Part III Obama's Watergates: Benghazi, lies, deception, cover up--but why?

On September 11, 2012, something unprecedented in recent American foreign policy occurred. The United States Mission at Benghazi came under armed assault by jihadists of the Ansar Al-Sharia faction of the Libyan militias without any response on the part of the United States government or our military forces in the region. Not since the seizure of the American Embassy in Tehran on 4 November, 1979 has the United States seemed so powerless to respond to an armed attack against what is considered U.S. territory.

At least 30 jihadis took part in the attack that started after 9 pm local time using AK47s, RPDs, RPGs and 82 mm mortars. The CIA annex about a block away also came under attack by the same group with the ensuing firefight lasting until after sunrise the next day. The jihadi militia personnel were ill-trained, but well armed with a decided superiority in numbers.

Ambassador Christopher J. Stevens was raped and killed by the jihadists. Sean Smith, U.S. Foreign Service Information Management, and CIA Global Response Staff members ex-Seals Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were also killed. Doherty and Woods were killed by a mortar round while defending the CIA complex later that same night. Another 10 State Department employees were wounded or injured in the attack. What followed in the immediate aftermath was a surrealistic rejection of reality and an attempt by the Obama Administration to cover up the event as being a spontaneous protest against an unknown and heretofore unknown You Tube video allegedly insulting the prophet Mohammed.

There was no military or other government response that night to Ambassador Stevens notification made to Gregory Hicks, Deputy Chief of Mission in Libya who was at Tripoli, that the U.S. Mission at Benghazi was under attack by armed jihadis: "Greg, we are under attack." Deputy Chief Hicks then contacted his superiors in Washington, D.C. and informed the State Department duty officer of the attack. Security camera feeds and the retasking of a British operated surveillance drone allowed real time visual transmission of the attack to the State Department, DOD, and the White House.

The attack happened very shortly after the 7:30 pm dinner with the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin. Post the notification by Ambassador Stevens to Deputy Chief of Mission Hicks, several requests for aid were made by the CIA personnel under attack at the CIA Annex just down the street from the Mission. The CIA personnel were repeatedly told to stand down by a still unidentified CIA superior and not to attempt rescue of the Mission personnel. Doherty and Woods disobeyed that order and rescued the State Department Mission personnel and the wounded and recovered Sean Smith’s body back to the CIA annex. Doherty and Woods were killed later that night while on the roof of the CIA annex returning fire and acting to spot the mortar emplacement that killed them.

It is alleged recently by some sources that the Turkish Consel was aware of the impending attack and failed to notify Ambassador Stevens demonstrating the Muslim Brotherhood has influence into NATO.

Very recently, Al Qaeda has claimed that the Ambassador Stevens was marked for death in retaliation for a drone strike against Abu Yahya al-Libi, the Libyan Al Qaeda leader in Libya. Al-Libi was killed by a drone strike on 4 June, 2012 in Waziristan, Pakistan. Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama Bin Ladin’s successor, called for retaliation against the Americans for the death of al-Libi. The U.S. had placed a $1 million bounty on Al-Libi. An Al Qaeda website posting by Abdallah Dhu-al-Bajadin, a known Al Qaeda weapons expert, conveyed that Ambassador Stevens had been killed by lethal injection. The rape of Ambassador Stevens has never been denied by the State Department or the Obama Administration.

A 12 man security military security team led by COL Andrew Wood provided security for State Department personnel in Tripoli and sent personnel to the Benghazi Mission as required from 12 February to 14 August, 2012. They were withdrawn at the end of their tour and not replaced. The decision to discontinue U.S. armed personnel as security was made by SECSTATE Hillary Clinton. COL Wood testified to Congress that he had 24/7 communications capability with Special Operations Command, Africa (SOCAFRICA) and reported three times daily to SOCAFRICA superiors on his team’s activities in support of the State Department personnel. He further testified: "The security in Benghazi was a struggle and remained a struggle throughout my time there. The situation remained uncertain and reports from some Libyans indicated it was getting worse. Diplomatic security remained weak. In April there was only one US diplomatic security agent stationed there. The RSO struggled to obtain additional personnel there but was never able to attain the numbers he felt comfortable with."

The Ansar al-Sharia militia included individuals who were employed at the time by the State Department as contract security for the facility, giving the jihadis insider knowledge of the layout, personnel numbers, and security systems. COL Andrew Wood had warned the State Department of the likelihood of an attack in the near future when his security detail was relieved at the end of July, 2012. Even in the face of intelligence from several sources, including the interim Libyan government that indicated that further attacks against U.S. and British personnel were likely, the security at the Mission in Benghazi was allowed to become the responsibility of hired Libyan jihadi militia personnel, many of whom were known to be associated with Al Qaeda affiliated Ansar al-Sharia. U.S. security personnel were withdrawn.

The Administration’s Response

The Obama Administration’s response has been without credibility. The first response was by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton the day after the attack on the U.S. Mission at Benghazi. SECSTATE Clinton claimed that the attack had been a protest that got out of hand over an unknown You Tube video of a parody on Islam by an unknown film maker in the U.S. For the next two weeks, this claim was repeated by the President and by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice who was pressed into service to give Hillary’s incredible claim credibility. President Obama followed through and continued what became obvious as an outright lie. Even SECDEF Leon Panetta supported the outright lie being promoted by the Administration regarding the Benghazi attack. The CIA, in its initial press release claimed that the attack on the Benghazi Mission was a terrorist attack, but retracted its position to conform to the President’s, Clinton’s and Rice’s outright lies. In the face of four Americans in service to this country being killed, the Obama Administration, as it did in Fast and Furious, chose to lie and to cover up the attack. Since, the Administration has continued its obfuscation, lies and innuendo, choosing to attack those who have come forward to testify and to single them out for retribution for testifying to Congress.

Congressional Hearings have revealed that there were orders given at the highest levels to stand down any attempted U.S. military response to the attack at the time of the attack. The identity of those giving the orders has not been forthcoming. As with Fast and Furious, documents have not been forthcoming, and those that have been provided are so heavily redacted that there are unintelligible. This is the response from the "most transparent" Presidential Administration in history.

What were the military options available for any military response to the attack on the Mission at Benghazi?

How long would it have taken to get assistance there from the nearest U.S. military presence in the region?

Only the President of the United States can order American troops to cross the border from one country to another. Only the President. Given that authority, the order to stand down had to come from either the White House directly, or through SECDEF Leon Panetta.

Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks has testified that his pleas for assistance for Benghazi were met with silence on the part of the State Department, his plea to AFRICOM was met with an intent to respond, but someone ordered AFRICOM to stand down as well. Only orders from the President of United States can cause U.S. troops to be moved across the border of one country to another. Therefore, the order to stand down any military response had to come from the White House. Hicks testified before Congress that he requested a military response to the attack by a Special Operations team led by LTC Gibson, which was located in Tripoli at the time. Special Operations Command Africa (SOCAFRICA) ordered LTC Gibson to stand down and not to respond to the attack. It is reported that LTC Gibson was "furious" with the stand down order.

No member the United States military, no matter the branch or the MOS, would have refused a mission to go to the aid of those under attack in Benghazi.

Those who have served in any capacity in the military know that when push comes to shove, and the excrement hits the proverbial fan, all become infantry. That means, mechanics, cooks, typists, whatever, they grab a rifle and go to fill the gap in the line. Any Marine at NAS Sigonella would have been more than qualified to answer the attack on the Mission at Benghazi, no matter whether mechanic, cook or clerk typist. All Marines are infantry.

NAS Sigonella has Marine security and infantry elements assigned to AFRICOM. In October, 2011 Marines assigned to Special Purpose Marine Air Ground Task Force 12 comprising 125 Marines tasked with training militaries in the Sahel, a region of northern Africa, deployed from Camp Lejune, NC to their new barracks at NAS Sigonella. SPMAGTF 12 is comprised of combat ready, infantry qualified Marines who would be deployed in their training role in platoon sized elements. How many of the 125 Marines were available to respond from NAS Sigonella, Sicily on the night of September 11, 2012 is unknown. NAS Sigonella is about 460 miles from Benghazi, or two hours by C130.

Aviano, AFB in central Italy is home to the 31^st Security Squadron equipped with standard infantry weapons and trained in combat tactics. The personnel of the 31^st should have been considered in the response, although, by C130, they would have taken the longest to land at Benghazi airport being over 1,000 miles from Benghazi, taking perhaps 6 hours by C130, including aircraft and personnel prep time.

The U.S. Army Italy has several bases with deployed units. At Vinceza in central Italy there is the 66^th Military Intelligence Group and two Army transportation units between Vinceza and Livorno, not to mention the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts of America(!) . (Nothing is more frightening than a bunch of Girl Scouts armed who have not made their cookie sale quota and who are armed with M4s.) All kidding aside, there are combat qualified personnel at either of these installations who could have been tapped for an emergency relief mission.

The U.S. had military tactical strike aircraft available. A squadron of F16s are stationed at Aviano, AFB, which could have been on station over the Benghazi Mission within 2 hours of launch. Marine or Navy F18 Hornet fighter/attack aircraft stationed at NAS Sigonella could have been on-station overhead in Benghazi within the hour from time of launch. On afterburners, even less time for both Aviano’s F16s and NAS Sigonella’s F18s.

Given the relatively undisciplined nature of the jihadist militias, two F16s or F18s making low altitude high speed passes may have been sufficient to cause the jihadis to retreat. Deputy Chief of Mission Gregory Hicks testified his belief that the presence of U.S. military aircraft overhead would have been effective in causing the militias to break off their attack.

Therefore, the claim that any response to the jihadi attack had to be made by SOF units that were allegedly unavailable is specious and a red herring designed to detract from the fact that there were several "regular" military assets actually available. The SOF team in Tripoli led by LTC Gibson, the USAF 31^st Security Forces Squadron at Aviano, members of at least two Army transportation and logistics battalions at Livorno and Vinceza, and the SPMAGTF 12 Marines. Any of which could have been cobbled together as a relief force of platoon size (36 troops) with vehicles and moved by C130 to Benghazi before the battle for the Mission and the CIA Annex had petered out.

It has been alleged that LTG Carter Ham, then CO of AFRICOM, was summarily relieved of his command and placed under house arrest for his refusal to follow orders to stand down any attempt at relief of the Benghazi Mission and the CIA personnel under attack. It is known that LTG Ham was relieved of his command shortly thereafter and denied the command of NATO that he was to be his next assignment. LTG Ham retired after his return stateside. His testimony has yet to be heard by Congress.

It is known that the State Department in D.C. was watching the attack unfold from the beginning through security feeds throughout the Mission complex. There was a drone tasked to overwatch within the first hour of the attack. Drones were on station throughout the night. Were the visual feeds extended to the White House Situation Room? Is there any reason to believe that given the nature of the situation that the visual feeds were not extended to the White House?

What was the purpose of the U.S. Mission at Benghazi?

Although not admitted directly by the Administration, it was reported in the NY Times and by Sharyl Attkisson of CBS that the U.S. Mission in Benghazi was engaged in . . . gun running. The U.S. was supplying weapons paid for by Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to the Sunni militias in Libya and Syria. These weapons were also making their way into western Africa to Mali and further south. It is believed that the dinner meeting between Ambassador Stevens and the Turkish Consel Ali Sait Akin concerned weapons shipments. It is now known that amongst the weapons being provided to the various Sunni, Al Qaeda affliated militias were older model SA-7 Strella and more advanced SA-24 MANPADs, Russian man portable anti-aircraft missiles out of Libyan stores. The missiles were being infiltrated into Syria through the Turkish border.

The CIA personnel at Benghazi were involved in accounting for the Libyan MANPAD stores to prevent them from from falling into the militia’s hands wholesale. The CIA is trying to control the proliferation of MANPADs, and the State Department under SECSTATE Hillary Clinton and her successor John Kerry are proliferating use of the missiles to extreme Al Qaeda jihadist militias throughout northern and western Africa and the conflict in Syria.

Russian General Nikolai Makarov has been stirring the pot by alleging that the Obama Administration has been supplying Stingers to the Syrian Rebels.

In the mean time, the Chicago Tribune dutifully reports that the Obama Administration is not supplying U.S. made Stinger MANPADs to the Syrian rebels, quoting SECDEF Panetta and others of the Obama Administration who were careful not to say that they were supplying Russian made MANPADs from Libyan stores.

Does the right hand know what the left is doing in the Obama Administration?

What did the President know, and when did he know it?

 President Obama has feigned ignorance of what happened at Benghazi. Yet, he was one of the first to mouth the lies of the attack merely being a protest that evolved into something much worse. This President, who had to be fully informed, in this day and age it is simply not credible to believe that he was not immediately informed of and continually updated on the events unfolding at Benghazi, let American personnel . . . die.

There is no other way to put it. He is the Commander-in-Chief. You do not leave your people hanging. Yet, this President did exactly that and made excuses. He expects Americans to believe that he was not informed, that he did not know, that he went to bed early while Americans were under armed attack at a U.S. diplomatic mission in a foreign country. Yet, he makes the personal decision as to whom the drones target for killing and when the killing is to be done.

His position is simply without substance, logic, truth, merit, or basis in fact. He is the President. It is his job to "take charge", no matter the time of day or night.

Is it believable that SECSTATE Hillary Clinton or SECDEF Leon Panetta left the President out of the information loop on Benghazi?

No more so that his good friend Eric Holder left Obama out of the loop regarding Fast and Furious.

Between Fast and Furious, dead U.S. personnel now number 4 for Benghazi. The body count for Fast and Furious is 2 dead U.S. law enforcement personnel as a result of illegal gun running. This does not count the dozens of dead innocents in Mexico who have died from the illegal gun running and the violation of Mexico’s sovereignty with the illegal gun running. For Fast and Furious, the Mexican casualty count is still ongoing. This Administration is covered in blood.

Was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton responsible for Benghazi?

This Administration has pursued a policy of accommodation and non-confrontation with the Islamic states and movements. This Administration has ignored the slavery that is rampant in the ME under Islam. This Administration, like Bush, has ignored the fate of Christians who have become the targets of hate and violence all through the Middle East without one word of objection or concern expressed by the Obama Administration.

This Administration has sought accommodation with our enemies, has provided weapons to Al Qaeda affiliated militias in Libya, Syria and northern and western Africa.

This Administration’s policy of accommodation with the Muslim Brotherhood, Islam and radical Islamic militias actively engaged in fighting U.S. forces or opposed to the U.S. and openly allied with Al Qaeda has resulted in destabilizing every country from Afghanistan West to Nigeria.

Who has been responsible for this policy? President Barack Obama. SECSTATE Hillary Clinton is the Secretary of State who promotes the President’s foreign policy. This is not to state that she is not responsible, this is simply recognizing that President Obama is in charge and ultimately responsible for his policies.

SECSTATE Hillary Clinton in response to questioning by Sen. Ron Johnson, R WI: "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night and decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

SECSTATE Clinton has yet to ask the families of those who were killed and injured that night "what difference does it make?"

Clinton could not even provide an accurate count of the personnel evacuated from the Mission at Benghazi in her testimony before Congress. Her answers demonstrated her arrogance and self assurance that she would be protected by the press and by Obama. Clinton holds herself unaccountable, as do the rest of the Obama Administration officials, above the law and unaccountable for their decisions and conduct. It was SECSTATE Hillary Clinton’s decision not to continue the armed security contingent that was commanded by COL Andrew Wood in the face of recommendations by former Libya Ambassador Cretz to the contrary and warnings by him of the potential for attacks against U.S. personnel in Benghazi.

This is the contempt that this Administration has for the rule of law, for its personnel in harm’s way, for our military, for our Constitution, and for us, the American People. This is an Administration that holds itself above the law, an Administration that aids and abets our enemies by giving them weapons and material aid, an Administration that ignores the sovereignty of our neighbors and causes the murder of Mexico’s citizens through its illegal acts.

This Administration is now up to its arm pits in blood. The blood of Americans it abandoned to die, and the blood of Americans and Mexicans who died as a result of illegal gun running into Mexico to the drug cartels with the full knowledge of the DOJ and BATF.

For more information:

http://www.stripes.com/news/marines-in-support-of-africom-establish-task-force-in-sigonella-1.156957

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57583014/diplomat-u.s-special-forces-told-you-cant-go-to-benghazi-during-attacks/

http://freebeacon.com/possible-poisoning/

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june13/benghazi_05-08.html

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2012/11/turkish-ambassador-who-dined-with-stevens-on-9-11-knew-of-benghazi-attack-failed-to-warn/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/10/24/breaking-news-white-house-watched-benghazi-attacked-and-didnt-respond/

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/08/who-is-lt-col-gibson-and-does-he-hold-the-key-to-who-gave-stand-down-order-in-benghazi/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-benghazi-hearings-whats-new-and-whats-not/2013/05/08/d0953a28-b831-11e2-b94c-b684dda07add_blog.html

http://rt.com/news/syria-rebels-aircraft-manpad-732/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/28/syria-middleeast

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-10-24/news/sns-rt-us-syria-crisis-stingersbre89n1j7-20121024_1_stingers-syrian-rebels-manpads

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2012/10/26/us-coordinates-manpads-supplies-to-syrian-rebels-russia.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443684104578062842929673074.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/was-africom-general-replaced-for-his-efforts-to-save-benghazi-security-officials/

http://www.africom.mil/about-the-command/past-leaders/general-carter-f-ham

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9157/panetta-strongly-condemns-benghazi-attack

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9154/official-details-benghazi-attack-vows-to-support-l

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9164/us-says-small-minority-behind-mideast-protests

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9180/hateful-speech-does-not-excuse-violence-obama-says

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9043/africom-commander-details-current-emerging-threats

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9153/statement-by-the-president-on-the-attack-in-bengha

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9152/statement-on-the-death-of-american-personnel-in-be

http://www.africom.mil/Newsroom/Article/9151/statement-by-secretary-clinton-on-the-attack-in-be

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/susan-rice-national-security-adviser-benghazi

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/06/Benghazi-Mom-Calls-Susan-Rice-A-Liar

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulletins/benghazi-investigation/

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/09/contractors-benghazi

http://www.nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/susan-rice-taking-over-for-tom-donilon-despite-benghazi-mess-20130605

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/11/16/flashback-what-susan-rice-said-about-benghazi/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/week-transcript-us-ambassador-united-nations-susan-rice/story?id=17240933#.UKQD2GfSnpg

　

　

　

Fiscal Cliff: Alaska's problems lie elsewhere

There is a great deal of press on the so called fiscal cliff that Congress has been wrestling with since 2011. After working on the issue for almost two years, no progress has been made. What is at stake, what is the potential impact upon Alaskans?

The fiscal cliff is a failure on the part of Congress and President Obama to reconcile the Administration’s desire to push the United States further into deficit spending and wealth redistribution with fiscal reality. The Obama Administration wanted a tax increase on those earning over $250,000 per year, without any reductions in spending. The Republican majority in the House had to this point refused any tax increases and had worked instead on spending cuts. The amount in contention with respect to the ‘fiscal cliff’ negotiations is about $600M. The total deficit for 2012 is approximately $1.1T.

The tax increase is an about face for President Obama who said in July, 2011 that no tax increases were necessary, that deductions and loopholes would provide the necessary revenues.

The United States is borrowing $4.8B per DAY to fund government. President Obama’s administration has accomplished the greatest expansion of government since FDR’s New Deal Administration in the 1930s. In the first two years of his adminstration, the federal government grew by 117,000 employees.



In 2011, an attempt was made to resolve the $1.6T in deficit spending for that year. Congress failed to reach a consensus and appointed a bipartisan supercommittee to negotiate a budget. The supercommittee failed. No budget was produced, and the federal government has been operating on debt limit increases since.

However, Congress did agree that if no budget was passed, sunset provisions would end the Bush tax cuts and a 10 year reduction in military spending termed sequestration would occur. The military budget would be cut 9% per year, or $55B per year, beginning in 2013, and continuing for another 9 years. Another $55B would be cut from domestic programs: social security and Medicare. Personal income taxes across the board would increase as the Bush tax cuts would also sunset.

The expected increase in taxes to the average middle class taxpayer is over $2,000 with the Obamacare increases in set to begin this coming year.

Bottom line is that the Republican Congress will most likely cave on the no tax position on the upper income bracket increase. However, that may not be enough for President Obama, as he does not want any decreases in spending. Therefore, it appears that the Republicans in Congress are in a no win situation, as the Obama Administration and the Democrats have them in a no win situation. If the Republicans cave on the tax increase on the upper income earners, there will be no accompanying decrease in spending and the deficit will continue to increase. If the Republicans hold their ground and House Speaker Boehner does not cave, then they will be blamed for the sequestration cuts, the end of the Bush tax cuts, and the negative impact upon the economy.



The reality is, that the Democrats have never failed to increase taxes when it suited their agenda. Therefore, they feel that they will not be the losers if there is a failure to remedy the ‘fiscal cliff’ scenario. They will simply blame the ‘intransigence’ of the Republicans.

The national debt figure that is admitted by the Obama Administration is estimated at $16T, an impossibly large number for most people to comprehend. However, that figure may be just an indicator, and nothing more. Former Representative Chris Cox, former Chair of the House Republican Policy Committee and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and former Representative Bill Archer, former Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, both of whom served on President Clinton’s Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Refore in 1994, wrote in the November 26, 2012 WSJ that the national debt is being purposefully understated to hide the true cost of government and the liabilities of entitlements to the people. They stated that were the federal government required to account for future and present liabilities to Social Security, Medicare and federal employees retirement benefits, these liabilities exceed $86.8T.

Corporations are required by law to report these liabilities, but not the federal government.

Former Reps Cox and Archer disclosed that U.S. liabilities are increasing at a rate of $8T per year. In order to reduce deficit spending, tax revenues of $8T would be required to balance the deficit. Unfortunately, the total adjusted gross income of all Americans earning more than $66,193 per year is $5.1T, leaving a deficit of $2.9T necessary to balance the budget. In otherwords, there is not enough money available/collectable by the IRS to balance the budget. Ever.

The truth is, the United States went over the ‘fiscal cliff’ years ago.

As America’s remote northwestern step-child, given the 222 million acres of federal lands to the approximately 103 million acres of State lands granted by the federal government at Statehood in 1959, Alaska is particularly vulnerable to any cuts in federal spending. 239 villages are largely dependent upon federal grants and other funding under BIA programs. Alaska further depends upon federal highway funding to repair and maintain existing roads, airports, and harbors, and to construct new infrastructure.

According to the Institute of Social and Economic Research, UAA, federal spending in Alaska in 2010 amounted to $10.9B. The federal government provided $3.5B in grants, $2.6B in payments to individuals (BIA), $3.3B in defense spending for wages and procurement in the State, and $1.5B in federal agency spending in wages and procurement. Governor Parnell’s budget for the same year was $10.5B in capital improvements and State operating budget.

Alaska is not like the rest of the United States in that Alaska came into the Union in 1959 as a largely undeveloped frontier State. It was recognized that the amount of money it would take to give Alaska parity in transportation and communications infrastructure exceeded the money available from federal resources. Congress gave Alaska a 90% royalty from any resource development as a means of self-funding needed roads, airports, and harbors. Today, most of Alaska is still accessible only by boat or airplane.

The State does not receive any royalty from development on federal lands, including offshore leasing for oil and gas development. Shell Oil Company’s off shore development in northwestern Alaska’s continental shelf will not produce any royalties for the State of Alaska. The benefit will be to the local villages that provide services and labor for the project.



The State of Alaska has managed to save approximately $45B in the State’s Permanent Fund (PF), largely invested in the stock market from royalties and taxes produced by the North Slope oil development. The PF is intended to fund State government should there be a severe economic downturn and declining State revenues. Every year, Alaskans enjoy a dividend check from the PF from a percentage of the PF’s earnings. This is one of the first programs that will go by the wayside, if federal expenditures and federal funding is sharply reduced. Especially, in the face of declining oil production. Expect to see legislation for a State income tax in the near future.

The PF is very exposed because of the amount of money invested in the stock market. During the dot.com massacre of 2000, the PF lost $10B in a matter of a few days. The money has since been restored, but the potential negative impact of severe downturns in the stock market is still there.

The oil industry revenues contribute approximately half of Alaska’s 374,000 jobs, largely State and local government. Directly, the oil companies account for 4,497 jobs, and another 8,410 jobs in the oil service sector. It is estimated that another 28,837 jobs are created through the trickle down of oil company Alaska wages and procurement. The oil industry has provided over $170B in revenues to the State since Statehood. (ISER 2010)

The reality of Alaska’s economy today is that it is oil driven. There is very little in the way of diversity in our economy. Alaska’s economy is oil and government and the retail and construction sector that support oil and government. Alaska has been fortunate to have a defense spending priority because of the strategic geographical position Alaska has with respect to Asia and the Pacific.

The defense initiatives benefitting Alaska has seen an increase in the number of National
Guard personnel on full time active duty.



The Alaska Air National Guard has seen a tremendous growth with a C17 heavy lift squadron and three aerospace rescue and recovery squadrons based at JBER near Anchorage, and a KC135 aerial tanker squadron at JBEW near Fairbanks. These are active duty squadrons with strategic support and war support missions.

The Army National Guard has seen some changes structurally with a new Military Police Battalion replacing an infantry battalion. The Alaska Army National Guard gained the security and operations responsibilities for the Ft. Greeley Missile Defense Base near Big Delta, Alaska. The Army National Guard in Alaska has a UH60 Blackhawk company and a C23 Sherpa company at JBER near Anchorage, an Eskimo scout battalion located in various villages throughout the interior and western Alaska, and a transportation battalion located in the Matanuska Valley. The AK ARNG is now organized as a battlefield surveillance brigade, rather than an infantry brigade consisting of cavalry, infantry, and organic air support.

The National Guard has pumped a lot of money into Alaska since 9-11 and provides jobs or an extra paycheck for part-timers for more than 2,000 Alaskans who serve in the National Guard in Alaska.

However, the USAF recently announced a 5,000 man reduction in manpower with some personnel to be transferred to the federal USAF, along with a reduction in ANG fighter squadrons nationwide. It is doubtful that Alaska’s ANG will be affected, as the ANG role of heavy airlift squadron and aerial refueling are strategic missions, and global in nature. Thus far, only midwestern States’ ANG fighter squadrons have been mentioned as being in jeopardy for the reduction or transfer of personnel and equipment to the USAF.

The U.S. Army has a Stryker Brigade at JBEW as it primary maneuver element in Alaska. The USAF has a squadron of F22 Raptors at JBER and a squadron of F16s at JBEW. Therefore, there is little impact locally with respect to any reduction in federal military forces in Alaska. It looks like the 9% reduction in the DOD’s budget, should sequestering happen on 31 December, will have little impact because of Alaska’s strategic geographical position.

The increased emphasis on the development of Arctic resources has seen the stationing of a U.S. Coast Guard cutter at Pt. Barrow and air patrols of the northern and northwestern coast of Alaska above Kotzebue. This has mean money and opportunity for the villages in the area used as support bases.



This year’s State budget is $12.5B. An incredible amount of money for a state with about 650,000 residents. Even with the incredible budgets beginning with Governor Frank Murkowski in 2003, Alaska’s leadership has failed to diversify since the first oil and gas lease sales on the North Slope in the late 60s. This has left Alaska in its present predicament of being largely a single source economy, fueling a bloated and socialist State government. Granted, the PF will keep the State afloat for three or four years post any shut down of the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). Last years budget was declared unsustainable by Rep. Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair House Finance. Yet, an even larger budget was passed for 2013.

Whether it be Fiscal Cliff or the shut down of TAPS, Alaska has some hard times coming if the leadership of the Legislature and Governor Sean Parnell cannot come to grips with the long term implications of the failure to act on an in-state natural gas pipeline to tidewater and the inevitable increase in south central natural gas prices by at least 8%-13% due to the need to import natural gas into Cook Inlet. Since the early 1990s, some legislators and mayors of south central boroughs and cities have been warning of the shortfalls in the production of Cook Inlet gas insufficient to meet the needs of Alaskans during winter months. This coming year will see the first Russian LNG tanker loaded with LNG coming into Cook Inlet.

The bottom line is that it does not look like the federal government will cut spending in Alaska anytime soon. It is not the desire of the Obama Administration to cut government spending, but to increase spending and the to increase the size and reach of the federal government. What is inevitable, given the past history of democrat administrations, is that our taxes will go up. Given the incredible reality of a $86.8T debt, the U.S. is in serious, serious trouble financially. Eventually, this mess will impact Alaska’s economy in a very negative fashion. However, reality is not what Washington, D.C. is about. The worst is yet to come.

54% of Americans who voted, voted for a socialist expansion of government with the increase in deficit spending and increased liabilities that come with the lack of reality associated with socialism. They have given their future generations an incredible burden, but shirked their responsibility with Obama’s reelection.

Already, the Obama Administration is planning a carbon tax, which will certainly impact Alaska’s coal and diesel power generation costs and increase the cost of power to all Alaskans. Obamacare will increase medical costs to Alaskans, and restrict services.

Unfortunately, the Fiscal Cliff and Obamacare are not the real threat to Alaskan’s welfare or cost of living, as we are in the same boat there with the rest of Americans. The real threat to the economic well being of the State of Alaska and her people is the shortsightedness of our Governor and the Legislature to provide a sound, diversified economic base for the future with sufficient low cost energy to insure that future. 35 trillion cubic feet of the energy available is in natural gas under Alaska’s North Slope. After 35 years, that energy has yet to be tapped.

Alaska sovereignty is in jeopardy under Parnell

After Statehood in 1959, the federal government retained most of the 375 million acres comprising the former Territory of Alaska. Today, approximately 60% of Alaska is still under federal management and control. By contrast, most of the State’s east of the Mississippi comprise less than 1% of federal lands of the total lands within their state borders.

The recent Jim Wilde case in federal district court brought home the fact that after 51 years of Statehood, the State of Alaska’s citizens are being endangered by the federal government with impunity. In Wilde’s case, he, his wife, and a friend were subjected to a threat of the use of unnecessary deadly force by two U.S. Park Service Rangers. His “crime”? When signaled to heave to and be boarded, he headed his boat to shore where he could deal with the Rangers safely. He was manhandled by two heavily armed young men and removed to jail 100 miles west to Fairbanks. Wilde is 71. He was charged with “resisting arrest”. His boat registration was out of date. The Rangers pointed a shotgun and a pistol at him and his passengers to gain “compliance” for the check of registration.

Why was the federal Park Service enforcing boat registration on the Yukon River?

“AS 38.05.126. Navigable and Public Water: (a) The people of the state have a constitutional right to free access to and use of the navigable or public water of the state. (b) The state has full power and control of all of the navigable or public water of the state, both meandered and unmeandered, and the state holds and controls all navigable or public water in trust for the use of the people of the state.”

Clearly, the Yukon River is a navigable waterway, the enforcement of law on which is arguably a jurisdiction of the State, and not that of the federal government.

The Yukon-Charly River Wildlife Preserve is not a national park. Why were armed Park Service personnel on the Yukon River in the first place?

Is the State of Alaska just the approximately 105 million acres conveyed to date under the Alaska Statehood Compact?

Alaska Statehood Compact: “72 Stat. 339 Public Law 85-508: SEC. 2. The State of Alaska shall consist of all the territory, together with the territorial waters appurtenant thereto, now included in the Territory of Alaska.”

Sec. 2 of the Statehood Compact shows that the State of Alaska consists of all of the land mass and waters comprising the Territory of Alaska prior to statehood.

With the passage of ANILCA (1980), the federal Fish and Wildlife Service assumed fish and wildlife management over 380,900 square miles of federal lands in Alaska.

The second Hickel Administration (1991-1994) saw the passage of AS 38.05.500-505. In Alaska v. Babbitt, Gov. Hickel attempted to right the affront to the State’s authority over its lands and management of fish and game. AS 38.05.500 was clearly a nullification of what the Hickel Administration perceived as an overreach by Congress into the State’s ownership and authority over the lands in Alaska.

AS 38.05.500. Electorate Determinations: The people of the State of Alaska determine that: (1) the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States was to guarantee to each of the states sovereignty over all matters within its boundaries except for those powers specifically granted to the United States as agent of the states; (2) the attempted imposition upon the State of Alaska by the Congress of the United States of a requirement in the Statehood Act that the State of Alaska and its people "disclaim all right and title to any land or other property not granted or confirmed to the state or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this Act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States," as a condition precedent to acceptance of Alaska into the Union, was an act beyond the power of the Congress of the United States and is thus void; (3) the purported right of ownership and control of the public land in the State of Alaska by the United States is without foundation and violates the clear intent of the Constitution of the United States; and (4) the exercise of that dominion and control of the public land in the State of Alaska by the United States works a severe, continuous and debilitating hardship upon the people of the State of Alaska.”

Miner Carey Mills from Fairbanks normally accesses his mining claims near Eagle using the historic 40 Mile Station-Eagle Trail recognized by the State under RS2477 rights of way. The BLM has closed the road in spite of the State’s recognition and historic use. The State has refused to assert its rights in maintaining the use of the trail.

With Governor Parnell’s silence on the Jim Wilde case, and the State’s refusal assert its rights in the Carey Mills case, there is now a complete and utter abrogation of the State’s sovereignty under the Parnell Administration.

Opinion : ‘Nativist lobby’ is winning on immigration - Frontiersman

Opinion : ‘Nativist lobby’ is winning on immigration - Frontiersman

This piece of leftist malarkey was posted to make us feel bad. I don't. Illegals cost this country billions and take services that we cannot receive as citizens. Over 600 emergency rooms have shut down between TX and CA from illegals using services that we cannot get as citizens. Our prisons are filled with illegals. Illegals committing crimes are an epidemic. They don't need to worry, they will be sent south and can return with impunity.

Whomever wrote this, obviously wants the flood to continue unabated. I wonder if that person hires illegals at substandard wages to take advantage of them?

Giving them amnesty was tried during Reagan's first term. Never again. Made things worse.

We send Big Sis to Afghanistan to help them "secure the border", but the twit, our President, and Congress all ignore their oaths of office and do nothing to stem the tide of illegal migration across our southern border.

Ending anchor babies will help.

The twit who wrote this does not live on the border. They have not had their property trashed, their homes and their family violated. Whomever wrote this is of the kumbiah crowd of Koolaid drinkers. They would sacrifice our sovereignty and our safety for a few more votes from illegals. Whomever is a political whore, nothing more.

Just another liberal in lah lah land without any common sense whatsoever.

Another left wing nut job

We need to be careful how seriously we take the hypothesizing of the liberal media regarding the Tucson shootings. The ramblings of the left leaning media in attempting blame where there is none is dangerous. Liberal Congressmen and
Congresswomen now urge an attack upon the First and Second Amendments in violation of their oath of office.

When MAJ Nidal Hasan shot and killed 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood, the same media and liberal politicos cautioned against drawing conclusions regarding Hasan’s intent, his religion, and whether or not his acts constituted jihad.

This is the liberal left in full array. They have a cause. They have mayhem that they can point to caused by a nut with firearms, the cause anti-célèbre of the left.

A liberal Congresswoman was shot. Does that give rise to a conclusion of an anti-liberal bias on the part of the shooter?

Collateral damage in a politically motivated shooting or just carnage for the sake of carnage?

While right wing rhetoric is blamed, I can remember the left media openly calling for the death of George Bush, a sitting President. The desire for Limbaugh’s death seems to comes up all too often in the liberal media.

Our former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and Big Sis, Janet Napolitano, categorized our soldiers returning from the war zone and any who believed in the Bible and who owned firearms as terrorists.

Are the memories of the left media that bad?

The shooter in Tucson was a nut job. His classmates in college were afraid of him. Afraid. He was no giant with tattoos and a bad attitude. He was a nut case. Even the Sheriff who blames the incident on right wing rhetoric had reports that this individual had made death threats previously.

Was the shooting politically motivated? I don’t believe so. He fired indiscriminately into a crowd and was lucky with the Congresswoman. The rest of the casualties, just additional numbers to raise the event to the level of national attention. Obviously, that was his goal. His own glorification and gratification, not a political statement.

Was the shooter a conservative nut job? Not by the published opinions of his classmates. He was characterized by them as a left wing nut job. His manifesto, like that of President Obama, was that of Marx, not the Declaration of Independence.

The upcoming attack upon the First and Second Amendments will be relentless for as long as the left can garner attention to this event.

The Congresswoman should have had security. She commented on previous threats. The City of Tuscon should have had a couple of cops there as a matter of course. If for no other reason, there are gangs and crime in Tuscon.

The Sheriff was aware of the shooter’s lack of stability. Yet, he blames Rush Limbaugh. Why did he not assign a deputy or two to the event?

Evidently, the judge who was killed was there to bring attention to crime arising from the flood of illegals and drugs coming across the border. That his comments are forever silenced is a loss. Who knows, maybe, his comments might have given rise for the Congresswoman to examine her positions.

The real shame is the loss of innocent life of those just there to speak with their elected representative and to just be there as a matter of family, like the little girl.

The danger in what happened is in the political exploitation of this event. The libs are out to make a run on the First and Second Amendments. The very protections against the political oppression that will be attempted under the guise of preventing any similar future event.

Instead of urging caution before reaching a conclusion, the left is doing exactly what it urged against in the aftermath of MAJ Hasan’s killing of his fellow troops.

Sarah Palin having any blame is laughable and makes this once again the theater of the absurd on the part of the left.

The Stimulus and Alaska jobs

It was recently reported in the ADN that approximately 287 jobs had been saved by the Stimulus Funds received by the State . . . Alaska has about 135,000 employed. That works out to .2% of Alaska's workforce.

In September of last year, there were 2,000 more Alaskans working than in September of this year.

What happened between last year and this year that could have contributed to this decline in jobs?

Obama and a democrat majority in the House and Senate.

America, figure it out next election or we will be greeting each other with the honorific "comrade!".

Parnell is having fun as Gov

(One has to wonder why Todd is laughing during Parnell's swearing in ceremony. Could it be that it is because Sarah is off the hook and into the money?)

Gov. Sean Parnell is having more fun as governor than the proverbial fly on fly paper.

First, Parnell’s Gas Pipeline Czar, Harry Noah—see, Obama’s not the only one with Czars, but then this was Sarah’s appointment, Parnell just went with what was there—decreed that the cheapest construction for a natural gas bullet line to south central was down the Parks Highway. What was not disclosed was the cost of the gas at the delivery end. 500 mcf per day stand alone will carry a hefty price tag by the time it gets to Anchorage. The portent in this is what? An admission that any construction on any big pipe project will not come soon enough, or not at all?

Parnell went to D.C. to lobby for off shore drilling. This effort failed in the face of Obama’s BLM Secretary, Salazar, deciding, nah, we don’t need no stinkin’ offshore drilling! Screw any rational energy policy! Let them ride bicycles! No fault of Parnell’s. At least he tried. Loss to Alaska, around $100,000,000 in services and labor to the effort by Shell and others. Shell had previously abandoned its offshore plans in the face of a hostile resource development federal administration.

Parnell is also lobbying Congress against a bill that would bar aerial predator control. A stupid, shortsighted bill on the part of politicians who do not understand Alaska and the needs of her people.

Try paying $11 for a quart of milk, sometime. That’s the Bush cost because Alaska cannot build roads to connect our communities. ANILCA. Gee thanks, Pres. Carter.

I wonder if the feds want Alaska back? I mean, thus far, they have taken away our management of all lands and offshore as granted in the Statehood Compact, imposed new land use restrictions under ANILCA and now the offshore drilling restrictions, and refusing to allow drilling onshore or offshore of ANWR.

Congress recognized that providing Alaska the infrastructure that the rest of the State’s enjoyed in 1958 would break any future federal treasury several times over. That’s why the Congress gave Alaska a 90% royalty off of all mineral and hydrocarbon development. Oh, wait, Congress reneged on that with the Petroleum Reserve 4 lease sale in the late 1990s. What Statehood Compact?

The March On Washington

God bless those who took place on the march on D.C. Saturday.
Maybe, the point was taken, maybe not.
People are tired of the unbridled growth of government at every level, not just at the federal level.
This was a demonstration of American constraint.
Unlike a demonstration for homosexual "rights"--ne we want to be another protected class so that we can get even with those who offend us--there was no nudity, or affronts to sensibility, morality, Christianity or the American family.
Unlike lib demonstrations, there was no screaming epitaphs against the opposition, no hate speech, and no physical confrontations.
I am hoping that these people will remember why they went to Washington, D.C. and that those of us who could not remember why those who went did so, and vote accordingly.
Vote the bums out, all of them.
It is time, Congress was refreshed with new minds who understand that the Constitution is the law, not an inconvenient set of rules made to be broken.
Same for the Whitehouse in 2012.
UP THE REPUBLIC!

Sarah Palin's congressional option

Alaska has a political time bomb in Rep. Don Young. Alaska's only representative in the U.S. Congress is under continual legal attack for questionable deal making regarding a road project in . . . Florida. His legal fees are reported to be up to $1M per year.

Is the legal noose around Young's neck getting tighter?

If the legal fees are any indication, this is a situation of diminishing returns for Alaska.

It is time for Rep. Don Young's career in the U.S. House to end while it still can with a modicum of dignity for him, and for Alaska.

This situation is rife with opportunity for Sarah Palin. Sarah's greatest criticizm has been that she is unprepared for and lacks experience for national executive office. Running for Young's seat would give her credibility, experience, a national podium for a future run for President, and give Alaska a new voice in the House.

Can you imagine Sarah Palin debating Nancy Pelosi on the House floor?!

Speaker Pelosi would not stand a chance against Sarah. Nor, would Sarah Palin be silent on the attack against the family. HB1913 would not have been so quietly debated and easily passed with Sarah Palin in the House.

Sarah would have a national podium for criticizing the Democrat demagogues and for furthering the pro-life, pro-family, traditinal values and patriotic agenda of the conservative movement. Too, Sarah would have to be either conservative, or lose her followers, should she slip into Palin Alsaka Governor mode and deny her campaign promises by her record.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski was appointed to the United States Senate by her father, then sitting Gov. Frank Murkowski. At the time, Rep. Lisa Murkowski had stood for reelection to the State House and won the race by a mere 44 votes. Lisa's reputation was that of the most liberal RINO in the Alaska House. Since her appointment as a Senator, Senator Murkowski has become a Republican conservative icon.

This is what I believe can happen with Sarah Palin, should she decide to unseat Young. She could easily win that race.

Sarah has an opportunity to put her critcs to rest, by running for Congress and emulating Murkowski's success. 3 terms as a Representative in the U.S. House would end criticizm of her lacking credibility and experience. She would have a national record to tout. This is a win-win for Palin. Even one term of 2 years would be credible experience, as Pres. Obama only had 2 full years in the Senate before he began running full time for President.

What would this mean for Alaska?

An opportunity to:

• Redress the rights of way restrictions contained in ANILCA
• Promote resource development across the board
• A strong voice for using domestic energy resources and opening ANWR to drilling
• A new voice for all Alaskans
• Address Alaska's needs from a new perspective

Sarah would not be quiet, and her notoriety and national standing would give her ample media coverage.

Sarah running for Young's seat could be a very good thing for Sarah and Alaska.

IZEMBEK OUTRAGE!!!!!

There are few things that will torque me as much as the BS about "pristine wilderness". There is nothing "pristine" about Alaska's wilderness. It has been walked over, hunted upon, mined and developed at one time or another for over 10,000 years. Yet, a few, who have appointed themselves as the unofficial protectors of this great land--read exploiters who shamelessly use Alaska to raise funds to promote their insanity--blocked for many years something that should have been a no brainer.

Alaska, unlike the lower 48, is a state without surface transportation infrastructure, excepting a limited road and rail infrastructure within south central Alaska. There are few roads linking Alaska's western, southern and northern villages.

Many of Alaska's outlying villages comprise the United State's third world. No sewer, water, or roads. The village of Hoonah in southeastern Alaska managed to get its first generator for electric power (50KW unit) back in the late 1970s.

One of the most egregious and outrageous situations for many years has been the plight of the villagers of Kings Cove on the Alaska Penninsula. King Cove suffers from such lousy weather that the USCG will not fly their aircraft into King Cove. The nearest IFR airport is at Cold Bay, some 20 miles away.

Gee, that's not far. . . .

Except, that 20 miles is through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that did not exist at the time of Alaska's becoming a State in the Union of States.

There is an ATV trail that links the two communities that is illegal to use, because of the INWR.

This no trespass of Uncle Sam's wildlife refuge meant that any villager in King Cove who has a medical emergency was in very dire straits.

For many years, Senator Ted Stevens tried to get a road built. In 1996, the feds invested in a $30 MILLION dollar clinic in Kings Cove to avoid upgrading the existing trail across the edge of the INWR. In 1998, to give the villagers better access, Congress authorized an appropriation for a hovercraft.

The bottom line is that 10s of millions of dollars have been spent to avoid bringing up an existing trail to a pioneer gravel road standard, such as is common throughout the Midwest. This money has been spent to circumvent the logical, rational, and necessary solution, which, all along, was the road.

What was the cost to the State of Alaska for the Senate of the United States accepting the road?

61,000 acres.

The sovereign State of Alaska had to bribe the Congress of the United States with land.

Why?

The Congress of the United States is so sensitive to the environmental lobby, that Congress seeks the satisfaction of those greedy, self-centered, arrogant twits over the needs of someone fighting for their life whose salvation is a few miles away through the INWR.

What is the impact of the road in terms of the number of acres actually impacted in the INWR? About 200 acres.

The necessity of this land swap was an egregious affront to the sovereignty of the State of Alaska.

Why is there no outcry from our Legislature, our Governor, or our Congressional delegation?

Cowardice, and the fact that most of these folks have grown up with placating the feds and their elitist environmental lobby.

Alaska's Statehood Compact was a compromise with Congress made with the recognition by Congress in the late 50's that the federal government did not have enough money in the treasury to provide Alaska with roads, airports, and harbours to the standards enjoyed by the rest of the states in the union. In lieu of the government spending money that it did not have, the Congress, in its infinite wisdom, gave the State of Alaska 90% of any non-renewable resource development in the state on both State and Federal lands. Since 1959, the federal government has continually reneged on this promise.

One of the implied promises was that the federal government would not impose stricter land classifications, nor classify additional lands more restrictively as to use. Then came ANILCA under Carter.

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act was one of the most egregious acts against the intent in the Statehood Compact.

The land swap shows that Alaska is a State in name only. That Alaska must buy its citizens' needs from the environmental lobby.

Welcome to the colonies!