Alaska’s Catholic Bishops Quiver Before Apostate Murkowski’s Pro-Abortion Jihad

Once again, Alaska’s “Catholic” U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has given herself over to Planned Parenthood and the Culture of Death that it promotes by her refusal to de-fund the abortion giant from federal hand-outs. Of the approximately sixty million abortions that have been performed when the first states legalized it since the late 60s, through the feminist years of the 70s and 80s until now, Planned Parenthood has accounted for more abortions — into the tens of millions — than any other source.

Planned Parenthood is the first to deny that they are obsessed with abortion, constantly referring to their “other services” such as pap smears and breast cancer tests … yet join with gusto as co-litigants whenever a challenge to “abortion rights” occurs on the state and national levels.

Most people reading this are not Catholic Alaskans, but every one of them have Murkowski as their U.S. Senator. In dealing with political figures who deviate from Catholic teaching, there are supposed to be consequences that instruct the recalcitrant office holders, consequences that can range anywhere from a public rebuke to excommunication. There are, of course, other options in between those parameters, yet none have ever been visited upon any Alaskan Catholic politician.

Indeed, public statements come out from chanceries whenever a favored socialist program is threatened by conservatives. One is reminded of the instant reaction regarding President Trump’s travel ban.

This leaves many prolifers, both Catholic and non-Catholic, in a quandary. “The Catholic Church talks a good game, but does not follow through”, would be one way to characterize it. The faithful who have approached now three different bishops in the Archdiocese of Anchorage over the years have received silence, tut-tut head pats, assurances that behind-the-scenes efforts would be a better way to approach the problem, or admonishment for fomenting divisiveness.

There are other issues that this cavalier treatment by the bishops of Alaska are creating by a tepid response. One would be the salvation of the soul of the offending politician. “Actions have eternal consequences” are homilies that seldom are heard in the “peace-and-justice” themes that dominate Alaskan Catholic parishes, and the only sins discussed seem to be “judgmentalism” and “rigidity”.

Then we have the confusion this creates among the faithful, especially those with a weak catechesis, the favored policy of the chanceries. In my own parish we have had candidates and elected officials serve as lectors, Eucharistic ministers and teachers who were openly in favor of “abortion rights”, or characterized themselves as “pro-choice”. My own children who joined in the picketing of abortionists asked me, in their formative years, how this could be. I told them straightforward:

“Cowardly and weak priests, bishops and nuns”. I believe that my response helped them to understand the challenges inside of their Church now that they are adults.

When I debated Mark Begich in 2008 for the U.S. Senate, I had some vague sense that he was a nominal Catholic, and when he confirmed that he was, I asked him how he could reconcile his aggressive promotion of abortion and Planned Parenthood, in light of some very public statements that had been made by Pope Benedict and the U.S. bishops’ conference. He went into a predictably frosty discourse of how his faith was “personal and private”, and would not allow it to dictate public policy, a response learned at the knee of Mario Cuomo and delivered as a speech at that great “Catholic” institution, Notre Dame.

Indeed, Begich spoke with the calm certitude that he had a free rein. What’s more, he had appeared at Anchorage’s Holy Family Cathedral on the topic of homelessness just before his campaign began.

“Follow the Money” is the sagest advice for understanding corruption. Could it be that the Catholic bishops do not want to lose federal funding for their homeless shelters, hospitals and other social services? According to the Washington Times, over $1.6 billion has been funneled their way in recent years.

Alaska’s Catholic clerics have failed to perform any meaningful gesture, however small or symbolic, to proclaim the truth about allegedly Catholic politicians who support Planned Parenthood’s war on the unborn. If they did, it would constitute a minor miracle that might give a small ray of hope in a culture that has gone mad.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Murkowski 1 of the 3 Republican Senators Blocking Final Effort to Defund Planned Parenthood

It looks like Planned Parenthood won’t be defunded and Obamacare won’t be repealed thanks to three Republican senators.

Republicans failed to rally enough senators to vote for the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which would repeal and replace Obamacare. Then, Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, announced the Senate would instead only vote on repealing the pro-abortion healthcare law.

The bill repealing Obamacare would also defund Planned Parenthood for one year. Three Republican senators, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Susan Collins of Maine, have all said they’d vote against the bill. This means McConnell doesn’t have the 50 votes needed to debate and then pass the bill.

Capito has a mixed record on abortion, having voted for a few moderate pro-life bills but also to expand research on human embryonic stem cell lines and fund contraception. In 2015, she voted to repeal Obamacare, when it was obvious the then-president would veto the legislation. She said she doesn’t support repealing Obamacare without a replacement.

(Read more from “Murkowski 1 of the 3 Republican Senators Blocking Final Effort to Defund Planned Parenthood” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Korea Threat: Alaska Mayor Says He’s ‘Worried About Moose, Not Missiles’

While lawmakers in Alaska have doubled down on calls for improved U.S. defense in the wake of a North Korea ICBM test, some have appeared to shrug off the threat seemingly posed by the rogue regime.

“I’m worried about moose, not missiles,” Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz told The Washington Post in a story published Saturday. “Bears, not bombs.”

Todd Sherwood, an attorney who served more than a decade in the U.S. Air Force, told the newspaper that if North Korea would to attack, the U.S. military reaction would probably be severe. He downplayed the threats cast by Dictator Kim Jong Un . . .

According to The Washington Post, Alaska’s past may have something to do with its mellow response to the possibility of an attack from North Korea. An Alaskan town was bombed in 1942 during World War II and in the same week Japan occupied two Aleutian Islands. Alaska was also on alert during the Cold War with its incredibly close proximity to Russia. Some Alaskan homes still have fallout shelters. (Read more from “North Korea Threat: Alaska Mayor Says He’s ‘Worried About Moose, Not Missiles'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

North Korea Tested Intercontinental Ballistic Missile [Capable of Reaching Alaska], U.S. Officials Believe

North Korea fired its first intercontinental ballistic missile on Tuesday, military officials said, a significant step forward in Pyongyang’s weapons program and an escalation of a perilous nuclear standoff with the United States.

The United States condemned the test-launch, firing warning missiles and vowing to hold the regime accountable at the United Nations.

The ICBM, which is believed to be “two-stage,” officials said, would have a range of at least 3,500 miles and thus be able to reach Alaska.

The North Korean regime earlier Tuesday claimed that it successfully fired a long-range missile into the Sea of Japan, declaring itself a “proud nuclear state.”

“It is a major celebration in our history,” said an announcer on North Korean state television. North Korea “is now a proud nuclear state, which possesses [an] almighty ICBM rocket that can now target anywhere in the world.” (Read more from “North Korea Tested Intercontinental Ballistic Missile [Capable of Reaching Alaska], U.S. Officials Believe” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Battle for the Permanent Fund and PFD Heats up as New Special Session Called by Gov. Walker

Alaskans are facing historic decisions on the Permanent Fund and PFD that affect every citizen in the state. The Legislature’s plans to restructure the Permanent Fund and PFD for government spending remain on the table into another Special Session. And, another decision on the PFD is on the way in the Alaska Supreme Court with the lawsuit challenging Gov. Walker’s PFD veto in 2016 scheduled for a hearing next week, June 20th in Anchorage at the Boney Courthouse.

The lawsuit was filed last September by Sen. Bill Wielechowski and former State Senators, Clem Tillion and Rick Halford against the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation and the State of Alaska. The case hinges on whether it’s legal for the Governor to veto a law that provides an automatic transfer of funds that go directly to Alaskans. If the veto challenge wins, the money cut from PFD in 2016 by the Governor’s veto will be returned to eligible Alaskans – $1032 per resident.

Besides the Governor’s veto, the PFD and Fund are also under threat from the Governor and Legislature’s restructure plans that have not been approved by a public vote. In 1999, an advisory vote was held when similar restructure plans were proposed by lawmakers. The voters rejected the restructure plan by 83%.

As owners of the Permanent Fund, Alaskans’ input and approval of changes to the Fund system is critical to protecting the Permanent Fund from government spending and mismanagement. Clem Tillion, PFD lawsuit plaintiff and former legislator, commented on this in a recent video interview. He said, “Many people who’ve moved to Alaska and received the dividend don’t realize they actually own the resource. We are a land grant state, we received 100 million acres and the People own it. The Fund is yours. If you allow it to be taken away by politicians who want to change the law, then you deserve to lose it. You should have to fight for what you have (if you are able to do so). And the fight is now. Do not let the legislators steal your dividend.”

In response to these attacks on the PFD, Alaskans are taking action with a Save the PFD Rally next week (Tues., June 20 from 11am-1pm) in front of the Boney Courthouse, 303 K. Street in Anchorage before the PFD lawsuit hearing at the Boney Courthouse (1:30pm, 5th floor). Join this family-friendly, non-partisan, rally to defend Alaskans’ shareholder rights as resource owners.

For more information on protecting the PFD and Fund to share with your neighbors, visit Permanent Fund Defenders’ website at and Facebook.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Despite Alaska’s Fiscal Crisis, Republicans Vote to Restore Funding to Planned Parenthood; Rep. DeLena Johnson Betrays Pro-Lifers

Wednesday afternoon, in a brazen disregard for the lives of the preborn and good stewardship of your money, the Alaska State House voted to give Planned Parenthood an extra nearly million dollars from the state’s capital budget.

The Senate had previously passed the capital budget (SB23) without the funding for Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest child killing chain. Democrat leadership in the House then added it into the bill. On Wednesday afternoon, Rep. Eastman moved an amendment to strip the money out of the capital budget. The amendment failed 28 to 12 with many Republicans voting to keep Planned Parenthood’s blood money in the budget

You can watch the floor debate here.

I want to focus on one legislator in particular who betrayed the pro-life movement – Palmer Rep. DeLena Johnson. Rep. Johnson came to us last summer seeking the Alaska Right to Life endorsement to help her get elected. Here is a copy of her signed Personhood affirmation and promises to us.

Not only has Rep. Johnson voted to give Planned Parenthood an extra million dollars, but she also refused to keep her commitment to co-sponsor HB250 the Life at Conception Act of 2017. This is the first bill in Alaska history that will give total protection to the preborn.

Politicians often give lip service to the pro-life movement during election season but shove us to the back of the bus during legislative season. This is why Alaska Right to Life requires a signed Personhood affirmation before candidates are considered for endorsement. Because of Rep. Johnson’s promises to us, we did grant her an endorsement. This is a completely brazen betrayal of her commitment!

We can’t let this betrayal go unpunished or the pro-life movement will never be taken seriously.

Contact Rep. Johnson and let her know how disappointed you are:
Representative DeLena Johnson
Email: [email protected]
Toll-Free: 866-465-4958

Planned Parenthood’s puppets have already started spreading the lie that a judge ordered the payment therefore we have to give Planned Parenthood this money. This will be the line many politician will peddle to obfuscate their complicity. The Constitution gives the legislature the purse strings for a reason. It’s called “separation of powers”. The truth is that Planned Parenthood only gets this money if the legislature willing votes to give it to them. Period.

Here is Alaska Right to Life’s position statement sent to legislators before the vote. They were duly warned.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sarah Palin Considering Suing New York Times

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is considering suing the New York Times for libel after the Times published a Wednesday editorial falsely accusing her of inciting Jared Lee Loughner to shoot Rep. Gabby Giffords in 2011 even though it has long been established that there has never been any evidence whatsoever linking Palin to the attempted assassination.

Palin tweeted that a journalist suggested to her on Thursday that the Times “has fulfilled the two criteria for libeling a public figure”—a reckless disregard for the truth and malice.

She said she is “talking to attorneys this AM and exploring options.”

After James T. Hodgkinson, who supported Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and hated President Donald Trump and Republicans, shot House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) and targeted other Republicans as they were practicing for their Congressional baseball game, the Times decided to publish an editorial on Wednesday in which it falsely blamed Palin for the assassination attempt on Giffords:

Was this attack evidence of how vicious American politics has become? Probably. In 2011, when Jared Lee Loughner opened fire in a supermarket parking lot, grievously wounding Representative Gabby Giffords and killing six people, including a 9-year-old girl, the link to political incitement was clear. Before the shooting, Sarah Palin’s political action committee circulated a map of targeted electoral districts that put Ms. Giffords and 19 other Democrats under stylized cross hairs.

(Read more from “Sarah Palin Considering Suing New York Times” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Town Hall Planned to Discuss Alaska Arrow-3 Missile Testing for Israel

Officials from the spaceport on Kodiak Island will host a town hall meeting Wednesday to answer questions about the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s plans to test a U.S.-Israeli anti-ballistic missile system in Alaska.

Testing of the Arrow-3 missile system will begin in 2018, the Kodiak Daily Mirror reported. The system was developed by Israel Aerospace Industries and Boeing, and is co-managed by the Missile Defense Agency and the Israel Missile Defense Organization.

It will be part of the five- to six-year, $80.4 million contract between Alaska Aerospace Corporation and the Missile Defense Agency, which was announced last summer, Alaska Aerospace CEO Craig Campbell said. (Read more from “Town Hall Planned to Discuss Alaska Arrow-3 Missile Testing for Israel” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Can Society Survive People Holding Unacceptable Views?

There is a vocal segment of society today that says it can’t. People with unacceptable views hold us back—keep us from progressing as a society. It’s where we get the notion of silencing or shouting down those who declare opinions that are not politically correct. The idea is that when all such unacceptable opinions have been silenced, something will happen. I don’t know what exactly, but something good. Or not. Maybe it will just mean more silence. And more shouting to keep it that way.

Unacceptable view #1 for me was when I voted against a Democrat member of a racial minority group for leadership in the legislature. I voted against him because I believed he would support things like abortion and income taxes. He has since done both. I was told by others afterwards that I had really voted against him because he belonged to a minority.

Unacceptable view #2 for me was voting against a new state law to replace Columbus Day with a day honoring a minority group. None of our state laws were based on race, and I wanted to keep it that way. I was told afterwards that this meant I hate minorities.

Unacceptable view #3 for me was voting against a new state law creating a special day to honor a minority group of veterans who helped build the Alaska Highway. I wanted to honor all veterans who built the highway. After all, many U.S. military veterans gave their lives while building that highway (including American soldiers representing a number of different minorities). Why should we only be able to honor the soldiers of one minority group, and thereby open the door for Alaskans being called racist simply for trying to honor any of the other soldiers on that day? I was reminded afterwards that I had it out for all minorities, and that my vote was an attack against the minority legislator who wrote the bill (who happens to be a friend of mine whose district is next-door, but how could they be expected to know that?).

Unacceptable view #4 was voting against a new state law to give special drivers licenses to veterans from two specific Asian ethnic groups who fought for the U.S. during the Vietnam War. I asked why we were opening up this right to these two ethnic groups, but not to veterans from the other ethnic groups who also fought with us and lost their lives under similar circumstances in the very same war?

I believe veteran status should be based solely on your military service, not based on which ethnic group you belonged to at the time. I believe that special rights based on race should never be put into state law. I was reminded afterwards that this meant I hate the two ethnic groups that were being given the special drivers licenses. Unacceptable view #5 was likely voting against abortion. I was told that doing so was uncaring and insulting to victims of sexual assault. I voted against abortion anyway because little people are important too. A lot of other people did too.

Unacceptable view #6 was thinking that it was acceptable to talk about things like a boyfriend and girlfriend who were glad to get to go to Seattle for an abortion trip that the state was paying for, a mother who told her daughter that if she could just wait to have her abortion in Seattle she would go with her and take her on a shopping trip, and a recent visitor to Anchorage who did not go through with her abortion and when she tried to fly home was told that that wasn’t part of the deal. These are all real people. They have names. And I would have to be a special kind of person if you thought I was going to

make them public after the scorn, ridicule, death threats, and true hate speech that my family and I have had to witness over the last week just for stating that they exist.

But real life stories don’t make for 10-second soundbites. The qualifiers get left out, and the details are left fairly vague for privacy. Vague enough for someone to read into them things like sex and gender, if they want to. And some people wanted to. And some people chose to read into them a hatred of the poor, and others chose to read into them a hatred of women, and others chose to read into them a hatred of minorities. You see, my previous votes had already “proved” all this.

And that leads us to Unacceptable view #7, which was holding all of the previous views at the same time, and is its own distinct crime. It is the crime of being perpetually willing to say and do things that someone might misinterpret as holding unacceptable, even offensive, views (racism, sexism, hateful, etc.). Afterwards, I was told that it wasn’t about what I meant, and it wasn’t about what I said. It was about my willingness to make decisions independent of what someone else might think about it. And that is no less a crime today than speeding, if you mean to be a vocal member of society.

But society considers itself merciful. If you renounce such views, or at least pledge not to talk about them, you may be given forgiveness, or at least toleration…to a point.

Unacceptable view #8, was perhaps the most vile of them all. It was thinking that as a white male, unapologetically holding all the previous unacceptable views, I had the right to call for an investigation and hearings into whether or not our state social programs are operating for the benefit of our entire state, as opposed to the benefit of the specific special interests that they more directly serve.

These are unacceptable views. Under the current dogma, those who hold them must either die or be silenced. I have the audacity to believe that unacceptable views should be heard so that the rest of us have the freedom to think and speak as we like. I know I am not the only one.

Rep. David Eastman is a conservative legislator in Alaska, representing the rural Mat-Su Valley (House District 10); He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska’s Drew Phoenix Serves as a Warning: Conflict Is Inevitable

To understand why the legislature refused to empower Human Rights Commissioner Drew Phoenix last week, and why that move is worth reflecting on, we should remember a court case that was decided years before Drew was even born. Trop v. Dulles was the first time the U.S. Supreme Court declared that a portion of the U.S. Constitution “must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

That assertion, that society is in fact continually maturing, and that the Constitution should be continually reinterpreted so as to keep up with society’s maturity, lies at the heart of the recent confirmation hearings involving Drew Phoenix. Let us set aside for a moment the question of whether or not society is in fact maturing, our communities are becoming more perfect, more safe, and crime is slowly but surely being eradicated, year by year. Let us assume for a moment that all of that is true.

The question that immediately arises is which of the three branches of government is empowered to change our state law to reflect these changes in society? In the case of Drew Phoenix we have three possible answers that reflect each of Alaska’s three branches of government: 1) The Alaska Human Rights Commission, made up of appointees that fall under the executive branch, 2) The Alaska Supreme Court, made up of appointees that fall under the judicial branch, or 3) Alaska’s elected lawmakers, who comprise the legislative branch (Hint: We refer to them as “lawmakers” because under our current form of government all lawmaking power is reserved exclusively to public officials who have been directly elected by the people).

That last distinction is a very important one. Law puts limits on personal freedom and can bankrupt you and send you to prison if you transgress those limits. Because of this, no just law can be made without the consent of those who will be bound by it, either directly or through their elected representatives. If you look back far enough in American history, you will see that we once fought a bloody 7-year war over this very issue. The power to create laws and taxes is too dangerous to be wielded by unelected officials.

Heck, it’s bad enough when it’s wielded by the elected officials we’ve already got. If they wield that power against Alaskans for the benefit of special interests, at least we have the ability to elect a new governor and a new legislature next year. Without that right, we end up with masters whom we have no power to challenge, and no right to question—Like, say, the members of the Alaska State Human Rights Commission.

As unelected heads of a quasi-judicial agency, commissioners on the Alaska State Human Rights Commission are entirely out of reach of the public, and serve longer terms than the governor. These are simply the facts. The question the legislature was asked to decide last week was whether or not members of the commission should also have the power to remake our state laws. When you are voting on whether or not to confirm an appointee who has been openly seeking to join the commission for that very purpose, it is quite difficult to separate the individual from the plan they are pursuing.

Drew Phoenix has been a tireless advocate for increasing legal rights for the LGBT and transgender community. As a dedicated social justice warrior, Drew worked for 4 years for the ACLU, and a further 3 years for Identity, Inc., whose mission is “to advance Alaska’s LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and

transgender) community through advocacy, education and connectivity”. Drew was appointed as a human rights commissioner shortly after leaving Identity in September.

As a political activist, Drew has long promoted changing state law to make Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgender a protected class. And there is a bill in the legislature today (Senate Bill 72) which would do exactly that. But efforts to pass such laws in Alaska, and in Pennsylvania and many other states, have consistently failed year after year. Having failed to achieve such changes through the political process, LGBT activists are now attempting to circumvent the lawmaking process by seeking appointment to human rights commissions and, once there, simply “reinterpreting” the law as though they had been successful in changing the law through the legislature.

During the legislative confirmation process, Drew explained that while state law has “not been interpreted yet to include certain things”, i.e. gender identity, “the commission would be within its authority to” add them, and it should. It could do so by redefining the meaning of the word “sex” to not only include sex, but also to include any form of gender identity or “expression”, just as the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission did last month.

If your legislators permit it, this will soon be enshrined as the new frontier of lawmaking, and it will be done by unelected officials whose names most Alaskans will never know. If those unelected officials happen to be members of your political party, or are committed to causes that you personally care about, you may be tempted to see this as a good thing. Certainly in the short term, it can appear that way. Perhaps you applauded when the EPA redefined puddles of water as “waters of the United States” and granted itself the power to regulate them. But there is a terrible cost to be paid anytime we empower unelected bureaucrats to rewrite law and then enforce the laws that they have rewritten.

That cost is consent. Where is the opportunity for Alaskans to refuse consent to the new laws being rewritten and continually reinterpreted by judges and bureaucrats, whom Alaskans did not elect, and the public is often unable to remove from office? Referendums permit the public to reject bad laws, but they only apply to new state laws that the legislature actually passes. As messy and dysfunctional as modern politics often is, it still preserves within it the right for each of us to forcefully object on Election Day when elected officials become too closely tied to special interests, and lose sight of what is best for Alaska.

Americans lost that right once, long ago, and the result was a violent, 7-year war to regain it. On this Memorial Day Weekend, the prospect that Americans might ever have to relive such a chapter makes even the most unpleasant aspects of politics seem a blessing in comparison.

Thank your legislators for voting in a small, but tangible, way to preserve your right to question and to put limits on the power of a bureaucracy that already runs too much of our lives. And while you’re at it, ask them if they wouldn’t mind returning more of that freedom to you next time they are in Juneau. 668,000 Americans died so that you could enjoy it. May we be grateful this Memorial Day Weekend for those who fought, and those who died, and the price they paid so that succeeding generations might continue the American experiment in self-government.

(For more from the author of “Alaska’s Drew Phoenix Serves as a Warning: Conflict Is Inevitable” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.