Posts

Sullivan ‘Stand Your Ground’ Claims Not Credible

/0 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: dmcdevitFor weeks US Senate candidate Dan Sullivan has been running radio ads claiming that “as Alaska’s Attorney General, [he] successfully fought to . . . pass Stand Your Ground.”

When one examines the public record, this claim is problematic on several levels.

The first, and most obvious, problem is that Dan Sullivan left the Attorney General’s Office in December 2010, more than two years before the Alaska Legislature passed Stand Your Ground in April 2013.

Sullivan supporters might protest that he is not claiming to have passed the bill, but rather to have “fought to . . . pass” it. Fair enough, but the clear impression the ad leaves is that the bill passed during Sullivan’s tenure as Attorney General.

Regardless, that option isn’t very helpful either, because a letter was submitted to the House Judiciary Committee by Sullivan’s Department of Law opposing the HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) bill during the 2010 Legislative Session. To make matters worse, Dan Sullivan’s name is in the signature line, though Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore actually signed it.

In the letter of opposition, Skidmore, speaking on Sullivan’s behalf, states unequivocally that the bill “would promote violence and be a bad idea for our state.”

The bill sponsor, Representative Mark Neuman (R- Big Lake), has suggested that Sullivan’s office worked with him on the bill to simplify the language. But Committee minutes and audio recordings indicate that despite the fact that there was collaboration to address some of the stated concerns, the bill was opposed at every stage of the legislative process by the Department of Law under Sullivan’s leadership. The objection at issue remained removal of the “duty to retreat” from Alaska Statutes.

The aforementioned letter opposing HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) was presented as part of the record for the first Committee hearing in House Judiciary Committee on March 15, 2010. At that time, Assistant Attorney General Anne Carpeneti raised the Department’s concerns and answered questions. Mr. Neuman points to committee minutes from that hearing to confirm that he worked with the Department of Law to simplify the language, which is correct.

However, at the very next hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on March 29, 2010, Carpeneti clearly stated that the Department of Law still had concerns with the new Committee Substitute reflecting the updated changes. That version of the bill was the working document for all hearings on HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) for the remainder of that last session of the 26th Legislature, and was re-introduced in January 2011 at the beginning of the 27th Legislature, at which time Dan Sullivan was no longer Attorney General.

Representative Neuman’s repeated suggestions that the letter of opposition, proffered on behalf of Dan Sullivan by Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore, was irrelevant after the language of the bill was simplified could not be more misguided. The letter specifically addressed section (6) of the original bill, which was the exact language retained in the working draft – “in any place where the person has a right to be.”

The opposition expressed was grounded in the Department of Law’s objection to that specific language, which, in their view, removed “the duty to retreat.” The letter went on to say, “this does not express a value for human life” or “encourage finding a resolution to disputes other than violence.”

When HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) was heard in the House Finance Committee on April 8, 2010, Assistant Attorney General Anne Carpeneti reiterated her concerns, stating – “we still have concerns that this bill will increase violence in our state” and will “eliminate the duty to retreat.”

In the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 15, 2010 the third of Sullivan’s Assistant Attorneys General testified against the bill. This time it was the Director of the Criminal Division of the Department of Law, Sue McLean, who stated the following:

“HB 381 and similar laws have been characterized as “stand your ground” laws – and this is a trend – but it’s not about standing your ground. It really is about shooting first. Prosecutors nationwide are opposed to this type of law, and the Alaska Department of Law is similarly opposed. It promotes and condones a level of violence that may not have been necessary.”

Later in the hearing McLean further opined, “HB 381 takes away the duty to reasonably retreat. That’s why we’re so greatly opposed to it.”

On April 16, 2010 Assistant Attorney General Sue McLean testified again before the Senate Judiciary Committee, asserting that “this change in the law would give unreasonable people a license to act unreasonably and not retreat.”

Later in that same hearing, a friendly amendment drafted by attorneys at the Department of Law was offered, at which time McLean maintained, notwithstanding, the “Department of Law is opposed to this law.” The bill later died in the Senate Finance Committee.

It is clear from the legislative record that Dan Sullivan’s Department of Law unequivocally opposed HB 381 (Stand Your Ground).

Dan Sullivan’s defense now rests on passing the buck, as he did in a US Senate debate sponsored by KOAN radio and organized by the Anchorage Republican Women’s Club. When pressed in debate on the letter submitted to the House Judiciary Committee in his name, Sullivan responded that it wasn’t his letter, he didn’t write it.

Sullivan spokesman Mike Anderson was said to have echoed the candidate’s sentiments in a piece published on Amandacoyne.com. “In regards to the Department of Law letter in question, Dan didn’t write the letter, he didn’t see it before it went out, nor does he agree with the attorney who wrote it,” said Anderson.

Coyne also reported speaking with Assistant Attorney General John Skidmore, who now apparently claims to have acted independent of Sullivan. Yet the letter bears Sullivan’s name.

How “out to lunch” would one have to be if he really did “support it from the beginning,” as Sullivan claimed in a June 13 interview on the Mike Porcaro Show on 650 KENI, and not know that his subordinates at the Department of Law were officially opposing it?

Skidmore’s public statements regarding Sullivan’s lack of awareness of what was going on in his own Department are not only unflattering to Sullivan, but bespeak even deeper problems at the Department of Law if whole Divisions are out there going rogue on the Governor and the Attorney General to whom they are supposed to be accountable.

Let’s assume, for purposes of argument, that Sullivan really was in the dark with respect to the letter written in his name. Let’s also assume that he was unaware of his Department’s opposition to Stand Your Ground. Does this make his case any more plausible?

Remember, Sullivan’s claim is not just that he “supported it from the beginning,” but that he also “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground.” Skidmore’s defense of Sullivan makes it abundantly clear that Sullivan, in fact, did NOT “fight . . . to pass Stand Your Ground.” Not only did he not fight to pass it, he was completely uninvolved, and even ignorant of what was going on. He clearly didn’t follow the deliberations, nor did he bother to state his opinion for the record. Furthermore, he obviously didn’t exercise proper oversight over his subordinates, or represent the Governor at whose pleasure he served. So does the claim that Sullivan “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground” pass the red face test under even the most minimal standards? The answer is obviously “no.”

The independent politifact.com was indeed correct in rating any claim that Sullivan was responsible for passing Stand Your Ground as a false claim.

It is also clear that the more nuanced claim that Sullivan “fought . . . to pass Stand Your Ground” is also a false claim.

What is unclear is whether Sullivan ever supported Stand Your Ground at all. There is not a scintilla of independent evidence that he did. The only thing we have to date is Sullivan’s own word, and a veiled statement by Representative Mark Neuman that he thinks Dan Sullivan supported it, despite his admission that he never personally discussed the legislation with him. Neuman’s deliberations were with Sullivan’s staff at the Department of Law who are on public record opposing HB 381 (Stand Your Ground) throughout Sullivan’s tenure as Attorney General, and it doesn’t help Sullivan’s case that the Department of Law reversed course and supported Stand Your Ground legislation after Sullivan left the Attorney General’s Office.

Whether Sullivan really supported Stand Your Ground before running for United States Senate . . .

You decide.

Senate Candidate Dan Sullivan says He Passed 'Stand Your Ground' in Alaska: Politifact Truth-O-Meter Says 'False'

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: PolitifactIn his campaign for Senate, Republican front-runner Dan Sullivan touts his history of protecting Second Amendment rights in the hunting-loving state of Alaska.

But a recent pro-Sullivan ad might have stretched the rifle and pistol expert’s record a little too far.

“As Alaska’s attorney general, Sullivan successfully fought to protect our Second Amendment rights and passed ‘stand your ground,’ ” said a recent radio ad out of the Sullivan campaign.

Our ruling

We found that evidence of Sullivan’s support for “stand your ground” is dubious at best. We couldn’t find any public proof of his support, and multiple attorneys under him spoke out against the law. Even if he had publicly shown support for “stand your ground,” he wasn’t in a position to push the legislation forward when the law finally passed in 2013.

We rate this claim False.

Read more from this story HERE.

Miller Questions Opponents’ Judgment Regarding Bergdahl

/1 Comment/in , /by

Photo Credit: SenateDemocratsJoe Miller today questioned the judgment of Senator Mark Begich and GOP primary opponent Mead Treadwell regarding the prisoner swap of five top Taliban leaders for American defector Bowe Bergdahl. Primary senate challenger Dan Sullivan has made no known public statements concerning this egregious act by the Obama Administration.

Following a White House briefing about the prisoner swap last week, Begich told The Hill, “There are still some questions, but a lot of them are answered,” he said. “We don’t leave any of our military personnel behind.”

Miller responded, “How Mark Begich could side with the President regarding the release of five Taliban prisoners for one American soldier who deserted his post is unfathomable. The Obama Administration broke the law and has put American military personnel at risk around the world.”

Treadwell issued contradictory statements regarding the Bergdahl release. In the first, issued May 31, he praised “those who worked tirelessly to liberate” Bergdahl and thanked God for his safe return. In the second, issued Friday, he called the Administration lawless for making the swap, stating it “sets a dangerous precedent.”

Miller issued a statement last Monday condemning the Obama Administration’s lawless act as “white flag diplomacy” that will only embolden our enemies.

Miller characterized Treadwell’s initial statement as “dumbfounding.” “There was ample evidence at the time of Treadwell’s first statement that trading five senior terrorist leaders, handpicked by the Taliban, for an anti-American deserter was not in our national security interests,” said Miller.

Treadwell’s statement raises serious questions about his capacity to make important decisions that will affect Alaska’s military community: (1) Is he prone to make hasty uninformed decisions in an attempt to curry favor with the public?; (2) Does he lack the judgment to deal with important national security issues?; (3) Does he have the integrity to admit when he is wrong and correct course?

“Both Mark Begich and Mead Treadwell have exercised poor judgment regarding the Bergdahl release, and Dan Sullivan’s views are still unknown in a matter with profound national security implications,” said Miller. “Alaskans deserve a senator whose judgment will be determined by principle not politics, and one who will not be afraid to speak out on issues that impact Alaska’s substantial military personnel.”

Why Exactly Was Lt. Colonel AWOL at Last Week’s Debate?

/2 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: Facebook Political Page There are strange things done in the midnight sun indeed. Rumors have surfaced that Dan Sullivan’s campaign was contacted repeatedly about participating in the United for Liberty-Alaska/Conservative Patriots Group Senate debate last week. Yet, he was a no-show.

On last Friday’s version of the Glen Biegel show he was absolved after claiming he “had a conflict . . . something my campaign had been working on for quite some time.”

Interesting, especially when one considers the fact that said event was created on Facebook about three hours before it was to occur, and four and a half hours before the UFL/CPG debate was to begin. Just seven people responded that they would be there.

So, his campaign had been working on the event “for quite some time,” and didn’t get around to advertising the event until less than four hours before show time?

Maybe the would-be senator from Alaska needs a new staff. Come out of the shadows, and talk about the important issues facing our state and nation. This self-proclaimed “fighter” ran from our state’s first real debate between the candidates. If he can’t squarely face the electorate now, why should they have any confidence he will stand up to the Party bosses and political insideres in Washington, DC?

We don’t need any more of those kind of “fighters” in the United States Senate. Can you say “Surrender Caucus?”

Sullivan, Begich Funding Sources Raise Red Flags

/4 Comments/in , /by

US Senate Candidate Joe Miller warned today of dire consequences should Alaskans reward powerful outside special interests by cooperating with their designs to buy Alaska’s senate seat.  

“It is instructive to look at where the money is coming from,” Miller said. “If money talks, as they say, Alaskans should be concerned. Any time you have powerful outside special interests lining up to give millions of dollars to candidates who claim to disagree with them, there ought to be some red flags going up.”

Both Democrat Mark Begich and Republican Dan Sullivan have donors and Independent Expenditure groups supporting them that have policy objectives contradicting the candidates’ rhetoric.

Dan Sullivan is running as a small-government fiscal and social conservative. In fact, last Friday on Anchorage talk radio, he went so far as to claim an allegiance to Tea Party principles. Yet many of his most prominent donors are card-carrying members of the Republican Establishment and long-time advocates of big government crony capitalism and socially liberal policies. 

For instance: 

•    Dan Sullivan has claimed to support traditional family values, yet his campaign is funded by Paul Singer and Friends for an American Majority to the tune of more than $150K to date. Singer has openly pushed for fundamental changes to the Republican Party, to include embracing gay marriage and amnesty for illegal aliens. He is reported to have funded LGBT efforts with more than 10 million dollars in recent years. In addition, three of the corporate executives numbered among Sullivan’s personal donors put their names to an amicus brief submitted in a February case before the Supreme Court advocating for gay marriage. Are we to believe that these folks are supporting Sullivan because he will be an advocate for traditional family values?
•    Sullivan claims to stand firmly against the Surveillance State, yet one of its architects is a personal donor – John Negroponte, George W. Bush’s first National Intelligence Director, who oversaw the integration of all sixteen intelligence agencies (both military and civilian, foreign and domestic), inclusive of the modern-day NSA.
•    Sullivan claims to be aligned with the Tea Party, yet he is endorsed by the US Chamber of Commerce that has pledged no less than 50 million dollars to defeat Tea Party candidates across the country. He is also backed by Karl Rove’s American Crossroads SuperPAC, and has the strong backing of Lindsey Graham and John McCain’s Political Action Committees. In Alaska, he counts among his supporters infamous former ARP Chair Randy Ruedrich and current Party Vice-Chair Frank McQueary, both of whom have been at war with the conservative wing of the state party for years. 

•    Sullivan claims to be a fiscal conservative, yet counts among his personal donors many of the architects of the bailouts – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Big Banks, Wall Street and the IMF – and numerous other magnates of international finance. These include: former President of the World Bank, Robert Zoellick; President and CEO of the Institute of International Finance, Timothy Adams; Goldman Sachs Executive, Faryar Shizad; former Chairman of the Board of the New York Federal Reserve, Stephan Friedman; Rockefeller and Co. CEO, Reuben Jeffrey III; the wife of former Bush Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson; and former Bush Chief of Staff Josh Bolton of Rock Creek Global. 
•    Sullivan claims to want to “fight for Alaska,” but his campaign is funded in large part by lobbyists, attorneys and executives from multinational corporations such as General Electric, Time Warner Cable, Facebook, Abercrombie and Fitch, Exxon Mobile, BP, Rio Tinto, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, The World Bank, The Institute of International Finance, JH Whitney and Co., Boeing, Microsoft, IMB, and more. When tough choices come regarding America’s financial future, who do you think he’ll listen to?

Senator Mark Begich, on the other hand, is circulating a petition on social media decrying the effects of the Citizens United decision on politics. 

However, just this week “Put Alaska First PAC,” a “dark money” group working for Begich’s re-election, transacted a $4 million media buy, a unprecedented amount for a small market like Alaska. The very next day, the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee announced that it had bought $3.5 million in advertising. When combined with Begich’s reported $2.8 million on hand, the junior senator already has more than $10 million dollars committed to his re-election.

Mark Begich’s hypocrisy in this regard is staggering. 

He has taken millions in PAC money from multinational corporations and big labor already, and it’s only May. Undoubtedly there will be more independent expenditures to come, as Barack Obama and Harry Reid pull out all the stops in an attempt to hold a Democrat Majority in the US Senate.

Joe Miller concluded, “There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance out there. But at the end of the day, whether one is propped up by big multinational corporations, big government crony capitalists, big labor, or other Washington special interests, what Alaskans want to know is who will stand and fight for their Constitutional liberties. It is apparent that the big-monied Washington interests believe they can buy Alaska’s senate seat. The consequences of that would be catastrophic. I don’t believe Alaskans will cooperate.”

Miller: Sullivan and Treadwell’s LOST History ‘Deeply Troubling’

/1 Comment/in , /by

Republican US Senate Candidate Joe Miller today addressed his primary opponents’ history of support for the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST).

“I find my opponents’ history of support for this naked power grab by our would-be global governors at the United Nations deeply troubling,” Miller said. “It is simply not enough that Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Sullivan are running from their records during a hotly contested senate election.” 

Miller continued, “I could never support a treaty that surrenders the sovereignty of the people of the United States and empowers the United Nations, for the first time, to directly tax and regulate our citizens. Freedom from the arbitrary decrees of unaccountable rulers is the very reason we fought the Revolutionary War. Why should we voluntarily submit to such a regime in our time?”

Dan Sullivan has been described in the Anchorage Daily News as “a strong advocate in government meetings, congressional testimony and public speeches on the importance of U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.”

In a speech delivered at the 2007 Arctic Energy Summit in Anchorage, Sullivan praised Senator Murkowski for her “leadership on [Arctic] issues, particularly the Law of the Sea ratification.” He further stressed that “updating our Arctic policy will involve working closely with Congress on a variety of issues, including U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea Convention.”

Sullivan went on to say that “avoiding nationalistic policies and sovereignty conflicts” should be a high priority, and stressed the need for “a global community working toward common global interests.”

Mead Treadwell also has a long history of support for ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

In a speech before the Juneau World Affairs Council in 2011, Treadwell stated unequivocally that “international cooperation in the Arctic must be strengthened — with the force of both international law and ratification of the Law of the Sea.”

The Alaska Dispatch described Treadwell’s advocacy for LOST in a 2012 story: 

“Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell is doing his part to keep it on the table. Although he says he has concerns about the treaty, Treadwell, who has a long history of working for the treaty and for Arctic issues, has worked diligently toward passage. He has testified repeatedly in front of Congress, regularly partakes in the State Department-chaired monthly Arctic Policy Group meeting, attends conferences where the treaty is discussed, and leads Alaska in its representation to the Arctic Council, where the Law of the Sea is the agreed-upon legal framework for resolving Arctic issues.”

Joe Miller concluded, “Both candidates’ meager efforts to back away from their past, hardline backing of LOST are likely to be seen by increasingly skeptical Alaskan voters as election-year pandering.”

Climate Change: Mead Treadwell and Dan Sullivan’s Inconvenient Truth

/3 Comments/in , /by

Photo Credit: usarmyalaskaJoe Miller today is calling on Republican challengers Dan Sullivan and Mead Treadwell to come clean with voters on their history of support for the man-made ‘global warming’ agenda.

“Clearly, both of my primary opponents have joined with climate change alarmists to push for top-down federal regulation,” Miller said. “It’s unclear how empowering the federal government to control even more of our economy, on the authority of dubious scientific claims, comports with free-market economics and Constitutional liberty. Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Sullivan have either had an election-induced conversion, or they’re conveniently side-stepping this issue that could have a profound impact on the lives of ordinary Alaskans.”

A recent study conducted by the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks concluded that the average temperature in Alaska declined by 2.34 degrees between 2000-2010, and a Fox News story last fall cited a National Snow and Ice Data Center report that found a 60% increase in Arctic sea ice between 2012-2013.

During his time at the State Department, Mr. Sullivan gave numerous speeches and interviews addressing the so-called ‘climate change’ problem. In them, he unequivocally accepted the premise that climate change is man-caused and embraced numerous mitigation strategies: including a national goal of steep reductions in the consumption of fossil fuels, an aggressive regime to increase the use of economically non-viable bio-fuels, billions in grants for government research to develop new environmentally friendly technologies, and subsidies and tax breaks for unsustainable “green energy” projects.

Mr. Sullivan’s views can be summed up in the following excerpts taken from his speeches:

Our energy challenges and climate change challenges stem primarily from a common source—an over-reliance on hydrocarbons as the world’s primary form of energy.

On the climate issue . . . we want to underscore . . . the seriousness with which we take this initiative. It will be the beginning of a process by which we hope to work with the major economies to achieve . . . [our] greenhouse gas reduction goal.

Mr. Treadwell has also voiced support for a similar agenda, testifying before the US House Committee on Foreign Affairs in 2009:

In the global dialogue on climate change . . . Arctic research is warning us now that Arctic ‘feedbacks,’ already observed from the loss of sea ice, the release of stored carbon, and the acidification of the ocean are dramatically ‘raising the bar’ for the global climate mitigation strategy the world seeks to agree upon in Copenhagen later this year.

Mankind cannot build an effective regime to limit its own emissions without understanding emissions coming natural sources in the Arctic. The U.S. is committed, with other Arctic nations, to build a sustainable Arctic Observing Network, known as SAON. Further, because the Arctic region is one of the largest terrestrial storage zones of carbon on earth, research could help us find ways that the Arctic can be part of the global mitigation solution. Forest and fire management, carbon sequestration, development of new energy sources in the Arctic, and other products of research, including so called methods of ‘geoengineering,’ may ultimately add to an effective global mitigation strategy.

Research underway aims at using cleaner fuels and methods to avoid emissions of soot, black carbon which promotes Arctic warming.

Both Mr. Treadwell and Mr. Sullivan also supported Lisa Murkowski’s campaign against the Republican nominee in the state’s last US Senate election. Their support came after the senator had co-sponsored Cap and Trade legislation that, according to Fox News, would have cost the private economy as much as $1 trillion. She has also entertained a carbon tax, something for which Mr. Sullivan, ironically, has sharply criticized Democrat Senator Mark Begich during this election cycle.

Miller concluded, “It never ceases to amaze me how during election time everyone’s a champion of liberty. It is vitally important to weigh what candidates say against what they’ve actually done.”

Joe Miller is a husband, father, combat veteran, and advocate of Constitutional liberty who believes in individual rights, private property, free markets and the sanctity of human life.

Sullivan, Treadwell Try to Hide Their 2010 Support for Murkowski

/11 Comments/in , /by

republican-democrat-battleIn an interview with the Associated Press on Friday, US Senate candidates Dan Sullivan and Mead Treadwell tried to deceive Alaskans about their support for one of the most liberal “Republicans” in the United States Senate during Alaska’s 2010 US Senate race.
 
According to the AP, “Sullivan, who was Alaska’s attorney general during the 2010 elections, told a reporter he didn’t publicly take sides in that race. He said he was neutral, as someone in his position at the time should be.”
 
Yet, just a few months back, Sullivan himself reportedly claimed in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner that, acting as Attorney General, he spearheaded the effort to assist the write-in candidate by arguing – in clear violation of State Administrative Code – that write-in candidates’ information would be allowed in polling places.
 
His double-speak becomes even more outrageous when one considers the fact that the move was unprecedented in Alaska and opposed by both the state Democrat and Republican Parties. Sullivan was obviously under no legal obligation to support Murkowski’s write-in candidacy and argue the case from the same side her campaign did.
 
According to District Court Judge Frank Pfiffner, Sullivan’s argument was “illogical” and in clear violation of at least four separate laws: the relevant Administrative Code, the Administrative Procedures Act, electioneering Statutes, and the Voter Rights Act which required pre-clearance from the Department of Justice.
 
While the Alaska Supreme Court overturned the lower court decision, it is noteworthy that they chose not to address Judge Pfiffner’s concerns. The High Court issued no written opinion offering the legal justification why Pfiffner’s lengthy decision and interpretation of the clear requirements of the law was in error. This has led many to believe the Supreme Court’s decision was a purely political, and has only fed popular discontent with its activist proclivities.
 
United Press International also reported that the non-statutory standards deployed during the 2010 vote-count in Juneau, in direct violation of Alaska Statute, came at the advice of then-Attorney General Dan Sullivan.
 
Sullivan’s breaking with historic precedent to circumvent the plain text of the law in order to provide an advantage to one candidate is anything but remaining neutral. There is little doubt, if the shoe were on the other foot and Senator Murkowski was the party nominee facing a write-in challenger, the law would have been interpreted as it always had been.
 
Treadwell’s claim of neutrality is equally troubling. Not only did Treadwell make public statements in 2010 meant to convey the message that he supported the write-in campaign, he was reportedly pressuring Governor Parnell behind the scenes to endorse Murkowski over Miller, a charge he has declined to challenge in private conversation.
 
Further, Treadwell presided over a white-washing of the 2010 election, refusing to allow an independent investigation, despite serious allegations of fraud levied by eye-witnesses in sworn affidavits, under penalty of perjury.
 
Treadwell now travels the state peddling his wares as a Constitutional Conservative. Yet somehow he wants to forget that Lisa Murkowski went back to Washington and offered Barack Obama bi-partisan legitimacy by voting for every piece of his 2010 “lame duck” agenda immediately following the election (which included the repeal of ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ the new START Treaty, the DREAM Act, and a partial repeal of the Bush era tax cuts), fought for funding for Planned Parenthood, accused Republicans of a “war on women,” came out in support of Anchorage Prop. 5 (ENDA), voted multiple times to raise the debt ceiling, helped confirm numerous activist judges . . . and the list goes on.
 
How did Mead Treadwell respond to all this? When asked by Politico Magazine last spring, Treadwell said, “I voted for Lisa Murkowski in the primary and in the general, and I think Alaskans made the right decision.”
 
Since then, Murkowski has come out in support of gay marriage, and continued her trajectory as a big spending, big government politician. It was reported in Roll Call earlier this year that Senator Murkowski voted with Barack Obama over 72 percent of the time, making her the second most likely Republican Senator to do so, falling only slightly behind Susan Collins of Maine. Indeed her support for the President’s agenda is far closer to Democrat Mark Begich than to most of the Republican caucus. Pretty hard to run against a Democrat whose voting record is similar to your Republican mentor.

Perhaps Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Treadwell need a civics lesson. We have a representative form of government. The folks we send to Washington represent us. If you vote to send someone to Washington to represent you, you are responsible for what they do. In a very real sense, you did it.
 
Forgive the Editorial team at Restoring Liberty if we don’t buy the claims of neutrality and high sounding rhetoric about Party loyalty coming from folks who selectively choose when it applies. From where we sit, it sounds a lot like the same political double-speak we’re used to hearing from big government politicians.

Miller: It’s Not Federal Overreach, It’s Tyranny (+video)

/4 Comments/in , /by

Screen Shot 2014-04-27 at 1.57.34 AMThis past Friday, I joined the two other candidates vying for the Republican nomination to the U.S. Senate in the first televised forum of the campaign season. One of the questions put to us at the “Alaska Asks” forum, which aired on the local NBC affiliate, addressed the role the federal government should play in our state. I said, in contrast to my opponents, we are not dealing merely with an issue of federal overreach, but a form of tyranny.

The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control over two-thirds of Alaska’s land, nor approximately 85 percent of Nevada’s. The stand-off in that state and the government shutdown last fall, during which Alaskans were denied the opportunity to hunt and provide for their families on these lands as an act of political retaliation, highlighted a federal government that exercises far too much control over our daily lives and livelihoods.

The federal government’s continued stranglehold on Alaska’s resource development, as other states like North Dakota boom economically, is unacceptable. The EPA’s armed raid of a family mining facility in Chicken, Alaska last fall demonstrates just how out of control Washington is. 

We need fundamental reform. Tweaking at the margins and increasing the go-along-to-get-along caucus in the Senate will do nothing to address the daunting challenges we face. 

Ronald Reagan said nearly 50 years ago, “Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.” 

Let us do our part to ensure America remains the land of “the free and the home of the brave” in our time, and let us set an example for generations yet to come.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

It the highlights below, the candidates field questions concerning the federal government’s blocking of resource development in Alaska, Senator Rand Paul’s “Life at Conception” Act, and the constitutional issues raised by the surveillance state.

 

Russian Billionaire Backing Sullivan and Other GOP Establishment and Democrat Candidates

/4 Comments/in , /by

Daily Caller

Photo by Dave M. Benett/Getty Images

A pro-Putin Russian oligarch, billionaire, and proprietor of Access Industries, has taken a keen interest in the 2014 election cycle, contributing hefty donations to establishment Republicans and Democrats vying for congressional seats in 2014, according to OpenSecrets.org….

[Leonard] Blavatnik has teamed up with Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund billionaire who backs increased immigration and homosexual marriage through his federal fundraising committee, Friends for an American Majority. Blavatnik even reportedly attended a “swanky Colorado retreat” that feted establishment GOP candidates in February, according to The Alaskan Dispatch.

Blavatnik contributed $5,200 (the maximum amount allowed by law) to Daniel S. Sullivan, who’s running for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Alaska against Lieutenant Governor Mead Treadwell and Joe Miller. Singer’s Friends for an American Majority also supports Rep. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Rep. Steve Daines in Montana. Blavatnik donated $5,200 to each of them as well.

New Jersey Democratic Sen. Cory Booker also received a total of $13,000 from Blavantik in 2013 — and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee earned $32,400, while the National Republican Congressional Committee got $4,800.

Blavatnik and his wife have each donated $32,400 to the Democratic Congressional Committee. They also supported Ohio Republican Rep. John Boehner ($5,200), New Hampshire Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen ($2,600), Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins ($2,600), Minnesota Democatic Sen. Al Franken ($5,000) and others.

Read more from this story HERE.