believe in it ...

Of course, that sort of thing was the mainstay of the folks like the Italian Fascists, the German National Socialists and the Soviets... AND apparently YOU, gee what a surprise.

How else will the democrats impose their minority view on the majority?

lol, see? It's happening already. The gallant defenders of the 'tyranny of the minority' that elected Trump are starting to rail against the coming Democrats' filibusters, used to thwart the majority,

before the Senate is even in session.

Stay tuned. It's going to get flip floppier on the right than a boat deck full of tuna.

The majority of voters did not vote for Hillary. The majority of states did not vote for Hillary. I am not sure where you keep coming up with minority BS.

 

[Freewill]

Hillary should run for Mayor of San Francisco, something more in line with her abilities.

Detroit

 

[JakeStarkey]

tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy.

That's why it has worked so well in the past. You're a moron.

Says a leading moron of the Board. The argument between whether it is best to be a Republic or a Democracy rests solely on whose side it serves best.

Both dems and pubs have no integrity on this issue. Their arguments are based solely on the quest for power.

But . . . Trump is the POTUS-elect unless a recount in MI, WI, and PA says differently.

A Republic serves the MINORITY. You know, like when you and your asshats say "hey, that black dude has a nice car! I want it. He doesn't deserve it! Let's vote on taking it away from him!" And the rest of your sycophants all chime in. THAT is a democracy. On the other hand in a Republic you asshats try and do that and the lone black guy says..."ummmmmm, no. You can't take that away from him just because you want to!"

See how that works? Stupid lazy pricks, like you, love a democracy because it makes legalized theft real easy. A Republic though, protects that black man.

I believe in a Republic, you bed wetting ass hat. And I do say that in the gentlest way. I actually believe in the EC, whereas you don't care you, little wuss: you just want power.

Fakey jakey, I don't think you have a clue what you believe dude. You just do what your masters tell you. If you actually believed what you just said you wouldn't be whining that the shrilary won the popular vote. Now would you. Looks like it's you who are the dumb ass here clown boy.

Westwhiner, I do support the EC, you only care about power. I note that HRC got more votes for president than any white man in history, which bothers you a big deal. It should, whiner. However, I think Trump is showing signs that he is turning his back on many of the vitriolic language and positions that he espoused in the campaign.

We should give a chance, but always remind him that more people, even with a lack luster performance by the Dems, voted against him.

America is watching Trump, and waiting to stomp on the Alt Right if necessary.

 

[EverCurious]

A bit of a long read, but the following speech by Gruening fighting against Colonization of Alaska show's rather well why /one/ state should not be allowed to "lord" over another state, much less an entire country. Again, Alaska will not accept being lorded over by CA or NY. We fought for nearly a fucking century to ditch that bullshit, no way we're going back to it by reinstating the popular vote (CA/NY) and ditching the EC which gives Alaskan's a say in the government that rules them.

In 1920, the passage of the Jones Act required U.S.-flagged vessels to be built in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and documented under the laws of the United States. All goods entering or leaving Alaska had to be transported by American carriers and shipped to Seattle prior to further shipment, making Alaska dependent on the state of Washington. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the provision of the Constitution saying one state should not hold sway over another's commerce did not apply because Alaska was only a territory. The prices Seattle's shipping businesses charged began to rise to take advantage of the situation." - Territory of Alaska - Wikipedia

"In 1884, the government passed the Organic Act which allowed for Alaska to become a judicial district as well as a civil one, with judges, clerks, marshals, and limited government officials appointed by the federal government to run the territory.[1] Furthermore, during the Gold Rush Era (1890–1900), over 30,000 people traveled north into the Yukon Territory and Alaska in search of gold. Several industries flourished as a result, such as fishing, trapping, mining and mineral production. Alaska's resources were depleted to the extent that it came to be considered a "colonial economy". Alaska was still just a district, however, and the local government had little control over local affairs.

Several issues arose that made it more difficult for Alaska to push towards self-government. One of which was the forming of the "Alaska Syndicate" in 1906 by the two barons J. P. Morgan and Simon Guggenheim.[2] Their influence spread and they came to control the Kennecott copper mine, steamship and railroad companies, and salmon packing. The influence of the Syndicate in Washington D.C. opposed any further movement towards Alaskan home rule. James Wickersham, however, grew increasingly concerned over the exploitation of Alaska for personal and corporate interests and took it upon himself to fight for Alaskan self-rule. He used the Ballinger–Pinchot affair in order to help achieve this. As a result of the affair, Alaska was on the national headlines, and President Taft was forced to send a message to Congress on February 2, 1912, insisting that they listen to Wickersham. In April 1912 Congress passed the Second Organic Act which turned Alaska into a US territory with an elected legislature. The federal government still retained much of the control over laws regarding fishing, gaming, and natural resources and the governor was also still appointed by the President. In 1916, Wickersham, who was now a delegate to Congress, proposed the first bill for Alaskan statehood. The bill, however, failed, partly due to domestic disinterest among Alaskans in gaining statehood.

Discrimination against the Alaskan Territory made it difficult for Congress to get much done. Discussion of revising the Second Organic Act took up much time but came to no avail. Instead Congress passed the Jones Act (also known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920) and the White Act of 1924 both of which made the fishing problem worse for Alaskans rather than better. Alaskans were angered by these two acts and felt they were discriminatory. Matters were made worse by regional conflicts which drew attention away from the issue of statehood. In the 1930s Alaska was plagued by the Depression. During this time, President Roosevelt did two significant things for Alaska. First he allowed for 1,000 selected farmers hurt by the depression to move to Alaska and colonize the Matanuska-Susitna Valley, being given a second chance at agricultural success. Second and more importantly, Roosevelt appointed Ernest Gruening as governor of Alaska in 1939. Edward Lewis "Bob" Bartlett, who was one of Alaska's territorial delegates to Congress from 1944 to 1958 when he became a US senator representing Alaska, would become one of Gruening's most important allies in supporting the cause for Alaskan statehood.

Alaska's desire for statehood was much aided by the amount of attention it received during WWII and the Cold War years. As it became an important strategic military base and a key to the Pacific, its population increased with the number of soldiers sent there and its situation gained nationwide attention. Yet even so, many barriers stood between Alaska and statehood. Many Alaskans like the Lomen brothers of Nome and Austin E. "Cap" Lathrop, who benefited largely from Alaska's small tax base did not want themselves or their businesses to be hurt financially by the increase in taxes that would result from statehood. Other Alaskans feared that statehood would result in a flood of more people coming to Alaska, which they didn't want. There was enough of a majority, though, that did want statehood so as to be able to pass a referendum for statehood in Alaska in 1946 by a 3:2 vote.

With the help of the referendum, Bartlett was able to introduce a bill to Congress. The bill, however, was immediately shot down by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans. (Republicans feared that Alaska would be unable to raise enough taxes due to its small population, and end up as a welfare state. The Southern Democrats feared more pro-civil rights congressmen.) To retaliate, Gruening established the "Alaska Statehood Committee" in 1949. He encouraged journalists, newspaper editors, politicians, and members of national and labor organizations to help use their positions and power to make the issue of Alaskan statehood more known. He gathered a group of 100 prominent figures, including Eleanor Roosevelt, actor James Cagney, Pearl S. Buck, John Gunther, historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. and Reinhold Niebuhr, who all stood for the Alaskan cause. Another bill was introduced to Congress in 1949 and passed in the House by a 186 to 146 vote in 1950. However, the bill was then shot down in the Senate, again for fear of adding more Democrats to the 81st Congress (1949–1951) Democrat (54 seats) Republican (42 seats).[3] On February 27, 1952, the Senate by a one-vote margin (45-44) killed the statehood bill for another year. Southern Democrats had threatened a filibuster to delay consideration. In the 1954 State of the Union address, Eisenhower referred to statehood for Hawaii (then a Republican territory) but not Alaska (then a Democratic territory). By March, frustrated by Eisenhower's refusal to support statehood for Alaska, a Senate coalition led by Democrats tied the fates of Alaska and Hawaii statehood together as one package. The procedural move was backed by some Southern Democrats, concerned about the addition of new votes in the civil rights for blacks movement, in the hope of defeating both measures.[4]

Six members of the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, including Senator Butler, went to Alaska in order to hold public hearings and see for themselves what the public sentiment was in Alaska. In response to the visit, Alaskans would not let Americans forget the cause. Citizens sent Christmas cards reading "Make [Alaskans'] future bright/Ask your Senator for statehood/And start the New Year right." Women made bouquets of Alaska's flower, the Forget-Me-Not and sent them to members of Congress. Movements such as "Operation Statehood" also put increasing pressure on Congress. "Lack of public interest" could no longer be used as a feasible excuse to prevent statehood.

In 1954 territorial governor B. Frank Heintzleman proposed that Alaska be divided at the 156th meridian west. Most Alaskans opposed his proposal.[5]

In interest of the growing fervor and enthusiasm towards the cause, a Constitutional Convention was held at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks in 1955. During this convention, Gruening gave a very powerful speech which compared Alaska's situation to the American struggle for independence. The famous speech was entitled "Let Us End American Colonialism" and had a very influential impact. The convention was highly praised and very emotional. The Constitution for Alaska was written up and Alaskans voted and passed the Alaska Constitution in 1956 with overwhelming approval. The Constitution was named "one of the best, if not the best, state constitutions ever written" by the National Municipal League.

Gruening's Speech (emphasis added): We meet to validate the most basic of American principles, the principle of "government by consent of the governed." We take this historic step because the people of Alaska who elected you, have come to see that their long standing and unceasing protests against the restrictions, discriminations and exclusions to which we are subject have been unheeded by the colonialism that has ruled Alaska for 88 years. The people of Alaska have never ceased to object to these impositions even though they may not have realized that such were part and parcel of their colonial status. Indeed the full realization that Alaska is a colony may not yet have come to many Alaskans, nor may it be even faintly appreciated by those in power who perpetuate our colonial servitude.

Half a century ago, a governor of Alaska, John Green-Brady, contemplating the vain efforts of Alaskans for nearly forty years to secure even a modicum of workable self-government, declared:

"We are graduates of the school of patience."

Since that time Alaskans have continued to take post-graduate courses. Today, in 1955, sorely tried through 88 years of step-childhood, and matured to step-adulthood, Alaskans have come to the time when patience has ceased to be a virtue. But our faith in American institutions, our reverence for American traditions, are not only undimmed but intensified by our continuing deprivation of them. Our cause is not merely Alaskans'; it is the cause of all Americans. So we are gathered here, following action by our elected representatives who provided this Constitutional Convention, to do our part to "show the world that America practices what it preaches."

These words are not original with me. But they remain as valued and as valid as when they were uttered five years ago. They remain no less valid even if their noble purpose is as yet unfulfilled. We are here to do what lies within our power to hasten their fulfillment.

We meet in a time singularly appropriate. Not that there is ever a greater or lesser timeliness for the application by Americans of American principles. Those principles are as enduring and as eternally timely as the Golden Rule. Indeed democracy is nothing less than the application of the Golden Rule to the Great Society. I mean, of course, democracy of deeds, not of lip-service; democracy that is faithful to its professions; democracy that matches its pledges with its performance. But there is nevertheless, a peculiar timeliness to this Alaskans' enterprise to keep our nation's democracy true to its ideals. For right now that the United States has assumed world leadership, it has shown through the expressions of its leaders its distaste for colonialism. And this antipathy to colonialism--wherever such colonialism may be found--reflects a deep-seated sentiment among Americans.

For our nation was born of revolt against colonialism. Our charters of liberty--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution-- embody America's opposition to colonialism and to colonialism's inevitable abuses. It is therefore natural and proper that American leadership should set its face against the absenteeism, the discriminations and the oppressions of colonialism. It is natural and proper that American leadership should lend such aid and comfort as it may to other peoples striving for self-determination and for that universally applicable tenet of American faith--government by consent of the governed. Indeed, as we shall see, we are pledged to do this by recent treaty commitments.

What more ironical, then, what more paradoxical, than that very very same leadership maintains Alaska as a colony?

What could be more destructive of American purpose in the world? And what could be more helpful to that mission of our nation than to rid America of its last blot of colonialism by admitting our only two incorporated territories--Alaska and Hawaii--to the equality they seek, the equality provided by the long-established and only possible formula, namely statehood?

America does not, alas, practice what it preaches, as long as it retains Alaska in colonial vassalage.

Is there any doubt that Alaska is a colony? Is there any question that in its maintenance of Alaska as a territory against the expressed will of its inhabitants, and subject to the accompanying political and economic disadvantages, the United States has been and is guilty of colonialism?

Lest there be such doubt, lest there be those who would deny this indictment, let the facts be submitted to a candid world.

You will note that this last sentence is borrowed from that immortal document, the Declaration of Independence. It is wholly appropriate to do this. For, in relation to their time, viewed in the light of mankind's progress in the 180 years since the revolt of the thirteen original American colonies, the "abuses and usurpations" --to use again the language of the Declaration--against which we protest today, are as great, if not greater, than those our revolutionary forbears suffered and against which they revolted.

Let us recall the first item of grievance in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has refused assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

"He," of course, was King George the Third. Put in his place, in place of the "he", his contemporary equivalent, our ruler, the federal government.

Has it, or has it not, "refused assent to laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good?"

We Alaskans know that the answer is emphatically, "Yes, it has."

He, or for the purpose of 1955, it, the federal government, has "refused assent," although requested to do so for some forty years, to the following I most wholesome and necessary laws:"

First. A law transferring the control and management of Alaska's greatest natural resource, the fisheries, to the Territory of Alaska, as it transferred the corresponding resources to all other Territories in the past.

Second. It has "refused assent" to a law repealing the thirty-five year old discrimination in the Maritime Law of 1920, the "Jones Act," a discrimination uniquely against Alaska.

Third. It has "refused assent" to a reform of our obsolete and unworkable land laws, which would assist and speed population growth, settlement and development of Alaska. It alone is responsible for over 99% of Alaska being still public domain.

Fourth. It has "refused assent" to a law including Alaska in federal aid highway legislation.

Fifth. It has "refused assent" to a law abolishing the barbarous commitment procedure of Alaska's insane which treats them like criminals and confines them in a distant institution in the states.

Sixth. It has "refused assent" to placing our federal lower court judges, the United States commissioners, on salary, and paying them a living wage.

One could cite other examples of such refusal to assent to "laws most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

But let us instead pass on to the second item for complaint, which is similar to the first, in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass laws of immediate and growing importance. . ."

Substitute for the "He", then the British royal executive, the present American federal executive, and substitute for "his governors", his party leaders in Congress, and recall their vote in the House of Representatives last May 10, killing a law "of immediate and growing importance"--the statehood bill.

Let us go still further down the list of our revolutionary fore- fathers' expressed grievances, again quoting the Declaration of Independence:

"He has obstructed the administration of Justice, by refusing his assent to laws establishing judiciary powers."

"He", is today the whole federal government. It has for a decade "obstructed the administration of justice" in Alaska by refusing assent to establishing additional judiciary powers, where they were needed, namely in the Third Judicial Division, while repeatedly increasing . the number of judges in the "mother country," the 48 states. And although the population of Alaska has more than tripled in the last forty-six years, the number of federal judges established in Alaska in 1909 remains unchanged. And federal judges are the only judges this colony is permitted to have.

Let us look still further in the Declaration of Independence:

"He has affected to render the military independent and superior to the civil power."

Is there much difference between this and the recent presidential declaration that the defense of Alaska, that is to say the rule of the military here, could be better carried out if Alaska remains a Territory?

One could go on at length drawing the deadly parallels which caused our revolutionary forefathers to raise the standard of freedom, although, clearly, some of the other abuses complained of in that distant day no longer exist.

But Alaska is no less a colony than were those thirteen colonies along the Atlantic seaboard in 1775. The colonialism which the United States imposes on us and which we have suffered for 88 years, is no less burdensome, no less unjust, than that against which they poured out their blood and treasure. And while most Alaskans know that full well, we repeat:

"To prove this let the facts be submitted to a candid world."

To begin at the beginning, the Treaty of Cession by which Alaska was annexed, contained a solemn and specific commitment:

"The inhabitants of the ceded territory ... shall be admitted to the enjoyment of all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States. . . "

That was the pledge. The United States has not kept that pledge. Yet a treaty is the highest law of the land. And it is made in the clear view of all mankind.

The United States has broken that pledge for 88 years. It has not admitted the inhabitants of Alaska to the enjoyment of "all the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States.

"All the rights, advantages and immunities of citizens of the United States" would entitle us to vote for President and Vice-President, to representation in the Congress by two Senators and a Representative with a vote, and would free us from the restrictions imposed by the Organic Act of 1912, and the Act of Congress of July 30, 1886. Obviously we have neither the vote, nor the representation, nor the freedom from restrictions.

We suffer taxation without representation, which is no less "tyranny" in 1955 than it was in 1775. Actually it is much worse in 1955 than in 1775 because the idea that it was "tyranny" was then new. Since the Revolutionaries abolished it for the states a century and three-quarters ago, it has become a national synonym for something repulsive and intolerable.

We are subject to military service for the nation--a privilege and obligation we accept gladly--yet we have not voice in the making and ending of the wars into which our young men are drafted. In this respect we are worse off than our colonial forefathers. King George III did not impose conscription upon them. They were not drafted to fight for the mother country. Therefore there was no revolutionary slogan "no conscription without representation." But it is a valid slogan for Alaskans today.

The treaty obligation of 1867 is an obligation to grant us the full equality of statehood, for which Alaskans did not press in the first 80 years of their subordination, but which now, overdue, they demand as their right.

But that is only a small part of the evidence of our colonialism under the American flag. Let us submit more facts to a candid world.

First, let us ask, what is a colony? And let us answer that question.

A colony has been defined in a standard college text-book by a Columbia University professor as "a geographic area held for political, strategic and economic advantage."

That, as the facts will show, is precisely what the Territory of Alaska is--"a geographic area held for political, strategic and economic advantage."

The maintenance and exploitation of those political, strategic and economic advantages by the holding power is colonialism.

The United States is that holding power.

Inherent in colonialism is an inferior political status.

Inherent in colonialism is an inferior economic status.

The inferior economic status is a consequence of the inferior political status.

The inferior economic status results from discriminatory laws and practices imposed upon the colonials through the superior political strength of the colonial power in the interest of its own non-colonial citizens.

The economic disadvantages of Alaskans which in consequence of such laws and practices redound to the advantage of others living in the states who prosper at the expense of Alaskans--these are the hall-marks of colonialism.

Let us take a look at these hall-marks of colonialism deeply engraved on the policies of the United States in Alaska in the field of transportation. Transportation is the key to almost all development. None have demonstrated this better than have the Americans within the non-colonial areas of their 48 states where transportation of every kind--railways, highways, airways--have linked, built and developed a dynamic domain of continental dimensions.

First, let us scrutinize sea-borne transportation. It was, for seventy-three years, until 1940, the only form of transportation between Alaska and the states. Alaska suffers a unique discrimination in maritime law.

Thirty-five years ago the Congress passed a merchant marine act which is known officially as the Maritime Act of 1920. In Alaska it is referred to as the "Jones Act," after its sponsor, the late Senator Wesley L. Jones of the state of Washington. The act embodied a substantial modification of existing maritime law. It provided that goods shipped across the United States, destined either for the coastal ports of the Atlantic or Pacific or for shipment across those oceans to Europe or to Asia, could use either American or foreign carriers. The foreign carriers principally involved were Canadian.

For example, a shipper from the Atlantic seaboard or from the industrial cities of the middle west of products destined for points to the west could ship these across the country wholly on American railroads or on Canadian railroads, or partly on either.

And when these goods arrived at their Coast destination, he could send them across the Pacific in either American or foreign vessels, or southward in either. But at that point in the legislation, creating this new beneficial arrangement, two words had been inserted in Article 27 of the Act. Those two words were, "excluding Alaska."

Now what did those two words signify? They signified that Alaska, alone among the nations, or possessions of nations, on earth, was denied the advantages afforded all other areas. The same discrimination, obviously, applies to products shipped from Alaska.

What was the purpose of this discrimination? Its purpose was to subject Alaska to steamship service owned in the city of Seattle. Senator Jones no doubt assumed, and correctly that this would be most helpful to some of his constituents there, as indeed it proved to be, but at the expense, the heavy expense, from that time on, of our voteless citizens of Alaska.

This was in 1920. Under the limited self-government which Congress had granted Alaska through the Organic Act of 1912, more limited than had been granted any other territory, Alaska was still a youngster. Nevertheless, the fifth Territorial legislature meeting the next year, 1921, protested strenuously against this specific and flagrant discrimination, and ordered the Territorial Attorney-General to take the matter to court. The Territorial legislators believed, and so expressed themselves, that this new legislation enacted by Congress at the behest of Senator Jones of Seattle, was in violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution, which forbids discrimination against any port of the United States.

The case came to the Supreme Court of the United States on an appeal from a decree of the United States District Court dismissing the suit brought by the Territory and by an Alaskan shipper, the Juneau Hardware Company, which sought to restrain the Collector of Customs in Alaska from confiscating merchandise ordered by the hardware company and others in Alaska from points in the United States shipped over Canadian railroads, through Canadian ports and thence to Alaska by Canadian vessels, or merchandise to be shipped from Alaska to the United States in like manner.

In pleading the cause of the Territory, Alaska's Attorney-General John Rustgard argued that both the Treaty provisions and the specific extension of the Constitution to Alaska by the Organic Act of 1912 rendered the discriminatory clause unconstitutional. It looked like a clear case.

The Government--our government--which was defending this discriminatory maritime Act, was represented by the Solicitor-General of the United States, the Honorable James M. Beck of Pennsylvania.

Let the candid world note well the language of his argument:

"The immunity from discrimination is a reserved right on the part of the constituent states ... The clear distinction of governmental power between states and territories must be constantly borne in mind ... If the fathers had anticipated the control of the United States over the far-distant Philippine Islands, would they, who concern the reserved rights of the states, have considered for a moment a project that any special privilege which the interests of the United States might require for the ports of entry of the several states should by compulsion be extended to the ports of entry of the colonial dependencies ... ?"

Let the candid world note that the case for the United States was presented on the basis that discrimination against a colonial dependency was proper and legitimate and that "any special privilege" required in the United States would supersede any obligation to a colonial dependency. The colonial dependency involved was and is Alaska.

Mr. Justice McReynolds, in rendering the decision of the court, declared:

"The Act does give preference to the ports of the States over those of the Territories," but, he added, the Court could "find nothing in the Constitution itself or its history which compels the conclusion that it was intended to deprive Congress of the power so to Act."

So it was definitely established by the highest court of the land that Congress had discriminated against Alaska, but that, since Alaska was a colonial dependency, such discrimination was permissible and legal.

Every plea by our Alaska legislatures over a period of 35 years to rectify this grave and unjust discrimination has been ignored by successive Congresses. They have "refused assent" to every attempt by Alaska's delegates to secure remedial legislation.

Now the question naturally arises whether this discrimination imposed by the legislative branch of the federal government, approved by the executive branch, and sanctified by the judicial branch, was to prove to be more than a mere statement of the legality of such discrimination. Was it more than a mere affirmation of the subordinate and inferior status of Alaska's colonials as compared with the dominating and superior status of the American citizens of the states? Did this discrimination also carry with it economic disadvantages? Indeed it did.

Several private enterprises in Alaska were immediately put out of business by the action of Congress in 1920 even before the Supreme Court upheld the legality of that Congressional action.

A resident of Juneau had established a mill to process Sitka spruce. He was paying the required fees to the Forest Service and had developed a market for his product in the Middle West where it was used in airplane manufacture. He was shipping it through Vancouver, where it cost him five dollars a thousand to ship by rail to his customers.

The "Jones Act" automatically compelled him to ship his spruce boards by way of Seattle. Here he was charged eleven dollars a thousand, as against the five dollars he had been paying, plus some additional charges, which totalled more than his profit. In consequence his mill was shut down and a promising infant industry, utilizing an abundant but little used Alaskan resource was extinguished. Not only did the "Jones Act" destroy this and other enterprises, but prevented still others from starting and has prevented them ever since. If anyone doubts that political control of the Territory through remote forces and absentee interests does not cause economic damage to the people of Alaska he need but look at the working of the maritime legislation directed against Alaska and Alaska only.

Its immediate effects were to more than triple the cost of handling Alaska freight in Seattle on purchases made in Seattle, as compared with Seattle-brought cargoes destined for the Orient. Alaska's delegate, at that time, the late Dan Sutherland, testified that the Seattle terminal charges on shipments to Hawaii or Asia were only thirty cents a ton, and all handling charges were absorbed by the steamship lines, the result of competition between Canadian and American railways and steamship lines. But for Alaska, where Congressional legislation had eliminated competition, the Seattle terminal charges on local shipments, that is to say, on goods bought in Seattle destined for Alaska, were one hundred percent higher, or sixty cents a ton wharfage. So Alaskans paid $1.10 a ton for what cost Hawaiians and Asiatics thirty cents a ton-nearly four times as much.

This was by no means all. On shipments anywhere in the United States through Seattle, and destined for points in the Pacific other than Alaska, the total handling charges were only thirty cents a ton wharfage, and all other costs were absorbed by railroad and steamship lines. But for identical shipments consigned to Alaska, an unloading charge of sixty-five cents a ton was imposed, plus a wharfage charge of fifty cents a ton, plus a handling charge from wharf to ship of sixty cents a ton. These charges aggregated over five times the cost to a shipper to other points in the Pacific, and had to be paid by the Alaska consignee or shipper, and of course ultimately by the Alaskan consumer.

These damaging figures were presented by Delegate Sutherland at a public congressional committee hearing and made part of the official printed record. No attempt was made by the representatives of the benefitting state-side interests, either then or later, to explain, to justify, to palliate, to challenge, to refute, or to deny his facts.

If there is a clearer and cruder example of colonialism anywhere let it be produced! Here is a clear case where the government of the United States--through its legislative branch which enacted the legislation, the executive branch, through the President, who signed it, and the judicial branch, which through its courts, upheld it--imposed a heavy financial burden on Alaskans exclusively, for the advantage of private business interests in the "mother country."

Nor is even this by any means all on the subject of railroad and steamship discrimination against Alaska, and Alaska alone. In addition to all the above extortions against Alaska's shippers, suppliers and consumers--the direct result of discriminatory legislation --all the railroads of the United States charge a higher rate, sometimes as much as one hundred per cent higher for shipping goods across the continent, if these goods are destined for Alaska.

There is a so-called rail export tariff and a rail import tariff, which apply to a defined geographic area with exceptions made for other areas, which penalizes Alaska and Alaska alone.

Please note that the service rendered by those railroads, for the same distance, is exactly the same, whether the article to be shipped goes ultimately to Alaska or elsewhere in the Pacific or whether it stays on the mainland of the United States. But the charges for Alaska, and Alaska only, on that identical article, for identical mileage, and identical service, are specifically higher, sometimes up to one hundred per cent higher.

This abuse, as well as the others dating from the Jones Act have been the subject of unceasing protest from Alaskans. Alaska's legislatures have repeatedly memorialized the Congress and the federal executive agencies asking for equal treatment. Again and again have Alaska's delegates sought to have the discriminatory clause in the maritime law repealed. But each time the lobbies of the benefitting stateside interests have been successful in preventing any relief action.

How powerful these lobbies are and how successful they have been in maintaining these burdensome manifestations of colonialism may be judged from the unsuccessful efforts of the late Senator Hugh Butler of Nebraska to get the discriminatory words "excluding Alaska" stricken from the Act. He introduced a bill for that purpose.

In a speech on the Senate floor on December 4, 1947, he denounced "the discrimination against the territory in the present law", that is the Maritime Act of 1920, and urged that there was "need for the prompt removal of that discrimination if we are to demonstrate that we are in earnest in our determination to promote the development of Alaska."

In a subsequent communication to Senator Homer Capehart, who was then chairman of a sub-committee on Alaska matters of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to which Senator Butler's bill was referred, Senator Butler specified the character and extent of the abuse which Alaska was suffering, saying:

"Today after 27 years of operation under the Jones Act of 1920, the carriers have failed to establish satisfactory service. . . . The Territory is still without adequate transportation to meet its needs. . . . Most Alaskan coastal towns are not connected with the continental United States, or with each other, by highway or rail. Accordingly they have been at the mercy of a steamship monopoly of long duration. There could be no competition from rail or bus lines which would compel better services or lower rates. American steamship lines have not been able or willing to meet Alaska's transportation requirements. The service has been infrequent and the rates exorbitant."

This caustic language was Senator Butler's. And his testimony and vigorous denunciation are highly significant, not merely because he was very conservative, but because for the first fourteen years of his Senatorial service he was a bitter opponent of statehood for Alaska, a stand which made him the beau ideal of the anti-statehood elements within and without the Territory. He professed conversion to statehood for Alaska in 1954 only a few months before his death. He was still an unqualified opponent of Alaskan statehood when he issued this devastating indictment of the maritime transportation in 1947 and 8.

After going into further detail on the injurious effects on Alaska of the Jones Act, and the fact that most of the "merchandise . . . food products . . . and other commodities" shipped to Alaska were "an exclusive Seattle prerogative," Senator Butler continued:

"The passage of this amendment to the Jones Act could well mean the difference between the slow, continued strangulation of Alaska's economy, and the full development of the Territory's vast potentialities."

Senator Butler then spoke of the discriminatory rates in favor of canned salmon, which industry, he pointed out, likewise centered in and around Seattle, saying:

"The people of Alaska have long been subject to higher rates than has the salmon industry, for general cargo. These higher rates are, in fact, a decree penalizing the resident Alaskan for living in Alaska; the lower rates are, in effect, a decree requiring the Alaska resident to make up for whatever deficits accrue from the costs of shipping canned salmon and salmon-cannery needs....The strangling provisions of the present laws would be eliminated by the enactment of S. 1834."

S. 1834 was Senator Butler's bill to remove this manifestation of colonialism.

And Senator Butler concluded:

"The development of Alaska would be accelerated, and justice would be done to those permanent residents of our northwestern frontier, who have, for so many years, struggled valiantly against discouraging circumstances to develop that area."

Despite Senator Butler's powerful position as the Chairman of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs when his party controlled the Congress, this legislation failed. It did not even come out of committee. Eight more years have passed since that time; the tragic situation as far as Alaska is concerned, in its key transportation, has further deteriorated. Steamship freight rates have continued to go up and up, far above the levels that Senator Butler termed "exorbitant."

Invariably, whenever the operators announced another rate increase, the Alaska territorial authorities used to request the maritime regulatory agency to secure an audit of the company's books in order to demonstrate that the increases requested where justified. But almost invariably the increases were granted without such audit and often without question. It may well be asked whether, if Alaska were not a colony, but a State, its two Senators might not be reasonably effective in at least securing a demonstration from the carrier that its financial situation justified the rate increase demanded and promptly acceded to by the federal maritime bureau.

But actually, if Alaska were a State, the whole discrimination in the Jones Act would go out of the porthole. Alaska would then get the same treatment in the transportation of freight that is accorded to every other area under the flag and to foreign countries. But as a colony it gets no consideration in this matter either from the legislative branch, the Congress, or from the executive branch, in this instance the Federal Maritime Board, successor to other agencies similarly subservient to the vested interests within the colonial power.

The net result of those cumulative charges--50 to 100 per cent higher railroad freight rates to Seattle, higher unloading and transfer charges in Seattle, higher wharfage and higher longshoring charges, and finally higher maritime freight rates to Alaska ports--all higher than anywhere else for any but Alaskans, has been and is greatly to increase the cost of living in Alaska. This in itself has been and continues to be a great hindrance to settlement and permanent residence in Alaska, a heavy burden on private enterprise in Alaska, a forecloser of new enterprise, and obviously a great obstacle to development.

How absurd in the light of these facts--and others similar to be submitted to our candid world--is the allegation of the small minority of Alaskans and of others "outside" that we are not ready for statehood. How shall we get readier with these handicaps? How can we cope with what conservative Senator Butler described as "the slow, continued strangulation of Alaska's economy, " if the throttling grip of colonialism is not loosened?

To complete the maritime picture, beginning last year all passenger travel on American boats has ceased. The Alaska Steamship Line has eliminated it. This is a blow to an infant and potentially great industry in Alaska, the tourist industry, which four years ago the Alaska 1961 legislature sought to develop by establishing the Alaska Visitors' Association, financed jointly by territorially appropriated and publicly subscribed funds.

One postscript remains on the subject of maritime transportation before we pass on to other of Alaska's colonial disadvantages. Though it is invariably pointed out by Congressional opponents of statehood that Alaska is a non-contiguous area, separated from the main body of the 48 states by some 700 miles of foreign territory, or 700 miles of either international or foreign coastal waters, the United States persists in maintaining the coast-wise shipping laws against Alaska. Their removal would make a steamship line eligible for the subsidies which American flag ships in the European, African or Asiatic trade receive. That might, were Congress sufficiently interested, induce some competition in the Alaska steamship trade from other American carriers. That the imposition of the coast-wise shipping laws is not a necessary corollary to being a colony, is proved by the fact that the United States has suspended the coastwise shipping laws for the Virgin Islands. But it has declined to do so for Alaska.

Let us now turn to a third form of transportation: highways. These catchwords of colonialism, "excluding Alaska", likewise apply to our highway transportation. For Alaska is denied inclusion in the Federal Aid Highway Act. From this beneficent legislation enacted in 1916, and repeatedly amended and amplified, Alaska, alone among the States and incorporated territories, is excluded. Even Puerto Rico, which pays no federal taxes whatever, is included. Yet Alaskans pay all taxes, including the federal gas tax.

The Congressionally wrought substitute--annual appropriation--is a witness to colonialism expressed in cold figures. The results are visible in the lack of an adequate Alaskan highway system. After 88 years of colonialism and 40 years after the enactment by Congress of the joint federal aid and state highway program, Alaska has only some 3,500 miles of highway. This is a negligible amount for an area one-fifth as large as the 48 states and with only one railroad.

For the first 38 years after the cession of Alaska no roads were built by any government agency. With Alaska almost totally public domain, highway construction was clearly a federal responsibility. In the next 36 years beginning with the first federal construction in 1905 and the outbreak of World War IL in 1941, the federal government appropriated about nineteen and a half million dollars, an average of a trifle over half a million dollars a year--a pittance. During that same period Alaska contributed some nine million dollars. Thus the federal contribution was 68.4 per cent of the total of twenty-eight and a half million dollars, and Alaska's was 31.6 per cent, a far greater proportion than Alaska with its virtual totality of public domain would have had to pay under the Federal Aid Highway Act. It is fair to say, however, that under the Highway Act, federal funds go for construction and not for maintenance.

After road construction had been transferred from the War Department to the Department of the Interior in 1930, for the next decade or more throughout the nineteen thirties, when the federal government and the States were jointly expanding the national highway network, Alaska was given no new highway construction. Maintenance only was granted. Military requirements brought the Alaska Highway and the Glenn Highway, and in the later 1940's a highway program to satisfy defense needs was begun and carried out for five years. But even that has been brought to a virtual halt. For the past three years the federal program has contained no new highway project. This year a token appropriation was included for the desirable Fairbanks-Nenana road, but at the price of halting construction of the important Copper River Highway. In fact the present greatly reduced program spells little more than slow completion and paving of the military highways begun eight years ago. The federal government seems to be heading us back to mere maintenance.

In contrast the federal aid program in the mother country is being handsomely increased, reaching the largest sums in its history in the current biennial appropriation enacted in the second session of the 83rd Congress.

If Alaska were a State it would be automatically included in the expanding highway program. But as a colony it continues to be discriminated against, and that discrimination, instead of lessening is being aggravated.

By the same token Alaska has been excluded from the administration's one hundred and one billion dollar federal highway program. One of its principal justifications, perhaps the principal justification, for this lavish, yet important and valuable proposal, is that it is in part a civilian defense measure to aid evacuation and dispersal in the event of a shooting war with atomic weapons. Yet the same administration that excludes Alaska from this defense measure wishes to keep Alaska in colonial bondage because of alleged national defense reasons.

The enactment of this multi-billion dollar program was deferred in the last session of Congress because of differences of opinion on how to finance it. But in one respect there was no difference of opinion: Alaska would be taxed for the program even if not included in it. The Eisenhower program, presented by General Lucius Clay, called for long term bonding to be repaid out of general funds, Congressional substitutes, on a more nearly "pay-as-you-go" basis, called for increased taxes on gasoline, tires, and other automobile accessories. Efforts to include Alaska in both programs failed, as did subsequent efforts to exclude Alaska from the tax provisions. So Alaskans will be taxed for benefits accruing solely to the residents of the mother country. What else is this but colonialism, crude, stark, undisguised and unashamed?

When both the presidential and congressional drafts failed of passage, President Eisenhower declared he was "deeply disappointed" and added:

"The nation badly needs good roads. The good of our people, of our economy, and of our defense requires that the construction of these highways be undertaken at once."

As colonials we can merely note that Alaskans are, in the consideration of our President, apparently not part of "our people, our economy and our defense."

There is yet more of humiliating disregard. The federal administration while patently uninterested in developing Alaska through its highways is strongly in favor of completing the Inter-American Highway.

On March 31, last, President Eisenhower in a letter to Vice-President Nixon requested an increase in the current appropriation for the central American portion from five million to seventy-five million dollars, a more than thirteen-fold increase. The President gave several reasons for this massive amplification. Three of them emphasized the important economic contribution to the countries through which this highway passes, and a fourth stressed the security aspects of the road.

We may applaud the purpose to complete the Inter-American Highway, with its economic benefits to Guatemala, Honduras, Salvador, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Panama. We may even enjoy our participation in this philanthropy to these good neighbors, remembering that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and that every Alaskan is paying his share of that 75 million dollars. Still, some of us may wonder why similar consideration is not vouchsafed to Alaska, whose highway and economic needs are great, whose trade is almost exclusively with the United States, and whose relation to national security is certainly much closer than that of the Central American republics. This wonder in our part would be Particularly natural since President Eisenhower seems to exhibit concern about Alaska's defense in connection with statehood.

We have now viewed three flagrant examples of colonialism in three of the major means of transportation, shipping, railways and highways. Let us now look at the fourth-airways.

It is superfluous to signalize our air-mindedness to any group of Alaskans. But the candid world should know that Alaskans fly thirty to forty times more than other Americans, and starting with our bush pilots, early developed a fine system of intra-Alaskan aviation. It was almost wholly an Alaskan enterprise--flown and financed by Alaskans--though for a time without airports, aids to navigation and other assistance provided in the mother country. The Air Commerce Act of 1926--a sort of federal aid act for air--did not supply any of these aids to Alaska, although Alaska was included in the legislation. Nevertheless Alaska again suffered the penalty of being a colony, this time at the hands of the federal executive agency entrusted with administration of the Act. This time it was the bureaucrats who "excluded" Alaska. But the Alaskan bush pilots flew anyhow and what we have in the way of airways in Alaska is largely due to their courageous and skilful pioneering.

However, air service between Alaska and the States, which required the approval of federal bureaus and investment of outside capital, lagged far behind. The first commercial service connecting Alaska with the mother country did not take place until 1940, long after American commercial air carriers had spanned the rest of the hemisphere and had established regular service across the Pacific.

Meanwhile the newly created bureaucracies of the Civil Aeronautics Board and the Civil Aeronautics Administration moved into Alaska. They began restricting local enterprise. In the late 1940's, over the widespread protests of Alaskans, the C. A. B. began cracking down on non-scheduled operations, and finally eliminated the "non-scheds" completely. It did not do so in the forty-eight states. Alaska was again the victim of its colonial status. We had no Senators or voting representatives to fend for us.

The successive certification cases which for over a decade have dealt with transportation between the states and Alaska, have been desperate, and not wholly successful, struggles by Alaskans to overcome the inadequate understanding of the Civil Aeronautics Board that air transportation is relatively much more important in Alaska than in the states with their well-established alternative forms of transportation, by railways and highways. Five years ago interior Alaska was saved from insufficient service only by President Truman's overruling the Board and granting certification to one of the two Alaskan carriers which the Board had denied.

For the last two years our two Alaskan carriers, in the face of. steadily mounting traffic, have managed by heroic, all-out effort at least to retain what they had. But it is noteworthy that while the two international carriers serving Alaska, both "mother country" enterprises, have been granted permanent certificates, the certificates for our two Alaskan carriers are only temporary--a handicap to their financing and to their ability to expand.

Alaska's statehood case could rest here. Yet no account of its 88 years would be complete without some notice of the salmon fishery. It comes, this year, pretty close to being an obituary notice.

Here was Alaska's greatest natural resource.

Here was the nation's greatest fishery resource.

For nearly half a century, the federal government has totally ignored, has "refused assent" to the petitions, pleas, prayers, memorials, of legislatures, delegates, governors, and of the whole Alaskan people for measures that would conserve that resource.

The result is written in figures that spell tragedy for Alaska's fishermen and for many others in Alaska's coastal communities whose economy has long depended on the fisheries. The tragedy has deepened year after year. So grave has become the plight that the administration found it necessary to proclaim the fishing villages to be disaster areas. It is a disaster caused by colonialism, and the federal government may charge the costs of disaster relief and loss of federal tax income to its own policies.

From over eight million cases twenty years ago the salmon pack has fallen year by year until in 1955 it has reached the incredible low of 2,382,131 cases, the lowest in 46 years.

Nowhere, as in the Alaska fisheries fiasco, is the lesson clearer or the superiority, in purely material terms, of self-government to colonialism. In neighboring British Columbia and Washington State, where the fisheries are under home rule, and where fish traps have been abolished, the identical resource has not only been conserved but augmented.

It is colonialism that has both disregarded the interest of the Alaskan people and caused the failure of the prescribed federal conservation function. Colonialism has preferred to conserve the power and perquisites of a distant bureaucracy and the control and special privileges--the fish traps--of a politically potent absentee industry. Alaska has been the victim, but the entire nation has also lost heavily.

Let us by way of a footnote make crystal clear how and why this is colonialism-because some defenders of the status quo may deny it is, and we don't want the candid world to be confused.

The people of Alaska have repeatedly and unchangingly manifested their overwhelming opposition to fish traps. It isn't necessary to rehearse all their reasons--the results have amply justified the Alaskans' position. But fish trap beneficiaries, residents of the mother country, want to retain their Alaska traps. So the traps are retained. And it is the power and authority of the federal government which retains them. In a clear-cut issue between the few, profiting, non-colonial Americans and the many, seriously damaged, colonial Alaskans, the state-side interest wins hands down. And it wins because the government, which is also supposed to be our government, throws its full weight on their side and against us. That is colonialism.

It would be impossible in any one address, even one that assumed the length of a Senate filibuster, to list all the wrongs, disadvantages and lack of immunities that Alaska has endured in its 88 years as a territory. They constitute an incredible story. Even for these who know it, it is hard to believe. It is hard for us as Americans who long ago established our faith in American intelligence, competence, good sense, and above all in American fair play, to contemplate the story of American colonialism in Alaska. It has been part of our faith, an abiding faith, that to right deep-seated wrongs in America, one but had to make them sufficiently widely known. And our best hope does lie, I am convinced, in making the facts known widely-and especially the overshadowing fact of our colonialism-to our fellow-Americans and to the rest of the candid world. They should know that what progress has been made in Alaska, and it has been substantial and praiseworthy, has been made in spite of these colonial impositions, and largely because of the character and fibre of the colonials themselves. Coming here from the forty-eight states, following the most cherished American trend, the westward march in search of greater freedom and greater opportunity, they brought to the last frontier and to its friendly native population, the very qualities that have made America. Only distantly man-made problems, the problems created by a remote, often unseen officialdom and its beneficiaries in the mother country, have remained unresolved.

Alaskans have striven consistently to resolve them. Let it be recorded that for 43 years, since the first legislature, and before that by individuals and groups, they have pleaded for relief from the abuses a part of which have been detailed.

Yet after two generations not a single one of these pleas, all of them fair and reasonable, has been granted.

How applicable to Alaska's plight the words of the Declaration of Independence:

"In every stage of these oppression's we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered by repeated injury."

Lest these frequent citations from the Declaration of Independence lead anyone to the conclusion that there are any among us who now desire our independence, let such a totally erroneous assumption be promptly corrected. We desire and demand an end to our colonialism. But we seek it through a re-affirmation in deeds for Alaska of the principles which launched the American experiment, and re-application of the practice that has been followed in 35 states.

We Alaskans believe--passionately--that American citizenship is the most precious possession in the world. Hence we want it in full measure; full citizenship instead of half-citizenship; first class instead of second class citizenship. We demand equality with all other Americans, and the liberties, long denied us, that go with it. To adapt Daniel Webster's famous phrase uttered as a peroration against impending separatism we Alaskans want "liberty and union, one and inseparable, now and forever."

But the keepers of Alaska's colonial status should be reminded that the 18th century colonials for long years sought merely to obtain relief from abuses, for which they--like us--vainly pleaded, before finally resolving that only independence would secure for them the "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness," which they felt was their natural right.

We trust that the United States will not by similar blindness to our rights and deafness to our pleas drive Alaskans from patient hope to desperation.

We have been challenged in the course of Congressional debates to show as a pre-requisite that admission of Alaska to statehood would be beneficial to the nation. That test was never applied to earlier territories seeking and securing statehood. But we gladly accept that challenge and willingly subscribe to it as a condition.

The development of Alaska, the fulfillment of its great destiny, cannot be achieved under colonialism. The whole nation will profit by an Alaska that is populous, prosperous, strong, self-reliant--a great northern and western citadel of the American idea. Statehood would automatically bring us far along that high road.

Nothing could more pathetically reveal the lack of understanding regarding Alaska, and the poor advice concerning Alaska that is given and accepted in the highest places, than the presidential pronouncement in the last state-of-the-union message.

"As the complex problems of Alaska are resolved that Territory should expect to achieve statehood."

Bless us! The complex problems of Alaska are inherent in its territorial status; they are derived from its colonial status; they will be largely resolved by statehood and only by statehood.

As was promptly called to President Eisenhower's attention this was like the old story of telling a youngster he must learn to swim before going into the water!

So we return to the proposition that America can scarcely afford to perpetuate its colonialism. Our nation is attempting to lead the world into the pathway of peace. No goal could be more worthy. But to lead effectively, it must not only practice what it preaches. It must carry out its solemn commitments. It can scarcely be critical of nations that break their pledges and break its own. It must first cast the beam out of its own eye before attempting to pull the motes of its neighbors' eyes.

For the United States has pledged its good name and good faith in treaties and agreements far more recent than the Treaty of Cession of 1867. Not that our nation's responsibility for not carrying out those original pledges in regard to Alaska is diminished by the passage of time. But there are recent and even contemporary commitments which demand fulfillment.

Article 73 of the United Nations Charter, dealing with non-selfgoverning territories--and that includes Alaska which must make annual reports to the U.N.--pledges the signatories:

"To the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories is paramount," and further pledges them

"To insure . . . their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses," and, finally, and this is most pertinent, it pledges them

"To develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions. . . . "

The United States pledged itself to that ten years ago. If the English language has not lost its meaning and the United States its integrity, it should some time ago have, and should now, in any event, "take due account of the political aspirations" of Alaskans and enable them to develop the self-government which they seek.

There is an even more recent commitment--the Pacific charter--signed a year ago, in which the signatory nations, including the United States, pledged themselves "to uphold the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples," and to re-enforce that principle the signatories further pledged that they were "prepared to continue taking effective practical measures to insure conditions favorable to orderly achievement of the foregoing purposes," namely self-government.

We are agreed that there is only one form of self-government that is possible for Alaska. And so we are drawing UP the constitution for the State that we fervently hope will soon come to be. That hope, it is encouraging to note, is shared by the great majority of Americans. If our 88-year experience inevitably leads to strictures of the colonialism that has ruled us, let us remember that it is a course not sanctioned by American public opinion. The Gallup polls, which last recorded an 82 per cent support of Alaskan statehood, the endorsement of virtually every important national organization, demonstrate clearly that the forces in and out of government which would deny Alaska statehood--in fact the government itself--do not represent prevailing American sentiment.

It may be regrettable-or not-but every generation must fight to preserve its freedom. We have twice in a life-time participated in our nation's fight to preserve them. In Alaska we still have to win them.
This Constitutional Convention is an important mobilization. But the battle still lies ahead, and it will require all our fortitude, audacity, resoluteness--and maybe something more--to achieve victory. When the need for that something more comes, if we have the courage--the guts--to do whatever is necessary, we shall not fail. That the victory will be the nation's as well as Alaska's--and the world's--should deepen our determination to end American colonialism.

Another step forward for the cause was taken by the Alaskan adoption of the "Tennessee Plan" which allowed them to elect their delegates to Congress without having to wait for an official act from Congress. Alaskans therefore elected to Congress Senators Ernest Gruening and William A. Egan and Representative to the House Ralph J. Rivers. Gruening, Egan, and Rivers attended Congress and were politely received, though they were not officially seated or recognized in any way. The Alaskan delegation did not give up, however, and worked hard with Bartlett to pressure the Congress into action.
Members of Congress finally change their minds

Eventually, with the help of Bartlett's influence, the Speaker of the House, Sam Rayburn, who up until 1957 had been an ardent opponent of the Alaskan statehood cause, changed his mind and when Congress reconvened in January 1958, President Eisenhower fully endorsed the bill for the first time. Senator Lyndon B. Johnson promised his commitment to the bill but others still stood in the way, such as Representative Howard W. Smith of Virginia, Chairman of the powerful Rules Committee, and Thomas Pelly of Washington State who wanted the Alaskan waters to be open to use by Washingtonians.

--- (end speech)

Eventually, though, such resistance was able to be bypassed and the House passed the statehood bill. The senate, which had had its own version of the bill as well as the House's version, finally managed to pass the House's bill through the fervent urging of Bartlett by a 64–20 vote. On January 3, 1959, after much struggle and through the efforts of many, Alaska finally became the 49th state of the United States of America after President Eisenhower's signing of the official declaration.

In the late 1950s civil rights bills were being introduced in Congress. To overcome the Southern Democrats’ suppression of the pro-Republican African-American vote, then-Republican Hawaii’s prospects for statehood were tied to Alaska’s, which many thought would be more Democratic.[6] Hawaii statehood was expected to result in the addition of two pro-civil-rights senators from a state which would be the first to have majority non-white population. This would endanger the Southern minority segregationist Democrat Senate by providing two more Republican votes to invoke cloture and halt a Senate filibuster. The Congressional vote totals show a proportionally larger support for the 1964 Civil Rights Act by the Republican Party. The House of Representatives’ vote by party was 136 to 35 (80% support) by Republicans, but only 153 to 91 (63% support) by Democrats.[7] -- Alaska Statehood Act - Wikipedia

 

[Silhouette]

The Californians want to rearrange the electoral system so that all the electoral votes come from West Hollywood & San Franfreakshow...

While I think they should instead all come from East LA, San Diego & the Central Valley.

 

[Care4all]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

Don't forget that millions of illegals voted in California. Without the illegal vote, Trump would be up in the popular vote overall. But this is exactly why we have the EC, so when one corrupt state that willingly participates in election fraud they won't be over represented.

It's been talked about a lot, but do we have actual proof that illegals voted in large #'s?

CA automatically registers people with a drivers license. Illegals are allowed to get a license. Can they prove all their voters are citizens? Until they can, popular vote doesn't mean shit.

As with ALL STATES NOW, California had to compy with the Federal govt's READ ID act, which requires a separate Driver's license application for illegal and legal immigrants...they can not stand in line with American citizens at the DMV, they have to make an appointment with the DMV and provide the paperwork the DMV/REAL ID ACT requires for immigrants, and on their driver's licences, which are different from citizen's it is MARKED, no FEDERAL BENEFITS are given and no voting in Federal elections.

AND all American citizens applying must produce a birth certificate or other govt id like a Military ID or PASSPORT to get the Driver's license....

In Maine, which was one of the States that sued the Federal govt for mandating this, finally settled a few years back and when I was suppose to simply renew my driver's license by mail, they FORCED me to go in to the DMV and provide my birth certificate or Passport in order for them to renew it, in order to comply with the Real ID act.

Illegals and legal immigrants, have a separate process, and in that process for their Driver's licenses, they are NOT automatically enrolled to vote, ONLY those applying for a citizen driver's license are....

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The rural guy gets the same vote as the urban guy. One person one vote. That is the right way. The electoral college is an abomination.

Liberals often speak of wanting to grant equality to everyone, and they foolishly believe the popular vote is the best way. No, it's not.

The Electoral College was an ingenious way to make sure the rural guy's vote had the same power as the urban guy's. That's equality, and liberals don't want it, contrary to their pro-equality stances.

 

[westwall]

That's why it has worked so well in the past. You're a moron.

Says a leading moron of the Board. The argument between whether it is best to be a Republic or a Democracy rests solely on whose side it serves best.

Both dems and pubs have no integrity on this issue. Their arguments are based solely on the quest for power.

But . . . Trump is the POTUS-elect unless a recount in MI, WI, and PA says differently.

A Republic serves the MINORITY. You know, like when you and your asshats say "hey, that black dude has a nice car! I want it. He doesn't deserve it! Let's vote on taking it away from him!" And the rest of your sycophants all chime in. THAT is a democracy. On the other hand in a Republic you asshats try and do that and the lone black guy says..."ummmmmm, no. You can't take that away from him just because you want to!"

See how that works? Stupid lazy pricks, like you, love a democracy because it makes legalized theft real easy. A Republic though, protects that black man.

I believe in a Republic, you bed wetting ass hat. And I do say that in the gentlest way. I actually believe in the EC, whereas you don't care you, little wuss: you just want power.

Fakey jakey, I don't think you have a clue what you believe dude. You just do what your masters tell you. If you actually believed what you just said you wouldn't be whining that the shrilary won the popular vote. Now would you. Looks like it's you who are the dumb ass here clown boy.

Westwhiner, I do support the EC, you only care about power. I note that HRC got more votes for president than any white man in history, which bothers you a big deal. It should, whiner. However, I think Trump is showing signs that he is turning his back on many of the vitriolic language and positions that he espoused in the campaign.

We should give a chance, but always remind him that more people, even with a lack luster performance by the Dems, voted against him.

America is watching Trump, and waiting to stomp on the Alt Right if necessary.

Sure thing clown boy. It ain't me wanting to use government to dictate to people how they should live their lives. That's you silly child. That's you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Says a leading moron of the Board. The argument between whether it is best to be a Republic or a Democracy rests solely on whose side it serves best.

Both dems and pubs have no integrity on this issue. Their arguments are based solely on the quest for power.

But . . . Trump is the POTUS-elect unless a recount in MI, WI, and PA says differently.

A Republic serves the MINORITY. You know, like when you and your asshats say "hey, that black dude has a nice car! I want it. He doesn't deserve it! Let's vote on taking it away from him!" And the rest of your sycophants all chime in. THAT is a democracy. On the other hand in a Republic you asshats try and do that and the lone black guy says..."ummmmmm, no. You can't take that away from him just because you want to!"

See how that works? Stupid lazy pricks, like you, love a democracy because it makes legalized theft real easy. A Republic though, protects that black man.

I believe in a Republic, you bed wetting ass hat. And I do say that in the gentlest way. I actually believe in the EC, whereas you don't care you, little wuss: you just want power.

Fakey jakey, I don't think you have a clue what you believe dude. You just do what your masters tell you. If you actually believed what you just said you wouldn't be whining that the shrilary won the popular vote. Now would you. Looks like it's you who are the dumb ass here clown boy.

Westwhiner, I do support the EC, you only care about power. I note that HRC got more votes for president than any white man in history, which bothers you a big deal. It should, whiner. However, I think Trump is showing signs that he is turning his back on many of the vitriolic language and positions that he espoused in the campaign.

We should give a chance, but always remind him that more people, even with a lack luster performance by the Dems, voted against him.

America is watching Trump, and waiting to stomp on the Alt Right if necessary.

Sure thing clown boy. It ain't me wanting to use government to dictate to people how they should live their lives. That's you silly child. That's you.

Sure, it is, or you would not have voted for Trump. Trump is going to dictate, or try to, to all of us how to live our lives, which makes you a part of that.

 

[jasonnfree]

I must once again remind everyone, that if the overall popular vote was the goal to become president, the campaign strategies would have been much different. Thus the popular vote count would have been different.

When the Trump team mapped out their strategy to reach 270 electoral votes, they excluded the west coast and instead placed their money and effort in the swing states.

Yep. Electoral votes 'trump' popular votes. Always has, and hillary's crybabies would be cackling with joy right now if their candidate had gotten the most electorals.

 

[TemplarKormac]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

Doesn't matter.... the POTUS is elected by the States (through the EC) not the people and last time I checked California was still a member state in the U.S. Republic.

The founders were indeed wise to attempt to insulate the selection of the Chief Executive from the pitfalls of Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority, unfortunately too many Americans have come to believe that Democracy > Individual Liberty and thus would happily give up the latter if the majority dictated it.

tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy.

I'm sure the concept of "majority rule, minority rights" escapes you right now.

This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1821

""A geographical division... is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith

 

[Theowl32]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

Doesn't matter.... the POTUS is elected by the States (through the EC) not the people and last time I checked California was still a member state in the U.S. Republic.

The founders were indeed wise to attempt to insulate the selection of the Chief Executive from the pitfalls of Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority, unfortunately too many Americans have come to believe that Democracy > Individual Liberty and thus would happily give up the latter if the majority dictated it.

tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy.

I'm sure the concept of "majority rule, minority rights" escapes you right now.

This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1821

""A geographical division... is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith

He, he owwwnnned slaaaaaaves!

 

[NYcarbineer]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The rural guy gets the same vote as the urban guy. One person one vote. That is the right way. The electoral college is an abomination.

Liberals often speak of wanting to grant equality to everyone, and they foolishly believe the popular vote is the best way. No, it's not.

The Electoral College was an ingenious way to make sure the rural guy's vote had the same power as the urban guy's. That's equality, and liberals don't want it, contrary to their pro-equality stances.

No it doesn't give the rural guy the same power. You're fucking retarded.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

Doesn't matter.... the POTUS is elected by the States (through the EC) not the people and last time I checked California was still a member state in the U.S. Republic.

The founders were indeed wise to attempt to insulate the selection of the Chief Executive from the pitfalls of Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority, unfortunately too many Americans have come to believe that Democracy > Individual Liberty and thus would happily give up the latter if the majority dictated it.

tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy.

I'm sure the concept of "majority rule, minority rights" escapes you right now.

This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1821

""A geographical division... is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith

Why is it that conservatives say that the majority is tyranny,

but they also say the 9 judges on the Supreme Court are tyranny?

Is anything NOT tyranny to a RWnut?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The logic of this post is completely twisted and without thought.

You simultaneously dismiss some votes and lament the diminishment of others. Truly dopey.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The rural guy gets the same vote as the urban guy. One person one vote. That is the right way. The electoral college is an abomination.

That is how it worked in my state, it wasn't in yours?

The EC makes my vote worth more, and yours. If it were not for the EC California would be electing every president, you vote wouldn't mean crap.

More flawed logic.
A State doesn't elect anyone. It's up to each candidate to garner the support of the populace through the strength of their ideas. If your candidate cannot compete in Cali, that's their problem. Try some new ideas that the voters support.

 

[Indeependent]

Throw out the illegal votes and the Trump rigging, HRC probably won by 6 million votes.

You are fucking loser

Dementia.

 

[Theowl32]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

The logic of this post is completely twisted and without thought.

You simultaneously dismiss some votes and lament the diminishment of others. Truly dopey.

Look mommy, a fucking moron.

 

[Indeependent]

That would mean with the exception of California that Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million.

Why? Cause according to sources hillary won the popular vote by around 2 million. She won California by 3.5 million?

What, what does that mean?

How Many Popular Votes Did Clinton & Trump Win in Each State?

Hillary Clinton Now Leads by 1.4 Million in History-Making Popular Vote Total

Make no mistake everyone. The left are not dropping this. They are fully trying to push mob rule. Take power away from the states and silence the rural voices.

You are seeing the fullness of their petulant spoiled ways.

If they truly want a war, I know I am ready. It may take a bloody conflict. I can assure you this. They will never admit how wrong they are. Never.

Doesn't matter.... the POTUS is elected by the States (through the EC) not the people and last time I checked California was still a member state in the U.S. Republic.

The founders were indeed wise to attempt to insulate the selection of the Chief Executive from the pitfalls of Democracy and the Tyranny of the Majority, unfortunately too many Americans have come to believe that Democracy > Individual Liberty and thus would happily give up the latter if the majority dictated it.

tyranny of the majority. Majority rule is the cornerstone of democracy.

I'm sure the concept of "majority rule, minority rights" escapes you right now.

This is what Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1821

""A geographical division... is a most fatal of all divisions, as no authority will submit to be governed by a majority acting merely on a geographical principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel H. Smith

Why is it that conservatives say that the majority is tyranny,

but they also say the 9 judges on the Supreme Court are tyranny?

Is anything NOT tyranny to a RWnut?

You would have welfare recipients determining legislation.