Sunday, July 18, 2010

Parnell's Plight

Governor Sean Parnell has dug himself a hole that is deep and wide. Parnell has enough trouble brewing that would cause any sitting governor to start looking at the Help Wanted ads in the local papers. There are four primary areas of concern.

Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.

AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.

Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.

AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.

Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?

Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.

This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:

“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.
No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”

There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.

Is our Governor above the law?

Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.

Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.

Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.

Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?

Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.

In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.

How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?

Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?

Monday, July 12, 2010

Racism, just another tool of the new order

What is racism?
In fact, how can there be racism?
Racism implies that there are more than one race of homosapiens sapiens.
Were there separate races, we would not belong to the same genus, meaning that interbreeding would be impossible. Can horses bread with frogs?
Therefore, "racism" should be more properly termed "color" phobia or "color" based prejudice.
This prejudice has been around since time immemorial.
Christ died to end it.
Martin Luther King died to end it.
Yet even today, some black Americans hate white Americans and vice versa.
Same for Asians, same for Hispanics.
Some just hate.
Yet, there are those who foster the lie that only white Americans are capable of prejudice.
Male bovine offal.
The rantings of the head of the New Black Panther Party put that liberal lie to rest.
What is ignored is the fact that we all share the same physiology, the same emotions, the same tendency towards prejudice of one sort or another, and all feel pain.
Whether or not we admit it, we all know what is right and wrong when we denigrate another for whatever reason. We know that we are cowards when we bully the weak, but we excuse our conduct because the object of our prejudice is obviously a lesser being, weak, or limited in some manner or another.
There is an industry built around perpetuating this color intolerance.
The race baiters like Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a lot of money extorting claims of prejudice where, in all likelihood, none existed.
Much that is called racism is couched in subjective emotionalism on the part of the individual experiencing the conduct. I state this, because there are no more lynchings, armed incursions into homes, public beatings--although black on white crime and violence is ignored by the liberal media--simply because of the dislike of one color by people of another in this country.
How much longer that state will exist depends upon how far the socialist agenda of the Obama administration manages to make inroads into compromising and reducing the Constitution to just history without meaning.
Once our rights become the whim of man rather than inalienable as granted by a creator, our rights are no longer sacrosanct. Our rights are reduced to edict.
The liberal agenda is to denigrate, reduce and remake our Constitution into their vision of social utopia. A false utopia where judges eclipse legislators and regulators make the law according to political whim.
Prejudice is something that plays into this. The alleged need to remake society in the 1960s with the Great Society was an attempt to atone for evils that should never existed. Yes, there was prejudice in the United States that has existed since before the Great Revolution. In that regard, the U.S. was not unique. Nor, is it the fault of the Northern European. Slavery has existed since one man bested another and one tribe bested another, and one city state bested another, and one nation bested another, and one empire bested another and took the losers into bondage.
How did slaves come to the U.S.? Slavery came before there was a U.S. The vanquished of whatever conflict became the fodder for the slave market. The military stronger power making a profit over the vanquished.
Prejudice came as the lie that allowed one man to "own" another. It has existed throughout history.
The same lie permeates the liberal Congress and the Marxist President to give them impetus to destroy our rights in the name of making us all the "same". In that regard, they use prejudice as a tool to create conflict and to divide.
Emotionalism is the imperative that drives.
"Feel good" is the Valium of the masses. Why if we all are the same, then we will all be happy.
Note how riots are now ignored by authorities. The rioters, usually black, are excused for their irresponsible and outrageous lawlessness on the basis of "well, they deserve to steal that TV".
No. They deserve to be shot in order to restore order.
We are a nation of law, not disorder, not color, not the whim of the despot or a Congress and President that pursue the destruction of all that made this nation great.
Prejudice will always exist as long as there is envy of another for whatever reason. There will be prejudice in the minds of those small enough to believe that one "man" is superior to another.
In the mean time, we must deal with the cancer eating at the fabric of this nation called diversity. Diversity is the attempt by the liberals and Marxists to compromise the unity that made this national great.
In order for the destruction of the United States to be accomplished, the social fabric must be destroyed. The conventions of marriage, family, culture, language, borders, and history must be destroyed or suborned in order to reach the end goal of a socialist/Marxist utopia where the dictatorship of the proletariat is the outcome.
In many regards, this has already happened.
The movements to give women equal rights has been perverted into something that now encompasses the elimination of the father figure in raising progeny, the needless, irresponsible killing of the unborn in the name of a woman controlling her own destiny and body in order to achieve the end game of accomplishing the end of the American family as we know it. The further perversion of the family by giving homosexuals parental rights and the ability to adopt have further diminished the role of the heterosexual family in our society.
Our borders and culture have been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why, the U.S. should not have borders! And, the national security and national identity issues are irrelevant. No nation in history has survived the loss of national integrity by failing to secure national boundaries.
Culture has been replaced by diversity. Why, every culture on the Earth is superior to ours.
That's why we are still a super power and the rest are third world offal holes. However, that leadership diminishes daily as our technological base is eroded by an education system that teaches diversity, the normalcy of the abnormal and deviant and "feel good" rather than hard nosed COMPETITION and how to read and write. The theft of our technology and our trade secrets, not to mention military technology and national secrets are openly sold as if they are meaningless.
How many nations have survived when the enemies of the nation have had the gates opened to them and the knowledge of their military and tactics compromised?
We have sold our national soul to the slave labor of communist China and other third world offal holes.
Our manufacturing and technology base, the envy of the world is now in the hands of the great copiers of Asia. Countries incapable of creating their own counter to our success. Done to level the playing field, to make us less threatening to the rest of the world. Our pols have sold our future down the river.
What happened to Rome, when Rome became "less threatening"?
Between the new religion of the left and the religion of climate change, the survival of western culture, much less that of the U.S. is in serious doubt. It was the liberal idiots that let the rabble from Islamic nations into western Europe . . . and the U.S. And, what have they contributed? The very real threat of revolution from and subordination to a 7th century theocracy. Yeah, Islam is sooooo tolerant and forgiving it calls for conversion . . . or death. Heck of a choice, eh?
As Dr. Michael Savage states: "Everything that is wrong is now right."
Every perversion is now to be accepted under the new order. Using children as sex toys is just another step towards social utopia.
Who determines what is right and wrong?
We do.
This election and the 2012 election will determine the fate of this nation.
In the mean time, shoot the looters in Oakland and restore order.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

The intent was right, the execution sucked . . .

Reserve rush to judgment on soldier, part 4

Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.

She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.

Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.

The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.

The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.

Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.

The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.

The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.

I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.

Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.

I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.

I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.

I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.

I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Frontiersman's Publisher's reply

Dear Mr. Wood,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.

I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.

I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.

Kari Sleight
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman

E-mail to Wick Communications about Frontiersman

From: Larry Wood
To:;; kari.sleight@frontiersman
Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 10:13 am
Subject: OP ed piece in Frontiersman: Reserve rush to judgment on soldker
To: Mr. John Mathews, CEO
Wick Communications, Inc.

Read it.
Then tell me that the 6th Amendment is alive and well for our troops. Yes, they are presumed innocent under UCMJ.
The incident described has not been adjudicated nor has the Article 32 hearing taken place. The troops have been charged, and very likely have been placed under arrest.
One of those arrested grew up in this community.
How do you think his family feels about the hack job your paper did on their son?
He was tried in the press, not by the military.
Further, the failure to post the name of the person writing this hit piece against the military was an act of outright cowardice.
The prejudice shows in the comparison to the war in the RVN.
How many of our troops have been charged in 10 years of war with acts of violence against civilians in OIF and OEF?
How many have been convicted by military courts martial?
Maybe, three or four high level cases, and the rest thrown out.
I know troops who’ve been charged for a wrongful death in the conduct of operations against the enemy in hostile territory.
They are accused, have their weapons taken from them, put on quarters arrest until the battalion commander conducts his inquiry, after which, the issue either goes to brigade JAG, or higher if there is reason to believe that it is a wrongful death. Otherwise, the soldier is given his weapon back with an apology by the battalion commander, and returns to duty. What do you think that kind of treatment does to these guys and gals?
Oh, those poor Afghan “civlians”. Right.
Your writer made that determination, based upon what? I too read the charging documents.
Were these alleged victims civilians by day, enemy by night or on weekends?
Who really knows until the facts are heard before a military tribunal, but your writer cavalierly made definite statements as to their actual status without hearing any evidence.
Our enemy has no uniforms, nothing that gives them identification as a militia or regular unit of a hostile force.
There are no front lines.
This is war at its worst.
The ROE these guys fight under is the most restrictive in the history of armed warfare.
Our domestic police do not operate under such constraints as to the use of deadly force.
Yet, whomever decided that they have the righteous morality to stand in judgment before the facts are actually heard.
Had the individual who wrote this piece been other than a coward, we would have a name to demand an answer from as to why this outrage against the Morlocks and the honor of our military was committed.
Even my pieces submitted to that paper over the years bore my picture and name or at least my name. And, yes, I tend to be direct in my writing.
The Frontiersman and Wick Communications owe their readers and those soldiers accused an apology.
I suggest you make it so, if you have any courage and sense of justice.
I am 58 years old.
I grew up in Alaska.
I have never seen the Frontiersman publish such a demeaning and prejudicial article about our military.
If the troops accused did ‘bad’, then they will be convicted by a military courts martial, only after the facts are heard. Not by the press before the fact.
To do so the day after the 4th of July is an act of contempt on the part of the author and the failure to take credit for the piece by posting the name of the author, an act of abject cowardice on the part of the Publisher and Editor.
I demand that the Frontiersman and Wick Communications publically apologize to the community, the Morlocks, the other accused troops, and to all of our troops for this insult.

Best regards,
Larry Wood
Palmer, Alaska
Where I write:
Blog: Williwaw! Alaska! Alaska!
Anchorage Gubernatorial Examiner for

Business: Terra Resources, Ltd.
Family: Wood Alaska

Monday, July 5, 2010


The editorial is labeled "Reserve rush to judgment for soldier" and then goes on to excoriate the troops accused in the incidents alleged. Key word, alleged.

One, the author of this piece is an idiot. This sancimonious moron has decided to prejudge the case in the press without anything but knowledge of the charging document.

"From about Feb. 22 to May 5, three Afghan civilians were killed and another
beaten, allegedly by U.S. soldiers sent there to fight for their freedom.
Charging documents claim as many as five soldiers from B Company, 2nd Battalion,
5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, killed the civilians with fragmentation
grenades and rifles. It’s a sad reality of war that
otherwise-unthinkable crimes can be perpetrated by a few who have lost their honor among the thousands of troops who bravely and selflessly represent the United States and freedom.

Tens of thousands of soldiers have deployed and a small handful have dishonored both themselves and their unit,” said Lt. Col. Tamara Parker, spokeswoman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash

Apparently, the author of that editorial has decided the troops are at fault before the Article 32 hearing.

"It’s easy to make a leap ahead of the legal process and assume guilt unless
proven innocent. That three Afghan civilians were killed is fact. That they
allegedly died at the hand of the same soldiers who were sent there to fight for
their freedom is disturbing."

Civilians? Really?

How would this clown know? Was he/she there? Or, is this specious supposition based upon the charging document? And, what is the record for actual convictions of troops accused of unjustified deaths of alleged innocents in combat? 3 that I know of our of dozens of such charging documents filed with careers and reputations ruined over the zealous pursuit of trying to appease the liberal anti-war mindset.

"Sadly, allegations like these aren’t isolated to this incident. The actions
of a few in Vietnam prompted the disgusting label of “baby killer” to be hurled
at soldiers returning from that war."

What is this all about? Vietnam? Now, we know what it is that wrote this hack job on our military. A lib who 'remembers' Vietnam . . . and all the bad we did. Go fornicate a duck you moron!

"Do we support Morlock as advocates of his innocence? Of course not. That, too, would be premature and irresponsible."




Leadership and Ralph Samuels

There has been much made about the lack of leadership shown by the current governor. Governor Sean Parnell has been described as lackluster, mediocre, behind the scenes and hard working, and a nice guy. Ralph Samuels has chosen “Leadership Now!” as his campaign slogan to emphasize his perception of the lack of leadership shown by Parnell. This is an interesting ploy on the part of Samuels, but akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Samuels has his own baggage as regards demonstrated leadership ability.
Samuels’ claim to fame, as touted by his avid radio entertainment advocates, was his solitary vote against former Gov. Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act, or AGIA. Ralph Samuels was the only legislator to vote against AGIA.
On the surface, this is a bold statement as to his principles. However, it is an indictment against any claims of leadership ability. You see, Ralph Samuels was the House Majority Leader at the time.
Leadership is the ability to induce others to do what the leader wants them to do, whether or not they want to do the task at hand. In the case of Samuels as Marjority Leader, his job was to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, to influence his fellow Republicans in the majority caucus to act united in supporting or defeating whatever legislation was at hand. Where AGIA was concerned, Ralph failed miserably to exercise his leadership position.
Sarah Palin was hardly the pinnacle of cooperation and encouragement for the Legislature. Former Gov. Sarah Palin was a magnet for criticism. AGIA was not quietly passed, but argued vehemently at times. Where were those who argued against AGIA during the legislation’s travails through the legislative process? Why did they fail to stand with Ralph?
Samuels’ standing alone was not a case of a subordinate stubbornly refusing to follow the superior’s orders in good conscience. There was little or no risk in his opposition. Sarah Palin could hardly fire him. This was a case of a ranking member of the Legislative Branch standing against the Governor’s pet project. A governor who was not exactly engaged in any process at any time. A governor too busy with soap opera theatrics to demonstrate any leadership whatsoever during her tenure as governor. Therefore, Samuels’ singular opposition was hardly a case of political courage.
Nor, was Samuels act that of the commander of the Forlorn Hope given the impossible task for which survival of any so ordered unlikely. There was no personal danger involved. No threat to livelihood. No risk whatsoever. How was his sole vote an act of . . . leadership?
I will concede the issue of principle. To Samuels’ credit, he did stand his ground. To what end? If he was so in opposition, why was he standing alone? Why could he allegedly see what others were blind to?
House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels failed to influence his caucus to rally against Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA. Not one of his majority caucus minions followed his lead. Not one.
Yet, to hear Dan Fagan and Rick Rydell on their respective talk shows, Ralph’s vote against AGIA is the equivalent of Patrick Henry’s hanging, or Washington crossing the Delaware. Only one politician in Alaska’s political history deserves any real accolades, and that is former Governor Walter J. Hickel who challenged the federal government’s usurpation of sovereignty. He managed to get AS 38.05.500-505 passed. Yet, Samuels could not get one other to vote against AGIA.
To be cynical, was Samuels’ act an act of calculated political strategy? Did Samuels see in a distracted Gov. Sarah Palin the opportunity to challenge what was increasingly perceived as a weak and ineffectual governor?
It is interesting that her Lt. Governor has managed to accrue the same lack of respect. And, Samuels’ challenge.
Ralph Samuels campaign slogan of “Leadership Now” is either a demand by him for someone to step up, or a claim that he is the missing link for leadership. In either case, he is not the panacea that others claim. He is a failed leader.
Ralph Samuels held a powerful legislative position with a clear majority. Yet, he was not able to impede or to hinder the passage of AGIA.
In this time in Alaska’s history, given the decades to get major projects underway, the steady decline in oil production that constitutes 90% of the State’s revenues, and the fiscal catastrophe that will befall this State once TAPS declines to 300,000 bpd to market and is shut down, can we afford a governor who is a failed leader?