A C-17 Globemaster III transport aircraft assigned to Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (its official name) in Alaska crashed just to the northeast of runway 06 at 6:14 P.M. on Wednesday July 28th, 2010. Four crewmembers are said to have been on board; no word as to their disposition as of this post (don't expect confirmation of the latter until sometime Thursday, after the Air Force has had the opportunity to make any necessary notifications).

Local media sources:

-- Anchorage Daily News
-- Anchorage Daily News photo gallery
-- KTVA Channel 11
-- KTUU Channel 2

Roger Herrera saw the plane coming down as he was returning from fishing while driving in front of his wife on Turpin Street northbound towards the base. "We saw straight in front of us – my wife actually honked at me and she was pointing up in the air – and we saw a big ball of fire. By the time I reached for my camera to take photos of it, it had turned into a big black plume of smoke, and it was rising," he said. "Once I got to the end of Turpin… I saw that it was on the other side of the highway so I knew that it must be on base." KTUU news video embedded below:



While the story is still developing, it appears that the aircraft may have been flying maneuvers around the Anchorage Bowl. Two people who live in the Hillside area about 10 miles south of Elmendorf reported a large military transport aircraft flying lower than usual over their homes; one reported a hatch open in the bottom of the aircraft. Both these individuals posted comments to the ADN story; the comments are cross-posted below:

suddenwitness wrote on 07/28/2010 07:48:28 PM:

I was driving down Clarks Road and the plane came over our car just close enough to clear the ridge in front of Flattop. I stopped the car because the plane was so low and remember wondering how a plane that size would clear the mountains and make it to the base to land safely. I pray for all on board and any involved on the ground.

Because the plane was directly above our car, I could see the bottom hatch was open, but couldn't make out that the landing gear had been deployed...

funhog2 wrote on 07/28/2010 08:45:51 PM:

that's interesting suddenwitness. We live near Flattop, and I saw a military plane flying really low, I am guessing it was a C-17 from the pictures I see on the web. The reason I looked because the house was shaking mainly the wood stove pipe so I went out to look. I didn't see an open door but that doesn't mean their wasn't one. I wondered what was happening because I've only seen something that low and close only once and I've been living here 10 years

Here's a comment posted on the KTVA site:

someperspective · 1 hour ago (approx. 9:40 P.M.)
out here in the [Mat-Su] valley some spotted a Very low flying plane that shook the houses...may be they were in trouble and were trying to make it back to the base to fix the malfunction...

The individuals posting these comments did not report the time of occurrence. Thus it is not confirmed that this was actually the same aircraft. I would like to keep the speculation to a minimum in this post, if possible.

Air Force officials have not addressed whether or not this will impact the Arctic Thunder air show scheduled for this upcoming weekend. The U.S. Navy's Blue Angels and the Canadian Forces' Snowbirds headline the event. Military flight demonstrations will include the AV-8B Harrier, F-22 Raptor, C-17 Globemaster III aircraft and the popular Alaskan Joint Forces Demo which will be supported by the pyrotechnic talents of the Tora, Tora, Tora bomb squad. In addition to these demonstrations, the 101st Airborne Screamin' Eagles and the U.S. Air Force Academy's Wings of Blue parachute teams will perform. Arctic Thunder is free and open to the public. The gates open at 9 a.m. and entertainment continues until 5 p.m.

On July 28th 2010, just hours before the scheduled July 29th implementation of Arizona SB1070, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued a ruling enjoining the state of Arizona from implementing certain portions of the law. The parts stricken are considered much of the heart of the law, although Arizona will still retain considerable immigration enforcement power.

Links to the major Arizona media sources cited and embedded throughout this post. News video from KTVK Channel 3 embedded below:



Read the full 36-page decision HERE. The parts to be enjoined are listed on page four and are cross-posted below:

Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

Section 3 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

Section 6 of S.B. 1070, A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

Bolton's ruling followed hearings on three of seven federal lawsuits challenging SB 1070. Plaintiffs include the U.S. Department of Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, Phoenix and Tucson police officers, municipalities, illegal immigrants and non-profit groups. The July 28th ruling is in the Department of Justice case. Bolton has not yet issued rulings on motions in the case filed by Phoenix Police Officer David Salgado and the case filed by the ACLU and other civil-rights groups.

Reaction: Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer's office said that the state will file an expedited appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday July 29th. They will ask the appeals court to lift the injunctions put in place by Judge Bolton and allow those provisions to go into effect until a decision is made on the merits of the law. As part of its motion, the Governor's Office will also ask the 9th Circuit to expedite its briefing schedule and its ruling on the matter.

Arizona State Senator Russell Pearce, the architect of SB1070, is actually pleased with some aspects of the judge's temporary injunction. He says the judge left in key provisions that eliminate sanctuary cities, and adds that law enforcement will still be able to inquire about immigration status -- although they won't be forced to ask. Judge Bolton upheld the section of SB1070 that forbids a city, county or town from adopting a policy that limits or restricts immigration enforcement -- a.k.a. sanctuary cities. The judge also allowed citizens to sue that city or county if such a policy exists.

Senator John McCain, who opportunistically got behind SB1070 once he saw its popularity, also criticized the decision while on Michael Medved's nationally syndicated radio show and said he was confident Arizona will challenge Bolton's ruling. Because he believes the 9th Circuit Court is not known for strict interpretation of the Constitution, McCain predicted the challenge could go all the way to the US Supreme Court. McCain's opponent in the U.S. Senate race, J.D. Hayworth, said "Judge Bolton has gutted the Arizona law. She has put a hold on major sections of SB 1070 designed to eradicate sanctuary cities and require law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of those who commit crimes in our state."

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was not surprised by Bolton's ruling, but it will have little impact on any future crime-suppression operations. Arpaio said the only thing Bolton's ruling changed is the ability for Arizona law enforcement to use a state charge - willful failure to carry documents - to book someone into jail. Now, Arpaio said, the agencies can continue to contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to determine if federal agents will take custody of the suspect. Everyone booked into Maricopa County Jail, regardless of race, will continue to have their immigration status screened by federally trained sheriff's deputies through an agreement with ICE.

Reaction from a whole host of other Arizona notables is recorded HERE.

Alaska Dispatch reveals the results of a poll of 318 likely Alaskan voters who declared themselves either Republican (47.3 percent of respondents) or non-partisan (52.7 percent) during the period July 22-25, 2010. The poll was conducted by Hellenthal & Associates of Anchorage. Both Republicans and non-partisans can vote in the closed Alaska Republican primary on August 24th.

Hellenthal's verdict - if the primary was held today, Sean Parnell, Lisa Murkowski, and Don Young would win by wide margins. These three principals also lead their respective races in fund-raising as well. Read the raw poll data HERE; a Microsoft Word-compatible word processor is necessary to view it.

(1). U.S. Senate:
-- Lisa Murkowski: 69.0 percent
-- Joe Miller: 27.9 percent
-- Don't Know: 3.1 percent

Analysis: A previous Ivan Moore poll which showed Murkowski leading Miller by 32 points was characterized as "garbage" by the Miller campaign because of Moore's Democratic associations. Marc Hellenthal has no such partisan associations, yet this poll shows Murkowski leading by 41 points. How will the Miller campaign explain this one?

Hellenthal says that it will not be enough for Miller to pick up Undecided voters; he's got to go after Murkowski voters as well. He suggests Miller will have to go negative.

(2). U.S. House:
-- Don Young: 61.8 percent
-- Sheldon Fisher: 33.8 percent
-- Don't Know: 4.4 percent

Analysis: The breakouts indicate that while most of Young's support is "Moderate", most of Fisher's support is "Strong". This means that Sheldon Fisher has developed a core of diehard supporters, while most of Don Young's supporters will vote for him more out of a "sense of duty", primarily because of his seniority.

(3). Governor:
-- Sean Parnell: 60.3 percent
-- Bill Walker: 14.7 percent
-- Ralph Samuels: 13.1 percent
-- Don't Know: 11.9 percent

Analysis: A previous poll by DRM Market Research in May 2010 showed Parnell with 57 percent, Ralph Samuels with 9 percent, and Bill Walker with 7 percent. Two different polls, two different pollsters, similar results. This implies that although Republican opposition to Parnell is noisy, it is not widespread. This also means that Parnell could choose to circle the wagons around Gene Therriault without fear of electoral reprisal on August 24th.

(4). Lieutenant Governor:
-- Jay Ramras: 29.3 percent
-- Mead Treadwell: 22.6 percent
-- Eddie Burke: 11.5 percent
-- Don't Know: 36.6 percent

Analysis: The percentage of undecideds is still too high to project a finish with any degree of certainty, although the order of presentation above is likely to be the order of finish. Eddie Burke's exposure of Mead Treadwell as a RINO will likely be enough to prevent Treadwell from winning. One thing we can say for Jay Ramras; at least he doesn't pretend to be something he's not.

Hellenthal said the poll was paid for by someone with particular interest in the Senate race, although it was not one of the candidates. The poll cost that client $3,000, said Hellenthal, who then approached candidates in the lieutenant governor and U.S. representative races to say that for $1,000 each, he'd include them in the poll too. At least one candidate from each of those races accepted Hellenthal's offer. Gov. Parnell's campaign approached Hellenthal and asked to buy in, and their $1,000 rounded out the $6,000 the firm made on the poll.

Hellenthal & Associates is considered the number four pollster in Alaska behind Dave Dittman, Ivan Moore, and Hays Research Associates. While reasonably accurate, one of Hellenthal's previous polls seriously backfired. In May 2006, a Hellenthal poll showed John Binkley leading Sarah Palin in the Alaska Republican gubernatorial primary race by three percentage points although competing polls showed Palin up by as much as 16 points. Palin, of course, won.

The public outcry for Gene Therriault's resignation from his position as Alaska Governor Sean Parnell's energy advisor continues to build, and joining the public chorus is the state's flagship newspaper, the Anchorage Daily News. Read my previous post for the nuts and bolts on this case.

In an editorial entitled "Our view: Therriault should go", published on July 28th, 2010, ADN opines that Therriault should follow Nancy Dahlstrom's example and resign his position because Gov. Parnell clearly violated the spirit, and perahps the letter of the provision in the Alaska Constitution that prohibits the appointment of sitting legislators to other state jobs. In both cases, Gov. Parnell circumvented that provision with semantic technicalities; namely, hiring legislators for jobs that don't officially "exist" until after the lawmakers resign. This is nonsense at best, and outright contempt for the constitution at worst.

Earlier on July 27th, the more right-wing Anchorage Daily Planet also called for Therriault's resignation. In their column entitled "Time To Resign", the Planet states, "The argument now rages over who signed what and when, and what it all means, but it all ignores the glaring point. The governor of the state of Alaska ignored the spirit of the Alaska Constitution to get around the law. He now is trying to find something, anything, to justify his action. Running a state on technicalities is not the best course. It is not even an acceptable course. Alaskans deserve better from their government than politicians wrapping themselves in shades of gray to do whatever they want".

And Dan Fagan launched another attack in The Alaska Standard. In a post entitled "Gene Therriault claims he didn't sign what he clearly signed", Fagan points out that Therriault clearly signed the personnel document on September 12th, 2009, although Therriault is now claiming that he didn't turn the document in until he returned to Juneau on September 17th. Fagan questions whether Therriault will voluntarily resign, because his job could end up delivering as much as a million bucks in added pension benefits if he can hang on just a few more months. Fagan gives a more detailed explanation HERE. Fagan concludes that the only way this injustice can be corrected is if Attorney General Daniel Sullivan steps forward like he did with the Dahlstrom hiring and render a legal opinion.

Rep. Harry Crawford (D-Anchorage), who is also running for Don Young's Congressional seat, has also called upon Therriault to resign, saying he sees no difference between his case and Nancy Dahlstrom's case. But Senator Con Bunde (R-Anchorage) disagrees, saying the spirit of the law is preserved. Bunde said the law was passed to keep legislators from funding some special job for themselves, then resigning and taking that job, and further explained that there's no indication that Therriault lobbied for the energy post.



Some are asking why these concerns weren't raised when the Obama Administration recruited then-Senator Kim Elton to come to work at the Interior Department. After all, Ken Salazar first approached Elton in January 2009, long before Elton formally accepted and resigned from the State Senate on March 2nd. This is a fair question; I suppose the reason I didn't jump on it was because it did not occur to me to pursue it; we were preoccupied with higher-priority issues, such as the Ted Stevens aftermath, the ongoing troubles of Sarah Palin, and an Anchorage mayoral election. No one else was squawking about it, either. It would seem in retrospect that the guidance in AS 24.05.040 would have applied in Elton's case as well:

“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".

It states "any other office", not "any other state office".

Nevertheless, just because Gov. Parnell was operating on precedent doesn't mean the precedent is necessarily right. I believe Gov. Parnell acted in good faith and intended no malfeasance or impropriety. But with the number of influential voices calling for Gene Therriault's resignation, Gov. Parnell needs to think long and hard about this one -- particularly during an election year. The law may be a bit ambiguous and unnecesaarily restrictive, but we obey the laws we have, not the laws we want, until the laws we have are changed. Update July 28th: A newly-released Hellenthal poll shows Sean Parnell leading his competitors by 45 percentage points, so this may turn out to be much ado by nothing.

Recently, Jared Taylor, who heads up the New Century Foundation and is the editor of American Renaissance, a scholarly monthly treatise on race realism, appeared on Russia Today to debate affirmative action against Adam Lerman, who runs an advocacy group called By Any Means Necessary. Taylor, being a race realist, opposes affirmative action, explaining that it is discriminatory against Whites, while Lerman uses the so-called "legacy" argument to justify it, claiming that non-Whites suffer from the so-called "legacy" of past infrastructural discrimination. The springboard for the discussion was Senator Jim Webb’s recent Wall Street Journal op-ed “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege”.

The host of the program starts out with a two-and-a-half minute segment on Hawaii's proposals to deal with their homeless problem; Hawaii is proposing one-way "blue tickets" back to the mainland, and is also considering homeless camps. The debate between Taylor and Lerman begins shortly after the 2:30 point:



Recently in a Washington DC Civil Rights Examiner article, Jared Taylor was asked "what is race realism". Here was his answer:

Race realism is rejection of the agreeable fantasies about race that have become orthodoxy since the 1960s. First, it is obvious that most people prefer the company of others of their own race. Forced integration therefore causes tension and resentment.

Second, race is an important element in individual and group identity, which means it is impossible to build a society in which race does not matter.

Third, people of different races build different societies. Blacks—wherever they are found in large numbers—establish communities with certain characteristics, and whites and others do the same.

Fourth, the combination of the first three factors means that racial diversity is a source of constant conflict. This is blindingly obvious, yet one of the requirements of respectability in this country is to pretend—and to repeat loudly at every opportunity—that diversity is a strength.

Fifth, the evidence is overwhelming that there is a substantial genetic contribution to well-established racial differences in average IQ. North East Asians living in America have higher incomes, better test scores, and more education than whites because they are, on average, smarter. Whites are smarter than Hispanics, who are smarter than Blacks. It is vital to recognize this because otherwise “society” (meaning whites) is blamed for the failures of Blacks and Hispanics.

Finally, race realism recognizes that whites have legitimate group interests just like everyone else.

Jared Taylor remains a positive, articulate, and erudite spokesman for the White community despite strong criticism directed towards him by Vanguard News Network editor Alex Linder, who basically considers Taylor a "sellout" because Taylor is Semitophilic and does not acknowledge the existence of a "Jewish Question". The problem with ignoring the Jewish Question is that it disregards Jewish domination of the national media, the entertainment business, and the financial industry, such domination resulting in the corruption of our culture, our slide into recession, and a foreign policy perceptibly skewed in favor of Israel.

Occasionally, even a blind hog will find an acorn. Only the blind hog in this case, Andree McLeod, may have stumbled upon more than an acorn -- perhaps a sapling, if not yet a full grown oak tree. And it could ultimately cost Governor Sean Parnell his job on August 24th, although a newly-released Hellenthal poll showing Parnell leading by 45 percentage points may make this unlikely. A new Anchorage Daily News story now stitches it all together.

Documents procured and released to the public by McLeod indicate that Governor Sean Parnell offered a job as energy advisor in his administration to Gene Therriault while Therriault was still a state senator. Even though the appointment was not officially formalized until after Therriault's resignation from the state senate, this still appears to be a violation of Article 2, Section 5 of the Alaska State Constitution and AS 24.05.040, as follows:

“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".

Here's a copy of the document released by Andree McLeod which is now being described as the "smoking gun". Down on line 5, Therriault clearly signs the document as a new employee on September 12th, 2009, the day BEFORE he resigned from the legislature:


Click on the graphic for a larger depiction, or click HERE for the PDF version

So let's summarize the timeline of critical events:

-- September 1st, 2009: Linda Perez of the governor’s office signed the “Request for Personnel Action” form displayed above. This implies that Therriault already conditionally accepted a "generic" position in the Parnell administration, a position not officially created and named until September 21st.

-- September 12th, 2009: Gene Therriault signs the form.

-- September 13th, 2009: Gene Therriault resigns from the state senate.

-- September 14th, 2009: Designated as the effective date of Therriault's hire after the fact.

-- September 21st, 2009: The Parnell administration officially created and named the position to which Therriault was appointed, and then back-dated the appointment to September 14th.



Parnell spokeswoman Sharon Leighow did some serious tap-dancing to explain this one. She told KTUU Channel 2 that Therriault's new position was entirely legal because the personnel form shows that the job was officially created on Sept. 21, and then retroactively applied to his first day on the job, Sept. 14 -- the day after Therriault resigned as Senator -- and therefore is not subject to the one-year waiting period. Sept. 14 is listed on the personnel form as the effective date for Therriault's new job. Leighow says a discrepancy in job creation dates and effective days are part of the normal paperwork process with all jobs at the state level as forms get filed, and are never off more than one pay cycle for any given employee. She further explained that the Sept. 21 job date -- not the date Therriault signed the request form -- is the one that makes the job official. And finally, she added that the Sept. 1 date is simply when paperwork for the position was started, and that it does not mean the job was created, which is the threshold under state law.

So far, Gov. Parnell is standing behind Therriault. In an interview on Friday July 23rd, Parnell said the advice he received in hiring the former lawmaker in 2009 was the same legal advice that's been given for decades. He said he acted in good faith and is standing on that legal precedent and practice, which he said allows for hiring if the position was created after the legislator left office. Therriault also has a strong financial incentive to stay put in the $110,000 per year position -- it will greatly increase Therriault's state retirement pay, which is based on the three highest earning years in state government. Dan Fagan discusses this aspect more extensively on The Alaska Standard.

However, another precedent was set after Nancy Dahlstrom recently resigned from a similar patronage position created for her by Gov. Parnell. Parnell appointed Dahlstrom his military affairs adviser under virtually identical conditions. After the Alaska Department of Law determined that Dahlstrom should not have been offered the job while she was still serving in the legislature, she resigned shortly thereafter. Because Dahlstrom resigned, calls for Therriault's resignation are now escalating, particularly from Parnell's number one Republican gubernatorial challenger Ralph Samuels.

The Alaska Dispatch records Therriault's reaction. Therriault says that he actually signed the personnel action form on September 17th, when he returned to Juneau. He offered no explanation as to why a date of September 12th was written on the form next to his signature, though. But a subsequent News-Miner story indicates that Therriault may have signed the form on September 12th, but did not turn it in until September 17th. A personnel technician then entered the information into the database on September 18th.

A recent Rasmussen poll seemingly indicated that both of Parnell's main Republican challenger, Ralph Samuels and Bill Walker, might be closing a once-astronomical gap, although a new Hellenthal poll indicates otherwise. Still, the Therriault appointment could be the breakthrough one of them, particularly Ralph Samuels, needs to overhaul Parnell. Gene Therriault should follow Nancy Dahlstrom's example and resign.

The Joe Miller campaign has responded to the recent Ivan Moore poll placing Lisa Murkowski 32 points ahead of Miller in the Alaska U.S. Senate Republican race. They characterize it as "garbage" and "bogus", claiming that the poll measures both Republican and Democratic response. Consequently, they dispute that the poll is a true measure of Republican sentiment.

The first shot was fired by Miller's campaign manager Paul Bauer the day after the poll was released. Bauer called the Anchorage Daily News and said Moore’s numbers on the race were “garbage”, explaining that he doesn't trust Moore's polling and that the Miller-Murkowski survey was added to questions paid for by Democrat Ethan Berkowitz.

Subsequently, a lengthier statement of rebuttal was posted on Joe Miller's official campaign website. The Miller campaign insists that campaign internal polling among likely Republican primary voters indicates a far different story, although no numbers are supplied to back up that contention. Here are the pertinent portions of Miller's statement:

Even if Moore's poll were taken at face value, it indicates that 54% of respondents had not yet heard of Miller. Miller polled at 65% among the 46% that did. Bauer pointed out as the election draws near and voters focus in on the election, Joe’s name recognition will continue to grow. "The campaign rolled out statewide ads a few weeks ago. We believe as voters learn about Joe and his positions and how their 'Republican' Senator Murkowski has been voting in Washington, the ranks of our supporters will continue to swell. Joe is being well received all over the state."

But from where is Miller getting the 65% figure? Here's what we get from that part of the poll (read the raw poll data HERE):

-- Very Positive: 4.9 percent (32 votes)
-- Somewhat Positive: 13.4 percent (87 votes)
-- Neutral: 14.6 percent (95 votes)
-- Somewhat Negative: 6.3 percent (41 votes)
-- Very Negative: 6.5 percent (42 votes)
-- Joe Who? 54.3 percent (351 votes)

Note that this question was asked of ALL RESPONDENTS, and not just of Republicans. First, I subtract the 351 votes from the grand total of 648, which leaves me with 297. Then I add up Very Positive and Somewhat Positive, and divide that total by 297. I get 40.1 percent, different from the 65 percent claimed by Miller. So from where does Miller get his 65 percent total? If I decide to be charitable and add the Neutral vote with the two Positive totals, then divide by 297, I get 72.1 percent, which is not 65 percent. So at the very least, Miller's claim of 65 percent is confusing.



Now for the next pertinent part of Miller's statement:

It is interesting that a prominent Democrat [Ethan Berkowitz] running for governor commissioned an Ivan Moore poll on his race during the same time-frame that Moore says he piggy-backed off of other work he was doing for unnamed clients to come up with numbers for the Republican primary race. If our sources are correct, it is not surprising that Murkowski would have a 30-point lead over Miller among Democrats and left-leaning independents. The Miller Campaign categorically rejects Moore's suggestion that his numbers are indicative of the actual Republican Primary race. It is sad that the media feels compelled to report on unscientific findings. The Anchorage Daily News, The Los Angeles Times, and any other outlet that picked up this non-story should immediately print a retraction.

Sorry, but the poll numbers do NOT indicate a 30-point lead among Democrats. Here's the specific poll question and the numbers:

1I. (IF REPUBLICAN OR REPUBLICAN BALLOT-CHOOSERS OR UNSURE/REFUSED, THEN ASK...) If the 2010 Republican primary election was held today, and the candidates were ________ (READ LIST), for whom would you vote for U.S. Senate?

-- Lisa Murkowski: 61.8 percent (187 votes)
-- Joe Miller: 29.6 percent (90 votes)
-- Undecided: 8.6 percent (26 votes)

The total is only 303, far less than the overall total of 648. So these totals do represent Republican or Republican-leaning votes, although it is possible that some Democrats, knowing that Scott McAdams has the Democratic nomination bagged and tagged, might be temporarily crossing over to vote for Murkowski. But if Murkowski would be a tougher opponent for McAdams than Miller, why would they cross over?

I have observed Ivan Moore's polling for over a decade, and I can attest that his results are nearly always in the ballpark. Only Dave Dittman exceeds him in accuracy. Just because he's hired by Democrats doesn't mean he gives out slanted results; the Democratic candidates wouldn't trust him enough to keep hiring him if he didn't strive for honest results.

At best, Joe Miller's rebuttal raises more questions than answers. This type of imprecision and confusion has been characteristic of his campaign; note the uncertainty about his previous job with the Fairbanks North Star Borough. While Joe Miller has clearly established that he voluntarily resigned from the position, it is still unclear if he is eligible for re-hire. That should have been nipped in the bud from the outset. At least Joe Miller handled the Tea Party Express controversy well, though.

But Joe Miller clearly has a steep uphill struggle to overhaul Lisa Murkowski. His supporters may be far more enthusiastic than "Lisa's Legions", but are there enough of them, and can they turn out in sufficient numbers on August 24th?

U.S. Army Lt. Dan Choi, a poster child for the gay rights movement because he decided to become an activist while in uniform, has finally received his just desserts. CNN reports that the U.S. Army has discharged him honorably effective June 29th, 2010. Dan Choi has his own website HERE, and he's also a founding member of KnightsOut.

Choi, a veteran of 11 years service, was once a strac troop who graduated from West Point in 2003. He became an infantry platoon leader, serving in Iraq in 2006 and 2007. Multiplying his effectiveness as a platoon leader was his fluency in Arabic. However, Choi was gay, and, influenced by the stern Honor Code taught to cadets at West Point, became increasingly troubled by "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT), believing it forced him to lie about his sexuality. Unfortunately, this belief became a full-blown obsession, and finally on May 7th, 2009, decided to dramatically come out of the closet to MSNBC's lesbian talk-show host Rachel Maddow. Notice in the video, which I found on Pam's House Blend, that Maddow deliberately misrepresents DADT during the intro, claiming that gays are forced to "lie" about their sexuality:



Gays are not forced to "lie"; instead, they're merely discouraged from headlining and weaponizing their sexual orientation. The premise is that one joins the service to serve the country, not to be gay.

One month after appearing on MSNBC, Choi was notified that the Army had begun discharge proceedings against him. Choi faced a hearing where the primary evidence against him was his statement on MSNBC. Despite the board's recommendation for discharge, the case was never finalized and Choi continued to serve in his military unit. Undoubtedly the Army hoped he would shut up and go back to soldiering.

But such was not to be the case. Choi repaid the Army's forbearance by continuing public pro-gay activism while in uniform. He brags about debating frequently on countless radio and T.V. appearances, claiming that he was exposing "falsehoods, fear-mongering, and outright bigotry". On March 19th, 2010, Choi stooped to new lows when, along with former Army Captain James Pietrangelo, he chained himself to the White House fence and was arrested with over a dozen so-called "patriots" around the country in the pursuit of justice. Choi and Piterangelo spent the night in prison. Then on April 20th, 2010, Choi was arrested again and spent the night in jail with four other veterans.

Finally, the Army had enough of Choi's outrageously provocative behavior and gave him the sack. He received notification of his discharge from his Army National Guard batallion commander. In response, Choi told CNN, "This is both an infuriating and painful announcement...But my service continues...Remaining silent when our family and community members are fired or punished for who they truly are would be an unequivocal moral dereliction that tarnishes the honor of the uniform and insults the meaning of America."

I would suggest that going on talk shows talking down the military and chaining one's self to the White House while a serving officer tarnishes the honor of the uniform far more. As a serving officer, his mission was to serve the country, not become an open and partisan political advocate. Unlike USAF Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who outed himself as gay solely to clear his name in a criminal investigation, and who is being unjustly pursued by the Air Force because of it, Dan Choi voluntarily outed himself for gratuitous political purposes.

Lt. Col. Fehrenbach deserves to stay in the Air Force. Dan Choi deserves to go.

Alaska's second leading pollster Ivan Moore was commissioned to take the political pulse of 647 likely Alaska voters from July 7-11. Among them were 303 potential Republican primary voters. And from those 303, he found out that incumbent Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski may now be a prohibitive favorite to win the Republican primary election over challenger Joe Miller on August 24th, 2010. By the way, Ivan Moore himself inserted the questions about this race; neither candidate paid for them. Read the full results of the poll HERE; the specific numbers for this race:

-- Lisa Murkowski: 61.8 percent
-- Joe Miller: 29.6 percent
-- Undecided: 8.6 percent

When Ivan Moore asked all 647 respondents how they felt about Murkowski and Miller, here's what he found out:

-- Lisa Murkowski
---- Generally Positive: 42.8 percent
---- Neutral: 15.4 percent
---- Generally Negative: 29.3 percent
---- Lisa Who? 2.5 percent

-- Joe Miller
---- Generally Positive: 18.3 percent
---- Neutral: 14.6 percent
---- Generally Negative: 12.8 percent
---- Joe Who? 54.3 percent

Wait a minute. Joe Miller's been campaigning hard for three months, he's trailing by 32 points, 54 percent of voters don't know who he is, Lisa Murkowski has $2.4 million in the bank, and there's only 4 weeks before the August 24th primary? Sorry, Joe, but this race is for all intents and purposes over. I don't see how he can come back from this. He's accomplished part of his mission by driving Lisa Murkowski to the right on a few issues, most notably immigration, but that's as far as it goes. Nevertheless, Miller has three debates scheduled with Murkowski on August 10th, 11th, and 18th, and he can go down swinging instead of taking called strikes. He can at least let Lisa Murkowski know that if she's going to re-invent herself as more conservative, she needs to STAY RE-INVENTED after the election.

There's only been one other scientific poll of Murkowski's chances. Back in April, Alaska's number one pollster Dave Dittman took a scientific poll in which he asked the question, "Looking ahead to this year’s election for U.S. Senate, do you feel U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has been doing a good enough job for Alaska to deserve re-election, or should she be replaced?". Among Republicans only, 75 percent said she deserved re-election, 18 percent said No, and 7 percent Unsure. So in three months, Murkowski's support has only shrunk from 75 percent to 62 percent.

Partisans of Joe Miller don't seem deterred by these numbers, however. Nearly 100 of them packed their way into Denny's in Fairbanks on July 21st to hear Tea Party Express field director Tiffiny Ruegner speak. Ruegner called Murkowski one of the top five Republican RINOS in the Senate, meaning she doesn’t conform sufficiently to the party line. Ruegner said Murkowski, like many people who go to Washington D.C., has lost her way. The Tea Party Express has now released four more radio ads supporting Miller for U.S. Senate to air on Alaska radio stations and has plans to ramp up its media involvement in the coming weeks. Listen to Joe Miller's July 21st interview by Libertarian Politics Live on BlogTalkRadio below (61 minutes):

Listen to internet radio with Eric Dondero on Blog Talk Radio

On July 19th 2010, after a video clip of the USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development Shirley Sherrod surfaced which showed her telling an audience at an NAACP Freedom Fund banquet in Georgia on March 27th, 2010 that she had not given a White farmer the full force of what she could do to help him save the family farm, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack accepted her resignation, and the NAACP issued a statement condemning her.

On July 20th, Sherrod answered back. She claimed that the Obama Administration applied extreme pressure upon her to resign, calling her four times, and that the video clip was taken out of context. Sherrod explained that the incident referred to in the speech took place in 1986, while she was still working at a nonprofit organization; she claims she cited the incident to show how she's moved beyond race. The wife of the white farmer referenced in the clip has also stepped forward to credit Sherrod with helping her family ultimately save their farm.

After that new revelation, the NAACP got cold feet about their prior statement and decided to reverse course. They issued a new statement rescinding their prior condemnation of Sherrod, claiming that they had been "snookered" by Fox News and Tea Party Activist Andrew Breitbart because of the abridged video clip. They concluded after reviewing the entire speech that Ms. Sherrod did help the White farmers mentioned in her speech, and accused the group who edited the tape of intentionally deceiving millions of Americans.

Here's the original video clip once again, as posted by BigGovernment.com, which is Andrew Breitbart's website:




Now here's the full 43-minute video:



MSNBC is now reporting that Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack may reconsider the USDA's decision to accept Sherrod's resignation after learning more about what she said.

In response, BigGovernment.com wonders how the NAACP could have been "snookered" when they held all the evidence. The NAACP had the full version all along; why did they not review the full version before issuing their first statement? BigGovernment.com also reminds us that when Shirley Sherrod began talking disparagingly about the white farmer, the audience still roared its approval. In the final analysis, they blame Ben Jealous and the NAACP.

Breitbart also said that the main objective of releasing the video was to call out the NAACP, an organization who has recently gone to great lengths to condemn the Tea Party’s alleged racism, for sanctioning racism in it’s own organization. Sherrod immediately became the scapegoat for the embarrassed NAACP and USDA, but she was never the target, the NAACP itself was, and the delight the audience took in the racist part of Sherrod’s speech leaves them exposed.

It's too bad Shirley Sherrod felt pressured into resigning. But resignation is a voluntary act; she could have held out. By the time Vilsack would have decided to fire her, the longer video would have surfaced, vindicating her for the most part and preventing any termination. The fact that Sherrod chose to resign implies at least some degree of personal culpability.

Update July 21st: Longer video surfaces, vindicating Shirley Sherrod; NAACP reverses course. See updated post HERE.

CNN reports that U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack accepted accepted the resignation of Shirley Sherrod, the department's state director of rural development for Georgia, after a video surfaced showing her telling an audience at an NAACP Freedom Fund banquet in Georgia on March 27th, 2010 that she had not given a White farmer the full force of what she could do to help him save the family farm. Big Government first posted this video, after which Fox News picked up the story as well.

In a strongly worded statement, Secretary Vilsack said, "There is zero tolerance for discrimination at USDA, and I strongly condemn any act of discrimination against any person...We have been working hard through the past 18 months to reverse the checkered civil rights history at the department and take the issue of fairness and equality very seriously."

Sherrod claimed that the White farmer was trying to act "superior" to her. In the video, you'll hear her say "He had to come to me for help. What he didn't know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him...I was struggling with the fact that so many black people have lost their farmland and here I was faced with having to help a white person save their land -- so I didn't give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough." See the video below:



Sherrod also explained in the video that, at the time, she assumed the state or national Department of Agriculture had referred the White farmer to her. In order to ensure that the farmer could report back that she was indeed helpful, she said she took him to see one of his own -- a White lawyer.

Because the NAACP was so quick to criticize Mark Williams' satirical letter, they were clearly embarrassed that this video surfaced four months after the fact, and so they moved to quickly cover their tracks. "We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers," their statement said. "Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man."

But while the NAACP is imperiously demanding that the Tea Party police itself, it's obvious that they are real slow to police themselves. Why did they wait four months before addressing this issue? And would they have even owned up to it had the video not surfaced. It was an official NAACP event - they had to have known. As PowerLine says, the NAACP was once a respected organization, but that was decades ago. Now, it has no moral standing whatever to talk about racism, or anything else.

Update July 20th: Shirley Sherrod has now spoken out to the media, and she says the incident referred to in the speech took place in 1986, while she was still working at a nonprofit organization; she claims she cites the incident to show how she's moved beyond race. The wife of the white farmer referenced in the clip credits Sherrod with helping her family save their farm. Sherrod also claims the White House pressured her into resigning, calling her four times before she finally yielded.

Tom Vilsack shouldn't be whitewashed, either. It was back in July 2009 that he announced Shirley Sherrod's appointment as Georgia Director for Rural Development. Only days before her appointment, she learned that New Communities, a group she founded with her husband and other families, had won a thirteen million dollar settlement in the minority farmers lawsuit (Pigford vs Vilsack). Knowing this, just why did Vilsack appoint Sherrod in the first place?

Because the Tea Party Express has endorsed and is funding the campaign of Alaska Republican Senate candidate Joe Miller, Miller has now come under increased public scrutiny in Alaska after the National Tea Party Federation expelled Mark Williams and his Tea Party Express from their ranks on July 18th, 2010. Since the Tea Party Express plans a press conference in Anchorage on July 19th to talk about its new ads supporting Miller's Republican primary race against Sen. Lisa Murkowski, local media outlets like the Anchorage Daily News, ADN's Alaska Politics blog, KTUU Channel 2, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, and Alaska Dispatch have picked up the story.

Joe Miller's spokesman Randy DeSoto initially told KTUU that Miller isn't concerned with having the Tea Party Express advocating on his behalf, because the controversial NAACP letter published by Williams was posted on a private blog and didn't appear on anything directly linked with the Tea Party Express. DeSoto said the Miller campaign trusts the Tea Party Express in no way shares those views. Shortly thereafter, the Miller campaign released the following statement:

Joe disavows racism of any kind. He agrees with Dr. Martin Luther King's admonition not to judge anyone by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Mark Williams stepped down as a chairman of the Tea Party Express last month, in the wake criticism caused by earlier controversial remarks that he had made. His satire, "Letter to Lincoln," appeared on his private blog, not anything directly linked with the Tea Party Express. We trust that organization in no way shares those views.

Update July 19th: In a press conference in Anchorage, Tea Party Express Chairwoman Amy Kremer refused to throw Mark Williams under the bus to placate the diversity lobby. Kremer pointed out that Williams resigned from the chairmanship of the Tea Party Express over a month ago, so he does not speak for the organization. The money quote from Kremer: “I’m not going to throw a fellow conservative under the bus. I don’t agree with what he wrote, I wish he hadn’t wrote it, but that’s not what we are here to focus on”.

There has been no recorded reaction from Lisa Murkowski. However, Alaska Voices columnist Paulette Simpson published a major hit piece against Joe Miller, where she hysterically accused him of trying to stage a "coup" against Alaska Republican Chairman Randy Ruedrich in 2008. Why she's bringing this out now, and what it has to do with the current campaign is unclear. It's quite probable somebody put her up to it. The bigger story about the National Tea Party Federation continues after the jump.



The National Tea Party Federation expelled the Tea Party Express in the wake of a satirical anti-NAACP letter published by Williams in response to the NAACP resolution declaring the Tea Party to be "racist". The Federation posted the notice HERE. In the letter, Williamson wrote, "Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!" You can read the full letter at the bottom of this post.

Williams eventually decided to change the offending post on his blog, and stated "We denounce racists of any color and all those who seek to divide the American People along any lines", but it wasn't enough to satisfy the Tea Party Federation. The Federation first asked the Express to fire Williams; when they refused, the Federation then expelled the Express en masse. They trotted out David Webb to deliver the coup de grace. The Tea Party Federation claims to to represent 85 Tea Party groups, although the Tea Party Express has been more active in promoting sympathetic candidates and in particular, in opposing the proposed construction of a mosque near the WTC site in New York City. The idea that the same religion who claimed the allegiance of the 9/11 hijackers should be allowed to construct a religious facility on the site of their destruction is an unforgivable insult to the memory of those who died when the World Trade towers collapsed. The Tea Party Express has claimed about 375,000 members nationwide, with about 1,000 of those in Alaska.

In response, Mark Williams says he's done discussing the controversy stirred up by his attack on the NAACP, accusing David Webb of turning the debate into a World Wrestling style personality conflict. "That careless individual tea partier who assumed the mantel of 'leadership' did so long enough to turn a critical and serious movement and delicate peace with skeptical groups into a World Wrestling style personality conflict with me at the center," Williams said. "There are internal political dramas amongst the various self-anointed tea party 'leaders,' and some of the minor players on the fringes see the Tea Party Express and Mark Williams as tickets to a booking on "Fact [sic] the Nation.'"

As for NAACP President Ben Jealous, he met Williams' statement by telling CNN, "Good riddance, Mark Williams." But he praised Tea Party activists like Webb for standing up and self-policing their movement. "As the movement grows up, you have to act responsibly and they have to keep doing what they just did to Mark Williams and make it clear there is no space for bigots here, period," Jealous said.

Here's the full satirical letter published by Mark Williams, who says there may be more than one version on line, since he made several changes on the fly before deleting it altogether:

Dear Mr. Lincoln

We Colored People have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!

In fact we held a big meeting and took a vote in Kansas City this week. We voted to condemn a political revival of that old abolitionist spirit called the 'tea party movement'.

The tea party position to "end the bailouts" for example is just silly. Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn't that what we want all Coloreds to strive for? What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us coloreds! Of course, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is the only responsible party that should be granted the right to disperse the funds.

And the ridiculous idea of "reduce[ing] the size and intrusiveness of government." What kind of massa would ever not want to control my life? As Coloreds we must have somebody care for us otherwise we would be on our own, have to think for ourselves and make decisions!

The racist tea parties also demand that the government "stop the out of control spending." Again, they directly target Colored People. That means we Colored People would have to compete for jobs like everybody else and that is just not right.

Perhaps the most racist point of all in the tea parties is their demand that government "stop raising our taxes." That is outrageous! How will we Colored People ever get a wide screen TV in every room if non-coloreds get to keep what they earn? Totally racist! The tea party expects coloreds to be productive members of society?

Mr. Lincoln, you were the greatest racist ever. We had a great gig. Three squares, room and board, all our decisions made by the massa in the house. Please repeal the 13th and 14th Amendments and let us get back to where we belong.

Sincerely

Precious Ben Jealous, Tom's Nephew National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Head Colored Person

Many Americans have a jaundiced view of the financial industry because of the housing bubble, the mortgage crash, and the subsequent TARP bailouts. Many elected officials who voted for TARP are deservedly fighting for their political lives right now; some, like Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT), are already lame ducks. Many banks dream up new and innovative ways to gouge customers through a Byzantine assortment of nitnoid fees and surcharges; Citibank is one of the most notorious financial predators in the country.

But not all financial institutions are predators. Some are re-discovering the notion of the old-time community bank, where customers were valued as people and not just looked upon as lines on a balance sheet. The Anchorage Daily News tells us about Credit Union 1, which recently opened a branch in Anchorage's Mountain View neighborhood. It's the first time a financial institution has operated in Mountain View in 20 years; crime and diversity deterred other prospective outfits.

But the crime has steadily dwindled, and Credit Union 1 decided to work with the diversity. Many of the residents of Mountain View, being low-income, were among the "unbanked", meaning they had to pay check-cashing outlets to cash their checks, or patronize predatory payday lenders for loans. Many of them are without transportation on-demand, so they must rely upon other people or the People Mover bus system.

Here are some of the more impressive highlights of Credit Union 1's Mountain View operation:

The branch offers a number of unusual features. Boxes in the lobby for utility payments — the credit union then will deliver them. Free Internet. A classroom for financial literacy classes that can also be reserved for community organizations. Customers can buy prepaid debit cards so they don’t have to carry cash, even if they don’t have a checking or savings account. Many tellers are bilingual.

{snip}

Credit Union 1 piloted a program for people with “colorful credit,” [Credit Union 1 President Leslie] Ellis said. Specially trained loan specialists consider the applications of people with poor credit histories. The credit union keeps close tabs on their payments. “When they are late on a payment, we call them up and ask what happened,” she said. On-time payments mean lower interest rates. That approach works.

{snip}

Though its crime rate has been on the decline, Mountain View still has a reputation as a rough neighborhood, which might be one reason other banks stayed away. To increase the image of security, Credit Union 1 built a police substation into their building. They rent it to the municipality for $10 a year.

Note that Credit Union 1 didn't blackmail Congress into giving them TARP funds in order to do this. Note that they don't gouge customers with an endless array of nitnoid fees. Note that they don't engage in pernicious tricks like credit all the withdrawals first and the deposits last on a given day in order to artificially create an overdraft situation to trigger overdraft fees. This credit union decided to take a chance on an evolving neighborhood and do business the right way, albeit with a reasonable expectation of future customer loyalty and profitability. Building business by building relationships. This is the way we once did business when America was still a country where the competing interests of Wall Street and Main Street were harmonized and balanced, instead of a soulless kaleidoscopic global marketplace where Wall Street is allowed to rampage at will and TARP-guzzling superbanks take taxpayer funds to pay executives bonuses. Actually, Daniel Mitchell of the CATO Institute offers an interesting analysis on TARP; he contends it was the methodology rather than the concept which was flawed. I think he's on to something.

And if it will work in Mountain View, this model can also work in other evolving communities around the nation.

When the Alaska Conservative Patriots Group announced their endorsement of Mead Treadwell over the identifiably-more conservative Eddie Burke in the Republican race for lieutenant governor, I was a bit surprised. But CPG issued a statement that seemed to make sense:

“Mr. Burke has made uncomplimentary remarks on his radio talk show about individuals on several different occasions. CPG believes these remarks will be used by his Democrat opponent and the liberal news media in an attempt to discredit Mr. Burke should he win the primary.”

Since CPG presented evidence seemingly indicating the both Burke and Treadwell were equally conservative, this decision made sense at the time. They broke the tie by endorsing the candidate they considered more electable and less polarizing.

But is Mead Treadwell truly as conservative as Eddie Burke? Burke himself raises serious doubts about this contention, as reported in ADN's Alaska Politics blog under the hyperbolically-worded title of "Eddie Burke fuming over Alaskan Tea Party group's endorsement of Mead Treadwell". The local media likes to portray Eddie Burke as a "loose cannon". Burke issued a statement, posted on his campaign website, in which he explains his objections to considering Treadwell a conservative:

-- Treadwell's close friendship with, support for and countless donations to Senator Lisa Murkowski dating back to 2002. Frankly, I'm not too inclined to penalize Treadwell for this.

-- Treadwell has made "questionable" statements in the past regarding “human-caused climate change. In the cited link, Treadwell gave testimony indicating that he supports conventional wisdom regarding climate change, and a change in the Federal government's Arctic policy to reflect it, although he does not come out in favor of any coercive measures.

-- Treadwell has made recent donations to liberal, big-government Democratic candidates. The key word is "recent". This is a biggie; the donations were to hard-line progressives Matt Claman (here and here) and Sheila Selkregg (here). Treadwell donated $100 to Selkregg’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign (February 2009), and donated $200 on two separate occasions (March 2009, February 2010) to Claman’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign, totaling $400. Both Claman and Selkregg enthusiastically supported the divisive Ordinance 64, Anchorage's gay nondiscrimination ordinance; furthermore, Claman not only supported it, but also sponsored it. These donations are not mere "youthful indiscretions"; they were proffered during the past year and a half. This alone should cast serious doubt upon the depth of Treadwell's "conservative" convictions.

Update July 28th: The Anchorage Press reveals that Treadwell has explained his contributions to Claman and Selkregg. Treadwell explained through an intermediary that he’s known Claman’s wife since college, and worked with Claman, as well as Ernie Hall, who beat Claman in the April 2010 municipal election, on charitable projects as members of the Rotary Club. Selkregg was an active volunteer for the Institute of the North, where Treadwell is a senior fellow, and Selkregg worked on Christmas toys for children with Treadwell’s late wife.

Update July 18th: There's now even more reasons to question Mead Treadwell's "conservative" credentials. On RedCounty, Thomas Lamb, whose own conservative credentials are unimpeachable, claims that Treadwell is an enthusiastic proponent of the Law of the Sea Treaty and cites a link to a speech given by Treadwell in 2010 to support it.

In response to Burke's criticism, the CPG told ADN “All I can tell you is that our vetting committee went through a process of looking at the candidates and they decided Mead Treadwell fit our conservative (criteria), at least 80 percent conservative, which is what our requirements are, we don’t expect the candidates to be perfect.” During the vetting process, Treadwell told CPG he opposes cap and trade, carbon taxes and that the climate science gaps are way too large – in observation, in modeling, in planetary physics – to support coercive governmental decisions.

The questionnaires that Burke, Treadwell, and Jay Ramras (considered a "RINO") filled out for CPG are available HERE. However, an eagle-eyed citizen spotted a discrepancy between the questionnaires. While the questionnaire filled out by Ramras and Burke has 18 questions, the questionnaire filled out by Treadwell only has 15 questions. The following questions were omitted from Treadwell's questionnaire:

-- Have you or would you join with Democrats to form a majority legislative coalition rather than joining with Republicans to form a majority coalition?

-- Would you support the construction and operation of a clinic in the Anchorage/Mat-Su regions that only treats Medicare patients using a series of specified guidelines (put forth in three parts)...?

-- Do you support predator control?

The media did not catch this discrepancy, and the CPG has not explained it. The commenter to the ADN story (AK574) suspects this was a deliberate attempt by CPG to make Treadwell "a better fit". The CPG has since withdrawn their endorsement of Treadwell, and did not pick a substitute.

Now that all of this has been said, Eddie Burke's best strategy would be to leave off hammering the CPG over their endorsement, and re-direct his efforts against both Treadwell and Ramras. As a matter of fact, on May 13th, Burke showed even more powerful evidence why he is electable; he issued a press release supporting Arizona's SB1070 immigration enforcement law. This shows that Eddie Burke takes America's sovereignty seriously. Though Alaska is far from the Mexican border, we still have an estimated 50,000 illegal aliens in our state, and OJJPAC still designates Anchorage as a sanctuary city, so our candidates need to be sensitive to these concerns.

Eddie Burke isn't merely the best choice - he's the ONLY real choice for conservatives.

When the Alaska Conservative Patriots Group announced their endorsement of Mead Treadwell over the identifiably-more conservative Eddie Burke in the Republican race for lieutenant governor, I was a bit surprised. But CPG issued a statement that seemed to make sense:

“Mr. Burke has made uncomplimentary remarks on his radio talk show about individuals on several different occasions. CPG believes these remarks will be used by his Democrat opponent and the liberal news media in an attempt to discredit Mr. Burke should he win the primary.”

Since CPG presented evidence seemingly indicating the both Burke and Treadwell were equally conservative, this decision made sense at the time. They broke the tie by endorsing the candidate they considered more electable and less polarizing.

But is Mead Treadwell truly as conservative as Eddie Burke? Burke himself raises serious doubts about this contention, as reported in ADN's Alaska Politics blog under the hyperbolically-worded title of "Eddie Burke fuming over Alaskan Tea Party group's endorsement of Mead Treadwell". The local media likes to portray Eddie Burke as a "loose cannon". Burke issued a statement, posted on his campaign website, in which he explains his objections to considering Treadwell a conservative:

-- Treadwell's close friendship with, support for and countless donations to Senator Lisa Murkowski dating back to 2002. Frankly, I'm not too inclined to penalize Treadwell for this.

-- Treadwell has made "questionable" statements in the past regarding “human-caused climate change. In the cited link, Treadwell gave testimony indicating that he supports conventional wisdom regarding climate change, and a change in the Federal government's Arctic policy to reflect it, although he does not come out in favor of any coercive measures.

-- Treadwell has made recent donations to liberal, big-government Democratic candidates. The key word is "recent". This is a biggie; the donations were to hard-line progressives Matt Claman (here and here) and Sheila Selkregg (here). Treadwell donated $100 to Selkregg’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign (February 2009), and donated $200 on two separate occasions (March 2009, February 2010) to Claman’s Anchorage Municipal Campaign, totaling $400. Both Claman and Selkregg enthusiastically supported the divisive Ordinance 64, Anchorage's gay nondiscrimination ordinance? Claman not only supported it, but also sponsored it. These donations are not mere "youthful indiscretions"; they were proffered during the past year and a half. This alone should cast serious doubt upon the depth of Treadwell's "conservative" convictions.

In response to Burke's criticism, the CPG told ADN “All I can tell you is that our vetting committee went through a process of looking at the candidates and they decided Mead Treadwell fit our conservative (criteria), at least 80 percent conservative, which is what our requirements are, we don’t expect the candidates to be perfect.” During the vetting process, Treadwell told CPG he opposes cap and trade, carbon taxes and that the climate science gaps are way too large – in observation, in modeling, in planetary physics – to support coercive governmental decisions.

The questionnaires that Burke, Treadwell, and Jay Ramras (considered a "RINO") filled out for CPG are available HERE. However, an eagle-eyed citizen spotted a discrepancy between the questionnaires. While the questionnaire filled out by Ramras and Burke has 18 questions, the questionnaire filled out by Treadwell only has 15 questions. The following questions were omitted from Treadwell's questionnaire:

-- Have you or would you join with Democrats to form a majority legislative coalition rather than joining with Republicans to form a majority coalition?

-- Would you support the construction and operation of a clinic in the Anchorage/Mat-Su regions that only treats Medicare patients using a series of specified guidelines (put forth in three parts)...?

-- Do you support predator control?

The media did not catch this discrepancy, and the CPG has not explained it. The commenter to the ADN story (AK574) suspects this was a deliberate attempt by CPG to make Treadwell "a better fit".

Now that all of this has been said, Eddie Burke's best strategy would be to leave off hammering the CPG over their endorsement, and re-direct his efforts against both Treadwell and Ramras. As a matter of fact, on May 13th, Burke showed even more powerful evidence why he is electable; he issued a press release supporting Arizona's SB1070 immigration enforcement law. This shows that Eddie Burke takes America's sovereignty seriously. Though Alaska is far from the Mexican border, we still have an estimated 50,000 illegal aliens in our state, and OJJPAC still designates Anchorage as a sanctuary city, so our candidates need to be sensitive to these concerns.

Eddie Burke isn't merely the best choice - he's the ONLY choice for conservatives.

On July 16th, 2010, the Anchorage Daily News reports that incumbent Republican U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski enjoys a 20-1 advantage in campaign funding over Republican challenger Joe Miller. While Murkowski reports that she had nearly $2.4 million in her campaign bank account as of the start of July, Joe Miller has only about $125,000. The advantage isn't just cumulative, either; Murkowski has brought in over a half million dollars from her donors between April 1 and June 30. Miller entered the race in late April, so Murkowski's also been outpacing him since that time. It should also be noted that 58 percent of Murkowski's total campaign money for this election has come from political action committees, meaning that her campaign is hardly a "grass-roots" effort.

The Tea Party Express group is promising to narrow the money gap before the August 24th Republican primary election, saying it plans to spend a sizable amount that could approach $1 million to support Miller. The group began this week with what it said was a $100,000 radio ad campaign for Miller. Listen to it below:



But they better get cracking quickly, because Murkowski also has a huge advantage in polling. Back in April, pollster Dave Dittman took a scientific poll in which he asked the question, "Looking ahead to this year’s election for U.S. Senate, do you feel U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski has been doing a good enough job for Alaska to deserve re-election, or should she be replaced?". Among Republicans only, 75 percent said she deserved re-election, 18 percent said No, and 7 percent Unsure.

Although there have been no subsequent scientific polls, KIMO Channel 13 is running an unscientific poll asking people who they prefer. As of this post, 78 percent prefer Murkowski vs. only 22 percent for Miller (since changed dramatically). But while the specific numbers can be disputed, the trend clearly showed at the time that Lisa Murkowski still owns a huge advantage over Joe Miller. Here are some possible reasons:

(1). Seniority. Lisa Murkowski in number 59 on the U.S. Senate seniority list.

(2). Opportunism. Lisa Murkowski has been systematically re-inventing herself, incrementally co-opting Joe Miller's positions one by one. Despite earning a grade of "C-" on immigration from Numbers USA, she now says she's opposed to amnesty for illegals. More recently, she expressed public regret over having voted for the first TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program) bill. It's not a bad thing if Lisa Murkowski "re-invents" herself, so long as she stays "re-invented" after the election.

(3). Electability: Lisa Murkowski could defeat Democrat Scott McAdams in November much easier than Joe Miller, although I think Miller could squeak by McAdams.

(4). State Legislative Support: While 20 Republicans in the Alaska State Legislature have endorsed Murkowski, only Senator John Coghill, Senator Fred Dyson, Rep. Tammie Wilson, and Rep. Wes Keller endorsed Miller.

(5). Distractions: Joe Miller has allowed himself to get sidetracked by some petty distractions. Both Andrew Halcro and the Anchorage Daily Planet have been nickel-and-diming him over what type of judge he was, and the precise circumstances of his departure from a prior job as an attorney for the Fairbanks North Star Borough. While Miller says he resigned, Andrew Halcro claims Miller was fired (Halcro is an unabashed supporter of Murkowski). The Fairbanks Borough has documents which would clarify the issue, but they've been sandbagging them, and won't release them until July 20th at the earliest. Update: Since this post, Joe Miller has now released a copy of the resignation letter showing that he left the job voluntarily, so this puts this issue to bed.

Update July 19th: The KIMO unscientific poll now shows a dramatic reversal; 72 percent for Miller vs. 28 percent for Murkowski. Such a dramatic swing implies the poll mechanism is defective; it cannot be used as a reliable political barometer.

Of course, with five weeks remaining until the August 24th primary, it is possible for Joe Miller to come back. After all, in less than one month down in Arizona, John McCain has gone from 11 points up to 45 points up on J.D. Hayworth. But all Lisa Murkowski really needs to do to win is basically run out the clock; it's up to Miller to come up the Hail Mary plays necessary to open up holes in Murkowski's defense.

Update July 16th: Some updated links and memorial service information now included in this post, in green.

The fatal stabbing of a woman in Anchorage, Alaska on July 14th, 2010 is also attracting extensive media coverage in Utah because of her connection with Brigham Young University. The body of Brittni Giliam was found by her roommate and her roommate's father around 1:30 A.M. in the Helen Louise McDowell Sanctuary, a park between 36th Avenue and Tudor Road on the east side of the Seward Highway. She had been stabbed in the chest. Her friends were concerned because she was gone longer than expected. Photo available HERE. There will be a memorial service at the LDS chapel on 13161 Brayton Drive in Anchorage on Tuesday July 20th; public viewing will be from 11:30 am to 1:15 pm, and the service will begin at 1:30 pm.

Homicide detectives are investigating, but for some inexplicable reason, they're not ruling out suicide, although it is uncommon for one to stab one's self to death. Others also believe that suicide is improbable. The medical examiner is performing an autopsy. Additional Alaska media reports from KTUU Channel 2 and KTVA Channel 11; video embedded below:



KTVA published an additional story on July 15th HERE.

Ken Lambertsen, a bishop at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Youth Singles Ward that she attended, said Giliam lived with her family in South Anchorage but she and a roommate were house-sitting on Helvetia Drive in the Geneva Woods neighborhood. The house backs up to the McDowell Sanctuary, a swampy wooded area with a small pond. Giliam and friends hiked Mount Baldy around dinner time Tuesday and she returned to the Geneva Woods home around 10:30 p.m. Afterward, she went for a walk. Evening walks were common for her. However, homeless people, which occasionally includes a predator or two, do set up camps in many Anchorage wooded areas, but it has not been disclosed whether or not there was a homeless camp in the Sanctuary.

Giliam worked at The Alaska Spine Institute and, according to her blog, often rode her bike on a trail through the sanctuary on her way home from work. She graduated from East High School in 2005. According to the Deseret News, she was the second of nine children in her family. Giliam attended Brigham Young University but hadn't completed her degree there. The BYU connection is the reason for Utah interest in the story; Utah stories have been published by the Deseret News and KSL Channel 5, where former Alaskans who've moved to Utah are posting comments about Anchorage. They represent Anchorage fairly accurately, saying that some spots are dangerous for unaccompanied young women, although one commenter characterizes us as "gang-infested", which is overkill.

Numerous condolences have already been appended to her most recent blog post.

When the first engagement between Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin broke down in March 2009, I thought it was primarily because of the crushing weight of national scrutiny directed towards the Palin and Johnston families as a result of Sarah Palin's 2008 vice-presidential campaign. I thought that once the national spotlight was turned away, there would be a chance for the two to get back together.

This has proven to be the case. Levi and Bristol have announced that they're once again engaged, and hope to get married within six weeks in Alaska. According to the full story in US Weekly, the two reconnected three months ago while working out a custody plan for their 18-month-old son Tripp. Levi reports having no hope of reconciliation until that point; then, as he talked with Bristol, he realized there was still a connection. Bristol picked up on it, was initially in shock, but gradually warmed up to the idea. So they decided to re-start their engagement two weeks ago.

But Bristol was quite apprehensive about telling her parents. When Sarah Palin found out, she reacted in a guardedly optimistic fashion, wishing the couple well but expressing reservations about the couple's maturity. On July 14th, Sarah Palin told the national media, "As parents, we obviously want what is best for our children, but Bristol is ultimately in charge of determining what is best for her and her beautiful son...Bristol believes in redemption and forgiveness to a degree most of us struggle to put in practice in our daily lives. We pray that, as a couple, Bristol and Levi's relationship matures into one that will allow Tripp to grow up graced with two loving parents in his life". She has posted no reaction on her Facebook page.

Undoubtedly, the public apology rendered to the Palin family by Levi Johnston on July 6th facilitated the reconciliation. At that time, Johnson told People magazine, "Last year, after Bristol and I broke up, I was unhappy and a little angry. Unfortunately, against my better judgment, I publicly said things about the Palins that were not completely true...I have already privately apologized to Todd and Sarah. Since my statements were public, I owe it to the Palins to publicly apologize".

Unfortunately, there appears to be one casualty; namely, the relationship between Levi Johnston and his younger sister Mercede Johnston. In this post, Mercede reports that shortly after the reconciliation, Levi left her a phone message instructing her to take her blog down by Wednesday or she would never get to see him or Tripp again. Mercede was shocked, because although she believes her family has been mistreated at times by the Palin family, she has made an effort not to hurt or attack the Palins, but merely to speak out and tell the public her side of the story. Certainly, Mercede seems to have lived up to her goals; she has never questioned the maternity of Sarah Palin's youngest son Trigg or spread any other false stories. Gawker tries to denigrate Mercede's credibility by insinuating that Mercede Johnston's blog is actually "controlled" by Dennis Zaki solely because Zaki actually owns MercedeJohnston.com, according to domain registration records, but Zaki himself says that Mercede writes her own content.

It should also be noted that Mercede Johnston is now the primary caregiver for her partially-disabled mother Sherry Johnston. Sherry has suffered chronic pain for years now, requiring multiple surgeries and which led to her difficulties with the legal system over her possession of OxyContin, yet was taking care of two kids as well as dealing with the loss of her own parents. In addition, her husband of 23 years split up with Sherry and has been carrying on with another woman, although a previous Anchorage Daily News story described the separation as "amicable".

Since this post, we've learned there's another casualty. In the interim, Ben Barber had been dating Bristol Palin from December 2009 until May of this year. Barber said he felt blindsided when Bristol told him she was hooking back up with Levi. Barber was to be one of Levi's groomsmen at the original wedding, but he's now fallen out with Levi, he claims Levi has nothing going for him.

On July 13th, 2010, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) once again showed why critics sometimes refer to them as the National All-African Communist Party. During their convention in Kansas City, they passed a resolution effectively condemning the Tea Party as being "racist". Their resolution called for “all people of good will to repudiate the racism of the Tea Parties, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.” The resolution itself is not available online because the final wording must be approved by the NAACP's national board of directors during its meeting in October.

In response, Tea Party activist Alex Poulter, who co-founded a Kansas City-area group called Political Chips, disputed the allegations. He said the movement is made up of a "diverse group of folks who are upset with what is going on with this country." Poulter said he has seen no evidence of racism within the movement. In addition, the St. Louis Tea Party published a resolution calling upon the NAACP to withdraw their resolution and recommending that the Internal Revenue Service re-visit the tax-exempt status conferred upon the NAACP.

The Council of Conservative Citizens also condemned the NAACP resolution, denouncing the foundational premises as being false. The CCC notes that the resolution references claims by some Black congressmen which have been proved to be false; the events were captured on camera and show that the Black congressmen fabricated the stories of being spit upon by Tea Party activists. The CCC also notes that the NAACP resolution makes a disingenuous slippery-slope argument that since the Tea Party movements attacks Obama, and Obama is Black, the Tea Party movement must be “racist.” The CCC does imprecisely state that "the NAACP was founded in 1909 by white members of the American Socialist party"; the fact is that, according to Wikipedia, the NAACP was actually founded by Jews; the first five presidents of the NAACP were all Jewish. But that disconnect does not detract from the validity of the CCC's criticism of the NAACP resolution.

Conspicuous by its absence is any NAACP criticism of the New Black Panther Party. Recently, NBPP warlord Malik Zulu Shabazz was quoted as saying "The real terrorists have always been the United Snakes of America," and "Kill every goddamn Zionist in Israel! Goddamn little babies, goddamn old ladies," and whose protégé likes to wax eloquent on "kill[ing] some crackas" and "kill[ing] some of their babies." Not a peep of protest from the NAACP.

The New American points out that although the Department of Justice played race politics in favor of the militant New Black Panther Party, whose members have violated civil rights by engaging in voter intimidation and calling for the murder of white Americans, the NAACP failed to repudiate that behavior. And in August 2009, when black Tea Partier Kenneth Gladney was viciously beaten and called the "N" word by radical SEIU members, the St. Louis Chapter of the NAACP took the side of the assailants and labeled Gladney an “Uncle Tom” for espousing conservative ideologies. The Missouri NAACP even pressed for the St. Louis prosecutor to drop the charges against Gladney’s two attackers.

By promoting entitlement over empowerment, the NAACP has degenerated into an apologist organization for black extremist thuggery. They encompass the Black community in psychological chains more insidious and far more dangerous than the physical chains worn as slaves prior to the Civil War. The NAACP is just like a porn star who can't get it up any more; their rhetoric merely disguises their political impotence.

During an appearance at the Best Western Kodiak Inn on Tuesday July 6th, 2010, Congressman Don Young spoke with both enthusiasm and disgust about the events of the past year in Congress. The disgust was aimed principally at the House Democrats and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for a year during which he said the House did little except pass three bills he opposed - the cap-and-trade global warming bill, the healthcare bill and most recently the financial reform bill.

The enthusiasm was reserved for Arizona SB1070, which is currently being challenged in court by the Obama Administration (read the 25-page Federal complaint HERE). Congressman Young expressed support in principle for Arizona's new law. In response to a question about SB1070, Young predicted the law would withstand the legal challenge from the U.S. Department of Justice; a new Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 56 percent of respondents oppose the DOJ's suit. But Congressman Young even more strongly favors an immigration policy of cracking down on employers who hire illegal immigrants. Congressman Young is clearly the stalwart on our Congressional delegation when it comes to immigration; Numbers USA rates him a "B", while they rate Sen. Lisa Murkowski a "C-" and Sen. Mark Begich an abysmal "F-".

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer presents myths and facts about SB1070 HERE.

Don Young spoke about the three big bills at length:

-- Obamacare: Young called the health care bill - the only bill of the three that has so far passed into law - the "worst-constructed bill" he has seen in his life. And he would know; he's got 37 years seniority.

-- Cap-And-Trade: Young called it an unnecessary tax, and he dismissed global warming as a natural phenomenon and an excuse for the federal government to create new regulations.

-- Financial Reform: Young said it overstepped the goal of regulating banks and would affect any business that offered customers credit, including dentists and auto mechanics. He would have preferred that it be limited to banks.

In a separate development, the Young campaign, obviously stung by repeated allegations that their principal has been ducking debates with chief Republican challenger Sheldon Fisher, finally agreed to at least one debate, which will take place in Fairbanks on August 10th. Additional debates are being considered. Fisher challenged Young to a series of six debates earlier this year. Granted, Don Young's duties take up much of his time, but he should have responded earlier. It is unknown if the other Republican challenger, John Cox, will participate.