Letter to Lower 48 Friends

As an active Partyer I am going to give you an “insider” perspective on the Miller v Murkowski (Tea Party v Establishment) battle for a seat in the US Senate from Alaska .

The Establishment is comprised of businesses, unions and Native Corporations, as well as 90% of the local media. Most importantly, the Establishment includes the highest office holders in state government. The Lt. gov.,who is responsible for assuring free and fair elections and who was previously the commanding general of the AK National Guard (appointed by FRANK Murkowski), allowed the Director of Elections to prominently post the list of “write in” candidates at all early voting places. State law requires that write in candidates register with the DOE at least five days before an election, and when early voting began there were three write in candidates, but only one for US senator–Lisa Murkowski. Never before was a list of write in candidates posted at a polling place to assist voters to vote for write in candidates. This amounted to nothing less than state-sponsored electioneering, and consisted of several strange bed-fellows from the LEFT as well as the right. MoveOn and ACORN would be proud of the Alaska Establishment’s activities.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of Alaska under the watchful eyes of Gov. Hugo Chavez Parnell and Lt. Gov.-Gen. Evo Morales Campbell.

As a result, I became a candidate for US senate as a write in, as did 149 of my fellow partyers-all on the last day possible to register, after the Superior Court, with F. Murkowski appointees, approved the write-in list.  The courts had already forced our candidate to release his employment records, most of which had already been surreptitiously released by a former mayor who is also an Establishment politico. Heaven forbid that “the powers that be” should have to create new networks of power that was originally built by Frank and subsequently bequeathed to his daughter, Lisa. The establishment argues that it is the institutional memory of the “staffers” that is vital to retain–the same staffers who have been unsuccessful in getting oil out of ANWR, but who have brought home the bacon. Miller suggested we should trade pork for ANWR, and that was a bridge too far for the Establishment. So, as our oil runs dry the pork will not, and we shall gladly become total wards of the Federal state with the Establishment continuing to get their cut off the top. (With an 8a contract here and an 8a contract there; here a contract, there a contract, everywhere a contract…)

In addition, since our candidate was the Republican candidate, the PARTY “assisted” us. Unfortunately, it did not dawn on us “USEFUL IDIOTS” that the PARTY was actually using our energy and motivation against us in the campaign to get out the vote. It appears as though our mandate to identify likely Miller voters left a list of LIKELY MURKOWSKI VOTERS that was ostensibly made available to Murkowski’s get out the vote ground game. An ordinary write in candidate doesn’t normally have a sophisticated ground operation; so the PARTY essentially used MILLER’S ARMY to defeat itself. Never again will I trust a representative of the Establishment.

I was a useful idiot and the young people who staff campaigns were essentially MORE USEFUL IDIOTS. They were responsible for the data and the analysis of it, but the data and the analysis was the property of the NRSC. This potentially suggests that the NRSC shared the data and analysis with the Murkowski campaign, thus affording the Murkowski campaign the ability to concentrate its resources toward their likely voters and on making every vote a legitimate vote.

Our candidate was an honorable man until the forces combined against him made him appear as though he was not. A judge forced release of his employment records-acceptable for a candidate for senate but not for a candidate to the President of the US? Miller was not eligible for rehire for three years after resignation, but his resignation was not accepted until he completed the case he was working. I retired after twenty years but can honestly stipulate that if my employment records were released for my service the opposition would certainly make hay of my two days of “bad time.” The honorable discharges and retired reserve designations for which I receive a more than modest annuity would not be as important as the bad time, or an occasional “needs improvement” on an efficiency report. E-1 to O-4 (Private to Staff Sgt. in 8 yrs & to Lt. Commander)would be lost in the weeds. (Why did you quit at 20 would be a weedy question now wouldn’t it? Were you forced to retire? What about your wife, an “academy light” graduate, was she also forced to retire at 22 yrs as an 0-5?) Do you not now have some doubts about me as a man of integrity; honestly? Now, ask it over and over again for several weeks.

God forbid a commoner ever offer to serve, or worse yet to challenge an Establishment candidate again. That is why this battle must be fought to the very end– never give up, never give in.

From the Fascist State of Alaska,

I Am,


Posted in News and politics | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Don’t Underestimate Your Opponent

Introduced to Alaska with an endorsement by former governor Sarah Palin, Fairbanks Republican senatorial challenger Joe Miller proceeded to personify the qualities Americans have learned to expect from its military academy graduates.  He entered into the election arena through a door opened by Alaska’s former governor, and succeeded on his own merits to close his campaign with a small lead over his eminently powerful incumbent opponent. 


Miller went to war with Sen. Lisa Murkowski clearly outnumbered and out-gunned.  In essence, he went into battle with the army of volunteers he had, not with the army he wished he had.  In contrast, Murkowski had everything she wished for in her war chest, with the possible exception of a record she probably wished she didn’t have. 


While rallying for support from any potential ally, Miller strategically deployed his forces over the long haul of the campaign to inflict damage whenever and wherever a tactical opportunity presented itself.  In contrast, his opponent’s strategy was to bob and weave, as well as to move constantly from one corner to another to avoid any interaction at all with Mr. Miller. 


The results posted on election eve clearly demonstrated that the establishment party faithful had underestimated the threat posed by Mr. Miller, and that their candidate’s hide-and-seek strategy was a vital mistake.  Theoretically it seems, the Murkowski camp believed if they engaged with him in the contest, they would provide Mr. Miller the credibility he desperately needed to be successful. Thus, the Murkowski camp forced him to establish credibility on his own, as though a resume’ that included West Point and combat was not enough. 


The establishment’s worst mistake however, was to disregard the fact that graduates of West Point are taught much more than just to win wars.  By taking for granted the power of incumbency, in the face of an academy graduate and combat veteran following in the footsteps of many men of valor, the elitist campaign committed a serious unforced error.  Candidate Miller methodically established his credibility as a candidate as he skillfully defined the senator as a big government liberal, and artfully used the incumbent’s own strategy against her by contrasting her record with the values and principles held dear to the citizens of Alaska.


Reminiscent of the confrontation between (Don’t call me ma’am, I earned the title) Senator Boxer and a general officer, Sen. Murkowski sought to sweep aside her heretofore unknown challenger, a former army officer.  Senator Boxer made a grave error in judgment in her condescending interaction with a general officer, and Senator Murkowski made a grave error in judgment in her decision not to interact with a veteran who was not just a former army officer, but an officer selected, trained and educated not only to be a leader, but to really fight for what he believed in.     















Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment


This graph demonstrates that Sen. Murkowski participated in expanding federal government, joining the senate in 2003. 
Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

YES ON 1, & 2

Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

Gang of 14 LEAST Conservative Senators includes Sen. Lisa Murkowski

Currently, the senior senator from Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, is ranked as one of the 14 least conservative Republican senators in the U. S. Senate.  In fact, Sen. Murkowski has been ranked among the least conservative Republicans in the senate for the past four years.  Moreover, Sen. Murkowski has never been ranked closer to the Gang of 14 most conservative Republican senators than to the least conservative Republican senators.         


The 2009 National Journal Vote Ratings, published in Feb., 2010, ranked the senior senator from Alaska the sixth least conservative Republican senator.  Senators Gregg, Voinovich, Collins, Luger and Snowe held the honors of being the five least conservative senate Republicans out of a total of 39.  Democrat Senators Bye and Nelson were ranked just slightly less conservative than Alaska’s senior senator, yet more conservative than Sen. Snowe, while Sen. Bye was more conservative than Luger and Snowe.


Sen. Murkowski has never been any where close to ranking in the Gang of 14 most conservative Republican senators.  In her best conservative years (2003, 2004 and 2005), at least 10 other Republicans were ranked more conservative than she, yet still less conservative than the most conservative gang of 14.  In 2005, 22 Republican senators were ranked less conservative than Murkowski.  Nonetheless, 18 Republicans were ranked more conservative, but not conservative enough to be ranked among the 14 most conservative senate Republicans.


Despite being more conservative than 22 of her Republican peers in 2005, the list of less conservative senators is not surprising.  Among the least conservative of her peers that year were Sen. Specter, who finally became a democrat, Lincoln Chaffe of RI, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins from Maine and Lindsey Graham, John Warner, Mike DeWine and John McCain.  With the exception of Sen. Specter, these senators were the Republicans who joined with seven Democrat senators to create the “original” Gang of 14 in early 2005. 


As the 2010 election approaches, the Alaska Republican Party has aptly begun to portray the senior senator from Alaska as more conservative than her record actually demonstrates.  While the senator’s record has been consistently conservative over the past several months, it may not be much of a surprise that the liberal ladies from Maine have also held ranks in opposition to the Democrat controlled government’s efforts to create a nanny state.  After all, although the least conservative Republican senators are really just liberals with an R after their names, they are not Leftists. 


For example, in January of ’09 when the 2010 elections were distant enough on the political horizon, Murkowski joined the Maine Ladies, as well as soon to become a Democrat Arlen Specter, voting for the “massive S-CHIP expansion… to subsidize not-poor families and not-children ‘children’ and non-citizens who don’t have to prove their citizenship.” http://michellemalkin.com/2009/01/29/senate-s-chip-roll-call-vote-9-bo-republicans-vote-for-raising-taxes-in-a-recession/       


The senator has staked out her position over the last seven years, and whether or not she voted for the very expensive and expansive Bush era Medicare Part D and No Child Left Behind programs, or was a member of the original gang of 14 or not, is immaterial at this point.  As a liberal republican she has used her office to purchase, using other people’s money, the allegiance of as many of those who have less while placating the conservative constituents who will actually pay for the programs.  Time and again the senator has demonstrated behavior that suggests a philosophical position supportive of a federal government that seeks equal outcomes in lieu of trying to hold true to the principle of equal opportunity. 


Alaska’s senators are both subscribers to the concepts of social justice and economic justice; but only one of them would dare to publicize it.       


Those who support her primary challenger, Joe Miller, want a senator who ranks closer to, or is actually included in, the conservative gang of 14 senators.  They seek a senator who will put some reigns on federal spending and bridle it back.  They want a senator who not only votes consistently conservative, but one who is a persistent proponent of smaller government.  Alaskans want a senator who is publicly and sincerely critical of those who seek more centralization of power, control and influence in Wash., D.C.


Lisa Murkowski is a compassionate conservative who participated in the Bush Administration’s doubling of the national debt.  She is a centerpiece for the Leftists who currently control Washington to point out as an example of Republicans who often agree with them on social and economic issues, and who have voted consistently to provide government services and regulations to support those issues.  As a result, liberal Republicans who vote with the Left on issues such as S-CHIP are easy examples for the Left to use as a defense for more fiscal irresponsibility. 


Alaskans can do nothing about the ladies from Maine, but we certainly can do something about the lady from Alaska. 


Finally, in case a challenge is made on the substance of this articles for it’s sources, Human Events also published an article in March of ‘09 that listed Senator Murkowski as number five on a list of their top ten RINOs, including Senator Specter.  Hence, with Specter’s departure from the Republican Party, Sen. Murkowski is now ranked number four on this list.   http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31018&keywords=top+10+senate+rinos




Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment

How Soon We Forget

Local opinion of the new Arizona immigration law seems to be quite supportive, yet I hesitate to remind Alaskans that two of our biggest cities, and the entire state legislature, are on record via resolutions forbidding the use of city or state agencies and funding for the purpose of enforcement of federal immigration laws.


From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/alaska-state-legislature-resolution is a copy of the state’s resolution unanimously approved by the senate and almost unanimously by the house:

“FURTHER RESOLVED that an agency or instrumentality of the state may not,

(1)  use  state  resources  or  institutions  for  the  enforcement  of  federal 
immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the federal government…” 


From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fairbanks-ak-city-council-resolution is a copy of the Fairbanks City Council resolution:

“IT IS HEREBY FURTHER RESOLVED, and is the policy of the City of Fairbanks, to forbid in the absence of probable cause of criminal activity…4. enforcement of immigration matters, which are entirely the responsibility of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  No city service will be denied on the basis of citizenship…” 


From http://www.aclu.org/national-security/anchorage-ak-resolution is a copy of the Anchorage City Council resolution:

“Section 4: That an agency or instrumentality of the Municipality may not,
(1) Unless necessary to protect the safety of people, use Municipal resources or institutions for the enforcement of Federal immigration matters, which are the responsibility of the Federal government…”


Sitka has one too http://dev.numbersusa.com/content/learn/crime/sanctuary-laws.html#alaska.



How can anyone take us seriously?  I know, that was then and this is now.  Things change, and so do people’s opinions.  And the resolutions are not legally binding; they just provide guidance for the city and state agencies to conduct their business. 


That, my friends, is the definition of a sanctuary city, and a sanctuary state.  Here, in conclusion, is an interesting article regarding an attempt to remove the sanctuary label in Anchorage: http://alaskapride.blogspot.com/2007/09/anchorage-assemblyman-paul-bauer.html.



Posted in News and politics | Leave a comment