Heller, the Second, DHS and the gun ban

The AR15 is a rifle that has been singled out by the gun control advocate as signifying all that is wrong with gun ownership. Yet, one person’s ugly, menacing, and unsuitable for this or that, is another’s functional, practical, effective and just plain fun. No one ever said the AR is pretty, but it is an effective and useful tool.

Janet Napolitano’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made the point of the argument by those who own AR15s, as to the purpose of the rifle. The argument has been made by the gun control advocates that the alleged assault rifle that is the focus of the ban proposals is not a personal defense weapon, but a weapon of war. DHS’s Request for Bid (RFP) for 7,000 "Personal Defense Weapons" (PDW) for close quarters battle (CQB) demonstrates the hypocrisy and absurdity of the government’s position on military style rifles.

The rifles sought by DHS are the ubiquitous AR15 at the heart of the ‘gun ban’ proposed by President Obama and Senator Feinstein, with one major difference. The rifles in the DHS Request for Proposal (RFP) are also select fire, meaning that like the military issue M4, they will have a full auto and/or 3 round burst and a single shot capability. Other than that one feature, the PDW requested by DHS will be indistinguishable from the AR15 in common use.

The interesting aspect of the DHS RFP is the fact that DHS is specifying select fire weapons, when a few years ago, DEA purchased semi-automatic AR15s. Why has the government decided to upgrade the federal police agencies to provide a firearm equal to the military M4 carbine? Do we want federal police agencies, which are civilian police agencies carrying full auto weapons? Especially, given the increasing number of innocents wounded or killed by police officers?

Those companies responding to the DHS RFP are undoubtedly those same companies that now produce the AR15 in its hundreds of varied configurations. The same companies demonized by the gun control groups and our liberal politicians.

The AR15 has become America’s most popular rifle for a reason. It is simply a good weapon for sport shooting and self protection/self defense. Estimates of the number in private possession in the U.S. are as high as 3,750,000. The self defense use is obviously an attribute recognized by the DHS and civil police agencies that is in agreement with the use by the law abiding civilian. That it is used in so few crimes so as to be statistically irrelevant is another fact that argues against any ban.

Popular three gun shooting competitions are a test of skill using the AR15, semi-auto pistol and 12 gauge riot gun. Women also compete in these contests. The AR is simply fun to shoot.

The civilian AR15 is incapable of being modified to fire in other than a single shot (one round per trigger pull) mode due to changes in the sear design to prevent a full auto capability from being enabled by simply dropping in a military M4 or M16 sear. Therefore, the AR15 is a true personal defense weapon and sporting arm, and not a military ‘assault’ rifle, as claimed by the gun control lobby.

The civilian AR15 is a single shot, semi-automatic, gas operated, magazine fed military style rifle. Semi-automatic means that the gases expelled by the powder burning in the cartridge are used to automatically actuate the bolt of the rifle to extract and expel the empty cartridge case and to move the bolt back to compress a recoil spring in the butt stock that then moves the bolt forward to engage and push the next cartridge from the magazine into the rifle’s chamber and acts to cock the rifle. Military style rifle means that the AR15 outwardly shares many of the same attributes of the military M16 rifle or M4 carbine. The major difference is in the fire control limitations built into the AR15. However, the AR15 can use military issue 30 round magazines, and the same 5.56mmX45mm ammunition issued by the military for the M16/M4. Some versions are configured as rifles capable of firing the larger 7.62mmX51mm .30 cal (.308 caliber) military ammo. The USCG uses a variant that is chambered for .50 cal Beowulf for CQB for boarding suspected drug smuggling vessels.

The impact of this rifle upon the firearms industry and the American shooting public has been incredible. Literally millions of Americans enjoy ‘tricking out’ their AR15 rifle. The hundreds of modifications that can be made in terms of sights, optics, rails, hand guards, stocks, grips, slings, match triggers, weapons lights, flash hiders, muzzle breaks, barrel lengths, magazine types, and different caliber configurations are varied and wide ranging. This adaptability to fit the desire of the shooter allows the rifle to be personalized according to the taste and needs of the owner. Thousands of Americans are in business or employed in those businesses that support the AR15 in all of its various configurations.

The war drives much of the innovation, because most of the accessories were developed as a result of the combat experience and needs of our troops. American innovation and applied technology have made the AR15 the most flexible and adaptable weapon in modern firearms history.

The desire to eliminate the AR15 and high capacity magazines for both the AR15 and semi-auto pistols may be a goal of President Obama and the gun lobby. Effecting such a ban on either the type of firearm or the magazine capacity may be a problematic.

Heller held that ". . . United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. . . . Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

In its December, 2012 ruling, the 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. The court further reinforced Heller by finding that one’s Second Amendment right extended to carry beyond the home:

"We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home. The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense."

How any reasonable or prudent individual could conceive the AR15 or any semi-auto hand gun "unusual" or not in "common" use is simply unimaginable and incomprehensible, given the proliferation of these types of firearms throughout the civilian, security, police, and military sectors. What is in "common" use are the same weapons issued to civil police and used for the same purpose as the civilian uses them: personal defense and self protection. The AR15 used by civilians and civil police are very similar in terms of configuration and equipment are very similar to the M16/M4 of the military.

All weapons qualify as dangerous, whether a knife, sledge hammer, or firearm. That aspect of the argument is simply without merit.

The AR15 is in "common" organized militia use today with the various 32 USC §109(c) State Defense Forces (SDF) of the various States. The SDF volunteer soldier is required to provide one’s own weapons, ammunition, gear, uniforms and to also bear the cost of training to the benefit of the State. The SDF is paid only when called to State Active Duty. The SDF is the State only component of the organized militia. The Alaska State Defense Force is authorized under AS 26.05.100, its purpose under AS 26.05.070.

The unorganized militia comprises those who do not belong to either the National Guard or the State Defense Force of their State. The unorganized militia member also has an obligation to maintain a military grade arm suitable for militia use, such as the AR15. The member of the unorganized militia, like the SDF volunteer, is expected to provide their own arms, ammunition, and gear, when called up to serve by their governor. Under Alaska statutes, that authority rests with the governor under AS 26.05.110, with the militias defined under AS 26.05.010. All states have similar statutes denoting the organized and organized militias and the authority of the governor to call them up for State Active Duty.

The usual militia use is for the individual to have an AR15 or similar type of military style rifle of good quality in 5.56mmX45mm or 7.62mmX51mm with enough military compatible magazines to allow up to a 200 round individual soldier ammunition load out, depending upon caliber. The ability of the AR15 to utilize standard military issue magazines (30 round for 5.56mm ammo) is extremely important with respect to the ability of the organized and unorganized militia to use military stores in a major natural or man made catastrophe.

The State Defense Forces would be charged by the governor of their respective state to support the National Guard and to aid in restoration of order and to provide security. A call up of part or all of the unorganized militia may be necessary to supplement the NG and SDF forces. Therefore, commonality of the militia weapon with military issue rifles and carbines as to ammunition, magazines, operator controls and sighting procedures are extremely desirable and important to the effectiveness and usefulness of the militia during a time of duress. The AR15 unquestionably meets these criterion.

The "common use" finding in Heller renders irrelevant the President’s and Senator Feinstein’s arguments regarding the capacity of magazines. The so called "high capacity" magazine is in lawful common use by the civilian, military and police user. Therefore, any argument of the magazines being ‘unusual’ is moot.

The arguments of gun control advocates against the AR15 and firearms ownership in general are based not in substance, but founded in emotion and "I think"–opinion. The facts of "common use" should carry more weight in the discussion than how the AR15 impacts esthetically and the emotions imparted upon viewing it. And, those aspects speak to the mental condition of the viewer, and does not reflect negatively upon the rifle.

It is incredible that the law abiding would be penalized, because of an emotional response to an inanimate object, tens of thousands of which are in common use daily. This would be similar to outlawing sharp kitchen knives by the length of blade. Or, attributing an accident involving fatalities to an SUV, rather than the driver of the SUV. More crimes have been committed by criminals or the mentally unbalanced using knives than using rifles.

FBI crime statistics for 2011 show 356 crimes committed using rifles, and 1,659 using knives or other sharp instruments. This is a far more compelling case for the banning of knives than is made for the banning of a particular type of rifle.

The Second Amendment states:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The argument of the liberal gun control advocates that the Framers never anticipated firearms like the AR15 is specious and without merit. The Framers used the term "Arms" to denote that the people’s arms were to be as capable and comparable to those used by the military of the time and into the future. In using ‘arms’ rather than stating ‘musket’, for example, the Framers anticipated the continual evolution of weapons’ technology for the common soldier, and, thereby, for the people. It is incredible to believe, as is asserted by gun control advocates, that our personal weapons are not to be as contemporary, as capable and state of the art as those used by the military, given the citizen’s duty as part of the organized or unorganized militia. The AR15 and the semi-automatic hand gun are simply the current iteration of an ongoing, evolutionary individual weapons development process.

Whether intentional or not, the genius of the Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in using the term "Arms" is indisputable in their allowing for that ongoing evolution of weaponry so that our Second Amendment rights would never be obsolete.

President Obama and Senator Feinstein are wasting the peoples’ time and money with the red herring of their proposed gun ban and magazine bans. The "common use" stated in Heller defeats the premise of their actions.

The AR15 is not "unusual". It is in common use by the millions by private citizens, security and civil police, all for the same purpose: self defense, and sport shooting. Even DHS recognized this common use in their RFP.

For more information:

Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Constitution of the State of Alaska:

Article 1 §19:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

Alaska Statutes:

AS 26.05.010

AS 26.05.070

AS 26.05.100

AS 26.05.110

D.C. v. Heller, 478 F3d 370

SCOTUS Heller decision from Cornell University Law School:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Moore v. Madigan, 7^th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://www.nraila.org/media/10814375/stevensopinion.pdf

Estimates on the number of AR15 rifles in private ownership

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2012/12/20/assault_rifle_stats_how_many_assault_rifles_are_there_in_america.html

Human Events:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/01/02/the-ar-15-the-gun-liberals-love-to-hate/

FBI Unified Crime Report 2011:

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded/expandhomicidemain.pdf

FBI crime report tables, note: click on the table number to see the table you are interested in viewing.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-offense-data

Will the Alaska Army National Guard be there for us . . .

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.

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:

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

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?

Parnell's Plight

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

Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is our Governor above the law?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DMVA moves to eliminate ASDF . . .

For some reason as yet unstated, Gov. Sean Parnell's DMVA under BG Tom Katkus, ARNG, has decided to disrespect and humiliate the Alaska State Defense Force.

Given ASDF's leadership woes, some organizational nose drubbing is deserved. However, such would only serve to ignore DMVA's part in creating ASDF's leadership crisis. Since 2005, former DMVA Commissioner and Adjutant General Craig Campbell has known of the failures in leadership on the part of ASDF's former commander. For whatever reason, Craig Campbell chose to ignore those failures.

ASDF has served the State of Alaska well over the years, saving the State hundreds of thousands of dollars in manpower costs for disaster response. In 2006, ASDF demonstrated the viability of a state military police organization serving to support the AST and local police departments as set forth under AS 26.05.076.

ASDF was deployed 3 times in 2006 in disaster response duties. ASDF served in 2006 at Valdez, Houston and the Hooper Bay Fire aftermath. The deployment of ASDF personnel to State Active Duty kept the Alaska State Troopers from the Glennallen Detachment, the Valdez Police Dept. and the Houston Police Dept. on the job protecting their communities instead of tying up manpower at check points for flood safety duty, or requiring AST to station a Trooper in Hooper Bay.

At Valdez, ASDF personnel took the place of DOT personnel who would have otherwise had to be transferred in from other DOT locations in the State. The use of ASDF meant a that there was no reduction in services to those communities served by the DOT personnel who would have been transferred for Valdez flood duty. DOT estimated that ASDF saved DOT at least $100,000 in manpower costs by manning DOT check points.

ASDF has performed many other State disaster relief and public service duties over the years. The Iditarod Restart and the Special Olympics are two public functions where ASDF personnel volunteer to serve each year. During the Orange Alert of Dec., 2003-Jan., 2004, ASDF was called to State Active Duty with the Army National Guard for armed security service at the Yukon River Bridge and at Valdez Terminal. ASDF members participating, like their National Guard counterparts, were awarded the Homeland Security Medal for what became known as Winter Talon. Another call up was for the Turnagin Pass avalanche disaster that buried 5 snowmachiners.

ASDF was first armed by then Governor Tony Knowles when he called ASDF to duty at the Yukon River Bridge post 9-11. Gov. Knowles, a RVN combat veteran, believed that unarmed troops were just victims waiting to happen.

As a result of actions taken against yours truly in November, 2007 to prevent the outing of an illegal and out of compliance use of force policy by a subordinate unit, and as a result of a April, 2007 complaint to the governor made by myself regarding the lack of accountability and conduct of the then ASDF commanding officer, an investigation was performed by an out of state Army National Guard JAG officer from Washington State. This investigation was unprecendented in the history of ASDF, much less the State Guards of the 22 States that maintain such State only forces.

One of the allegations to then Gov. Sarah Palin was the misrepresentation of manpower estimates made by the ASDF commander and his staff to DMVA in monthly reports. Normally, such conduct would be considered a serious breach of responsibility and ethics. However, in Craig Campbell's DMVA, such conduct on the part of ASDF's then commander was the norm.

MAJ Matthew Cooper recommended changes to ASDF. One of the more incredible recommendations was the change from a State Military Police Brigade to a Civil Affairs Brigade. This in the face of AS 26.05.076 and a March 30, 2006 Attorney General's Opinion confirming ASDF's role as a State police force when called to State Active Duty under a declaration of emergency. This recommendation was made using the specious excuse of risk management, totally ignoring ASDF's indeminificaiton under AS 26.05. Then Commissioner/TAG Craig Campbell acted upon these recommendations initially disarming ASDF and halting all Military Police training by the various units. However, those restrictions were lifted after October, 2008.

The intriguing thing about what happened in 2007-2008 with the investigations ordered by then MG Craig Campbell, Commissioner/TAG DMVA, was the use of an out of state ARNG JAG officer to conduct an investigation into a USC 32 Sec. 109(c) state guard/state defense force organization having no affiliation with the National Guard Bureau or U.S. Army in any manner form or way. I believe the investigations should have been civil in nature, given the nature of the allegations, and conducted by State of Alaska civilian investigators. By keeping the issue entirely under the TAG's office, the Governor's office has been prevented from acting fully, had an investigation been called for, for example, by the DOT Commissioner for alleged improprieties in DOT. Civilian politicians without miltiary experience are loath to challenge the military on any issue. By keeping the investigations miltiary, Craig Campbell was able to protect the former commander of ASDF, and to cover up Campbell's failures in requiring performance and accountability from ASDF's leadership.

All Craig Campbell had to do to remedy ASDF's leadership problems was to require personnel policies, manuals, regulations, and other common administrative tools to be instituted at ASDF. After all, ASDF's then commander and the present commander are both attorneys. One would think that such would be one of the first priorities on their part. Unfortunately for ASDF's personnel, such administrative rules would have eliminated the lack of accountability and the capricious nature of the application of leadership at ASDF. All ASDF needed was good leadership and some oversight on the part of DMVA. Instead, ASDF has received meager support and non-existent oversight.

The commander of ASDF appointed by Frank Murkowski and again by Sarah Palin operated on verbal orders and innuendo, creating a lack of accountability and mistrust. This individual resigned in October, 2008. However, the administrative changes recommended by yours truly and ordered by then LTG Craig Campbell have yet to be implemented.

The State Guards pursuant to USC 32 Sec. 109(c) are not federal anything. They are constructs of their respective states, only, without federal funding or other obligation that would subordinate or otherwise affiliate them with the federal DOD. Therefore, why was a federal ARNG officer selected to investigate an organization for which he had little or no knowledge and understanding?

What were any potential conflicting imperatives that might have resulted in the degrading of ASDF's mission to the State?

Unfortunately, the U.S. Army has a long institutional memory. Believe it or not, the USA is no fan or supporter of the USC 32 Sec. 109(c) State Guards. It was the State Guard (militias) of the southern states that coaesced into the Army of Northern Virginia and the Confederate Army that met the blue bellies at Bull Run and which bloodied the Union Army until Gettysberg. The blue bellies have not forgotten, nor forgiven. Hence, the ever present disdain and distrust of the State Guards by the National Guard Bureau and the regular Army.

Yet, the State Guards are comprised by retired and former military personnel and police officers to a great extent. Virtually every trade and profession is represented in the membership of a State Guard. These people represent a vast wealth of information, experience and know how. One would think that such potential would be honored instead of demeaned, as is happening with ASDF under Parnell and Katkus.

There was a respite in this attitude with the War on Terror. In November, 2005, a report to Congress was written by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Security that outlined the role of State Guards in homeland defense. The report further stated that DOD was willing to entertain on requests for U.S. military surplus material and training support to the State Guards of the various States by submitting a request for such support through the State's Adjutant General. No State Guard has ever acted upon this potential to my knowledge, as the Adjutant General's answer to both the governor of that state and the National Guard Bureau. The NGB is absolutely opposed to the use of State Guards. They want to keep all militia forces FEDERAL.

The NGB is very jealous of the State Guards, as the State Guards perform without federal support and are independent of the federal chain of command. Again, the lesson of the Civil War rears its ugly head.

Now, under Gov. Sean Parnell, DMVA under Commissioner/TAG Tom Katkus is acting to fully disarm ASDF, restrict ASDF personnel from any training, and to take away the ability of ASDF to wear the Army Uniform pursuant to AR670-1 Chapt. 30-8(c), p316. To what end is this being accomplished and why?

Obviously, to accomplish the goals of the NGB where the elimination of the State Guards are concerned.

The lessons of the War on Terror are clear. The United States military is stretched with two realitively low tempo theaters of operation in OIF and OEF. Low tempo compared with RVN, Korea or WWII. Now that OIF is ending operationally, more troops are available for OEF. In 2006, the State of Alaska was berift of troops. Reserve and active duty components were committed to Kosovo, OIF and OEF. Alaska was literally left with only the ASDF as the final line of defense on the ground.

The Alaska Army National Guard was reorganized in 2006-2007 to include Military Police battalions that were not previously part of the AK ARNG's force structure. These units were formed in response to the need to secure Ft. Greely's missile defense system and to provide MP units for deployment overseas, given the lessons of OIF in the aftermath of the anarch resulting from the defeat of Saddam's army. For some reason, BG Tom Katkus feels that these FEDERAL troops can be used as were ASDF personnel used time and again to perform civil police missions pursuant to AS 26.05.076. For this reason, he is slowly conducting a pogrom to eliminate ASDF from Alaska's emergency response force structure. The Army never forgets.

Alaska is unlike any other State in North America. We are separated geographically from the Outside. Without ASDF, Alaska loses a valuable resource that has been used to supplement the very ARNG troops that will always be at the beck and call of a federal government, and not our Governor. The only troops the Governor has that are Alaska's, are ASDF's troops. Now, Parnell and Tom Katkus want to end ASDF.

If the regular federal troops are deployed overseas, and the National Guard is called to national duty, who then will stand for Alaska and guard our oil and gas and transportation infrastructure if ASDF is eliminated?

Who will stand with our civil emergency response to support them in time of natural disaster if ASDF is elminated?

ASDF has performed with a State budget of less than $30,000 per year, maintaining over 100 personnel active with another 75-100 partially active, all trained and deployable. ASDF personnel have over 100 hours of Law Enforcement training with quarterly firearms qualifications and a yearly recertification for qualified MP Constables. All of which was accomplished out of the resources of the individual ASDF members, not by anything given by the State. In 2006, the NAACP Band received $33,000 from the State while ASDF received $26,000 for administrative support.

ASDF personnel provide their own transportation, training, equipment, firearms and ammunition at no cost to the State. The average cost of the equipment and arms alone is over $4,000 per individual ASDF volunteer soldier.

Does the Army National Guard soldier attend drill without benefits or compensation? Does the ARNG soldier pay for his own weapon and provide his own ammunition, gear, and transportation for training or call up to State Active Duty? NO, the ARNG troop does not.

Now, Gov. Sean Parnell's Commissioner/TAG wants to eliminate ASDF?

The reality of disaster response is that there is never enough assets. Yet, this governor and his TAG/Commissioner want to REDUCE those assets by eliminating the Alaska State Defense Force. What?!!!

This idiocy makes my case for separating the Commissioner and the Adjutant General (TAG) office back into separate offices with the TAG subordinate to the civilian Commissioner, just as it was before Gov. Frank Murkowski combined the two in what has become a failed experiment.

I guess next disaster response, Gov. Sean Parnell and BG Tom Katkus can call up the NAACP Band.

For more information: www.ak-prepared.com/asdf ; www.dmva.alaska.gov