What the Media Sycophants Won’t Tell You About Murkowski’s Primary Victory

/0 Comments/in , /by

At first glance Lisa Murkowski’s Republican Primary election victory seems pretty impressive. But it is anything but the grand comeback story the Establishment media would have you believe.

Consider the competition.

Paul Kendall, local political activist, conspiracy buff, and self-acclaimed expert of all things futuristic. Nobody considers him a serious candidate, and I mean nobody. Yet he received almost 8% of the vote. No campaign, no advertising, a website that still reads “under construction” the day after the election. He wouldn’t even respond to media questions about his campaign platform.

Thomas Lamb, blue collar worker, Air Force veteran, local blogger, unsuccessful candidate for the Alaska State House, and all around good guy. But his campaign consisted of a few scattershot radio ads and social media. He garnered between 5-6% percent of the vote.

Bob Lochner, a veteran and former mechanic who works on the North Slope. He didn’t have a traditional campaign, and spent a grand total of about $20K, reportedly most of it on signs, pocket Constitutions, and campaign expenses. Unlike his fellow challengers, Bob had the good fortune of being from the Mat-Su Valley where the highest concentration of conservatives in the state reside. He garnered a very respectable 15%.

All good men I’m sure, but the obvious truth is that Lisa Murkowski didn’t have a legitimate challenger. Still almost 29% of the electorate from her own party wouldn’t vote for the sitting US Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair in a state whose lifeblood is the energy industry, and that doesn’t include those who voted and chose to leave the Senate portion of their ballot blank.

So what do the numbers really say? I’m glad you asked.

Lisa Murkowski decided to run against her party’s nominee in the last cycle, ostensibly because only a small number of Alaskans voted for the nominee and that sample wasn’t representative of the state. Joe Miller’s 55,878 votes were only 11.5% of registered voters at the time. So maybe she had a point?

Well, neither of Alaska’s sitting US Senators have ever won that many votes in a Republican primary, nor represented that much of the electorate in a general election. (Dan Sullivan received 44,740 votes, 9% of registered voters in 2014.

In 2004 Lisa Murkowski won a contested primary with – wait for it – 45,710 votes, just 9.98% of registered voters.

Fast forward to 2016. With 99.8% of precincts reporting, Lisa Murkowski cruises to an overwhelming landslide victory with 71% percent of the vote – drumroll – and a grand total of 35,208 votes, just 6.8% of registered Alaska voters.

And that was after she spent an astonishing $4.6 million, or over $130 per vote!

Not since 1974 when Alaska dominated by Democrats and Mike Gravel was a sitting United States Senator has a Republican nominee won less votes. Joe Miller’s 32% second place finish in the three-way 2014 primary garnered more votes.

Clearly, by Senator Murkowski’s standards, this is not a legitimate outcome, and clearly isn’t representative of the Alaska electorate.

Perhaps Alaskans deserve another choice in the general election. After all, isn’t that the gospel according to Lisa Murkowski?

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lifelong, Conservative Alaskan Acquires Rights to Most of Nome Gold Fields, Expects Huge Returns

/0 Comments/in , /by

Earlier this summer, Andrew Lee and a business partner purchased 26 State of Alaska offshore mining leases from a South African mining company. This purchase grants them exclusive mining rights to over 16,500 acres of the shallow sea floor of the Bering Sea, and returns these leases to local control.

Combined with another purchase earlier this spring, Lee now has an ownership stake in nearly two thirds of the offshore Nome gold field. “This feels like a huge victory for the little guy,” said Lee. “Eleven years ago I had one hobbled together eight-inch dredge on the Rec Area, now I have rights to most of the ground.”

Among the several State of Alaska Recreational Mining Areas, open to anyone for a small fee, two are offshore of Nome. One created in 1998 is 320 acres for eight-inch and smaller suction dredges. In 2010, a second 250 acres area was added, limited to six-inch dredges. Gold dredging operations are classified by their suction intake diameter, and water pump horsepower.

Andrew Lee got his start hunting gold as a teenager, going with his father to open mining areas near the family homestead in South Central Alaska. “We had a small in-stream sluice, a small inner tube mounted suction dredge and a few hand tools,” Lee recalls. “We never found enough gold to pay for fuel, but everyone has to start somewhere.”

According to the 1999 publication “Handbook of Marine Mineral Deposits” some of this area was mined by the world’s largest bucket line dredge, the Bima, collecting over 118,000 troy ounces on 530 acres from 1987 to 1990. Lee added, “The Bima only mined 3%, the other 97% hasn’t been worked.”

“The amount of previous mining is minuscule,” says Jim Halloran an Alaska geologist familiar with Nome. “There is considerable volume that would take many lifetimes to mine.” Having studied the extensive exploration data, Halloran adds, “The key is to find the best ground. The pay is in the top yard of the seafloor and can be as thick as six yards.”

“We need to go bigger, much bigger than anything that exists in Nome now,” said Lee when asked how he plans to capitalize on the untapped resource. “Think of an operation that can produce twenty times as much gold per year as the Christine Rose,” a reference to Nome’s most famous offshore gold mining operation. “My gold mining company, Tagiuk Gold, LLC is going to make this happen.”

“I have the expertise and the land, now I’m looking into ways to raise the rest of the funds needed.” One idea he explains is to take prepaid orders for gold, in order to fund the startup costs. Similar to how various gadget makers have used sites like Kickstarter. “I would like to sell my gold direct to the American individual, right now I’m exploring the interest and legalities of doing that.”

Andrew Lee’s gold mining company, Tagiuk Gold, LLC can be contacted through their website, tagiukgold.com

***This is a sponsored article by our advertiser, Tagiuk Gold***

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

AK First Lady Donna Walker’s Heavy Hand on Bloggers

/0 Comments/in , /by

Last month, two staunchly conservative Alaska political websites posted a 2014 letter attributed to then-candidate Bill Walker, in which he stated he’d cut spending by 16 percent, not touch Permanent Fund dividends, and other claims.

These were claims heard from Walker during his campaign and are not a surprise to those who follow politics, although the grammar in the letter leaves something to be desired. The posting of the letter was, evidently, to hold the governor accountable for his actions now that he has the power of the veto pen.

Walker, we know, has primarily made cuts in the capital budget, and he has cut Alaskans’ Permanent Fund dividends in order to preserve state programs, such as the Department of Health and Social Services, where the actual workforce has been cut by just one percent.

What was a surprise is that Donna Walker has contacted both of the blogs and has asked or strongly suggested that the letter be taken down. The letter is not from the governor, she says.

“I was just really surprised,” said David Boyle, who writes at the Alaska Policy Forum. First Lady Donna Walker showed up at the office unannounced, accompanied by her daughter, Lindsay Walker Hobson, who was the spokesperson for Walker’s campaign for governor. Both Walker and Hobson are attorneys and both were part of the Walker, Richards LLC law firm, which has since been sold to Robin Brena.

According to Boyle, Mrs. Walker said the letter is a fake and strongly suggested to him that it be removed from the website.

Boyle has reviewed the letter and says it contains the exact ideas that Walker espoused in a private meeting with United For Liberty in 2014, at the home of Dave Cuddy.

Over at the Restoring Liberty web site, Michael Chambers writes about receiving the Walker article back in 2014, and the process he used to post it:

The first week of September 2014, candidate Walker was solicited by United For Liberty to submit an article for our October 2014 newsletter. The deadline was September 22 for final submission. A member of UFL accepted the editor’s task to put together the final product. This same member was also working with the Walker team to assist in assembling a narrative to be put in the newsletter. He worked diligently and put the entire newsletter together and submitted to me the entire PFD file to publish on United For Liberty’s website. Following is a letter I sent candidate Walker on October 9th thanking him for the submitted article and asking him to consider submitting one more for a possible additional newsletter before the election (he submitted an additional article on October 15, 2014, but I did not publish it as I did not have one from incumbent Governor Parnell and I wanted to give each candidate fair coverage)

That web site, too, was contacted by Donna Walker, who said the letter is a fake. Here’s what Joe Miller’s website has to say about being contacted by Alaska’s First Lady:

“Over the past week, the governor’s wife has sent me a series of emails claiming that the article submitted to UFL in the October newsletter was not authorized by the candidate. These communications were apparently prompted because recent excerpts of Bill Walker’s quotes from this article in our newsletter have appeared in various publications online, including Joe Miller’s Restoring Liberty article: Governor Walker Steals $666 Million From Alaska’s Families, Time to Recall the Liar. She calls the article ‘bogus,’ specifically complaining about the ‘mass distribution of the bogus article that has wrongly been attributed to Bill…”‘

Was the article authorized by candidate Walker or was it authorized by his campaign?

We don’t know, but when the First Lady of Alaska shows up unannounced to attempt to have material removed from a website, she is treading on the First Amendment, which states government “shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The First Lady of Alaska may not be an official arm of the Governor’s Office, but she has her own page on the State of Alaska website, she has her own State of Alaska email address, and she has her State staff and protection detail. She is also very much a part of the Governor’s policy team.

First Lady Donna cannot separate herself, at this point, from being part of the government, nor can she separate herself from being part of the Bill Walker re-election effort, which is clearly underway.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska Court’s Ruling on Abortion and Parental Notification Hurts Teens

/0 Comments/in , /by

Hillary Kieft grew worried when her daughter didn’t arrive from school on the bus as usual. After she called the school to find out what was wrong, a school nurse pulled into her driveway with the daughter (let’s call her “Kelly”) in tow. The nurse explained that she had taken Kelly for counseling after school, according to LifeNews.com, which reported on the Kieft story.

But, in fact, the nurse took Kelly to have an abortion.

In New Zealand—where the Kieft family lives—it is completely legal for a minor to have an abortion without her parents’ knowledge. Parents like Hillary Kieft have no legal right to be involved in their child’s decision to have an abortion, or even to be notified before it happens.

With her parents still unaware of the abortion, 15-year-old Kelly spiraled into depression, self-harm, and eventually attempted suicide. It was only when Kelly finally told her parents about the abortion that they could begin helping her cope—not only with the abortion, but also with the sad reality that the procedure had caused irreparable damage and she would never be able to become pregnant again.

As a LifeNews.com article about Kelly points out:

The fact that a school needs permission to take your child on a field trip, but not for surgery, is beyond ridiculous. The same teen needs parental consent before getting a tattoo or using a tanning salon … Has abortion really become such a taboo subject that we are willing to just ignore all legal oversights rather than face the wrath of abortion advocates?

Fortunately, in the United States, most states have parental consent or notification laws.

Generally speaking, the law reflects the fact that parents are responsible for the well-being of their children, and are most likely to have their best interests in mind. That’s why parents have to sign waivers for almost any medical care for their children.

But this just changed for Alaskan families, thanks to a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood attacking the state’s parental notification law.

Alaska law required that minors seeking an abortion notify their parents unless they receive approval from a court (known as a judicial bypass). This notification requirement was intended to foster parental involvement in such a life-changing decision.

The state argued that its interests in requiring notification include encouraging parents to be involved in their minor child’s decision whether to have an abortion, protecting the physical and mental health of minors, and preventing sexual abuse.

In a 4-1 decision last month, the Alaska Supreme Court concluded that the state’s notification law violated the Alaska Constitution’s equal protection clause because it drew an unjustified “distinction between pregnant minors seeking to terminate and those seeking to carry to term.”

Essentially, the majority ruled that the law is unfair because it required parental notification for abortion but not for care related to maintaining a healthy pregnancy until birth. It is true that Alaska allows pregnant teens to receive pregnancy-related health care without parental consent; otherwise many young girls might avoid obtaining needed care.

But, Justice Craig Stowers, the lone dissenter, explained, the law “necessarily differentiates between minors seeking an abortion and minors who intend to carry to term” because mandating parental notification before a minor can receive prenatal care may threaten the health of the mother and the growing child. Stowers observed that “no useful purpose is served by … requiring parental consultation for carry-to-term decisions.”

Stowers also wrote that providing parents with an opportunity to discuss the consequences of abortion with their child is both a clearly valid reason for the law, and completely in line with U.S. Supreme Court decisions like Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992).

The law is necessary, he pointed out, to ensure that “the people society holds responsible for her well-being—her parents—will be informed of what is happening in her life.” He noted that previous cases from this very court said that parental notification requirements would further the compelling interest of parental involvement. But the majority now “undermines the parents’ rights and responsibilities in this regard and makes a mockery of its earlier proclamations of the proper and fundamental role parents have traditionally played in their children’s lives,” Stowers writes.

Stowers further noted that the law does not stop a minor from obtaining an abortion against her parents’ will. It only requires that they know, which gives them a chance to exercise their right and responsibility of involvement in their daughter’s life. The law even created an “easily navigable, broad bypass process” that would allow a judge to approve an abortion for the minor without parental notification.

The bottom line is that parents, rather than abortion clinic staff or school nurses, deserve the right to be involved in their minor daughter’s decision whether to terminate her pregnancy. After all, clinics are businesses that do not necessarily prioritize the health and safety of patients over their ability to turn a profit—just look at the conditions of some clinics that were so bad that many states have passed reforms in recent years aimed at increasing the standards at clinics.

As a result of this decision by the Alaska Supreme Court, instead of receiving counsel from their parents, minors may be pressured into making a life-altering decision and forced to hide any emotional or physical struggles from their parents after the fact. Eliminating parental notification is a step in the wrong direction and harms, rather than helps, girls like Kelly. (For more from the author of “Alaska Court’s Ruling on Abortion and Parental Notification Hurts Teens” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Lisa Murkowski’s Stealth War on Traditional Values

/0 Comments/in , /by

When Lisa Murkowski ran for State House in 1998, it was in the context of a strong Republican push for a new amendment to Alaska’s State Constitution defining a valid marriage as existing between “one man and one woman.” The soon-to-be State Representative said she supported that effort.

In every subsequent election cycle, including those since her appointment (by her father) to the United States Senate, Murkowski has continued to claim she’s a pro-traditional marriage candidate. Until now.

What has gone mostly unreported and largely unnoticed is her evolution on LGBT issues since joining the Senate.

Though Murkowski supported a Democrat hate crimes expansion for sexual orientation air-dropped into a Defense Authorization bill in 2009, incidentally holding our service men and women in harm’s way hostage to the Left’s radical social agenda during a time of war, only after her 2010 re-election did she come out of the closet to openly support the LGBT agenda.

Immediately after the 2010 election, she joined Democrats to vote for the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. And again Murkowski used the military as a social science laboratory.

This vote came less than two months after telling Alaskans on state-wide television that she couldn’t take a position on the legislation, owing to the fact that results from a field study soliciting feedback from military personnel hadn’t come back yet.

But that was before the election. Shortly thereafter the study came back. An overwhelming majority of our active duty service men and women opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” She voted for it anyway. It was all a sham. Murkowski had her own agenda.

In 2012, she publicly advocated for Anchorage Proposition 5, a measure that sought to codify special rights for homosexual and transgendered persons, endangering personal privacy and religious liberty.

In June of 2013, Murkowski made national headlines by offering a full-throated endorsement of same-sex marriage, claiming to have “evolved” on the issue. Ironically, Barack Obama used the same terminology just a year earlier to explain his turnaround on the same issue.

In November 2013, Murkowski voted for the so-called Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), the LGBT lobby’s top legislative priority and a bill religious liberty activists believe to be an imminent threat to the First Amendment.

When the US Supreme Court’s 5-4 Obergefell decision came down, Lisa Murkowski hailed it as “the right [decision].” All four conservative Justices on the High Court denounced the decision as an activist intervention.

And earlier this year when President Obama overstepped his Constitutional authority to issue an edict allowing transgender students to use the bathroom of their choice, Lisa Murkowski was silent, despite her much ballyhooed campaign rhetoric about “fighting federal overreach.”

What is most striking about Murkowski’s silence is that the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions issued a letter of rebuke stating: “It is not appropriate for a federal executive agency to issue ‘guidance’ for every school as if it were the law. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the exclusive right to make laws.”

Lisa Murkowski declined to join the Majority in protesting the Administration’s lawless action. So much for “fighting federal overreach.” Apparently, good standing with the LGBT lobby is more important to Senator Murkowski than the US Constitution. Silence is consent.

If you believe in traditional values, don’t be deceived. Lisa Murkowski is part of the war on traditional values.

Mark Twain once famously quipped, “No man’s life, liberty or property are secure while the legislature is in session.” He was clearly talking about politicians like Lisa Murkowski, who is an imminent threat to our First Amendment religious liberties.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Pro-Life Alaskans Should Reject Murkowski’s Pro-Abortion Extremism

/0 Comments/in , , /by

There appears to be some confusion among pro-life Alaskans on whether Lisa Murkowski is pro-life or not, but there shouldn’t be. From her earliest days in the United States Senate, it has been abundantly clear where she stands on the sanctity of human life.

In 2003, she voted for a Sense of the Senate Amendment concerning Roe v. Wade that affirmed the Court’s decision, stating: “The decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right, and such decision should not be overturned.”

In 2012, the Senator reaffirmed her support for the High Court’s decision, stating that “abortion in this country has been deemed legal, and the right to a safe and legal abortion has been confirmed by the courts, and I stand by that.” She even went so far as to accuse the Republican Party of a “War on Women.”

Murkowski has a consistent record of voting to confirm judges who will uphold Roe v. Wade as “the law of the land.”

But the worst of it is not just that Senator Murkowski supports abortion on demand and demonstrates a reckless disregard for the sanctity of human life, but that she has been one of just a handful of Republicans to fight for taxpayer funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider. This, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood has been repeatedly exposed as a lawless organization that protects sexual predators, discriminates against girls through sex selective abortions, and even supports illegally harvesting and selling aborted baby parts.

She has voted on multiple occasions for a controversial measure to appropriate federal funds for embryonic stem cell research, a policy that allows human life to be destroyed in the name of progress.

Murkowski has also repeatedly voted against the “Mexico City Policy,” a measure enacted by President Reagan to bar US taxpayer dollars from going to foreign non-governmental organizations that perform or promote abortions. President Obama struck down the law by executive order in 2009, a decision protected by Lisa Murkowski and the Democrats, most lately in June of 2015.

So don’t buy Murkowski’s empty rhetoric about support for the federal Hyde Amendment, in this case more appropriately tabbed the federal Hide Amendment. She does in fact support federal funding for abortion, despite overwhelming opposition from a strong majority of the American electorate.

Last fall the Republican Senate had an historic opportunity to vote on a late-term abortion ban. And while it seemed to enjoy wide public support, Senator Murkowski was a no-show for the vote. The Democrat Senate Minority was able to easily defeat the measure.

Make no mistake about it, there is no question where Lisa Murkowski stands on the Constitutional Right to life. She is a pro-abortion extremist. That’s why she has enjoyed the electoral support of Republican Majority for Choice and Planned Parenthood.

Pro-life Alaskans should reject Murkowski’s pro-abortion extremism and vote for a pro-life alternative in Tuesday’s Republican primary.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Satanic Screw-Up by Alaska’s Most Conservative Borough Assembly

/0 Comments/in , /by

A debate over religious freedom has led to a Satanist leading an invocation at one Alaska borough’s assembly meeting (Editor’s note: the Kenai Peninsula Borough is one of Alaska’s most conservative regions with what was once thought to be a very conservative borough assembly).

Following a discussion over whether to do away with invocations entirely, the Kenai Peninsula Borough Assembly decided to open invocations up to all religions.

According to Assembly President Blaine Gilman, a group of pastors used to previously lead the assembly’s invocation. Under the new rules, however, anyone can choose to lead an invocation in the name of his or her religion.

During Tuesday’s assembly meeting, Iris Fontana led an invocation in the name of Satan on behalf of the Satanic Temple.

(Read more about the satanic prayer at the conservative borough assembly in Alaska HERE)

Here’s the transcript of the disgusting “prayer”:

Let us stand now, unbowed and unfettered by arcane doctrines, born of fearful minds in darkened times. Let us embrace the Luciferian impulse to eat of the tree of knowledge and dissipate our blissful and comforting delusions of old. Let us demand that individuals be judged for their concrete actions, not their fealty to arbitrary social norms and illusory categorizations.

Let us reason our solutions with agnosticism in all things, holding fast only to that which is demonstrably true. Let us stand firm against any and all arbitrary authority that threatens the personal sovereignty of all or one.

That which will not bend must break and that which can be destroyed by truth should never be spared its demise. It is done. Hail Satan.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Defending the Earning Reserves

/0 Comments/in , /by

The People’s Natural Resources, and revenue from their extraction, are to be managed by the legislature for the “Maximum Benefit” of the people.

ALL revenue from the development of AK Natural resources (not just the Permanent Fund (PF)) is ultimately ‘owned’ by Alaskans who are ‘shareholders’. The Governor does not have the constitutional responsibility of using Alaskan’s natural resources. The determination of what is “maximum benefit” for the people is made by the Legislature. The Alaska Constitution has a built-in safety of the PF (and arguably its earnings) requiring a vote of the people. The Governor’s recent initiatives to influence the spending authority for permanent fund earnings have generated a recall effort and litigation, either of which could hurt more than help. I certainly do not want the courts to be making decisions belonging to the legislature, and the legislature needs the collaborative help of the Governor to make the spending cuts to balance the budget … something that will be difficult if he is in a defensive mode.

Over time Alaskans have developed a constitutional system designed to divide every penny from natural resource revenue into two distinct categories: money appropriated by the legislature (general fund) and money only appropriated by a direct vote of the people (the constitutional PF). Both categories serve the same constitutional purpose: The people’s “maximum benefit”. The defining difference is government spending power of the PF is forbidden.

Arguably, the PF is ‘owned’ by Alaskans (in common) at a different level than other natural resource revenue. Obviously the definition of “ownership” has nuances, but in this context, it is at least clear that, unlike any other State, there is a property right and responsibility beyond legislative access tied only to residency. The constitution further creates the authorization for investment of the PF and for the legislative appropriation of return on investment earnings, without biasing its use for dividends or as general fund revenue.

The legislature subsequently passed laws authorizing a dividend to be appropriated equally to each resident from the PF earnings on investments of the PF, the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD). These earnings are held in an earning reserves savings account (ERA). The legislature determined only a portion (50%) of the annual earnings can be distributed as PFDs, the rest has been growing the ERA to its current level of nearly $9 billion. This extra ERA growth has become the huge irresistible ‘plum’ the Governor and advocates for more government spending are after.

All ownership “nuances” are eliminated when the PFD checks are written. Taking the ER before it becomes personal property eliminates the accountability that would come with a traditional tax. Spending without this accountability link has created the most expensive state government in the USA.

thumbnail_Cost of Govperson by State

The PFD is taxable personal property and is meant to be managed and used by Alaskans under the inalienable rights guaranteed under the Constitution of the United States of America. Taxes are only politically feasible when voting Alaskans are content with the size of government.

“Restructuring the Permanent Fund”; “Protecting the Permanent Fund”; “Capping the Permanent Fund”… are code phrases for taking some of the coveted ERA and placing it directly into the general fund, just like the other 75% – the “spent” monetized natural resources. Simply ‘taking’ the money before it is personal property is not an option without a vote of the people who own it. It is not the right time to add ANY tax burden to Alaskans, but especially ‘taxes’ not clearly understood or specified in the constitution or state law. It IS the right time to make the cuts necessary to balance the budget while we have some transition money available in another savings.

thumbnail_pie chart color

I am still trying to process the Governor’s recent comment that the veto somehow allows him to be the one to blame, thereby allowing the legislature to support his proposed revenue bills in the subsequent special session? It seems to reveal an incredibly low view of legislators. The implication is we make our decisions based on fear of blame rather than on the values and principles for which we were elected. I can only speak for myself, but I voted for the PFD appropriation in the budget for Alaskans to receive full PFDs because it was the right thing to do. I highly value the need to pay dividends to the owners (Alaskans) of the investment capital as promised.

Need for a Careful Decision with a Deliberative Process

The recently touted legal argument that the legislature MAY “legally use PF earnings” is accurate in the narrow sense of the words, but worthless! It doesn’t answer the real question of whether it is constitutionally or logically appropriate. Only the legislature makes the determination of what is “maximum benefit” for Alaskans. Our responsibility is to make clear laws to do the right thing — not to find a loophole allowing us to appropriate without a deliberate public process. Debate on this ‘legal opinion’ is a waste of time at this point. The legislative GF expenditure for PFDs is based on exactly the same legal authority and jurisdiction as would be the approval of spending from the earnings for any purpose. If the legislature chooses to spend the earnings merely to keep government afloat, potential consequences include:
thumbnail_pie chart color

* Dividends will be capped or eliminated at some indefinite point when perceived needs warrant it.

* The PF investment board will encounter political pressure, beyond just the pressure to get the best monetary return.

* Misunderstanding of Legislative intent regarding use of the earnings reserves to settle future potential litigation. (This may have huge implications, for example, on the settlement of future retirement benefits shortfalls)

The point is simple. We have put MOST of the total natural resource money into the government checkbook to pay for government, and we have truly prospered in the pipeline era. The prosperity includes that which comes from jobs and services paid for with the high government spending. Now things are changing. Declining oil production and unexpectedly low projected prices have abruptly emphasized we cannot sustain our spending.

The next step must be to answer the question about ownership of the PF Earnings and propose a plan to keep us on the ramp to a balanced budget, a plan causing the least pain for most Alaskans. Alaskans could obviously choose to spend PF earnings to “extend the glide-slope” to bankruptcy or balance, but it must be just that — a choice of the people, not Governor imposition.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Economics, Family Issues Spur Legislative Challenge

/0 Comments/in , /by

Alaska’s House District 31 is commonly known as the “Homer District” but also encompasses the communities of Anchor Point, Clam Gulch, Ninilchik, Kasilof, and includes the Russian village of Nikolaevsk. Many people have touted this district as being ultra-liberal and impossible for a conservative to win. While this may be true of the more liberal leaning city of Homer, it is not indicative of the larger district population.

Proof of this can come from the US Senate race in 2010 when conservative, pro-life candidate Joe Miller beat Senator Lisa Murkowski by nearly 6 percentage points. Further, in 2014, Joe Miller again won District 31, beating well-established opponents Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan in the three way race by more than 12 points.

This shows that conservative voters are excited to support someone who they feel will truly represent them. I believe I am that person.

I am committed to government staying within its proper role, the first of which is to protect the rights and liberties of the people. The people of Alaska should be free to live within a state that promotes creativity, protects liberty, and cherishes the successes of its people.

Instead we are often left wondering if legislators in Juneau are more concerned with their paychecks than they are with the safety and liberty of the people they claim to represent.

I am running for State House in District 31 because I am genuinely concerned for the future of our state. Alaska is facing a time to make tough decisions that affect not only our economic future, but the future of our families and the generations to come.

Most troubling is the fiscal dilemma that Alaskans face which affect all facets of their lives. We must have a bold and fiscal innovator. I understand that over spending and taxation will not lead to prosperity. It will exacerbate and compound this deleterious fiscal situation.

The knee-jerk reaction by Representative Paul Seaton to implement a 15% income tax on hard working Alaskans is not only detrimental, but shows that other actions were not looked at first to solve the financial crises within the States’ over inflated budget.

Cuts must be made across the board to programs that are not producing a positive return on expenditures. A tax increase or personal income tax should only be considered after all other options are thoroughly looked at and implemented. I believe we are a far cry from cutting as much as we can.

Mayor Wythe likes to tell people in the district that she is opposed to additional taxes, but her record belies the fact that this is not the case. Hidden in the proposed bill to build the new police station (which was retracted), was the plan to pay for the project. It included an additional 1% sales tax on top of the already-exorbitant 7.5% that we currently pay.

Additionally Mayor Wythe supported removing the grocery tax exemption which was voted on by the people of District 31. This type of action will only hurt the citizens of the district and generate financial hardship on those that live within a fixed income.

Such a blatant disregard for the will of the people shows that Mayor Wythe is more concerned about growing government than she is about honoring the people’s wishes.

I believe that Representatives, whether City or State, must be honest with their constituents about the facts. It is not appropriate to pander for self gratification. This is not an act of servant leadership but an act of deception.

Both Representative Seaton and Mayor Wythe are on record in favor of removing the Senior Tax exemption. I consider this to be heartless. Not only are Seniors those in our community that we can look up to and learn from, but they also put 3-4% back into the local economy. We should welcome them to stay in our communities with open arms, not drive them out with higher property taxes!

As a small business owner, I understand the importance of balanced budgets, appropriate spending, and increasing revenues (unlike Representative Seaton who received a D- grade on the Alaska Business Report Card!). We need a Representative in District 31 who will apply these same principles in state government.

Economic issues aside, we must look at the future of our families. As a man, I believe it is my duty to defend those who are weaker than I am. As your Representative I will count it among my chief duties to defend your liberties. As a Christian, it is my duty to defend the rights of those in Alaska who cannot necessarily speak up for themselves.

I call myself a conservative, which means that I will fight not only for smaller government but also for the protection of pre-born children and for family values.

Though some would call Mayor Wythe a conservative, both she and Representative Seaton are outspoken in their support of one of the most pro-abortion US Senators, Lisa Murkowski. I find it hard to believe that someone who endorses her can also hold firm to principles that are completely anathema to what she stands for.

I am proud to have support and sole endorsements from Alaska Right to Life, Alaska Republican Assembly and Joe Miller. They see that in District 31, the choice is clear. We can continue to have more of the same – growing government, raising taxes, and surreptitious behavior from our elected officials or, the people can choose the one conservative who will truly fight for them!

I proudly defended my country by serving in the Navy for 30 years. When I joined the Navy I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution “so help me God”. When I retired I gave up my uniform but I was never relieved of my duty to protect the Constitution. The people and the United States Government has entrusted me in the past with the lives of your husbands, your wives, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. During my watch I never lost a life. I am only asking for you to trust me once again.

Not only am I the only true conservative in the race, but polling from an outside group shows that I am in the best position to beat liberal Republican Paul Seaton, leading Mayor Wythe by twice as much support from likely Primary voters.

We should never expect mediocrity from our public servants! As your Representative I will always be open to hear your concerns and will work hard to make the people of District 31 freer, more prosperous, and less burdened by undue taxes!

I would be honored to receive your vote on August 16th.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Alaska’s Hunger Games: The Capitol’s War on the PFD

/0 Comments/in , /by

If you want to know why Alaska’s budget is out of control, you have to shine a light on the indefensibly corrupt process that leads conservative legislators to sell their votes to Juneau even before they are sworn into office. Welcome to the Alaska Hunger Games.

Each year, Alaska’s districts send their representatives to the capital, and most of those legislators offer themselves in tribute to the Republican Majority Caucus. The cost is the same each year; writing a blank check pledging their district’s vote in favor of whatever budget gets cooked up in closed-door meetings of House and Senate Caucus Leadership. If you thought that the Open Meetings Act applied to all government organizations, think again. The legislature passed a law requiring itself to apply the Open Meetings Act to itself. That was in 1994. It’ll get around to it—someday.

Under the process that has held sway over the legislature for years, good people find themselves casting their vote for absolutely terrible things, and they do it even before they are sworn into office. The budget isn’t the only blank check that legislators have been expected to write in recent years. They are also asked to write a blank check for so-called “procedural votes”, votes that we are told aren’t supposed to matter. But they do matter!

In the last special session, Sen. Wielechowski called for a joint session to consider overriding the governor’s veto of the PFD, of education funding, of snowmobile trails, of oil tax credits, and other items. Majority leadership decided that they didn’t want to have a joint session. Unbelievably, every single Republican senator present voted against pursuing the special session. That was a “procedural vote”. What happens under this system if legislators instead cast their vote for the constituents they represent? Rep. Dahlstrom cast such a vote as an Eagle River legislator. In her case, the majority caucus proposed to spend funds invested in the permanent fund. After conducting a survey and finding that 80% of her constituents opposed spending any money from the permanent fund (yes, even from small side accounts that few even know exist), she voted against it.

For voting to represent the will of her conservative district, she was summarily ostracized by the Republican Caucus, staff she hired were let go, her membership in the caucus was revoked, and committees she had been working on were told that representation from her district was no longer needed. You see, in addition to writing a blank check on the budget and writing a blank check on whatever “procedural votes” caucus leadership puts forward, you must be willing to do still one more thing. In order to perpetuate the system, you must be willing to hack off another Republican legislator at the knees (politically speaking of course) when they break ranks and vote with their constituents, their conscience, and conservative principles over and against the caucus.

Most recently, and dramatically, the caucus collided with Rep. Reinbold, but it has also had notable collisions with many others over the years, including Sen. Ogan, Sen. Ward, Rep. Lynn, Rep. Kohring, Rep. Vezey, and of course Rep. Dahlstrom. In most all of these cases, it was the “Republican” Caucus demanding that its Republican legislators be “Less Republican!” And therein lies the problem with even calling it a “Republican Majority Caucus”. It isn’t, and the current House Majority Caucus doesn’t even include Republican in its title. Perhaps this explains why the caucus stood in the way of voting to override the governor’s veto of the PFD.

You see, Clive Thomas, former political science professor at the University of Alaska Southeast, had it right: “In Alaska, the party doesn’t matter, but the caucus does.” Let that sink in a minute. In Alaska, legislators have historically pledged their support to a caucus, instead of a political party. This is why Republican legislators did not fight to override the PFD, or even put their opponents on record supporting the raid on the PFD this year. This is why government spending wasn’t cut in Alaska this year. In the midst of the current budget crisis, government spending actually grew!!!

Through extravagant spending, the caucus—long ago—set itself on a collision course with the PFD. Now that we have arrived, that collision is unavoidable. While every man, woman and child in Alaska is getting a $1,300 haircut this year, the capitol is currently facing a lawsuit for improperly using taxes to build a man-made island along a causeway to a statue. The capitol has its priorities, and those priorities are not shared by those of us who live in the Mat-Su Valley. Perhaps that is why Alaskans have voted repeatedly to move the capitol, and our legislators, back home where they belong.

After all, what is the purpose of even having elections in the Mat-Su, when the truly important decisions (like the budget) will be made by people from Juneau and Anchorage, and your role as a legislator is simply to rubberstamp the outcome? I spent twelve years wearing the Army uniform, and never once did I have to demonstrate such blind obedience as our incumbent legislators have grown accustomed to, certainly not as a military officer. It is a corrupt and failed political arrangement, and if our Republican legislators had been men and women of courage they would have jettisoned it long before now.

When a caucus demands greater allegiance than a legislator’s own constituents, it has defeated the very purpose of representative government. Those who have spent nearly ten years supporting such an arrangement, as my opponent Rep. Keller has, have set aside the interests of the people they were elected to represent. As an elected representative, there is no excuse for that. And as a state it is abundantly clear that we cannot afford it.

Alaska doesn’t need a Hunger Games. It needs representatives who will transparently put the interests of their constituents above their own. To her credit, Rep. Reinbold has stood firm these past two years. I hope to see her still standing firm two years from now. And there will be others standing with her. I hope to be one of them, and other candidates I’ve spoken with have echoed the same. The consequences this year are deadly serious. Either the caucus system (with its blank checks, closed-door meetings and out of control budgets) meets its end, or we will no longer be able to call it the permanent fund. After all, once the government gets its hands on it there won’t be anything permanent about it.

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.