The One Question You Must Ask This Election Season

When you get passed all the pomp and circumstance, there is just one principal difference between you and the legislators in Juneau. Of the 20,000 or so Alaskans in your legislative district, only one has a vote in Juneau. Therefore, only one person is in a position to sell your community’s vote to the bipartisan caucus.

If you are new to Alaska, or new to the way business is being conducted in Juneau today, Legislators decided to create a loophole for themselves when it comes to state ethics Laws. While it is illegal for a politician to sell their vote to you, a voter, it is completely legal for them to sell that vote to the caucus in Juneau. In fact, even before they travel to Juneau, they can literally sell all of their votes to the bipartisan caucus without risk of penalty.

Let that sink in for a moment. Your legislator can sign away every single one of their votes for the next two years to the special interests in Juneau, without any penalty whatsoever. In fact, quite the opposite; in exchange for selling out voters, Juneau will lavishly reward them for “being a team player”.

And if a legislator is feeling particularly detached from voters, he may even make a speech about how selling his vote to the caucus ahead of time is a more “efficient” way of doing government and will help shorten the legislative session.

The rewards a legislator receives for pledging votes to the caucus are substantial and often immediate: A guarantee of additional staff employees, a bigger travel budget, a bigger office in the capitol building, chairmanship of a committee, maybe of two committees, additional assignments on other committees, invitations to closed-door policy meetings, a better parking space at the capitol. You name it; the caucus can be very generous in exchange for a legislator’s votes.

Of course, what the caucus gives it can take away. We saw that last year. Perhaps the single most important vote a legislator casts in any given year, is to endorse the state budget (which this year topped $10 Billion). Last year, Senator Mike Dunleavy and Senator Shelley Hughes voted with their constituents to reject a truly terrible budget proposal. For that vote, their fellow legislators in the bipartisan caucus turned on them. Legislative employees who served the Mat-Su were fired, and out looking for work as soon as their bosses’ vote was cast. Their former bosses were kicked off committees, even committees they had been in charge of only the day before. Their budgets were reduced, they were forced to clear out their offices, and immediately disinvited from policy meetings. You get the picture.

I cannot overstate the effect of this arrangement on legislators. Even legislators on good terms with the caucus know that they are only one vote away from receiving the same treatment that Dunleavy and Hughes received. This year, the newest member of the senate, Senator Mike Shower, refused to give his vote to the caucus from the outset. For refusing to give their vote to the caucus, each of these senators were denied the easy life Juneau.

Your legislator is the only member of your community who can vote in Juneau. The one question they must be asked this election cycle, is what they are going to do with that vote. Ask them: “Will you pledge loyalty to the caucus, in exchange for the good life, or will you reserve that loyalty exclusively for your constituents, even if it means forfeiting the good life in Juneau?

Some elected officials, especially those who’ve been in office a few years, or those for whom politics is a family tradition, over time can come to think of their vote as a personal possession or a family heirloom; part of their inheritance, to be used to enlarge their own standing in Juneau or among the political class.

Once a legislator has gotten to that point, it can be very difficult to find their way home again. Regardless, it is incumbent on each of us, as Alaskans, to ask this question before we give our support to a candidate on Election Day. Whose vote is it? Is it the vote of the people, on loan to their elected legislators, to be cast on their behalf? Or is it the politician’s personal property to be bartered or sold in whatever way makes their life better and easier?

Before you decide to vote for someone, ask them if they are going to sell their vote to the caucus. Their answer will tell you a lot about the kind of legislator they are likely to become in Juneau.

Rep. David Eastman has served in the Alaska State House representing the Mat-Su since 2017; He ran on a platform of fighting for genuine conservative reform, fiscally and socially, and remains committed to delivering on that promise.

FEC Decision Clears Joe Miller’s 2016 Campaign of All Complaints; Shows Blatant Lies Used for Political Effect, Extreme Alaska Media Bias

In a decisive rebuke to Alaska Republican Party Chairman Tuckerman Babcock and Senator Lisa Murkowski, the Federal Election Commission has dismissed the party’s 2016 complaints against Joe Miller. Clearly, the allegations were trumped-up with intent to further a smear campaign inaugurated against Miller in 2010 and damage his electoral prospects.

There were several alleged violations in the ARP complaint, most dealing with Joe Miller’s website owned by Restoring Liberty LLC of which Miller is the sole proprietor.

Alaska Republican Party Chairman Tuckerman Babcock falsely claimed in a sworn affidavit that Joe Miller, his campaign committee, his corporate entity, and/or corporate donors to his corporate entity:

· Made illegal corporate contributions to the Miller campaign
· Illegally accepted in-kind contributions from corporate sponsors
· Illegally accepted other unlawful in-kind contributions
· Accepted campaign resources from corporations without paying fair value
· Transferred use of corporate social media accounts without paying fair value
· Advertised for donations on his corporate website without paying fair value
· Made numerous solicitations for campaign contributions without proper disclaimers
· Utilized campaign material without proper disclaimers
· Solicited donations via radio communications without proper disclaimers
· Failed to properly disclose campaign receipts and expenditures
· Fabricated certain in-kind donations

None of which the Federal Election Commission found to be true.

Given the nature of this corporate entity, a candidate’s ability to legally self-fund without limit, the lack of any substantiated violations of required reporting, and the press exemption in the law, the FEC finding determined: “ . . . the circumstances in this case support dismissal . . . [and] an enforcement action would not be an efficient use of the Commission’s resources.”

Regarding the disclosure allegations, the finding was that “the information in the record suggests that the Committee sent a single email with an inadequate disclaimer, but the mistake was quickly identified and corrected. In addition, the email identified the Committee as the sender and included the Committee’s mailing address, thus recipients had some information as to who was responsible for it. There is no information indicating the Committee’s other communications violated the Commission’s disclaimer requirements.”

FEC findings also addressed the allegation that Citizens for Joe Miller failed to report, or misreported contributions.

“The reporting allegations appear to be unsupported. The Committee reported the in-kind contributions for the use of Miller’s vehicle and campaign headquarters, and although the Complaint alleges that some of those reported amounts were too high, the information does not indicate that those amounts were unreasonable. Additionally, there is no information showing that the Committee inflated the value of any in-kind contribution in order to reimburse Miller for more than its value.”

It is clear from the FEC ruling that the Commission deemed them, at best, irrelevant and without merit.

Nevertheless, in making their false charges, Tuckerman Babcock and Lisa Murkowski (on whose behalf these dirty tricks were executed) have demonstrated again a willingness to play fast and loose with the truth, as well as a blatant disregard for good faith and fair dealing. It appears their complaint was filed simply as a political weapon without regard for its veracity.

Is this the way Alaska Republicans want to be represented by their leadership?

Miller spokesman Randy DeSoto noted that “much like the liar fliers sent out with apparent laundered money from the Murkowski campaign, these charges were obviously an attempt to gain unfair advantage in a federal election and deflect attention from ARP’s dirty dealing. This is absolute vindication for Joe Miller.”

Desoto is right. This federal decision once again underscores the mendacity of the Republican Establishment, and their willingness to lie, cheat and steal, if necessary, in order to prevail at the ballot box.

Sadly, the mainstream media swallowed their lies as fact, gave them the headlines they were looking for, and confirmed that they are indeed #FakeNews.

“It was clearly a calculated effort to further a false narrative hatched by Lisa Murkowski in 2010,” said Joe Miller. “The dishonesty of this cabal is notorious, and the mainstream media gladly rewards their treachery. No longer the guardian of free and fair elections, the fake news has become an agenda-driven corporatist enterprise that acts out much like a SuperPAC would, and always in the favor of entrenched power. Speaking truth to power is a thing of the past with respect to the press, unless there is convergence with the progressive agenda.”

A quick google search for “Federal Election Commission complaint, Alaska Republican Party” reveals the following headlines: “Alaska Republican Party Files Elections Complaint Against Joe Miller” (KTUU); “FEC Accepts Alaska GOP Complaint Against Joe Miller” (MustReadAlaska) [100% misleading]; “Alaska GOP Says Joe Miller Broke Campaign Finance Laws” (Alaska Dispatch News, aka; “Alaska GOP Accuses Joe Miller of Campaign Finance Violations” (Alaska Public Radio, aka; “Alaska Republican Party Claims Joe Miller Violated Election Laws” (KTVA); “Alaska GOP Chair Files Election Complaint Against Miller” (Fairbanks Daily News-Miner); “Alaska GOP Files Complaint Against Libertarian Joe Miller” (Roll Call).

Not a single headline about a still-pending FEC complaint filed on the same day against Lisa Murkowski and her shill front group Alaska Republican Party. And remember, this search didn’t even include Joe Miller’s name.

Any impartial observer would have to admit this is anything but fair coverage, and now it has also been revealed to be false and misleading.

If your politicians lie to you with impunity (and most do these days), it is only because their enablers in the mainstream (read corporate) press empower them to do so. Stop believing the fake news. The future of our Republic depends on it.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump to Lift Obama-Era ‘Urban’ Regulations off Alaska’s Rural Hunters

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is proposing to roll back Obama-era regulations barring some hunting practices in Alaska allowed by the state, The Hill reported.

The National Park Service (NPS) formally proposed the rule change Monday, publishing the motion in the Federal Register. The new rule would give the states back their authority to regulate hunting within their boundaries, according to The Hill.

Former-President Barack Obama’s administration prohibited certain hunting practices in 2015. In practice, the rule targeted Alaska by outlawing many hunting strategies used by Alaskans and others to hunt the state’s local wildlife. The Obama administration forbid the use of artificial light to hunt black bears near dens, using dogs to hunt black bears, using bait to hunt brown bears, hunting wolves and coyotes during denning season, using motorboats to hunt caribou, and hunting swimming caribou.

“These rules especially hurt rural Alaskans where hunting and fishing for food is not a historical footnote; it is a day to day reality,” Alaska Professional Hunters Association President Sam Rohrer said in a statement after suing the DOI over the Obama-era rule Feb. 10.

“Alaska is world renowned for its management of fish and game. Biologists from around the world admire and respect our managers; even to the point of traveling to my home Island of Kodiak to learn about bear management principles,” Rohrer added. “These rules are a misguided attempt to impose urban values on the most rural state in America.” (Read more from “Trump to Lift Obama-Era ‘Urban’ Regulations off Alaska’s Rural Hunters” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Analysis: The ‘Deep State’ Tactics Used Against Trump Campaign Were First Employed in GOP Senate Race

Recent reports that the FBI employed a “human source” to infiltrate the Trump campaign and special counsel Robert Mueller’s ongoing Russia investigation initiated by leaked documents stirred memories of the same tactics being used to help sway the outcome of a U.S. Senate race in 2010 against the Republican candidate.

The Wall Street Journal reported late last week that House Intelligence Committee members “sniffed out a name,” potentially implicating the FBI under President Barack Obama, of planting an informant close to then-Republican candidate Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

“This would amount to spying, and it is hugely disconcerting,” wrote The Journal’s Kimberly Strassel. “It would also be a major escalation from the electronic surveillance we already knew about, which was bad enough.”

The Washington Post added House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes has subpoenaed the Department of Justice for more information, but the agency has resisted, claiming the individual in question is a “sensitive, longtime intelligence source” for the FBI and the CIA. The informant has also helped in Mueller’s ongoing investigation.

The revelation of an FBI informant being placed close to a Republican political candidate brought to mind an experience I had working on the media team for U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller in 2010 in Alaska.

Miller shocked political watchers when he defeated incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Republican primary. He had been down over 20 points just over a month before pulling off the upset win.

Murkowski — who had the most liberal voting record of any Republican up for re-election that year — responded by recanting on a pledge both candidates had made prior to the primary election day in late August to honor the results. Instead, the senator launched a write-in campaign as an independent in the middle of September in a bid to hold on to the seat that, between her and her father, had been in the family since 1981.

Early polling in the contest once again gave Miller a slight edge, but the race deadlocked by mid-October thanks to two events: the handcuffing of a reporter at a Joe Miller campaign event by an FBI informant and the leaking of the candidate’s confidential employee file to the media.

FBI informant Bill Fulton first showed up on primary election night in Anchorage, unsolicited, volunteering his security services to the candidate that evening following his victory.

Miller did not use security during the race before or after, with one exception of a town hall event at an Anchorage middle school in mid-October, where according to the terms of the contract, security was required. A member of the campaign staff contacted Fulton.

I was at the town hall where the informant took it upon himself after the event to handcuff Alaska Dispatch editor Tony Hopfinger.

Shortly before the incident, the journalist had broken into a circle of supporters Miller was speaking to and put a handheld camera in his face.

Miller indicated he was not giving an interview and left the room. Hopfinger followed him out into the hallway and ended up pushing an attendee into a set of lockers, apparently trying to catch up with the candidate. Miller left the building and not long thereafter Hopfinger got into a scuffle with the security team headed by Fulton, who ordered the reporter to be detained.I came out into the hallway in time to find Hopfinger in handcuffs, which I questioned Fulton about, telling him the optics looked horrible, but he did not stand down.

Fulton insisted Hopfinger needed to remain handcuffed until the police arrived and kept him in plain view as numerous reporters circled about, shooting footage of their detained colleague.

In a 2013 Huffington Post article titled “How Bill Fulton Infiltrated Alaska’s Right Wing As An FBI Informant,” the informant revealed that he voted for President Barack Obama and lauded his own actions that day.

“It completely solidified our position within the right wing,” Fulton said of the handcuffing incident. “Because there’s nothing the right wing likes more than you roughing up the left-wing media and such.”

“The left-wing completely attacked me, including Huffington Post, you b—–ds,” Fulton said. “I was working for you, you sons of b—–s, and nobody knew it.”

It cannot be overestimated the amount of negative media coverage the Miller campaign received as a result of the incident, with claims the candidate opposed freedom of the press. It did not matter that neither the campaign nor the candidate had directed the handcuffing.

In 2013, the Los Angeles Times also reported on the role Fulton played in the 2010 race questioning, “Why was FBI informant William Fulton involved in political campaigns?”

Miller noted in the piece that his race was the second in as many cycles in Alaska in which the FBI had played a part in the contest’s outcome, referring to a criminal investigation that almost certainly cost the late Sen. Ted Stevens his 2008 re-election bid. Stevens’ conviction was overturned just months after he lost the race to Democrat Mark Begich.

In a 2013 Facebook post, Hopfinger lamented the part the FBI had played in the outcome of the Miller-Murkowski race.

“Do we want the FBI dealing with cowboys like Bill Fulton who can change the outcome of political elections by, say, cuffing journalists?” he wrote.

“No wonder Farmer Joe and his friends worry about Big Brother,” he added derisively. “I don’t like the idea, either, of the FBI having a paid informant working inside a political campaign when the candidate himself is not the primary target of an investigation.

“Why would anybody run for office under those circumstances? Joe Miller should be more upset with the FBI/Justice Department than with Fulton.”

Miller is angered the FBI is engaging in political campaigns.

The former GOP nominee told The Western Journal, “The FBI’s involvement in elections is repugnant and undercuts a fundamental tenet of our Republic: that the People are an effective check on government.”

“Now, we have proof that the feds have been manipulating domestic elections,” he added. “Such action is not only treasonous, it could lead to dangerous political instability as more and more citizens realize their government is no longer controlled by the People.”

The second major incident that without a doubt influenced the general election outcome in Miller’s race was the leaking of his confidential personnel file. It was a move reminiscent of former FBI Director James Comey leaking his memos to The New York Times, with the intention of bringing about a special counsel.

Questions about Miller’s employment as an attorney with the city of Fairbanks began with a blog post by Murkowski supporter and former fellow state representative Andrew Halcro titled, “We Know Palin Quit … But why was Miller Fired? Say it ain’t so Joe.”

The story was fake news. Miller was not fired, but resigned of his own accord, and the candidate released his letter of resignation and other supporting documents during the primary, which countered the narrative.

However, a new version of the story came back in the fall, saying he had nearly been fired for voting in an online political poll on his and three co-workers’ computers and initially not telling the truth about it.

That narrative was also shown to be false, but Murkowski and the groups supporting her made that a focus of the multi-million-dollar negative ad campaign against Miller. Murkowski herself proclaimed during a debate that Miller — a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran — was “not fit” to serve in the U.S. Senate.

It should be noted at this point, a Senate ethics complaint was filed against Murkowski for a sweetheart land deal prior to her 2010 re-election bid. She came under such public censure that she sold the property.

The leaked information about Miller led to unprecedented litigation, with multiple media outlets suing to gain access to his employee file. They ultimately prevailed.

When Miller went on national television to explain what happened, the negative narrative was countered, and he began to rise again in the polls.

However, the former mayor of Fairbanks Jim Whitaker (a Republican who endorsed Obama) played the part of Comey, claiming through the closing days of the race that Miller engaged in wrongdoing. He participated in both television and other media interviews alleging the Republican candidate had even been involved in criminal conduct while employed at the borough.

Never mind that Miller was employed for a year-and-a-half following his alleged illicit conduct in question, which had been fully investigated and resulted in a temporary letter of reprimand. The letter should no longer have even been in his file when he ran for office.

Miller sued Whitaker and the borough after the election and won a judgment in his favor.

Miller’s supervisor Rene Broker admitted, under oath, during the litigation that he had engaged in no criminal conduct while in the employ of the borough.

Miller remains a lawyer in good standing in the Alaska bar to this day, which would not be the case if he had committed any significant ethical wrongdoing.

But as far as the outcome of the 2010 race, the damage had been done. The incumbent Murkowski beat Miller 39 to 35 percent, with the Democrat candidate taking the rest.

The “deep state,” if you will, prevailed. Whether the same tactics can be used to ultimately bring down Trump is playing out before our eyes. (For more from the author of “Analysis: The ‘Deep State’ Tactics Used Against Trump Campaign Were First Employed in GOP Senate Race” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Sarah Palin Responds to John Mccain Saying He Regrets Choosing Her as VP

By The Daily Wire. On Thursday, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin responded to a New York Times report that claimed Senator John McCain said he regretted choosing Mrs. Palin as his vice presidential pick during the 2008 presidential election.

Palin told The Daily Mail the report was surprising and that it felt like a “perpetual gut-punch” every time she read it.

“That’s not what Sen. McCain has told me all these years, as he’s apologized to me repeatedly for the people who ran his campaign – some who now staff MSNBC, the newsroom there, which tells you a lot,” claimed the former governor . . .

Earlier in the week, the Times reported that McCain’s new book, “The Restless Wave,” says he regretted choosing Palin as his number two on the ticket and wished he had gone with Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Independent.

It’s possible McCain’s ghostwriter added the claim, said Mrs. Palin, since it’s so far off from what he’s told her privately. “I attribute a lot of what we’re hearing and reading regarding McCain’s statements to his ghostwriter or ghostwriters,” she said. “I don’t know all the details of his condition right now. It happens to me also where people speak for me and a bell is rung, and you can’t un-ring the bell.” (Read more from “Sarah Palin Responds to John Mccain Saying He Regrets Choosing Her as VP” HERE)


That’s Not What He Told Me! Sarah Palin Says Hearing John Mccain Say He Regrets Picking Her as His Running Mate in 2008 Is a ‘Perpetual Gut-Punch’ – and Claims He’s Told Her the Opposite

By Daily Mail. . .The onetime Alaska governor spoke to in Washington before headlining a fundraising event for a Trump-friendly political action committee.

McCain’s recurring apology for her treatment at the hands of the Republican Party elites who turned their noses up at her ‘going rogue’ style, she insisted, ‘has almost been a running joke between the two of us over these years.’

‘I stop him all the time and say, “Please don’t apologize.”

There’s nothing to apologize for anyway, Palin said, since former president Barack Obama’s victory over her and McCain was basically written in the stars.

‘There were elements of a perfect storm for Barack Obama to have been elected. It worked out the way that it was supposed to work out,’ she said. (Read more from “That’s Not What He Told Me! Sarah Palin Says Hearing John Mccain Say He Regrets Picking Her as His Running Mate in 2008 Is a ‘Perpetual Gut-Punch’ – and Claims He’s Told Her the Opposite” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Almost All of the Ice Covering the Bering Sea Has Melted, Throwing Alaskan Communities into Disarray

Almost all the ice covering the Bering Sea has melted, scientists have confirmed, throwing communities living around its shores into disarray.

The region’s ice cover normally persists for at least another month, and this year it has vanished earlier than any other year except 2017. . .

A report released by the International Arctic Research Centre at the University of Alaska Fairbanks has outlined the real-world effects of these stunning environmental changes on the many communities that inhabit the Bering Sea region.

“The low sea ice is already impacting the lives and livelihoods of people in western Alaska coastal communities by restricting hunting and fishing, which are the mainstays of the economies of these communities,” Dr Thoman told The Washington Post.

“Travel between communities via boat or snowmachine was difficult and limited due to thin, unstable sea ice,” the report said. (Read more from “Almost All of the Ice Covering the Bering Sea Has Melted, Throwing Alaskan Communities into Disarray” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Is Alaska’s Dan Sullivan – the Oligarchs’ Golden Boy – the Dumbest U.S. Senator in D.C.?

There were many interesting moments in Mark Zuckerberg’s testimony before Congress – starting with the gazillionaire child-man’s decision to follow Larry Kudlow’s advice and eschew his usual garb for a suit and tie. . .

[But my] favorite exchange yesterday came when Senator Dan Sullivan took the microphone. He’s a Republican from Alaska, but he could as easily have been a Democrat of a certain disposition. He observed that Mr Zuckerberg had created his spectacularly lucrative global behemoth in his college dorm room at the age of nineteen. And then he said: “Facebook is an ‘Only in America’ story, right?”

The witness looked befuddled – as I do in, say, Marseille, when a bit of local vernacular runs up against the limits of my conversational French.

So Senator Sullivan attempted to clarify what he meant. “You couldn’t do this in China, right?”

Zuckerberg considered the matter, sincerely. “Well, Senator,” he said, “there are some very strong Chinese Internet companies.”

“Come on, I’m trying to help you,” growled the plain-spoken Sullivan, throwing in the towel. “Gimme a break, you’re in front of a bunch of senators: the answer is yes.” The audience laughed. But the child-man seemed genuinely nonplussed. (Read more from “Is Alaska’s Dan Sullivan – the Oligarch’s Golden Boy – the Dumbest U.S. Senator in D.C.?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Liberal Left Is Blundering Into States Rights and Federalism

Recently, the state of California has done, or threatened to do, some very “radical” things in defiance of the federal government. Pro-Trump Republicans and independent conservatives have predictably wagged a finger at the Golden State of Liberalism, but they ought to reconsider the dynamic that is being played out. What we are witnessing is the liberal left blundering into states rights and federalism, something they will never like to admit. It could, however, portend well for other states that might have the gumption to reawaken devotion to true Constitutionalism.

Consider first California’s new state law on the selling of federal lands to be first offered to the state, rather than to another party. Attorney General Jeff Sessions pontificates from a quote in the Washington Post: “The Constitution empowers the federal government — not state legislatures — to decide when and how federal lands are sold. California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal law. And yet, once again, the California legislature has enacted an extreme state law attempting to frustrate federal policy.”

This is selective reading of the Constitution, something which everyone except a few people, like Ron Paul, falls into. California was also admitted into the union on the premise that the federal government would obey the Constitution. What are we to do when this is violated? What kind of a deal is a contract where only one party must abide by the terms but not the other?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 specifically lists the things that the federal government is entitled to own in regards to land: The District of Columbia, forts, arsenals, magazines, dock-yards and other needful buildings. The existence of national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, monuments, battlefields, even cemeteries, ought to have required a Constitutional amendment. Instead, Yellowstone was created in 1872, when states rights were at a nadir in the era of Reconstruction. True, Yellowstone was in federal property at the time, but such designations still would have required an amendment.

The fact that national parks and the like have proven popular should not be confused with “constitutional”. Once a contract is violated, and accepted by both parties, the sky is the limit. Yet, why haven’t the amendments been passed? Because it would demonstrate that the “supreme law of the land” has been held in wanton disregard, and there would be other things that are not quite so popular which would be called into question.

Now, hold on, because I hear a voice that says, “But the Constitution doesn’t say you CAN’T have national parks!” Oh, yes it does, in the 10th Amendment. It fully informs us that the Founding Fathers fully anticipated such arguments and sought to answer them through the misnamed “Bill of Rights”, which, if one reads its preamble, makes it abundantly clear that many states would never have joined the union without first adding additional clarifications and restrictions to federal power. James Madison’s Federalist #45 also confirms this interpretation: that federal powers were “few and defined”, and all other powers were left to the states.

Let us now visit California’s other threat, and that is to defend illegal immigrants in its “sanctuary cities”. This is clearly a violation of federal prerogatives in controlling our borders and sovereignty.

Ah, but it also bespeaks something that few conservatives want to revisit, and that is secession. It clearly has been legal all along. Read the Declaration of Independence in its first breath. The American colonies were seceding from the British Empire, and creating thirteen separate nations, cooperating in self-defense. They had no legal mechanism within British imperial laws. However, they did cite Natural Law, an aspect of humanity that seldom gets any study except in seminaries and theology classes.

I publicly debated the right to secession not too long ago and pointed out that if the Constitution had specifically written a clause that fully confirmed what happened in our War Between the States, not a single state would have joined. It might have read, “No state may voluntarily or unilaterally leave the union without threat of invasion from the general government and the states”. There is no such clause, of course, yet it is precisely what Lincoln did.

In fact, New York, Virginia and Rhode Island laid out a conditional proviso that they could and would leave the union if the promises made in the Constitution were violated. This shocks many people, especially those who worship at the Cult of Lincoln. A supposed genius, Abe was more of the typical political hack than most historians care to admit. He was a “more government” member of the Whig Party for decades, which is what the Republican Party was at in its inception. Like most lawyers, he knew little of Constitutional law, and certainly was selective in citing history.

So, what does this have to do with California’s “sanctuary cities”? Clearly, the federal government is being defied, and in this case, in a legitimate power. If Governor Brown, his

attorney general and the California liberal legislators were honest with themselves, they would admit that they, in fact, don’t like being in the union. When they awake to this fact, the term “Erring Sisters, depart in peace” might have new meaning.

They brag about their state having one of the world’s strongest economies. Before political independence, the economic independence of a state is necessary. And this might explain a lot as to why Alaska’s statehood act has kept us in dwarf status and prevented us from largely making our own economic decisions.

I might not like California’s liberal use of states rights, but I certainly am encouraged by it, because once this cat gets out of the bag, abused western states such as Alaska will call in its chips and demand a proper relationship between the states and the federal tyrants in Washington, a tyranny that exists no matter what party currently controls the federal power.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska

Contributed by Rick Small, Abolitionist Society of Anchorage & Mat-Su Valley

Something is happening in Oklahoma that shines a bright light, but first let’s look back over the past few years to set the stage.

For those who haven’t heard, abolitionists are rising up. Followers of Christ who rightly understand that abortion is sin, and more significantly, TREAT it that way. The modern Abolition of Human Abortion movement was reignited about five years ago in Norman Oklahoma. The abolitionists there have been praying and working to seed the ideology of Abolitionism, and God has been leading His children to repent of their apathy and their wrong thinking. In spite of much opposition, Abolitionism is growing and spreading nationwide and in several countries.

Two years ago, in Oklahoma, abolitionists planned a mission to call “pro-life” legislators, and those enabling them to repent (see “Calling Pro-Life Legislators to REPENT!”). Abolitionists from as far away as Alaska gathered in Oklahoma City and the surrounding areas. During our time there, a Senator Joseph Silk, who had an active bill to attempt to regulate the murder of the pre-born, repented, gutted his bill and replaced it with a bill to Abolish Human Abortion #SB1118.

Can you guess what happened? Prolifers actively opposed it and killed it. Yep… prolifers. National Right To Life vice president and president of Oklahomans For Life Tony Lauinger led the opposition. (See “Tony Lauinger and SB 1118” on YouTube for the playlist of the 5 videos).

Followers of Christ in Texas saw what happened in Oklahoma and brought it to their state. They prayed and actively worked to abolish human abortion in Texas. They were able to get the Texas Republican Platform to cease attempts to regulate pre-born murder and to abolish it. They also were able to get abolition to be a legislative priority as it should be.

Then, a representative there, Tony Tinderholt, rose up and with the help of the abolitionists introduced #HB948 The Abolition of Abortion in Texas Act. Again, hundreds of abolitionists from as far away as Alaska gathered in Austin and the surrounding areas. During our time there, several state representatives joined about a thousand others to support #HB948.

Can you guess what happened? Prolifers actively opposed it and killed it. Yep… prolifers. Texas Right To Life, Prolifer Byron Cook, Prolifer Abby Johnson and other prolifers led the opposition. Representative Byron Cook vehemently refused to allow #HB948 a hearing, while pushing through bills that allow the slaughter to continue. (See “Chairman Byron Cook of the State Affairs committee. Abolish Abortion. Don’t regulate it.”)

Followers of Christ in Alaska saw what happened in Oklahoma and Texas and brought it to our state. We prayed, planned, created a website and Facebook page (see and, started a petition to abolish abortion in Alaska, began working with David Eastman to help get him elected and encouraged him to introduce a bill of total immediate Abolition.

On May 15, 2017, he introduced #HB250 and #HB251 – the Alaska Life at Conception Act and the Responsible Judges Act. Over the past 10 months, it has largely been people who claim to be “Pro-Life” who have prevented those bills from advancing in the House and Senate. Many of them have done this while simultaneously pushing a bill to attempt to regulate the murder of the pre-born.

Enough is enough! We must repent of allowing prolifers to suppress the abolition of human abortion!

Guess what? Oklahoman believers are rising up! A former state legislator and pastor is running as an abolitionist, not a prolifer. (See for his platform which is prioritized to abolish abortion in Oklahoma). Another former state legislator, Randy Brogdon, has also repented of being a prolifer who attempted to regulate pre-born murder and is now an abolitionist supporting Dan Fisher (see “Randy Brogdon Repents of Pro-Life Compromise”).

Believers, our life should be marked by repentance. Will you repent? Will you begin to treat abortion as it is, a sin against our Holy God, state-condoned sin? If we won’t repent, how can we call the apathetic legislators to do so?

What is happening in Oklahoma is spreading nationwide. Will you be on the right side of history?

For a clear, concise understanding of the difference, please watch the 28-minute video at “Why “Abolition” and Not Pro-Life”.

The Son of God entered the womb in order to be born among men, live a sinless life and be crucified for sinners. In this, He reconciled humanity to God, rose from the grave, ABOLISHED DEATH and is RIGHT NOW destroying every work of the devil. This is who we follow. If you confess your sin, turn from it and follow Jesus as Lord, you will be saved.

(For more from the author of “Oklahoma, Texas and Alaska” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaskan Rep: ‘How Many Jews Were Put in Ovens Because They Were Unarmed?’

Rep. Don Young, the Alaska congressman known for making controversial statements, seemed to suggest that Jewish people died in the Holocaust because they were unarmed.

While speaking at a conference in his home state, the Republican lawmaker said, “How many millions of people were shot and killed because they were unarmed? Fifty million in Russia because their citizens were unarmed.”

He continued: “How many Jews were put in the ovens because they were unarmed?”

Young’s quote came after Dimitri Shein, a Democrat who is running for Young’s congressional seat, asked about school safety. Shein said his daughter’s school had been placed on lockdown, prompting the question. He didn’t identify himself a congressional candidate at the time . . .

“He was referencing the fact that when Hitler confiscated firearms from Jewish Germans, those communities were less able to defend themselves,” [spokeswoman Murphy] McCollough said in an email. “He was not implying that an armed Jewish population would have been able to prevent the horrors of the Holocaust, but his intended message is that disarming citizens can have detrimental consequences.” (Read more from “Alaskan Rep: ‘How Many Jews Were Put in Ovens Because They Were Unarmed?'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.