The congressional super committee that was to allegedly make an effort to reduce the deficit has apparently chosen to play politics. It now appears that an impasse has occurred that will result in $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over the next 10 years. The portent for Alaska and the rest of the country of this taking effect is something that this governor and this Legislature need to ponder before the next legislative session begins in January.
The automatic $1.2 trillion in cuts will have an immediate and devastating impact upon the military. As a result of current FY 2012 cuts already in place, with additional cuts imposed by the automatic reduction in spending, the military’s portion of spending cuts will rise to $1 trillion. The result of this reduction, says Sec. of Defense Leon Panetta “will be devastating.”
Allegedly, the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan theaters of operations are over. The troops will be coming home. Unfortunately, the war is not over, as additional areas of operations have been opened in the Middle East and Africa by President Obama. The latest operation being troops and helicopters very recently deployed to Ghana. Syria is now on NATO’s hit list with ever increasing threats and war talk by NATO countries. Another Alaska Army brigade is getting ready for another deployment to Afghanistan, even though the war is allegedly winding down. An Alaska Army National Guard unit was recently deployed to the Middle East.
Defense cuts necessitated by the recession will negatively impact capability, readiness and manpower in both active and reserve components through at least this decade. More military bases will be closed bringing the threat of the Congressional base closing axe upon Alaska’s two major military bases.
Under the Obama Administration, the National Guard and reserves play a major role in Libyan operations, Iraq and Afghanistan, the Balkans (Kosovo), and the expansion of the war into Africa, Libya, and Yemen.
Due to the weakening of U.S. force structure by spending cuts already in place, the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) and the Russians have initiated open military challenges not seen since the Cold War. The Russians have increased their presence and spending in former Soviet Republics in the Caucus Region with their invasion of Georgia (South Ossetia) and have increased their military presence in Moldava, Dagestan, and Chechnya. Russia has signed a treaty with Ukraine for an additional 25 years for the use of the former Soviet naval base at Sevastopol. Recently, the Russians moved two brigades of troops and additional air and naval units to the far north of Russia to once again challenge the West in the Arctic. The Peoples Republic of China has openly warned the U.S. to stay out of disputes in the China Sea with Vietnam and the Philippines. Chinese naval and air harassment of U.S. and Japanese naval units and aircraft continues off the coast of Japan and elsewhere in the China Sea. Both Russia and the PRC have adopted a first strike policy, with the PRC’s military doctrine being very explicit in designating the United States as its primary adversary.
The reality of our military situation is that our forces are stressed and overextended with multiple deployments ongoing at any time, all the while, suffering concurrent manpower reductions and budget cuts affecting readiness and capability. Major airlift capability is now limited with the closure of the C17 production line by the Obama Administration.
Given the realities of the recession, and the underlying causation of overspending for too many years, the impact upon the military capability of the United States will be draconian through this decade.
Entitlements, which have outgrown military spending, will be the last items reduced by politicians who put their reelection above the defense of the country.
With the downgrading of our military capability will come the wolves seeking advantage, first at the periphery of American military reach, then ever closer to our borders as they sense opportunity. This challenge to American power has already begun in our hemisphere. There are almost daily incursions from Mexico by armed paramilitary forces in support of drug smuggling operations. Iran is militarily invested in Chavez’s Venezuela. The PRC runs the Panama Canal and is expanding its influence in the Caribbean. Al Qaida and Hezbollah have a presence in South America, training personnel for infiltration into the Great Satan of America. Meanwhile, Russian TU95 Bear bombers of Cold War fame once again regularly test U.S. and Canadian air defenses.
Submarines of the PRC Navy have embarrassed the United States Navy at least twice during the Obama Administration. The PRC is accelerating development of tactical nuclear missiles intended to deal a death blow to the U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups in the Pacific.
The Canadians will not be much help in any Arctic defense strategy in the face of a declining military. The Canadians have already admitted that they may have to rely upon contractors for personnel and logistics.
One of the more disturbing aspects of the Afghanistan and Iraq operations was the reliance on Russian contractors for air transport of military equipment and supplies.
One of two strategies for maintaining the U.S. military will develop as the recession, inflation, and resulting world civil unrest increase. The increasing turmoil will result in an ever increasing dependence upon the reserves and National Guard for troops and equipment to augment regular military units. Or, the National Guard and reserves will be stripped of their equipment and reduced in manpower in favor of maintaining a viable, standing military.
The regular U.S. military will continue to be reduced, but called upon to do more, given the ever increasing decline in military capability in Western Europe and Canada. The U.S. Navy played a major role in support of the Libyan campaign by having to provide the majority of aircraft for the Libyan bombing campaign.
The impact of the increasing violence into the U.S. from Mexico’s drug wars will undoubtedly force future administrations to defend our borders from the threat of narco terror, further stressing the military.
James J. Carafano, a defense analyst for the Heritage Institute, in his article on State Defense Forces (SDF) “Small Answers to big problems” in the March 23, 2011 Washington Times, advocated for increasing the number of 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Forces in the U.S. He also pointed out that the greatest resistance to the State Defense Force concept comes from the State Adjutant Generals, for reasons unknown.
In his letter to then Governor Sarah Palin in September, 2008, then LTG Craig Campbell, Commissioner/Adjutant General (TAG), DMVA, envisioned an expanded role for the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), including combat support, and a retention of the ASDF State Military Police Constabulary role as part of the State’s military force structure.
Since 2010, MG Thomas H. Katkus, Commissioner/TAG appointed by Gov. Sean Parnell, has worked purposefully to diminish, disarm, and render ineffective and irrelevant the ASDF. The Parnell Administration acted to disarm and to render ineffective the state-only part of the organized militia in favor of a federal-only emergency military response to disasters in Alaska.
The National Guard belongs to the President, not the Governor, and to believe otherwise is incredibly naive in the face of two U.S. Supreme Court decisions to the contrary.
This action on the part of the Parnell Administration in a time of war calls into question the Parnell Administration’s support of the 2d Amendment and Art. 1 § 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
The Legislature is complicit in its silence.
Those Alaskans who value their 2d Amendment rights need to be very concerned. The stage has been set and the precedent established with the disarming of the ASDF for the disarming of the Alaska unorganized militia in an emergency.
This is the first time that I can remember in my 57 years as an Alaskan that the Legislature and the Governor have acted with open eyes and clear intent to make Alaskans less safe.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Nothing like the obvious biting one in the butt . . .
The recent announcement by Governor Sean Parnell of his new found support for the LNG natural gas pipeline option was not a surprise. This is a guy who has been politically urinating into the wind for at least the last two years. He has stayed true to Palin’s AGIA in the face of industry trends that dictated an end to the big pipe south before AGIA was even enacted. Governor Parnell could not ignore LNG market trends and the impact of domestic U.S. and Canadian shale gas production any longer without looking like the proverbial village idiot.
Even the pols in the Legislature are getting on the LNG train.
You know something has become so obvious that it cannot be ignored when our legislators begin to mouth platitudes about something that they have ignored since, what, about 1984?
The proverbial handwriting was on the wall for all to see, but those in elected office.
Just before Conoco announced the end of the charade that was the Denali natural gas pipeline project, the president of Conoco in Alaska stated that the intent of Conoco all along was to warehouse North Slope natural gas into the foreseeable future. Why would Conoco conceal its intent to do nothing with its North Slope gas? Conoco and Exxon have a 25 year commitment to move LNG from Qatar to the U.S., where there is no longer a market. Asia is now that market.
Qatar represents a $22B USD investment on the part of Exxon and Conoco to upgrade the northern and southern LNG gas trains and production facilities to meet export obligations. The first LNG tanker with Qatar LNG docked at a U.S. LNG import terminal earlier this summer, where the gas was off loaded and then reloaded back onto a LNG tanker, and shipped to a foreign market. The gas was not used in the U.S.
The Wood-Mac Report on the Alaska Gasline Port Authority’s website supports the viability of exporting Alaska natural gas from Valdez. The estimated cost of delivery to an Asian market for Alaska LNG is $10 per million BTUs (mmbtu equals one thousand cubic feet). Cost of natural gas and shipping from the North Slope to Japan via the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez is estimated in the Wood-Mac report at $8.50/mmbtu total, delivered. Pipeline transport is estimated at $1.70/mmbtu, with shipping to Asia by LNG tanker estimated at $.59/mmbtu.
The All-Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline project would have a total volume of 2.7 billion cubic feet per with 250 million cubic feet going to south central via a spur line from Glenallen. It is the volume of gas shipped to Valdez that keeps the price of the 250mcf/day to south central low enough that our natural gas prices would not increase. Further, the gas liquids would be kept for use in-state to provide the resources for a new petrochemical industry in the Fairbanks area.
In 2010, the Japanese were paying up to $12/mmbtus for LNG. The highest price paid this year by Japanese LNG customers has been almost $17/mmbtu.
BG Group PLC of Great Britain has made a significant commitment with Cheniere Energy Partners, Sabine Pass, LA, to export shale gas as LNG to Asia. BG expects a sale price for the LNG at 115% of the Henry Hub price plus a $2.25/mmbtu premium.
Wood-Mac’s projections for a delivered price from Sabine Pass is $10.50/mmbtu, or $2/mmbtu more than delivered Alaska gas. LNG shipping costs to Asia from LA are about four times higher than from Alaska. BG is so bullish on LNG that BG has another LNG export project of its own underway at Lake Charles, LA.
Election year is coming up, and the pols up for election have to fool those idiots that vote once again into believing that they are really gonna do something about Alaska’s economic situation . . . this time, if only they are reelected! We are supposed to ignore bad decisions and the lack of initiative and indecision since about 1994.
Only the State of Alaska’s leadership seems to be incapable of grasping industry trends. Natural gas export by LNG is viable from the U.S. and is being aggressively pursued by all, but Alaska.
Alaska needs real leadership, not more of the same.
Even the pols in the Legislature are getting on the LNG train.
You know something has become so obvious that it cannot be ignored when our legislators begin to mouth platitudes about something that they have ignored since, what, about 1984?
The proverbial handwriting was on the wall for all to see, but those in elected office.
Just before Conoco announced the end of the charade that was the Denali natural gas pipeline project, the president of Conoco in Alaska stated that the intent of Conoco all along was to warehouse North Slope natural gas into the foreseeable future. Why would Conoco conceal its intent to do nothing with its North Slope gas? Conoco and Exxon have a 25 year commitment to move LNG from Qatar to the U.S., where there is no longer a market. Asia is now that market.
Qatar represents a $22B USD investment on the part of Exxon and Conoco to upgrade the northern and southern LNG gas trains and production facilities to meet export obligations. The first LNG tanker with Qatar LNG docked at a U.S. LNG import terminal earlier this summer, where the gas was off loaded and then reloaded back onto a LNG tanker, and shipped to a foreign market. The gas was not used in the U.S.
The Wood-Mac Report on the Alaska Gasline Port Authority’s website supports the viability of exporting Alaska natural gas from Valdez. The estimated cost of delivery to an Asian market for Alaska LNG is $10 per million BTUs (mmbtu equals one thousand cubic feet). Cost of natural gas and shipping from the North Slope to Japan via the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez is estimated in the Wood-Mac report at $8.50/mmbtu total, delivered. Pipeline transport is estimated at $1.70/mmbtu, with shipping to Asia by LNG tanker estimated at $.59/mmbtu.
The All-Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline project would have a total volume of 2.7 billion cubic feet per with 250 million cubic feet going to south central via a spur line from Glenallen. It is the volume of gas shipped to Valdez that keeps the price of the 250mcf/day to south central low enough that our natural gas prices would not increase. Further, the gas liquids would be kept for use in-state to provide the resources for a new petrochemical industry in the Fairbanks area.
In 2010, the Japanese were paying up to $12/mmbtus for LNG. The highest price paid this year by Japanese LNG customers has been almost $17/mmbtu.
BG Group PLC of Great Britain has made a significant commitment with Cheniere Energy Partners, Sabine Pass, LA, to export shale gas as LNG to Asia. BG expects a sale price for the LNG at 115% of the Henry Hub price plus a $2.25/mmbtu premium.
Wood-Mac’s projections for a delivered price from Sabine Pass is $10.50/mmbtu, or $2/mmbtu more than delivered Alaska gas. LNG shipping costs to Asia from LA are about four times higher than from Alaska. BG is so bullish on LNG that BG has another LNG export project of its own underway at Lake Charles, LA.
Election year is coming up, and the pols up for election have to fool those idiots that vote once again into believing that they are really gonna do something about Alaska’s economic situation . . . this time, if only they are reelected! We are supposed to ignore bad decisions and the lack of initiative and indecision since about 1994.
Only the State of Alaska’s leadership seems to be incapable of grasping industry trends. Natural gas export by LNG is viable from the U.S. and is being aggressively pursued by all, but Alaska.
Alaska needs real leadership, not more of the same.
Friday, October 28, 2011
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
The lights still will not come on . . .
The 500mmcf per day line, the so called bullet line, Harry Noah's bullet line, the pipeline that "doesn't pencil"--make economic sense--is a dead end.
There is only one permitted, dedicated right of way to tidewater, the one mile corridor created with TAPS.
I have never seen 61 people try so hard to ignore the obvious in the face of overwhelming information available as to the market for LNG, the route, and the economics.
"We have to do something to get gas to south central and Fairbanks, why there is a crisis coming,” cry the pols.
Squandering $214M to do nothing on project that is not viable is doing something? It is admitted by Chennault and Hawker that the State will have to subsidize the natural transported in that line, because the volume is too low and would raise the cost to consumers. It would be cheaper to import gas . . . from Russia.
The Legislature and the Governor need to have an epiphany to cover their ignoring the obvious and declare "now I see, now I see" and commit to the only project that is economically viable, the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez, with the 250mmcf per day spur to the Enstar hub at Palmer. The gas liquids would be pulled off at FBKS, giving the interior new industry and fuels for the Bush.
What State ‘leader’ would ignore the ongoing benefits of the gas liquids used in-state? More importantly, why. Value added resource development has been the Holy Grail of Alaska’s resource development forever. Cheap energy will make possible what is otherwise too expensive. The impact would be tremendously beneficial to our agriculture, mining and timber sectors.
Maybe, former Gov. Sarah Palin can apologize to Alaskans for sticking it to them with AGIA after campaigning on the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to the governor’s office.
I wonder if dear Sarah has promised Gov. Sean Parnell a seat in her cabinet so long as he continues AGIA so that she can claim “expertise” of oil and gas development as part of her grandiose scheme to become Sarah the First, Queen and President? She must have done so, as no rational, prudent human being of sound mind would continue with AGIA in the face of shale gas and the burgeoning LNG market.
In order to get out of the AGIA dead end, the State would have to declare AGIA uneconomical and prepare for a potential court battle. Or, continue to roll the dice with the end of TAPS. Gas development would spur more oil development.
Leadership is what is needed, but leadership is not what we have.
Instead, we have Mike Chennault and Mike Hawker's questionable melding of AHFC, the ARR, Noah's former group, and a committee of legislators comprising the Alaska Gas Development Corporation promoting a pipeline that everyone says is too expensive and must be subsidized forever. They created an unholy abomination of State and quasi-State corporations, all of which had no gas development mandate until Chennault and Hawker pushed it through to unseeing, unknowing and apparently, uninterested Legislature.
Meanwhile, AS 41.41 is ignored which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline.
What is so hard about all of this that these fine folks in our Legislature cannot understand? LNG is the market, we have 40 years of history with the Japanese on LNG deliveries, why are we not taking advantage of our opportunities?
Like the Japanese want to deal with the . . . Russians? Or, the ME?
We need leadership in Juneau, not someone who has violated their oath of office with the appointment of two legislators to cabinet posts in violation of the law. Gov. Sean Parnell should be impeached for what he did in the Therriault and Dahlstrom cases. However, no one in the
Legislature has the cojones to step up in defense of the constitutional affront by this governor.
And, we pay the price with $200M more going down a rat hole just to make a couple of politicians 'feel good'.
Our opportunities on the world market wane as time passes and our leaders look for “inspiration”, all the while ignoring the obvious.
There is only one permitted, dedicated right of way to tidewater, the one mile corridor created with TAPS.
I have never seen 61 people try so hard to ignore the obvious in the face of overwhelming information available as to the market for LNG, the route, and the economics.
"We have to do something to get gas to south central and Fairbanks, why there is a crisis coming,” cry the pols.
Squandering $214M to do nothing on project that is not viable is doing something? It is admitted by Chennault and Hawker that the State will have to subsidize the natural transported in that line, because the volume is too low and would raise the cost to consumers. It would be cheaper to import gas . . . from Russia.
The Legislature and the Governor need to have an epiphany to cover their ignoring the obvious and declare "now I see, now I see" and commit to the only project that is economically viable, the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez, with the 250mmcf per day spur to the Enstar hub at Palmer. The gas liquids would be pulled off at FBKS, giving the interior new industry and fuels for the Bush.
What State ‘leader’ would ignore the ongoing benefits of the gas liquids used in-state? More importantly, why. Value added resource development has been the Holy Grail of Alaska’s resource development forever. Cheap energy will make possible what is otherwise too expensive. The impact would be tremendously beneficial to our agriculture, mining and timber sectors.
Maybe, former Gov. Sarah Palin can apologize to Alaskans for sticking it to them with AGIA after campaigning on the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to the governor’s office.
I wonder if dear Sarah has promised Gov. Sean Parnell a seat in her cabinet so long as he continues AGIA so that she can claim “expertise” of oil and gas development as part of her grandiose scheme to become Sarah the First, Queen and President? She must have done so, as no rational, prudent human being of sound mind would continue with AGIA in the face of shale gas and the burgeoning LNG market.
In order to get out of the AGIA dead end, the State would have to declare AGIA uneconomical and prepare for a potential court battle. Or, continue to roll the dice with the end of TAPS. Gas development would spur more oil development.
Leadership is what is needed, but leadership is not what we have.
Instead, we have Mike Chennault and Mike Hawker's questionable melding of AHFC, the ARR, Noah's former group, and a committee of legislators comprising the Alaska Gas Development Corporation promoting a pipeline that everyone says is too expensive and must be subsidized forever. They created an unholy abomination of State and quasi-State corporations, all of which had no gas development mandate until Chennault and Hawker pushed it through to unseeing, unknowing and apparently, uninterested Legislature.
Meanwhile, AS 41.41 is ignored which created the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline.
What is so hard about all of this that these fine folks in our Legislature cannot understand? LNG is the market, we have 40 years of history with the Japanese on LNG deliveries, why are we not taking advantage of our opportunities?
Like the Japanese want to deal with the . . . Russians? Or, the ME?
We need leadership in Juneau, not someone who has violated their oath of office with the appointment of two legislators to cabinet posts in violation of the law. Gov. Sean Parnell should be impeached for what he did in the Therriault and Dahlstrom cases. However, no one in the
Legislature has the cojones to step up in defense of the constitutional affront by this governor.
And, we pay the price with $200M more going down a rat hole just to make a couple of politicians 'feel good'.
Our opportunities on the world market wane as time passes and our leaders look for “inspiration”, all the while ignoring the obvious.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
The TSA is not making our skies safer
The Transportation Safety Administration is an oxymoron.
What the TSA does is not security.
The TSA serves to prevent the offending of those who should receive the strictest scrutiny from any transportation security system. Instead, TSA appears to be about harassment, intimidation, and sexual abuse of anyone but. With the new pat down policy, the TSA is a pervert’s dream come true.
One has to wonder if the individual doing the extensive, invasive and perverse, and illegal pat down might be getting a thrill out of the situation. How many of the TSA’s agents are active homosexuals and/or pedophiles?
Even former Governor Joe Foss of South Dakota, a Medal of Honor recipient for acts of courage in WWII, was forced to remove his medal, because the morons of the TSA believed the points on the Star could be used as a weapon. They actually wanted to take his medal from him. Insane. And, yet, Americans stood and watched this happen instead of reacting with outrage and shame.
Same for the molestation of small children and older Americans in the name of “safety”, while the Muslims of military age continue on unmolested.
Have we become so jaded that our most sacred rights can be abused without comment or protest?
The leadership of every anti-western jihadist group has to laugh at this absurdity.
Anyone who has been sexually or physically abused has to suffer serious trauma from this egregious violation of their person and civil rights that is the TSA screening process.
The same for women who have had mastectomies.
Further, the radiation levels from the full body scanners is now being questioned by the scientific community. The exposure to which increases the potential for skin cancer.
So, now, we not only have to allow and to endure molestation suffered because of the illegal suspension of our civil rights in this “zone of the TSA” and in the name of a placebo practice instead of effective security measures, but we have to suffer additional risk of skin cancer so that Michael Chertoff can make a buck?
If the emphasis is put where the problem is, 95 year old women and small children would not have to be molested in the name of political correctness.
Travel by commercial air would be safer.
The traveling public would not have to be subjected to clear and egregious violations of their 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment rights that is the TSA and its unconstitutional, perverted, idiotic and ineffective practices.
Muslims are a security risk by virtue of the tenets of Islam, and should be the primary focus of any security efforts at our airports. It is the result of the acts of Muslims on 9-11 and after that caused the formation of the TSA.
It seems to me, that Rep. Sharon Cissna, who suffered indignities no individual should have to undergo at the hands of the TSA, should introduce legislation to end TSA’s role in Alaska.
This act of political courage would place Alaska at the forefront of the sovereignty issue and show the feds that our Constitutional rights are valued above all at the State level.
There is absolutely no function of the TSA at our airports, which cannot be replaced by the State’s Airport Police, or, to make use of a very underused and available resource, even the Alaska State Defense Force could be used.
Eliminate the invasive searches, keep the metal scanners, use profiling and behavioral cues—in other words, adopt the proven and effective Israeli method of screening passengers.
Ted Stevens International Airport is State of Alaska property, not that of the federal government; the presence of the TSA is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Were there to be State legislation introduced to protect Alaskans and to eliminate the TSA, would the feds cut of funding of any sort?
Did the federal DOT or Congress cut off funding for Montana’s highways after the enactment of the National Maximum Speed Limit? During this period, Montana maintained its 70 plus speed limits without penalty from the federal DOT.
There will be nothing beyond threats, as what is currently being done by the TSA to law abiding Americans is to violate and abuse the many to avoid offending the few.
It is time this affront to the rights and dignity of the majority that is the TSA ends.
It is time that our State leadership acted where our congressional leadership and our President will not.
What the TSA does is not security.
The TSA serves to prevent the offending of those who should receive the strictest scrutiny from any transportation security system. Instead, TSA appears to be about harassment, intimidation, and sexual abuse of anyone but. With the new pat down policy, the TSA is a pervert’s dream come true.
One has to wonder if the individual doing the extensive, invasive and perverse, and illegal pat down might be getting a thrill out of the situation. How many of the TSA’s agents are active homosexuals and/or pedophiles?
Even former Governor Joe Foss of South Dakota, a Medal of Honor recipient for acts of courage in WWII, was forced to remove his medal, because the morons of the TSA believed the points on the Star could be used as a weapon. They actually wanted to take his medal from him. Insane. And, yet, Americans stood and watched this happen instead of reacting with outrage and shame.
Same for the molestation of small children and older Americans in the name of “safety”, while the Muslims of military age continue on unmolested.
Have we become so jaded that our most sacred rights can be abused without comment or protest?
The leadership of every anti-western jihadist group has to laugh at this absurdity.
Anyone who has been sexually or physically abused has to suffer serious trauma from this egregious violation of their person and civil rights that is the TSA screening process.
The same for women who have had mastectomies.
Further, the radiation levels from the full body scanners is now being questioned by the scientific community. The exposure to which increases the potential for skin cancer.
So, now, we not only have to allow and to endure molestation suffered because of the illegal suspension of our civil rights in this “zone of the TSA” and in the name of a placebo practice instead of effective security measures, but we have to suffer additional risk of skin cancer so that Michael Chertoff can make a buck?
If the emphasis is put where the problem is, 95 year old women and small children would not have to be molested in the name of political correctness.
Travel by commercial air would be safer.
The traveling public would not have to be subjected to clear and egregious violations of their 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th Amendment rights that is the TSA and its unconstitutional, perverted, idiotic and ineffective practices.
Muslims are a security risk by virtue of the tenets of Islam, and should be the primary focus of any security efforts at our airports. It is the result of the acts of Muslims on 9-11 and after that caused the formation of the TSA.
It seems to me, that Rep. Sharon Cissna, who suffered indignities no individual should have to undergo at the hands of the TSA, should introduce legislation to end TSA’s role in Alaska.
This act of political courage would place Alaska at the forefront of the sovereignty issue and show the feds that our Constitutional rights are valued above all at the State level.
There is absolutely no function of the TSA at our airports, which cannot be replaced by the State’s Airport Police, or, to make use of a very underused and available resource, even the Alaska State Defense Force could be used.
Eliminate the invasive searches, keep the metal scanners, use profiling and behavioral cues—in other words, adopt the proven and effective Israeli method of screening passengers.
Ted Stevens International Airport is State of Alaska property, not that of the federal government; the presence of the TSA is a violation of the 10th Amendment.
Were there to be State legislation introduced to protect Alaskans and to eliminate the TSA, would the feds cut of funding of any sort?
Did the federal DOT or Congress cut off funding for Montana’s highways after the enactment of the National Maximum Speed Limit? During this period, Montana maintained its 70 plus speed limits without penalty from the federal DOT.
There will be nothing beyond threats, as what is currently being done by the TSA to law abiding Americans is to violate and abuse the many to avoid offending the few.
It is time this affront to the rights and dignity of the majority that is the TSA ends.
It is time that our State leadership acted where our congressional leadership and our President will not.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Pig oil used in our military's weapons?
Pig oil comprises a percentage of the small arms gun oil used by the United States military. That means that everyone of those jihadi's martyred are not going to paradise . . . BIG SMILEY FACE GOES HERE!
According to the London Daily Mail, that's the case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393679/Did-pork-coated-bullet-kill-Bin-Laden-Yes-says-firm-claim-pig-fat-gun-oil-bought-U-S-military-personnel.html
EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE SCUZZ BALL RAGHEAD TERRORIST SOBS SHOT BY OUR TROOPS DID NOT GO TO PARADISE!
HOOAH!!!!!!!
According to the London Daily Mail, that's the case.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393679/Did-pork-coated-bullet-kill-Bin-Laden-Yes-says-firm-claim-pig-fat-gun-oil-bought-U-S-military-personnel.html
EVERY LAST ONE OF THOSE SCUZZ BALL RAGHEAD TERRORIST SOBS SHOT BY OUR TROOPS DID NOT GO TO PARADISE!
HOOAH!!!!!!!
Monday, May 30, 2011
Parnell and ACES . . . too little, too late?
The Legislature starts its second special session, still without a budget, still without any Alaska’s Clear and Equitable Share (ACES) revisions, and without agreeing to continue coastal zone management. Thus far, a very good reason to file thirteen our entire Legislature in the next two election cycles. Unfortunately, we voters will forget about the State’s issues with the windup to the 2012 Presidential race. There is more news about former Governor Sarah Palin than about the incredible failures on the part of Legislature.
Gov. Parnell has vowed to keep fighting to reduce the rates oil companies pay under the current ACES law. ACES was passed during Gov. Sarah Palin’s unfortunately not brief enough gubernatorial administration. It should be remembered, that our Gov. Sean Parnell was then Gov. Sarah Palin’s Lt. Governor. A first belated step towards ‘independence’ from Palin for Parnell?
Gov. Parnell is a former State legislator who became an oil company lobbyist in Juneau after this tenure in the State Senate and House. That he would try to reduce the impact upon the oil companies is not surprising, but, a bit late.
In case no one has noticed, the oil flowing through the TAPS is declining to the point of no return, meaning that it will no longer be economically viable to move oil down the pipeline because of the declining volume of oil, and the point at which there can be no restart of the pipeline system if there is a shutdown for any reason. The last shut down last winter was a touch and go in terms of restarting the flow of oil. Alyeska’s president Thomas Barrett stated in a public radio interview that Alyeska was very concerned about the ability to restart oil flowing after the shutdown for a broken pipe at Pump Station 1 in January of this year. He went on to say that it was touch and go as to whether or not the pipeline would restart. He further estimated that within the next four to five years at the most, operating levels of 500,000 barrels or less would be reached at which point, Alyeska’s engineers believed that restarting the pipeline after a shut down would not be possible. It was also disclosed that TAPS has suffered up to an 80% deterioration in the walls of the pipe. This would mean a lengthy replacement of pipe in order to extend the life of TAPS, should methods and technology prove that recovery of the heavy oil under Prudhoe can be accomplished in economic quantities.
BP announced a heavy oil R&D recovery project well had demonstrated the viability of recovering heavy oil under the North Slope. There is an estimated 20 billion barrels of heavy crude yet to be recovered from legacy fields at Prudhoe and the surrounding area comprised of heavy oil. BP has been tight lipped about this project, having made only the one press release earlier this year. Heavy crude recovery is the most likely candidate for increasing the flow of oil through TAPS.
Off shore oil is another potential, but only if the Obama Administration figures out that the only way to reduce gasoline prices to the consumer is by increasing the amount of crude available in the market place.
The impact of oil shale recovery will soon be felt in the market place in much the same manner as the impact of shale gas on the natural gas market Outside and in Canada. Already, significant discoveries and returns are turning the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota into developments whose potential may exceed that of Prudhoe Bay in the early days of its development. Recent activity in Texas is proving out the viability of oil shale recovery there, turning depressed areas into boom towns, a welcome change from the impact of an ongoing recession. It is estimated that if the oil shale development continues at the present pace, within the next 20 years Middle East oil will not be needed in the U.S. domestic market.
If car manufacturers would produce vehicles fueled by natural gas for urban areas, that time frame may be halved or reduced even further. In which case, we would no longer have to take in the Wahabbist element from Saudi Arabia that George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush decided the U.S. could absorb to keep Saudi Arabia’s oil flowing. The Bush-Clinton-Bush policy of taking in extremist religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia under the student visa program has been a policy that is a direct threat to our national security.
Gov. Sean Parnell’s desire to reduce the ACES tax rates may be too little too late, just as the delays in deciding upon a reasonable natural gas pipeline option has ended Alaska’s role as a potential major player in either the domestic gas market or the world LNG market. The same can now be said for shale oil.
To the Governor’s credit, at least he is backing a positive option. Whether or not reducing ACES will have any impact upon Alaska’s oil production remains to be seen.
Whether or not there will be sufficient oil production increases within the next five years to keep TAPS in operation is the question. With the shutdown of TAPS, so also ends 90% of the State’s revenues. Alaska will be a far different place within five years of the shutdown of TAPS.
Gov. Parnell has vowed to keep fighting to reduce the rates oil companies pay under the current ACES law. ACES was passed during Gov. Sarah Palin’s unfortunately not brief enough gubernatorial administration. It should be remembered, that our Gov. Sean Parnell was then Gov. Sarah Palin’s Lt. Governor. A first belated step towards ‘independence’ from Palin for Parnell?
Gov. Parnell is a former State legislator who became an oil company lobbyist in Juneau after this tenure in the State Senate and House. That he would try to reduce the impact upon the oil companies is not surprising, but, a bit late.
In case no one has noticed, the oil flowing through the TAPS is declining to the point of no return, meaning that it will no longer be economically viable to move oil down the pipeline because of the declining volume of oil, and the point at which there can be no restart of the pipeline system if there is a shutdown for any reason. The last shut down last winter was a touch and go in terms of restarting the flow of oil. Alyeska’s president Thomas Barrett stated in a public radio interview that Alyeska was very concerned about the ability to restart oil flowing after the shutdown for a broken pipe at Pump Station 1 in January of this year. He went on to say that it was touch and go as to whether or not the pipeline would restart. He further estimated that within the next four to five years at the most, operating levels of 500,000 barrels or less would be reached at which point, Alyeska’s engineers believed that restarting the pipeline after a shut down would not be possible. It was also disclosed that TAPS has suffered up to an 80% deterioration in the walls of the pipe. This would mean a lengthy replacement of pipe in order to extend the life of TAPS, should methods and technology prove that recovery of the heavy oil under Prudhoe can be accomplished in economic quantities.
BP announced a heavy oil R&D recovery project well had demonstrated the viability of recovering heavy oil under the North Slope. There is an estimated 20 billion barrels of heavy crude yet to be recovered from legacy fields at Prudhoe and the surrounding area comprised of heavy oil. BP has been tight lipped about this project, having made only the one press release earlier this year. Heavy crude recovery is the most likely candidate for increasing the flow of oil through TAPS.
Off shore oil is another potential, but only if the Obama Administration figures out that the only way to reduce gasoline prices to the consumer is by increasing the amount of crude available in the market place.
The impact of oil shale recovery will soon be felt in the market place in much the same manner as the impact of shale gas on the natural gas market Outside and in Canada. Already, significant discoveries and returns are turning the Bakken oil shale in North Dakota into developments whose potential may exceed that of Prudhoe Bay in the early days of its development. Recent activity in Texas is proving out the viability of oil shale recovery there, turning depressed areas into boom towns, a welcome change from the impact of an ongoing recession. It is estimated that if the oil shale development continues at the present pace, within the next 20 years Middle East oil will not be needed in the U.S. domestic market.
If car manufacturers would produce vehicles fueled by natural gas for urban areas, that time frame may be halved or reduced even further. In which case, we would no longer have to take in the Wahabbist element from Saudi Arabia that George H. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush decided the U.S. could absorb to keep Saudi Arabia’s oil flowing. The Bush-Clinton-Bush policy of taking in extremist religious fanatics from Saudi Arabia under the student visa program has been a policy that is a direct threat to our national security.
Gov. Sean Parnell’s desire to reduce the ACES tax rates may be too little too late, just as the delays in deciding upon a reasonable natural gas pipeline option has ended Alaska’s role as a potential major player in either the domestic gas market or the world LNG market. The same can now be said for shale oil.
To the Governor’s credit, at least he is backing a positive option. Whether or not reducing ACES will have any impact upon Alaska’s oil production remains to be seen.
Whether or not there will be sufficient oil production increases within the next five years to keep TAPS in operation is the question. With the shutdown of TAPS, so also ends 90% of the State’s revenues. Alaska will be a far different place within five years of the shutdown of TAPS.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Sarah Palin running for President?! NOOOOOOOO!!!!
I just read an article on Real Clear Politics that confirmed my worst fears. Sarah Palin is definitely going to make a run for the brass ring of the Presidency. This egotistical, paranoid, soap opera queen and failed governor of the GREAT STATE of ALASKA, this individual who stated time and again while running for that high office "This is the greatest job that I could have," and who promised that she would never leave that office for national office before her two potential terms were up . . . Sarah Palin would be a disaster as a President.
I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.
When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.
Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.
Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.
I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.
I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.
As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.
Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.
Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.
Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.
It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.
Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.
Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.
Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.
In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:
“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”
That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.
Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.
You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.
I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.
Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.
That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.
Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.
Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.
Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?
The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.
Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.
Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:
I worked for that campaign as a volunteer, I wrote in support of her campaign, I talked to people, I did what I could to support her in her race for governor. Sarah called me, I did not call her and volunteer.
When Sarah Palin took her oath of office, she closed the door to most of the peons like me, and on her promises regarding change and open, conservative, pro-family, pro-life, constitutional State government.
Her administration was characterized as being left to itself without clear leadership or direction from her. She did something none of us thought that she would do. Instead of a new start for State government as she campaigned on--the Palin Revolution, remember?--she rehired many of her predecessors' commissioners and appointees. She changed nothing. If anything, she muddied the waters of State government further.
Her theme of open and transparent government was a joke. Contact with her office was a trial, without much chance of any call being returned. I heard this again and again from people who tried to contact the governor’s offices for one reason or another and were told that their call would be returned, but never was.
I have personal experience with her administration's public access policies. Open and transparent? Anything but.
I understand that the commissioners were left to work out amongst themselves what they thought she wanted from them. Sarah Palin was described as being above details, and uninterested in anything other than what she was trying to accomplish at the moment. A recent interview with Walt Monaghan, the former Dept. of Public Safety Commissioner under Palin, confirmed this characteristic of her administration. She was distant and aloof and out of touch with her commissioners.
As time went on, she increasingly made public appearances to respond to specious and idiotic attacks upon her family, character and ethics. Something she should have left out of her job as governor. It seemed she was making more retorts to these detractors than policy statements. Instead of hiring a publicist, attorney, attack dog, whatever, it was the governor's office that was dragged into the soap opera that was Governor Sarah Palin. She embarrassed us, and she acted immaturely, and foolishly by letting herself be swayed from her responsibilities as governor. She failed as a leader to keep the governor's office above the circus atmosphere, and, instead, used that office a bludgeon against those she did not like. The governor’s office was allowed to enter into the realm of a family feud between her sister and her former husband, an Alaska State Trooper.
Sarah is not a conservative. At best, she is a RINO with a great public persona who says all the right things, but shows her true colors in the record of her administration as governor.
Sarah Palin added 800 employees to the State of Alaska and oversaw the biggest expenditures since Statehood. She handed out a $1,200 fuel rebate to Alaskans in a shameless exhibition of pandering to the public with the public’s money. She expanded her cabinet to include a sub-cabinet that was devoted to . . . get this . . . climate change. She named the sub-cabinet the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet whose executive director was a federal EPA employee. According to her commissioner of DNR, and her Climate Change Sub-cabinet, global warming was a man-made problem.
Worse, the Climate Change Sub-Cabinet composition was the antithesis of her claims of supporting the State's sovereignty over ever increasing federal encroachment.
It is difficult to believe that she really supported the State of Alaska's sovereignty as expressed under AS 38.05.500-505 when she let a federal employee act as management in her offices. Especially, when a single source contract for approximately $80,000 was let to Climate Change Strategies (CCS), a progressive, anti growth, anti-development, population control cookie cutter global warming consultant to give the liberals the tools that they needed to feel better about destroying an economy through carbon tax initiatives. CCS was contracted to set up and administer her sub-cabinet. Sarah Palin signed up the State as an observer in the Western Climate Initiative arm of this organization.
Sarah Palin a supporter of the Second Amendment and our military? Highly suspect, given what she ordered where the 32 USC §109(c) Alaska State Defense Force is concerned.
Sarah Palin was the first Republican Governor to reduce the military forces of the State of Alaska by disarming the Alaska State Defense Force and rendering it from an operational, disaster response unit with an outstanding record of achievement over eight years to that of an unarmed "reserve of last resort". In doing so, then Governor Sarah Palin ignored the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, AS 26.05.070, AS 26.05.100, and the intent of NGR 10-4 sec. 5 and sec. 6, something her Adjutant General, LTG Craig Campbell should have been most aware of.
Her zeal for diminishing the Alaska State Defense Force and thereby removing from the State’s disaster response resources a proven operational unit that was a state military police constabulary has only been exceeded by her successor, Gov. Sean Parnell. Both former Governor Sarah Palin and Governor Sean Parnell have shown an incredible indifference to the fact that by their actions against the Alaska Sate Defense Force that they have shown a complete disregard for the militia’s right to bear arms. They also demonstrate a callous disregard for the fact that unarmed troops cannot afford protection and safety to those whom they serve. Alaskans are less safe because of Sarah Palin’s acts against the Alaska State Defense Force.
In diminishing the military forces of the State of Alaska, then Gov. Sarah Palin, and Gov. Sean Parnell,her successor and her former Lt. Gov., both went against the Alaska Republican Party's plank in support of the military in Alaska:
“C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force.”
That this was done in a time of WAR should cause serious consternation on the part of any who might be considering Sarah Palin as qualified for the Presidency. That she stepped all over the Second Amendment and Alaska's constitution in doing so by diminishing the right of the organized and unorganized State militia to be armed should give cause to all who own weapons to worry about our Second Amendment rights if she actually achieves the presidency. That she did so during time of war should give considerable consernation to any who is concerned about the security of this great country.
Sarah Palin is not intellectually or politically qualified to be president. By intellectually, I mean that she has never studied or been interested in international affairs. Sarah Palin has demonstrated that she lacked the judgment necessary to weigh local and State issues concerning Alaskan much less weigh global issues against national interests. Sarah Palin failed miserably as the governor of the Great State of Alaska, as she did not even make it through her first term. She did not even make it two years into her administration. If Frank Bailey’s book has any truth to it, Sarah Palin can be characterized as a petulant, spoiled child who wanted to quit, because she could not stand the criticism.
You think criticizing Obama produces a spectacle, wait until Sarah Palin becomes President.
I have only seen one other as poor a candidate for the highest office. That one other is the communist and Muslim sympathizing, socialist, apologist heretic that is currently occupying the highest elected office of the United States: Barack Hussein Obama. A close second is former president James Carter.
Unfortunately, I personally believe that Sarah Palin as President would make Obama into a statesman by comparison.
That Sarah Palin just purchased a house in Scottsdale, Arizona for $1.695M is an indication of how much an Alaskan this woman really is.
Yeah, she is good looking and she says the right things that resonates with conservatives and most middle class family oriented, hard working Americans. However, that is all that Sarah Palin is and does. She is a mouthpiece and a lightning rod for the opposition.
Can you imagine her soap opera on national television with her as President? We would be more of a laughing stock than we are under Obama. She is worse than Obama where a sleight is concerned. She would rail publically against any who dared criticize.
Surely, we won't be that stupid to elect someone who is clearly unqualified for the presidency so soon after getting rid of the pretender that is now in that office?
The Republican Party has some serious soul searching to do. There has to be a candidate that has a consistent record of fiscal and social conservatism, who will not compromise our Constitution and our social and moral values, who is not afraid to say that they are an American and that our culture is distinct, that English is our language, and who will not BOW to a foreign potentate, and who has the credentials to be President. Who, like Ronald Reagan will not place his/her ego above that of the country, and who will not only say the right things about America, but will act upon those words to make it so.
Sarah Palin is NOT that candidate.
Real Clear Politics piece on Palin:
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sarah Palin, Sean Parnell: How to make Alaskans less safe
Mr. Governor, Mr. Lt. Governor, Mr. Commissioner/TAG:
“We're not allowed to use the term militiaman or militia any longer.
They tell us it sounds like a security term and we no longer are involved in any way in security!”
How does the above quote reconcile with National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4?
NGR 10-4
National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4 covers the relationship of the National Guard to the State Defense Forces under 32 USC § 109(c).
The section Recommendations for Improvement in my Blue Print for the ASDF was drafted using the following sections of NGR 10-4 as a guide.
NGR 10-4
Paragraph:
“4. Status
a. Command and control: State Defense Forces, as contemplated by these regulations, the foregoing statutory authority, The Constitution of the United States, the constitution and laws of the State concerned, is solely a State organization under the exclusive jurisdiction of the respective governor. It is not subject to call, order, or draft, as such a force, into the Armed Forces of the United States. It is not subject to Federal regulation, control, or supervision other than as provided expressly, or by reasonable implication, by the statute cited in para 3. Such a force may not be controlled or commanded by Federal authorities, and missions are identified and assigned only by appropriate State officials. The State Adjutant General, even though he/she may be a federally recognized officer, is not considered as Federal Authority.
b. Appointment and commissioning of officers: Persons appointed as an officer in a State Defense Force, including general officers, are commissioned solely by the State, and as such, are not federally recognized or guaranteed the rights and privileges of a commissioned officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, or the Reserve Components thereof. Specific rank and title are assigned by the State.
5. Mission
a. The mission of a State Defense Force, as conceived by these regulations, is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force which would be under the exclusive control of the governor. It would be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when that force is federalized or otherwise not available to the needs of the governor. In addition, they would be available to perform any such missions as the governor directs, within Federal and State laws concerned.
b. Assignment of missions: Actual operating missions will be assigned only by authorized State officials (usually the State Adjutant General). However, the requirement for coordination of local and State internal security operations, with that of the U.S. Armed Forces, is obvious in the accomplishment of cooperative missions. SDF personnel and units will not be commanded by nor their operations and activities controlled directly by, Federal civilian or military authorities. Any direct coordination will be conducted between the senior Federal military commander present and the appointed emissary of the governor.
c. Potential missions:
(1) Assist civil authorities in the preservation of order, and protection of life and property.
(2) Meet such domestic emergencies as may arise within the State.
(3) Guard and protect critical industrial installations and facilities, as determined by the governor, when other means are deemed inadequate.
(4) Prevent or suppress subversive activities, in conjunction with, or in support of State or local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Under control of the governor, cooperate with Federal military authorities and forces engaged in active military operations or charged with internal security missions within the State.
(6) Assume control of State armories and property, provide security for any Federal property until relieved by proper authority, and assist in the mobilization of the National Guard when so directed by the governor.
(7)Perform other duties as may be assigned by the governor, under the constitution and laws of the state.
c. Conflict of missions: To the end that interests of the United States and the various States be preserved, the highest degree of cooperation should be maintained between Federal and State officials concerned. If a situation of conflict Or potential conflict of interest develops, it should be resolved between the Adjutant General and the senior Federal military commander present. Consideration should be given to the paramount Federal concern with the overall problem of national defense.
6. Organization
a. Planning and conducting military operations against hostile military forces are the responsibility of the Armed Forces of the United States. Operations and activities of State Defense Forces, as envisioned by this regulation, are supplemental to the State mission of the National Guard during peacetime and are considered to be of a constabulary nature and not that of combat forces. Organization under Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO/E) similar to military police or light infantry would most closely facilitate these anticipated missions.
b. The primary objective of DoD regarding State Defense Forces would be for a cadre-size unit to be established within each State during peacetime. This cadre would represent approximately 10 to 15% of their perceived mobilization strength, provide a command and control element, representation at each National Guard armory within the State, and allow for rapid expansion if the situation arises. Priority for any future Federal support that may be authorized will be given to those states whose Defense Force organization is considered most appropriate (by the Service Secretary) to accomplish the general missions outlined above.”
I have pointed out before that there appears to be a penalty for those States whose State Defense Forces fail to train for the missions envisioned under paragraph 5.
The question that I have yet to have answered fully, is what happens when the ARNG is off doing federal missions?
Which State agency takes the place of the ASDF under AS 26.05.100?
It certainly appears that the State Military Police Constabulary mission should be a current and ongoing mission for the ASDF, given paragraphs 4-6 of NGR 10-4, especially given that Military Police units that are now a part of the ARNG. After all, NGR 10-4 para. 4-6 envision the SDFs to be trained in the duties and missions of the ARNG, and under AS 26.05.100 the ASDF is to augment and act as a force multiplier to the ARNG. Contrary to the policy of your administration regarding the missions of the ASDF, NGR 10-4 envisions the ASDF maintaining an armed, internal security role.
Since when is it a policy of the Governor of the State of Alaska to act to reduce, or otherwise render ineffective a State military unit?
I have presented my arguments in the recent past, supported by the authorities and regulations directly impacting the situation.
All of which speak to an armed State militia with an internal security mission as found under AS 26.05.070.
Who ever heard of an unarmed militia?
It is my personal belief that this administration is ignoring the intent and purpose of Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Not only has this administration diminished the organized militia, it has done so without any public input, and has further acted to disarm a unit of the organized militia.
Worse, this travesty has been accomplished without any oversight by the Legislature.
Alaska is not safer, Mr. Governor.
Is the War over?
Has Alaska gone geologically “inactive”?
Is the recession over?
Are Alaska’s energy needs fulfilled so that we in south central no longer have to worry about power failure or rolling brown outs, should there be a compressor failure in the
Kenai gas fields?
Is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System restored to 1980 condition and flow rates, so that the potential for shutdown is reduced to a distant consideration?
Is the Army National Guard of the State of Alaska no longer subject to federal service?
Mr. Governor, you have ignored the realities of 2006 and the fact that ARNG units just returned from the Middle East.
I am asking for a meeting at the Governor’s level, given the failure at the Commissioner level, if you and your second can take 20 minutes of your precious time to discuss what you have done to Alaska and Alaskans by the diminishment and disarming of the Alaska State Defense Force.
You sir, are the second Alaska Republican Governor who has reduced the armed forces of this State in a time of WAR!
With the silence, and thereby assent, of the Legislature, your Administration has made Alaskans less safe and reduced the State’s ability to respond to a major emergency.
Regards,
Larry Wood
“We're not allowed to use the term militiaman or militia any longer.
They tell us it sounds like a security term and we no longer are involved in any way in security!”
How does the above quote reconcile with National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4?
NGR 10-4
National Guard Bureau Regulation 10-4 covers the relationship of the National Guard to the State Defense Forces under 32 USC § 109(c).
The section Recommendations for Improvement in my Blue Print for the ASDF was drafted using the following sections of NGR 10-4 as a guide.
NGR 10-4
Paragraph:
“4. Status
a. Command and control: State Defense Forces, as contemplated by these regulations, the foregoing statutory authority, The Constitution of the United States, the constitution and laws of the State concerned, is solely a State organization under the exclusive jurisdiction of the respective governor. It is not subject to call, order, or draft, as such a force, into the Armed Forces of the United States. It is not subject to Federal regulation, control, or supervision other than as provided expressly, or by reasonable implication, by the statute cited in para 3. Such a force may not be controlled or commanded by Federal authorities, and missions are identified and assigned only by appropriate State officials. The State Adjutant General, even though he/she may be a federally recognized officer, is not considered as Federal Authority.
b. Appointment and commissioning of officers: Persons appointed as an officer in a State Defense Force, including general officers, are commissioned solely by the State, and as such, are not federally recognized or guaranteed the rights and privileges of a commissioned officer in the U.S. Armed Forces, or the Reserve Components thereof. Specific rank and title are assigned by the State.
5. Mission
a. The mission of a State Defense Force, as conceived by these regulations, is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force which would be under the exclusive control of the governor. It would be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when that force is federalized or otherwise not available to the needs of the governor. In addition, they would be available to perform any such missions as the governor directs, within Federal and State laws concerned.
b. Assignment of missions: Actual operating missions will be assigned only by authorized State officials (usually the State Adjutant General). However, the requirement for coordination of local and State internal security operations, with that of the U.S. Armed Forces, is obvious in the accomplishment of cooperative missions. SDF personnel and units will not be commanded by nor their operations and activities controlled directly by, Federal civilian or military authorities. Any direct coordination will be conducted between the senior Federal military commander present and the appointed emissary of the governor.
c. Potential missions:
(1) Assist civil authorities in the preservation of order, and protection of life and property.
(2) Meet such domestic emergencies as may arise within the State.
(3) Guard and protect critical industrial installations and facilities, as determined by the governor, when other means are deemed inadequate.
(4) Prevent or suppress subversive activities, in conjunction with, or in support of State or local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Under control of the governor, cooperate with Federal military authorities and forces engaged in active military operations or charged with internal security missions within the State.
(6) Assume control of State armories and property, provide security for any Federal property until relieved by proper authority, and assist in the mobilization of the National Guard when so directed by the governor.
(7)Perform other duties as may be assigned by the governor, under the constitution and laws of the state.
c. Conflict of missions: To the end that interests of the United States and the various States be preserved, the highest degree of cooperation should be maintained between Federal and State officials concerned. If a situation of conflict Or potential conflict of interest develops, it should be resolved between the Adjutant General and the senior Federal military commander present. Consideration should be given to the paramount Federal concern with the overall problem of national defense.
6. Organization
a. Planning and conducting military operations against hostile military forces are the responsibility of the Armed Forces of the United States. Operations and activities of State Defense Forces, as envisioned by this regulation, are supplemental to the State mission of the National Guard during peacetime and are considered to be of a constabulary nature and not that of combat forces. Organization under Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO/E) similar to military police or light infantry would most closely facilitate these anticipated missions.
b. The primary objective of DoD regarding State Defense Forces would be for a cadre-size unit to be established within each State during peacetime. This cadre would represent approximately 10 to 15% of their perceived mobilization strength, provide a command and control element, representation at each National Guard armory within the State, and allow for rapid expansion if the situation arises. Priority for any future Federal support that may be authorized will be given to those states whose Defense Force organization is considered most appropriate (by the Service Secretary) to accomplish the general missions outlined above.”
I have pointed out before that there appears to be a penalty for those States whose State Defense Forces fail to train for the missions envisioned under paragraph 5.
The question that I have yet to have answered fully, is what happens when the ARNG is off doing federal missions?
Which State agency takes the place of the ASDF under AS 26.05.100?
It certainly appears that the State Military Police Constabulary mission should be a current and ongoing mission for the ASDF, given paragraphs 4-6 of NGR 10-4, especially given that Military Police units that are now a part of the ARNG. After all, NGR 10-4 para. 4-6 envision the SDFs to be trained in the duties and missions of the ARNG, and under AS 26.05.100 the ASDF is to augment and act as a force multiplier to the ARNG. Contrary to the policy of your administration regarding the missions of the ASDF, NGR 10-4 envisions the ASDF maintaining an armed, internal security role.
Since when is it a policy of the Governor of the State of Alaska to act to reduce, or otherwise render ineffective a State military unit?
I have presented my arguments in the recent past, supported by the authorities and regulations directly impacting the situation.
All of which speak to an armed State militia with an internal security mission as found under AS 26.05.070.
Who ever heard of an unarmed militia?
It is my personal belief that this administration is ignoring the intent and purpose of Art. 1 Sec. 19 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska and the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Not only has this administration diminished the organized militia, it has done so without any public input, and has further acted to disarm a unit of the organized militia.
Worse, this travesty has been accomplished without any oversight by the Legislature.
Alaska is not safer, Mr. Governor.
Is the War over?
Has Alaska gone geologically “inactive”?
Is the recession over?
Are Alaska’s energy needs fulfilled so that we in south central no longer have to worry about power failure or rolling brown outs, should there be a compressor failure in the
Kenai gas fields?
Is the Trans Alaska Pipeline System restored to 1980 condition and flow rates, so that the potential for shutdown is reduced to a distant consideration?
Is the Army National Guard of the State of Alaska no longer subject to federal service?
Mr. Governor, you have ignored the realities of 2006 and the fact that ARNG units just returned from the Middle East.
I am asking for a meeting at the Governor’s level, given the failure at the Commissioner level, if you and your second can take 20 minutes of your precious time to discuss what you have done to Alaska and Alaskans by the diminishment and disarming of the Alaska State Defense Force.
You sir, are the second Alaska Republican Governor who has reduced the armed forces of this State in a time of WAR!
With the silence, and thereby assent, of the Legislature, your Administration has made Alaskans less safe and reduced the State’s ability to respond to a major emergency.
Regards,
Larry Wood
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Osama Bin Ladin's Will
Cut and paste the link below into the URL line of your browser. It will take you to Michael Yon's website where Bin Ladin's Will is posted. NOTE THE ADMONISMENTS TO HIS CHILDREN in later paragraphs. He tells them not to serve Al Qaida or the Jihadist fronts. As you will note, he was frustrated over the treachery and betrayal that put him in Abbotabad. He directs his wives not to remarry, he is chagrined over the commitment that led to his ascetic lifestyle and humble means. Interesting.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/last-will-of-osama-bin-laden.htm
Michael Yon is a combat jounalist, former SF and a great photographer and writer. His blog is outstanding and he tells it like it is.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
State Defense Forces: a Heritage Foundation perspective
James J. Carafano in the March 23, 2011 Washington Times hit the nail on the head regarding the usefulness of the 32 USC Sec. 109(c) State Defense Forces.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/23/carafano-small-answers-to-big-problems/?page=1
His information on the State of Alaska's SDF is a bit dated. The Alaska State Defense Force was disarmed by MG Thomas Katkus with the full authority and blessings of our Republican Governor Sean Parnell. It should be noted that this governor is the second governor to continue to diminish and the policy of an unarmed State Defense Force. The first governor to actually disarm and begin the diminishment of the ASDF was former Governor . . . Sarah Palin, that staunch 2d Amendment proponent.
The ASDF is losing people steadily. The goal of the Alaska Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs is to see the ASDF go away. The National Guard Bureau seems to be implimenting a pogrom against the State Defense Forces nationwide with a program to encourage the State Adjutant Generals to disarm their SDFs and to diminish their relevancy. The goal is a federal only disaster response. Seemingly, the feds do not want a state only military to exist.
The Alaska Republican Party platform plank regarding military force structure:
"C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force."
Therefore, two governors, Sean Parnell and Sarah Palin, both Republican governors have acted to diminish and disarm the Alaska State Defense Force in the face of their own party platform's expression to the contrary.
Mr. Carafano's article is excellent, and accurate, if a bit dated where Alaska's SDF is concerned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/mar/23/carafano-small-answers-to-big-problems/?page=1
His information on the State of Alaska's SDF is a bit dated. The Alaska State Defense Force was disarmed by MG Thomas Katkus with the full authority and blessings of our Republican Governor Sean Parnell. It should be noted that this governor is the second governor to continue to diminish and the policy of an unarmed State Defense Force. The first governor to actually disarm and begin the diminishment of the ASDF was former Governor . . . Sarah Palin, that staunch 2d Amendment proponent.
The ASDF is losing people steadily. The goal of the Alaska Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs is to see the ASDF go away. The National Guard Bureau seems to be implimenting a pogrom against the State Defense Forces nationwide with a program to encourage the State Adjutant Generals to disarm their SDFs and to diminish their relevancy. The goal is a federal only disaster response. Seemingly, the feds do not want a state only military to exist.
The Alaska Republican Party platform plank regarding military force structure:
"C. We recognize Alaska’s strategic military location and unparalleled training opportunities and welcome the expansion of forces in Alaska, including our Active Duty, Reserves, Alaska National Guard, naval Militia, Coast Guard and Alaska State Defense Force."
Therefore, two governors, Sean Parnell and Sarah Palin, both Republican governors have acted to diminish and disarm the Alaska State Defense Force in the face of their own party platform's expression to the contrary.
Mr. Carafano's article is excellent, and accurate, if a bit dated where Alaska's SDF is concerned.
Friday, January 21, 2011
What was Commissioner/TAG Tom Katkus thinking?
In 2010, Commissioner DMVA/TAG Thomas H. Katkus decided to diminish the Alaska State Defense Force, the State’s 32 USC § 109(c) State Defense Force authorized under AS 26.05. The ASDF was removed from a constabulary role under AS 26.05.070 and effectively disarmed after years of a solid record of service without incident to the people and State of Alaska as an armed, State Military Police Constabulary unit.
In 2006, the ASDF served Alaskans during the floods of Houston and Valdez, and the fire response at Hooper Bay. The all-volunteer ASDF soldiers served as armed State Military Police Constabulary acting to prevent looting and to augment local police.
The National Guard had been called up for war duties.
National Guard Regulation (NGR) 10-4 demonstrates that the National Guard Bureau assumes a constabulary role for the State Defense Forces:
“5. Mission
a. The mission of a State Defense Force . . . is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force which would be under the exclusive control of the governor. It would be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when that force is federalized or otherwise not available to the needs of the governor . . .
c. Potential missions:
(1) Assist civil authorities in the preservation of order, and protection of life and property.
(2) Meet such domestic emergencies as may arise within the State.
(3) Guard and protect critical industrial installations and facilities, as determined by the governor, when other means are deemed inadequate.
(4) Prevent or suppress subversive activities, in conjunction with, or in support of State or local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Under control of the governor, cooperate with Federal military authorities and forces engaged in active military operations or charged with internal security missions within the State.
(6) Assume control of State armories and property, provide security for any Federal property until relieved by proper authority, and assist in the mobilization of the National Guard when so directed by the governor.
(7)Perform other duties as may be assigned by the governor, under the constitution and laws of the state.”
6. Organization
. . . activities of State Defense Forces, as envisioned by this regulation, are supplemental to the State mission of the National Guard during peacetime and are considered to be of a constabulary nature and not that of combat forces. Organization under Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO/E) similar to military police or light infantry would most closely facilitate these anticipated missions . . . . Priority for any future Federal support that may be authorized will be given to those states whose Defense Force organization is considered most appropriate (by the Service Secretary) to accomplish the general missions outlined above.”
The Alaskan soldiers of the Alaska State Defense Force are all volunteers, serving without pay until called to State Active Duty. The soldiers of the ASDF are prior military, retired and serving police officers, professionals and journeyman tradesmen. They provide their own weapons, ammunition, field gear, uniforms, training and transportation.
To qualify as State Military Police Constables, they underwent a minimum of 120 hours of training in the ASDF’s Military Police Academy, attended 142 hours of additional training at drills yearly with an annual 8 hours of Law Enforcement recurrency training. The ASDF soldier was required to qualify with weapons annually, but many units conducted additional weapons and law enforcement training by donating extra time.
The federal government has started cutting back on the regular military, meaning a greater federal role for the National Guard.
This action to diminish the ASDF begs the question of who and what will act as a force multiplier for the National Guard and the State and local government police pursuant to AS 26.05.070 and AS 26.05.100?
As a result of the Commissioner, DMVA’s action against the ASDF, the State’s disaster response is unreasonably diminished.
Alaskans are not safer, because of what MG Katkus decided to do with the ASDF.
Call your legislator and the Governor and ask them why this was allowed to happen without a public hearing?
In 2006, the ASDF served Alaskans during the floods of Houston and Valdez, and the fire response at Hooper Bay. The all-volunteer ASDF soldiers served as armed State Military Police Constabulary acting to prevent looting and to augment local police.
The National Guard had been called up for war duties.
National Guard Regulation (NGR) 10-4 demonstrates that the National Guard Bureau assumes a constabulary role for the State Defense Forces:
“5. Mission
a. The mission of a State Defense Force . . . is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force which would be under the exclusive control of the governor. It would be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when that force is federalized or otherwise not available to the needs of the governor . . .
c. Potential missions:
(1) Assist civil authorities in the preservation of order, and protection of life and property.
(2) Meet such domestic emergencies as may arise within the State.
(3) Guard and protect critical industrial installations and facilities, as determined by the governor, when other means are deemed inadequate.
(4) Prevent or suppress subversive activities, in conjunction with, or in support of State or local law enforcement agencies.
(5) Under control of the governor, cooperate with Federal military authorities and forces engaged in active military operations or charged with internal security missions within the State.
(6) Assume control of State armories and property, provide security for any Federal property until relieved by proper authority, and assist in the mobilization of the National Guard when so directed by the governor.
(7)Perform other duties as may be assigned by the governor, under the constitution and laws of the state.”
6. Organization
. . . activities of State Defense Forces, as envisioned by this regulation, are supplemental to the State mission of the National Guard during peacetime and are considered to be of a constabulary nature and not that of combat forces. Organization under Tables of Organization and Equipment (TO/E) similar to military police or light infantry would most closely facilitate these anticipated missions . . . . Priority for any future Federal support that may be authorized will be given to those states whose Defense Force organization is considered most appropriate (by the Service Secretary) to accomplish the general missions outlined above.”
The Alaskan soldiers of the Alaska State Defense Force are all volunteers, serving without pay until called to State Active Duty. The soldiers of the ASDF are prior military, retired and serving police officers, professionals and journeyman tradesmen. They provide their own weapons, ammunition, field gear, uniforms, training and transportation.
To qualify as State Military Police Constables, they underwent a minimum of 120 hours of training in the ASDF’s Military Police Academy, attended 142 hours of additional training at drills yearly with an annual 8 hours of Law Enforcement recurrency training. The ASDF soldier was required to qualify with weapons annually, but many units conducted additional weapons and law enforcement training by donating extra time.
The federal government has started cutting back on the regular military, meaning a greater federal role for the National Guard.
This action to diminish the ASDF begs the question of who and what will act as a force multiplier for the National Guard and the State and local government police pursuant to AS 26.05.070 and AS 26.05.100?
As a result of the Commissioner, DMVA’s action against the ASDF, the State’s disaster response is unreasonably diminished.
Alaskans are not safer, because of what MG Katkus decided to do with the ASDF.
Call your legislator and the Governor and ask them why this was allowed to happen without a public hearing?
Sunday, January 16, 2011
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.
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.
Monday, January 10, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)