I read about Janet Napolitano being in Afghanistan this New Years. At first, I was annoyed as I could not figure out a legitimate reason for the head of Homeland Security being in a foreign country, especially Afghanistan. And, then it hit me. The Obama Administration is truly the theater of the absurd.
Napolitano is supposedly going to Afghanistan to visit her personnel stationed there. Now, why are U.S. Homeland Security personnel in the ‘stan? Could it be to identify bad guys who might come here, there? Or, is DHS acting as a sales agent for Michael Chertoff’s scanner company to sell them to Afghani government and security personnel for viewing dancing boys before they buy their services? I am certain that was part of the reason, but there had to be more.
What is it that Homeland Security does? Besides keeping us imperiled by promoting the unwarranted use of electromagnetic radiation emitting equipment that will cause cancer, abusing the constitutional rights and dignity of the average U.S. traveler trying to board an aircraft and causing unnecessary delays by searching needlessly any but the adherents of the religion of peace, and to avoid doing anything to make our borders secure, not to mention aiding and abetting illegal human trafficking and drug smuggling across our borders? Oh, I know. DHS costs a lot.
Well, the name implies making the homeland safer . . . no, I do not think that works, either.
Ahhh. DHS is an equal opportunity employment agency, obviously. DHS through TSA provides meaningful employment for sexual abusers and pedophiles. The scanners will cut down health care costs by eliminating some of us from making to old age.
Therapists are busy with new clients because of those suffering trauma from the TSA screenings.
When you’ve been sexually abused, it never goes away, and to have someone touch you intimately without your permission will cause trauma, intended or not. I wonder if DHS gets a cut from any referrals to shrinks?
So, what can Big Sis offer the Afghanis officialdom besides peek a boos of their favorite dancing boy? Well, she is an expert on border security. Sort of, well, maybe if you really stretch the meaning of security. Or should I say, who is secure in the efforts of Obama’s Big Sis’s DHS.
After all, DHS lets the illegals in without any restriction. The drug cartels and the human traffickers have avenues of ingress and egress across our border to such an extent and with such impunity that the DHS classifies areas of our public lands as dangerous and warns U.S. citizens to stay away from these areas. Why build fences when you make money off of the drug trade and the human trafficking. Somebody has to be taking la mordida for looking the other way. Why not DHS and Big Sis?
Big Sis is in Afghanistan to learn better how to look the other way. After all, she cannot be there to help the Afghanis secure their border with Pakistan or Iran. That aspect of security is completely missing in her job description for her responsibilities to the people of the U.S.
Maybe, she is there to gain a better understanding of why Afghan men prefer Afghan boys to Afghan women? Or, to see the latest in burqa fashions?
Big Sis is probably there to assure the Taliban and Al Qaeda that they don’t have to worry about airport security or worrying needlessly about getting caught slipping across our borders from Mexico. Profiling and border security to ensure the sovereignty and safety of the U.S. population is not the objective of DHS.
Big Sis is probably telling Osama and Mullah Omar that DHS is their friend. Feel free to visit any time. Oh, and don’t forget the nukes. You won’t be searched.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Sunday, December 26, 2010
Parnell is briliant--he's going to reduce the size of Alaska!
Our new old Governor Sean Parnell is slowly steaming ahead with his agenda. I would have never given him credit for this, but . . . Gov. Parnell and the Legislature have come up with a pretty clever way to cut local government and the population of the State of Alaska by about 50% almost immediately! This plan is insidious in its brilliance.
Gov. Parnell’s economic plans should have included –by now—news of TransCanada and Exxon’s plans for a pipeline. Yet, all we hear from industry and other sources is that there will be no pipeline to Canada or to the U.S. for at least 20 years—per Larry Persily, the federal pipeline coordinator. Nor, will any LNG be sent to the U.S. from Alaska. It is just too cheap to ship all of that natural gas Exxon and Conoco converted in their LNG trains in Qattar 15,000 miles to the U.S. by LNG tanker, off load the LNG tanker, recondition the LNG, load it back onto the LNG tanker . . . and export it to Asia another 10,000 miles—and, still make a profit.
Yes, I remember Ralph Samuels sagely opining that it was just too expensive to ship North Slope gas 800 miles to Valdez by pipeline, convert it to LNG, and then ship it to a foreign market. Man, am I glad that we did not make that mistake! We would be just like all rest of those fools shipping LNG all over the world and making far more than the domestic price! Wow. We almost blew it, big time!
What would we do with all of those LNG tankers coming into Valdez to move 3 billion cubic feet of gas a day to market?! Not to mention that the gas liquids would have stayed in Alaska for fuels and industry, thereby creating more jobs. And, why would we build the 250 million cubic feet per day spur line from Glennallen to the Enstar Hub at Palmer to relieve the gas shortages in the Kenai/Cook Inlet gas fields? What would the pols have to commiserate over?! We did not need those jobs, either! Thank you Ralph and Sean!
Alaska did not need all of the jobs and businesses that would have been created by building the natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Remember, 138,000 Alaskans voted to build that pipeline. Just foolishness! Why, we don’t need to worry! We can all work for the State! Right, Gov?
After all, Conoco let the cat out of the bag just before the elections. The intent was to warehouse North Slope gas for at least another 20 years. Yet, Conoco is still going forward with Denali . . . ? Uh . . . some things are better left alone, I guess, otherwise it hurts your head trying to follow the logic.
Oh, you folks that opposed building the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and shipping our gas to Asia markets were so sage. . . .
What was it Larry Persily opined? No pipeline for 20 years?
I guess that we are just supposed to forget that we have a gas shortage that will result in brown outs and a loss of heat and power for up to two years in south central if a compressor fails in the Kenai fields. What fun that promises!
Just think, over 300,000 Alaskans without heat and power during the coldest part of the winter, maybe two winters. And, most of them . . . armed. Uh, oh.
If that is a means to get property values down, that will do it, alright.
I guess we should also forget that during this last election, it was revealed that TAPS will reach a critical juncture much sooner than expected. The point at which TAPS cannot be restarted due to a shutdown is now much closer.
We were all fat dumb and happy thinking that TAPS would continue to transport oil down to 300,000 barrels per day production. Oh, no. This has been revised to 500,000 barrels per day. Meaning, that within the coming four years, we may see an end to TAPS moving our oil once production reaches 500,000 bpd or less, and there is a shutdown of the pipeline for any reason. With that shutdown ends 90% of the State’s revenue.
Do you think there will be an income tax, not to mention a State sales tax and, maybe even a State property tax proposed over the next two Legislative sessions?
Wait a minute.
We have the Permanent Fund! Let’s see, that’s about $35B or so. At a yearly budget of $11B growing by at least 10% per year, we can hold out for . . . 3 years? Then what? Don’t think about it, our legislators and governor aren’t, so why should we?
How long will the PFDs last? Anyone want to make a bet past 2013?
The only “pipeline plan” being discussed publically is the idea of building a 36 inch or 48 inch natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Fairbanks. After that . . . who knows? Indecision reigns supreme. Gone is any mention of the “bullet line” from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Avoided like the black plague is any mention of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Now, all we hear is that importing natural gas to Cook Inlet is inevitable.
In Canada, poly pipelines are being installed year round for gas distribution to market. You see it all over the west. Just awesome their expansion and aggressive development of their NG resources. The Canadian government just approved the MacKenzie River Delta 1.5 bcf natural gas pipeline project. In the mean time, the success of the LNG export facility at Kittimat, B.C. is no longer doubted by any here or there.
The MacKenzie River Delta pipeline is going ahead, the national energy board in Ottawa said it needs to be done, all the aboriginal malarkey is settled, and it is and will always be . . . Canada first. That project will pretty much see an end to the hot air expounded over any idea of moving our gas to Canada. We won’t be able to give our gas away if this dodo bird attitude on the part of those in Juneau continues regarding LNG exports and instate use of the gas liquids.
Yet, in Alaska . . . well, the sage heads in the Legislature and the Governor’s office have decided that in about 5 years or so the Grinch is going to visit all of us, if not before. “Before” may be a compressor failure on the Kenai, or the inability to restart TAPS after a maintenance or leak shut down. Then what? The silence has been deafening.
The Alaska Legislature and our governors have been very successful in ignoring the obvious. We have to trust them to keep doing just that. After all, a little misery and cold never hurt anyone. Right? Just suck it up and keep moving, soldier.
Enjoy heat and lights while we have ‘em!
And, then, when we all get cold enough and angry enough, let’s enjoy tar and feathering the legislators and the governors who served from 2002 forward who ignored our will. There will still be diesel to heat the tar.
Sarah looks good in black, too.
Just before we do Parnell, we should give him an award for the success of his brilliant plan. After we finish tar and feathering him, we will send him to Washington to advise President Obama on resource development, cutting government, and population control.
Gov. Parnell’s economic plans should have included –by now—news of TransCanada and Exxon’s plans for a pipeline. Yet, all we hear from industry and other sources is that there will be no pipeline to Canada or to the U.S. for at least 20 years—per Larry Persily, the federal pipeline coordinator. Nor, will any LNG be sent to the U.S. from Alaska. It is just too cheap to ship all of that natural gas Exxon and Conoco converted in their LNG trains in Qattar 15,000 miles to the U.S. by LNG tanker, off load the LNG tanker, recondition the LNG, load it back onto the LNG tanker . . . and export it to Asia another 10,000 miles—and, still make a profit.
Yes, I remember Ralph Samuels sagely opining that it was just too expensive to ship North Slope gas 800 miles to Valdez by pipeline, convert it to LNG, and then ship it to a foreign market. Man, am I glad that we did not make that mistake! We would be just like all rest of those fools shipping LNG all over the world and making far more than the domestic price! Wow. We almost blew it, big time!
What would we do with all of those LNG tankers coming into Valdez to move 3 billion cubic feet of gas a day to market?! Not to mention that the gas liquids would have stayed in Alaska for fuels and industry, thereby creating more jobs. And, why would we build the 250 million cubic feet per day spur line from Glennallen to the Enstar Hub at Palmer to relieve the gas shortages in the Kenai/Cook Inlet gas fields? What would the pols have to commiserate over?! We did not need those jobs, either! Thank you Ralph and Sean!
Alaska did not need all of the jobs and businesses that would have been created by building the natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Remember, 138,000 Alaskans voted to build that pipeline. Just foolishness! Why, we don’t need to worry! We can all work for the State! Right, Gov?
After all, Conoco let the cat out of the bag just before the elections. The intent was to warehouse North Slope gas for at least another 20 years. Yet, Conoco is still going forward with Denali . . . ? Uh . . . some things are better left alone, I guess, otherwise it hurts your head trying to follow the logic.
Oh, you folks that opposed building the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and shipping our gas to Asia markets were so sage. . . .
What was it Larry Persily opined? No pipeline for 20 years?
I guess that we are just supposed to forget that we have a gas shortage that will result in brown outs and a loss of heat and power for up to two years in south central if a compressor fails in the Kenai fields. What fun that promises!
Just think, over 300,000 Alaskans without heat and power during the coldest part of the winter, maybe two winters. And, most of them . . . armed. Uh, oh.
If that is a means to get property values down, that will do it, alright.
I guess we should also forget that during this last election, it was revealed that TAPS will reach a critical juncture much sooner than expected. The point at which TAPS cannot be restarted due to a shutdown is now much closer.
We were all fat dumb and happy thinking that TAPS would continue to transport oil down to 300,000 barrels per day production. Oh, no. This has been revised to 500,000 barrels per day. Meaning, that within the coming four years, we may see an end to TAPS moving our oil once production reaches 500,000 bpd or less, and there is a shutdown of the pipeline for any reason. With that shutdown ends 90% of the State’s revenue.
Do you think there will be an income tax, not to mention a State sales tax and, maybe even a State property tax proposed over the next two Legislative sessions?
Wait a minute.
We have the Permanent Fund! Let’s see, that’s about $35B or so. At a yearly budget of $11B growing by at least 10% per year, we can hold out for . . . 3 years? Then what? Don’t think about it, our legislators and governor aren’t, so why should we?
How long will the PFDs last? Anyone want to make a bet past 2013?
The only “pipeline plan” being discussed publically is the idea of building a 36 inch or 48 inch natural gas pipeline from the North Slope to Fairbanks. After that . . . who knows? Indecision reigns supreme. Gone is any mention of the “bullet line” from Fairbanks to Anchorage. Avoided like the black plague is any mention of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. Now, all we hear is that importing natural gas to Cook Inlet is inevitable.
In Canada, poly pipelines are being installed year round for gas distribution to market. You see it all over the west. Just awesome their expansion and aggressive development of their NG resources. The Canadian government just approved the MacKenzie River Delta 1.5 bcf natural gas pipeline project. In the mean time, the success of the LNG export facility at Kittimat, B.C. is no longer doubted by any here or there.
The MacKenzie River Delta pipeline is going ahead, the national energy board in Ottawa said it needs to be done, all the aboriginal malarkey is settled, and it is and will always be . . . Canada first. That project will pretty much see an end to the hot air expounded over any idea of moving our gas to Canada. We won’t be able to give our gas away if this dodo bird attitude on the part of those in Juneau continues regarding LNG exports and instate use of the gas liquids.
Yet, in Alaska . . . well, the sage heads in the Legislature and the Governor’s office have decided that in about 5 years or so the Grinch is going to visit all of us, if not before. “Before” may be a compressor failure on the Kenai, or the inability to restart TAPS after a maintenance or leak shut down. Then what? The silence has been deafening.
The Alaska Legislature and our governors have been very successful in ignoring the obvious. We have to trust them to keep doing just that. After all, a little misery and cold never hurt anyone. Right? Just suck it up and keep moving, soldier.
Enjoy heat and lights while we have ‘em!
And, then, when we all get cold enough and angry enough, let’s enjoy tar and feathering the legislators and the governors who served from 2002 forward who ignored our will. There will still be diesel to heat the tar.
Sarah looks good in black, too.
Just before we do Parnell, we should give him an award for the success of his brilliant plan. After we finish tar and feathering him, we will send him to Washington to advise President Obama on resource development, cutting government, and population control.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
DADT and the aftermath
The Senate decided to ignore the needs of the troops, the needs of our wounded in hospitals across the country, and the impact upon the services by forcing homosexual priorities upon the services. Why was the military chosen for this gay agenda goal? The military can be ordered to comply with no recourse for the individual soldier who is opposed, other than to resign.
There is no civil rights issue in this. Where is the prejudice against the homosexual soldier who does not openly flaunt their sexual proclivities?
What of the legal, religious, moral and morale issues associated with dealing with openly homosexual soldiers in one’s unit? Those issues are ignored. The secular state has decreed what is to be, and the military will obey . . . or else, the Joint Chiefs and others will be replaced with more amiable types who are more concerned about their careers than the troops’ concerns.
Art. 125 UCMJ
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Apparently, Art. 125 will be ignored from this point forward. Now, it will be every goat and sheep for themselves.
Yes, I recognize the contributions of homosexuals in the military. I remember that the most highly decorated enlisted airman in the USAF to serve in the Republic of Viet Nam was homosexual. Did his homosexuality make him brave? No, but his personal courage, his devotion to duty, to his country, and to his comrades gave him the ability to do what he did. He was a man who served honorably, nothing more, nothing less.
What is the problem, then with homosexuals serving openly in the military? Well, the idea of a homosexual in one’s unit, sharing one’s shower, the same latrine, the same dressing area, living area may make some uncomfortable. However, that is not the worst. The worst comes in two forms.
One is the second layer of DADT repeal. The political correctness will now be imposed. Penalties will be imposed for insulting homosexuals. Hate speech will become the lever to make a small minority much more powerful. The need to redress inequities in rank and position that do not now exist will be played out to the detriment of those more qualified. All of sudden, how good a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will matter not. It will be “Congress says there must be X number of homosexual 1st LTs this promotion cycle, or we don’t get the new whiz bang Taliban thumper deluxe!”
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda will be to eliminate “hate speech” by military chaplains. The Bible says what it says. How that will be reconciled will resemble the Canadian solution. Censor the Bible . . . and the Koran.
Working one’s butt off to be the best that one can be will not count. I will bet you that whose butt the general has will. Sexual politics of the male female variety are one thing, but male on male or female on female will open up a whole new dimension to this age old problem. What was once the venue of rumor will now be in your face.
The playful slap on the back, shoulder or butt that is common amongst male soldiers at times will now be regarded from a new perspective.
Yes, sex will play a new role in the military.
Then, there is the second issue. The morality and religious convictions of those troops whose religion dictate the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. These individuals will have the unfair choice of not accepting the lifestyle and giving up their military career, or to accept knowing that they are accepting something that is an anathema to their religion.
The figures given in the Pentagon’s so called study were flawed, and those who did the study knew it. Only a small fraction of the Army personnel sent the survey responded. The majority response was by USAF and Navy personnel. The two ground combat arms, the Army and the Marines, were not in favor of any change to DADT. The impact upon combat units will not be favorable with the imposed change.
This is not a matter of civil rights where the color of one’s skin was concerned. With prejudice in treatment and advancement were visible. This is now a matter of individuals who had before the repeal the same right to promotion and benefits and who were not otherwise prejudiced by their conduct, so long as they did not proclaim their sexual preference openly, the same as any heterosexual soldier, airman, sailor or Marine. Now, things will change.
Only by fiat of the secular state can one be forced to choose between religion and one’s military service.
Uncle Sam’s military will never be the same. Now, there is another layer of privilege based upon sexual preference. Just what our soldiers needed instead of new equipment, better weapons, and better support after they get home, more political correctness that puts soldiering second and CYA first.
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, this vote of yours will be remembered come reelection.
There is no civil rights issue in this. Where is the prejudice against the homosexual soldier who does not openly flaunt their sexual proclivities?
What of the legal, religious, moral and morale issues associated with dealing with openly homosexual soldiers in one’s unit? Those issues are ignored. The secular state has decreed what is to be, and the military will obey . . . or else, the Joint Chiefs and others will be replaced with more amiable types who are more concerned about their careers than the troops’ concerns.
Art. 125 UCMJ
“(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”
Apparently, Art. 125 will be ignored from this point forward. Now, it will be every goat and sheep for themselves.
Yes, I recognize the contributions of homosexuals in the military. I remember that the most highly decorated enlisted airman in the USAF to serve in the Republic of Viet Nam was homosexual. Did his homosexuality make him brave? No, but his personal courage, his devotion to duty, to his country, and to his comrades gave him the ability to do what he did. He was a man who served honorably, nothing more, nothing less.
What is the problem, then with homosexuals serving openly in the military? Well, the idea of a homosexual in one’s unit, sharing one’s shower, the same latrine, the same dressing area, living area may make some uncomfortable. However, that is not the worst. The worst comes in two forms.
One is the second layer of DADT repeal. The political correctness will now be imposed. Penalties will be imposed for insulting homosexuals. Hate speech will become the lever to make a small minority much more powerful. The need to redress inequities in rank and position that do not now exist will be played out to the detriment of those more qualified. All of sudden, how good a soldier, sailor, airman or Marine will matter not. It will be “Congress says there must be X number of homosexual 1st LTs this promotion cycle, or we don’t get the new whiz bang Taliban thumper deluxe!”
A primary goal of the homosexual agenda will be to eliminate “hate speech” by military chaplains. The Bible says what it says. How that will be reconciled will resemble the Canadian solution. Censor the Bible . . . and the Koran.
Working one’s butt off to be the best that one can be will not count. I will bet you that whose butt the general has will. Sexual politics of the male female variety are one thing, but male on male or female on female will open up a whole new dimension to this age old problem. What was once the venue of rumor will now be in your face.
The playful slap on the back, shoulder or butt that is common amongst male soldiers at times will now be regarded from a new perspective.
Yes, sex will play a new role in the military.
Then, there is the second issue. The morality and religious convictions of those troops whose religion dictate the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. These individuals will have the unfair choice of not accepting the lifestyle and giving up their military career, or to accept knowing that they are accepting something that is an anathema to their religion.
The figures given in the Pentagon’s so called study were flawed, and those who did the study knew it. Only a small fraction of the Army personnel sent the survey responded. The majority response was by USAF and Navy personnel. The two ground combat arms, the Army and the Marines, were not in favor of any change to DADT. The impact upon combat units will not be favorable with the imposed change.
This is not a matter of civil rights where the color of one’s skin was concerned. With prejudice in treatment and advancement were visible. This is now a matter of individuals who had before the repeal the same right to promotion and benefits and who were not otherwise prejudiced by their conduct, so long as they did not proclaim their sexual preference openly, the same as any heterosexual soldier, airman, sailor or Marine. Now, things will change.
Only by fiat of the secular state can one be forced to choose between religion and one’s military service.
Uncle Sam’s military will never be the same. Now, there is another layer of privilege based upon sexual preference. Just what our soldiers needed instead of new equipment, better weapons, and better support after they get home, more political correctness that puts soldiering second and CYA first.
Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, this vote of yours will be remembered come reelection.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Holy Quran--snicker, snicker
Holy everything. Even Shiite.
I am sick of Islam.
I want that abhorrent religion out of the U.S.
Why?
Islam openly calls for the overthrow of the secular State.
Islam cannot exist under a secular state, look at what is finally happening in Turkey.
When Islam makes inroads, violent acts follow.
Already happened here.
Our gov't supresses those acts and refuses to attribut them to the religion.
Islam is not just a religon.
Holy cow is more like it.
Holy Quran is a joke.
The Quran is covered in the blood of innocents.
I am sick of Islam.
I want that abhorrent religion out of the U.S.
Why?
Islam openly calls for the overthrow of the secular State.
Islam cannot exist under a secular state, look at what is finally happening in Turkey.
When Islam makes inroads, violent acts follow.
Already happened here.
Our gov't supresses those acts and refuses to attribut them to the religion.
Islam is not just a religon.
Holy cow is more like it.
Holy Quran is a joke.
The Quran is covered in the blood of innocents.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Islam--and we let this into our country?
The religion of peace and tolerance:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/12/assailants-stab-beat-christian-worshippers-outside-indonesias-capital/?test=latestnews
And, we let this into the country?
ARE WE OUT OF OUR FRIGGING MINDS???!!!!!!!!!
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/12/assailants-stab-beat-christian-worshippers-outside-indonesias-capital/?test=latestnews
And, we let this into the country?
ARE WE OUT OF OUR FRIGGING MINDS???!!!!!!!!!
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Burn the Koran--II
Well, looks like either a deal was struck that might get the mosque moved away from 9-11 ground zero, or we are being flim flammed again.
The U.S. Army burned Bibles by the hundreds sent to troops in Afghanistan. Without one word of protest by any church in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Why is the Koran "holy"?
It is not. It is blasphemy and lies. Yet, . . .
Man, we gonna lose to those suckers if we don't figure this out Christianity.
Next time a Bible is desicrated by a Muslim, burn a mosque. . . .
Then, they will start to figure this malarkey out.
The U.S. Army burned Bibles by the hundreds sent to troops in Afghanistan. Without one word of protest by any church in the U.S. or elsewhere.
Why is the Koran "holy"?
It is not. It is blasphemy and lies. Yet, . . .
Man, we gonna lose to those suckers if we don't figure this out Christianity.
Next time a Bible is desicrated by a Muslim, burn a mosque. . . .
Then, they will start to figure this malarkey out.
Monday, September 6, 2010
Burn the Koran
Screw the Muslims.
They kill us, they insult us, yet everything in Islam is holy! they proclaim.
Screw them.
Burn their book.
Spit in the face of this false religion and unholy attempt at subverting our Republic!
They kill us, they insult us, yet everything in Islam is holy! they proclaim.
Screw them.
Burn their book.
Spit in the face of this false religion and unholy attempt at subverting our Republic!
Monday, August 30, 2010
Parnell broke the law.
The Republican Primary was a disappointment. In more ways than one. Not only did Parnell receive the nod to move on to the General Election, but he was given a free pass on his violation of his oath of office. Parnell has violated Article II Sec. 5 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, not once, but twice. Now, we hear that it may actually have been 3 times with the appointment of a State employee to Dahlstrom's seat.
Parnell has deferred owing up to his indiscretions by alleging that he acted upon the advice of an unnamed junior attorney at the Dept. of Law. This excuse completely ignores the fact that Sean Parnell is a lawyer himself. What? He no longer understands the Constitution, much less now apparently has a diminished capacity to understand the English language?
Art. II Sec. 5:
§ 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. This section shall not prevent any person from seeking or holding the office of governor, secretary of state, or member of Congress. This section shall not apply to employment by or election to a constitutional convention."
What part of "for one year after" does not this governor understand? I think the provision is very clear. Gee, even I understand it.
What I find most disturbing are those who voted for both Joe Miller as a strong constitutionalist versus Lisa Murkowski as the compromised insider who ignored the Constitution. Yet, many of these folks voted for Parnell. How does one reconcile that paradox?
Sarah Palin campaigned on a platform that included integrity. Sean Parnell cannot lay claim to that, given his violation of the State's Constitution, to which he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Which, given the Dahlstrom and Therriault affairs, he did not.
How could one vote for Miller, then vote for Parnell?
How could one then claim the moral and legal high ground over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trashing of our national Constitution?
Another excuse that I heard was that Faibanks and North Pole hold former Sen. Gene Therriault in such high regard that they were willing to ignore the fact of the constitutional affront by his appointment on the part of Governor Parnell.
Allegedly, the Palin crowd was also a factor, voting for Joe Miller, and then voting for Parnell due to his association with Sarah. Let me remind that Sarah Palin did not select Sean Parnell during the 2006 Primary. Parnell won the slot as her Lt. Gov. by winning the Primary. That he did on his own. I do not recall Sarah Palin going out of her way for Parnell’s election.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that these folks hold the Constitution of the State of Alaska in such low regard that it can be violated with impunity by a sitting governor, so long as that governor is Republican?
There are those who believe in "my party, right or wrong". I am not one of those. I believe in the rule of LAW.
If one can violate one's oath with impunity, then what's next?
I am more than worried about the integrity of the Alaska Republican voter and the hypocrisy demonstrated in this election. Even more troubling is the lack of integrity and honor demonstrated by our current Governor.
Will the new Legislature have the courage to impeach this governor, if he prevails in the General Election?
Parnell has deferred owing up to his indiscretions by alleging that he acted upon the advice of an unnamed junior attorney at the Dept. of Law. This excuse completely ignores the fact that Sean Parnell is a lawyer himself. What? He no longer understands the Constitution, much less now apparently has a diminished capacity to understand the English language?
Art. II Sec. 5:
§ 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. This section shall not prevent any person from seeking or holding the office of governor, secretary of state, or member of Congress. This section shall not apply to employment by or election to a constitutional convention."
What part of "for one year after" does not this governor understand? I think the provision is very clear. Gee, even I understand it.
What I find most disturbing are those who voted for both Joe Miller as a strong constitutionalist versus Lisa Murkowski as the compromised insider who ignored the Constitution. Yet, many of these folks voted for Parnell. How does one reconcile that paradox?
Sarah Palin campaigned on a platform that included integrity. Sean Parnell cannot lay claim to that, given his violation of the State's Constitution, to which he swore an oath to uphold and defend. Which, given the Dahlstrom and Therriault affairs, he did not.
How could one vote for Miller, then vote for Parnell?
How could one then claim the moral and legal high ground over the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trashing of our national Constitution?
Another excuse that I heard was that Faibanks and North Pole hold former Sen. Gene Therriault in such high regard that they were willing to ignore the fact of the constitutional affront by his appointment on the part of Governor Parnell.
Allegedly, the Palin crowd was also a factor, voting for Joe Miller, and then voting for Parnell due to his association with Sarah. Let me remind that Sarah Palin did not select Sean Parnell during the 2006 Primary. Parnell won the slot as her Lt. Gov. by winning the Primary. That he did on his own. I do not recall Sarah Palin going out of her way for Parnell’s election.
The only conclusion to be drawn is that these folks hold the Constitution of the State of Alaska in such low regard that it can be violated with impunity by a sitting governor, so long as that governor is Republican?
There are those who believe in "my party, right or wrong". I am not one of those. I believe in the rule of LAW.
If one can violate one's oath with impunity, then what's next?
I am more than worried about the integrity of the Alaska Republican voter and the hypocrisy demonstrated in this election. Even more troubling is the lack of integrity and honor demonstrated by our current Governor.
Will the new Legislature have the courage to impeach this governor, if he prevails in the General Election?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The President's relgion and the Mosque at 911
Barack Obama is a Muslim. He practiced the religion in Indonesia, and, according to the tenets of Islam, once a Muslim, always a Muslim. Otherwise, he is apostate and subject to death. . . .
Yeah, the religion of tolerance is tolerant only to . . . whom and what?
Islam means submission. Period. You submit to Islam. You do not practice Islam, you submit to Islam . . . or, you die. You have a choice, convert or die. Of course, the followers of the "book", meaning the Hebrew Pentateuch or Old Testament,may pay a tax and live a life as a second class citizen. However, that does not necessarily remove one from the cross hairs or the neck from the sword.
Animists, humanists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists are simply dead under Islam. I mean as in killed. There is not quarter for them. Convert, or die. Most will die.
Homosexuals will be subject to flogging or death. The Koran calls for public beatings, but in most Muslim countries hanging or beating to death seems to be the norm.
Why homosexuals seem to think that they would fair better under Islam is beyond me. I do not know of any Christian pastors who have called for physical harm to homosexuals, apostates or . . . liberals.
Liberals will be offered the choice and most will convert. They are cowards who will just "want to get along". In doing so, they will rejoice that Islam will allow them to act out their angst against conservative folk. Islam serves those with a grudge and allows them to act out that angst with impunity, as long as they do so in the name of Allah.
Those who practice rape will love Islam. Ask any Christian woman in any country where Islam is the dominant religion. Take your pick of tolerant Islamic countries. In Egypt, Coptic women are raped to show them how wrong they are in their beliefs. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, wherever Islam is practiced, there is this abuse of women. Rape is also a tool to reign in the female Muslim who fails to wear proper dress.
Honor killings are also allowed. Have a grudge against your aunt or your sister? Accuse her of improper behavior, and she is toast. Even in this country, this horrific conduct has happened.
We have let into our midst this backwards, intolerant, ignorant religion and its third world practitioners. Those who practice honor killings of their daughters and wives, those who kill others simply because they are not of the same faith or kill them because they are of another sect of Islam, and under Islam, the use of rape as a tool to keep women in line. WE LET THIS IN?!!!!!
Now, those who subscribe to this abhorrent religion want to add insult to injury and build a mosque upon sacred ground. They want to erect a monument to their cowardly act of murder. They killed 3,000 Americans in name of Allah. And, our President backs this project.
Why not? He is one of "them".
Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. He may have sat in a Christian Church, but Barack Hussein Obama was never a Christian. The penalty for apostasy under Islam is death. He knows this. He literally the Manchurian Candidate. A shill, an impostor, one who wants to harm this country. How can he be otherwise, given his record and the record of his acts as President? Bowing before foreign despots?
My ancestors fought a revolution, one commanded the Continental Army and served as the 1st President. It is time we consider the need to refresh the Tree of Liberty. First with words and votes. Barring any success there, to do as George Washington admonished us to have the courage to do. The real reason we have the Second Amendment.
If the election of 2012 does not end the term of the Muslim Obama, then our Republic will truly be in peril.
Yeah, the religion of tolerance is tolerant only to . . . whom and what?
Islam means submission. Period. You submit to Islam. You do not practice Islam, you submit to Islam . . . or, you die. You have a choice, convert or die. Of course, the followers of the "book", meaning the Hebrew Pentateuch or Old Testament,may pay a tax and live a life as a second class citizen. However, that does not necessarily remove one from the cross hairs or the neck from the sword.
Animists, humanists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists are simply dead under Islam. I mean as in killed. There is not quarter for them. Convert, or die. Most will die.
Homosexuals will be subject to flogging or death. The Koran calls for public beatings, but in most Muslim countries hanging or beating to death seems to be the norm.
Why homosexuals seem to think that they would fair better under Islam is beyond me. I do not know of any Christian pastors who have called for physical harm to homosexuals, apostates or . . . liberals.
Liberals will be offered the choice and most will convert. They are cowards who will just "want to get along". In doing so, they will rejoice that Islam will allow them to act out their angst against conservative folk. Islam serves those with a grudge and allows them to act out that angst with impunity, as long as they do so in the name of Allah.
Those who practice rape will love Islam. Ask any Christian woman in any country where Islam is the dominant religion. Take your pick of tolerant Islamic countries. In Egypt, Coptic women are raped to show them how wrong they are in their beliefs. Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, wherever Islam is practiced, there is this abuse of women. Rape is also a tool to reign in the female Muslim who fails to wear proper dress.
Honor killings are also allowed. Have a grudge against your aunt or your sister? Accuse her of improper behavior, and she is toast. Even in this country, this horrific conduct has happened.
We have let into our midst this backwards, intolerant, ignorant religion and its third world practitioners. Those who practice honor killings of their daughters and wives, those who kill others simply because they are not of the same faith or kill them because they are of another sect of Islam, and under Islam, the use of rape as a tool to keep women in line. WE LET THIS IN?!!!!!
Now, those who subscribe to this abhorrent religion want to add insult to injury and build a mosque upon sacred ground. They want to erect a monument to their cowardly act of murder. They killed 3,000 Americans in name of Allah. And, our President backs this project.
Why not? He is one of "them".
Once a Muslim, always a Muslim. He may have sat in a Christian Church, but Barack Hussein Obama was never a Christian. The penalty for apostasy under Islam is death. He knows this. He literally the Manchurian Candidate. A shill, an impostor, one who wants to harm this country. How can he be otherwise, given his record and the record of his acts as President? Bowing before foreign despots?
My ancestors fought a revolution, one commanded the Continental Army and served as the 1st President. It is time we consider the need to refresh the Tree of Liberty. First with words and votes. Barring any success there, to do as George Washington admonished us to have the courage to do. The real reason we have the Second Amendment.
If the election of 2012 does not end the term of the Muslim Obama, then our Republic will truly be in peril.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Have we come to this?
Dan Fagan, commentator and pundit with an afternoon radio show went into a screaming hissy fit today that was one for the record books. Dan is a showman, first of all, and an alleged conservative—or so he says. He called Bill Walker’s supporters commies and socialists. Those are exactly the terms that he used.
Why did this otherwise, articulate, experienced, and knowledgeable reporter go off the deep end?
Apparently, Dan Fagan reacted to the yes or no requirement put to the candidates by the moderator at the Resource Development Council forum held today. The candidates could only answer yes or no.
Fagan billed his revelation as proof positive that Walker was a socialist and union schill who could not possibly be a conservative.
Apparently, unbeknownst to Fagan at the time of his hissy fit, Bill Walker followed up on the answer in an interview by ADN report Sean Cockerham post the debate at the Resource Development Council Governor’s Forum today. What Fagan did not have to pass on was the “rest of the story”.
This is what Walker was quoted as saying in the ADN:
“Q—How did you vote on the 2006 gas reserve initiative? Yes, no or prefer not to say. (The question was about a proposal to tax North Slope natural gas reserves until a pipeline was built to bring them to market. It could have imposed up to $1 billion annual tax on the gas under land leased primarily by Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips, most in the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields.)
Walker – Yes (Walker said in an interview after the forum that “we wanted to get the gas moving, the only thing we were missing for a gasline at that point was gas. At that point in time that looked like it was the way to go. I don’t believe that is the way to go at this point, the way at this point is to create the infrastructure. The producers have said…we will ship if there is a reasonable expectation of profit.”
Fagan is an accomplished reporter. He should have asked Bill Walker directly before labeling—slandering—Walker and his supports as commies and socialists in fit of outrage over a an absolute answer that was designed to reflect an absolutist position that did not apply to Walker. It should be stated that Walker has never served in the Legislature.
The Dan Fagan Show, on KFQD in the afternoon heavily promotes Ralph Samuels for governor.
Ralph Samuels is recognized as being in Third Place, folks, that’s why Fagan jumped without first “looking”. Fagan’s boy is losing, even with Rick Rydell on Keni 650 AM and Dan Fagan and Dave Stierens on KFQD 750 AM all pushing Ralph Samuels like he is our Savior and the only conservative running.
Fortunately, people are not stupid.
Former Rep. Ralph Samuels received over $10,000 from Bill Allen of VECO fame. This same former representative voted for the biggest capital budgets in the State’s history prior to Parnell’s whale of a budget. Those budgets included an increase in the size of state government by 800 employees. Yet, these “good conservatives” all tout Samuels as a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, well, if Samuels was a fiscal conservative, then I guess that would make Sarah Palin a fiscal conservative.
Samuels has also touted his leadership abilities. As House Majority Leader, his was the only vote against AGIA, Palin’s gas pipeline initiative. The only vote. In a House and Senate that did not really support or like Sarah Palin. Why was Ralph’s vote the only vote? When the going gets tough, and the objective is not what the troops want to achieve, a good leader picks up the pack and rifle and says, we gotta do it . . . let’s go. And, the troops either respect the leader enough to obey, or they don’t. Samuels stood alone. That shows me that he is not the hero that these guys continually represent him as, if he could not garner one additional vote in support of his position.
Samuels supports the bullet line, widely held by industry and the State to be too expensive to be competitive to imported LNG for Cook Inlet. That the bullet line would double the cost of natural gas in south central. How is that an economic plan?
Samuels also supports Conoco/BP’s Denali project. A gasline that does not have a market, and will take everything, the jobs, the money, the majority of the infrastructure to Canada. How is that putting Alaska first? How is that acting in concert with Article 8 Sec. 2 of Alaska’s Constitution? In this regard, Samuels shares common ground with Parnell.
Parnell supports AGIA, another take it all to Canada plan, and also supports the bullet line. Of course Parnell also considers himself above the law, given his problems with his appointment of legislators to the Governror’s office. These appointments were made in violation of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. How can we have a Governor who holds himself above the law?
Therefore, why does Fagan and the others try to paint the only gubernatorial candidate as other than what he really is? The only conservative running for the office of the governor of Alaska who will put Alaska and Alaskans first? And, who has a viable pipeline plan that 138,000 Alaskans mandated by vote in 2002?
If this man is a commie and an socialist to Dan Fagan, then Walker has good company in that regard. Given Ralph’s record, Rydell, Stierens and Fagan will have reconsider their labeling Sarah Palin as a RINO.
This race is too crucial for such silliness.
When TAPS falls to 300,000 bpd of oil, the system will be shut down. The problem of the oil companies going elsewhere is not ACES, but a combination of taxes, regulations and litigation . . . and, a world wide recession that reduced the demand for oil.
As a result of the regulatory environment, of which taxes are a part, and the litigatory environmental greenie assault on the oil industry through the courts, the oil companies went wherever they could work with as little environmental and regulatory hassle as possible. They went for as little as $1 per barrel of profit.
Yet, according to the pundits, it was all because of ACES.
Male bovine offal.
Alaskans must be informed. Please take the time to attend forums and read the websites of the various candidates. Listen to the pundits, but take what they say with a grain of salt. Fagan did his credibility a great deal of harm today by calling good people something that they are not: commies and socialists.
Fagan owes Bill Walker and his supports an apology and his listeners an apology for his acting without the “rest of the story”.
For more information:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152634?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container
Why did this otherwise, articulate, experienced, and knowledgeable reporter go off the deep end?
Apparently, Dan Fagan reacted to the yes or no requirement put to the candidates by the moderator at the Resource Development Council forum held today. The candidates could only answer yes or no.
Fagan billed his revelation as proof positive that Walker was a socialist and union schill who could not possibly be a conservative.
Apparently, unbeknownst to Fagan at the time of his hissy fit, Bill Walker followed up on the answer in an interview by ADN report Sean Cockerham post the debate at the Resource Development Council Governor’s Forum today. What Fagan did not have to pass on was the “rest of the story”.
This is what Walker was quoted as saying in the ADN:
“Q—How did you vote on the 2006 gas reserve initiative? Yes, no or prefer not to say. (The question was about a proposal to tax North Slope natural gas reserves until a pipeline was built to bring them to market. It could have imposed up to $1 billion annual tax on the gas under land leased primarily by Exxon Mobil, BP and Conoco Phillips, most in the Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomson fields.)
Walker – Yes (Walker said in an interview after the forum that “we wanted to get the gas moving, the only thing we were missing for a gasline at that point was gas. At that point in time that looked like it was the way to go. I don’t believe that is the way to go at this point, the way at this point is to create the infrastructure. The producers have said…we will ship if there is a reasonable expectation of profit.”
Fagan is an accomplished reporter. He should have asked Bill Walker directly before labeling—slandering—Walker and his supports as commies and socialists in fit of outrage over a an absolute answer that was designed to reflect an absolutist position that did not apply to Walker. It should be stated that Walker has never served in the Legislature.
The Dan Fagan Show, on KFQD in the afternoon heavily promotes Ralph Samuels for governor.
Ralph Samuels is recognized as being in Third Place, folks, that’s why Fagan jumped without first “looking”. Fagan’s boy is losing, even with Rick Rydell on Keni 650 AM and Dan Fagan and Dave Stierens on KFQD 750 AM all pushing Ralph Samuels like he is our Savior and the only conservative running.
Fortunately, people are not stupid.
Former Rep. Ralph Samuels received over $10,000 from Bill Allen of VECO fame. This same former representative voted for the biggest capital budgets in the State’s history prior to Parnell’s whale of a budget. Those budgets included an increase in the size of state government by 800 employees. Yet, these “good conservatives” all tout Samuels as a fiscal conservative.
Yeah, well, if Samuels was a fiscal conservative, then I guess that would make Sarah Palin a fiscal conservative.
Samuels has also touted his leadership abilities. As House Majority Leader, his was the only vote against AGIA, Palin’s gas pipeline initiative. The only vote. In a House and Senate that did not really support or like Sarah Palin. Why was Ralph’s vote the only vote? When the going gets tough, and the objective is not what the troops want to achieve, a good leader picks up the pack and rifle and says, we gotta do it . . . let’s go. And, the troops either respect the leader enough to obey, or they don’t. Samuels stood alone. That shows me that he is not the hero that these guys continually represent him as, if he could not garner one additional vote in support of his position.
Samuels supports the bullet line, widely held by industry and the State to be too expensive to be competitive to imported LNG for Cook Inlet. That the bullet line would double the cost of natural gas in south central. How is that an economic plan?
Samuels also supports Conoco/BP’s Denali project. A gasline that does not have a market, and will take everything, the jobs, the money, the majority of the infrastructure to Canada. How is that putting Alaska first? How is that acting in concert with Article 8 Sec. 2 of Alaska’s Constitution? In this regard, Samuels shares common ground with Parnell.
Parnell supports AGIA, another take it all to Canada plan, and also supports the bullet line. Of course Parnell also considers himself above the law, given his problems with his appointment of legislators to the Governror’s office. These appointments were made in violation of Article 2 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska. How can we have a Governor who holds himself above the law?
Therefore, why does Fagan and the others try to paint the only gubernatorial candidate as other than what he really is? The only conservative running for the office of the governor of Alaska who will put Alaska and Alaskans first? And, who has a viable pipeline plan that 138,000 Alaskans mandated by vote in 2002?
If this man is a commie and an socialist to Dan Fagan, then Walker has good company in that regard. Given Ralph’s record, Rydell, Stierens and Fagan will have reconsider their labeling Sarah Palin as a RINO.
This race is too crucial for such silliness.
When TAPS falls to 300,000 bpd of oil, the system will be shut down. The problem of the oil companies going elsewhere is not ACES, but a combination of taxes, regulations and litigation . . . and, a world wide recession that reduced the demand for oil.
As a result of the regulatory environment, of which taxes are a part, and the litigatory environmental greenie assault on the oil industry through the courts, the oil companies went wherever they could work with as little environmental and regulatory hassle as possible. They went for as little as $1 per barrel of profit.
Yet, according to the pundits, it was all because of ACES.
Male bovine offal.
Alaskans must be informed. Please take the time to attend forums and read the websites of the various candidates. Listen to the pundits, but take what they say with a grain of salt. Fagan did his credibility a great deal of harm today by calling good people something that they are not: commies and socialists.
Fagan owes Bill Walker and his supports an apology and his listeners an apology for his acting without the “rest of the story”.
For more information:
http://community.adn.com/adn/node/152634?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted#Comments_Container
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Parnell's Plight
Governor Sean Parnell has dug himself a hole that is deep and wide. Parnell has enough trouble brewing that would cause any sitting governor to start looking at the Help Wanted ads in the local papers. There are four primary areas of concern.
Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.
AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.
Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.
AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.
Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?
Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.
This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:
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?
Parnell’s first problem is AGIA.
AGIA was pronounced as DOA by Parnell himself with respect to any expected success of the Open Season. Parnell’s refusal to answer rival Bill Walker’s FOIA request for disclosure of the Open Season is proof that Parnell is playing a delaying game without any expectation of success.
Against AGIA is the reality of the shale gas developments in Canada and the U.S. The Outside gas reserves are estimated to be enough for a 150 year supply of natural gas. The fact of the lack of any permitting to show in the 3 years since the passage of AGIA belie his current assertions that AGIA is alive and well.
AGIA, like Conoco/BP’s Denali project, takes our gas and gas liquids to Canada, thereby benefitting Canada, not Alaska.
Is Parnell acting in the best interests of Alaska by pushing AGIA?
Parnell’s second problem is his contempt for the law with the growing controversy over his appointments of Nancy Dahlstrom and Gene Therriault as his Military Advisor and Oil and Gas Advisor, respectively.
This situation would not be so remarkable were it not for the fact that both Dahlstrom and Therriault were sitting legislators at the time of the creation of the positions to which they were appointed. As ‘advisors’ their appointments did not have to be approved by the Legislature. The problem for Parnell arises with the fact that both appointments were in violation of Article II of the Constitution of the State of Alaska:
“Section 2.5 - Disqualifications.
No legislator may hold any other office or position of profit under the United States or the State. During the term for which elected and for one year thereafter, no legislator may be nominated, elected, or appointed to any other office or position of profit which has been created, or the salary or emoluments of which have been increased, while he was a member. . . .”
There was little comment about former Sen. Gene Therriault’s appointment, except by yours truly and a few others. With the second appointment of Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom, the pundits and the press finally figured out that our governor was ignoring the law.
Is our Governor above the law?
Another indication of the contempt that his governor and his appointees have for the law is the conduct of Gov. Parnell’s MG Katkus in requiring a subordinate to appear in uniform to testify to the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in support of Katkus’ appointment as Commissioner DMVA and Adjutant General. This act was unprecedented, and constituted a blatant act of undue influence. This situation was akin to Gene Therriault filling in for the Governor at a campaign function in Fairbanks earlier this summer. Both situations constitute at the very least undue influence on the part of the Governor and by Katkus as Parnell’s appointee.
Parnell’s third problem is the contradiction to any claim that he is working to resolve the Cook Inlet gas supply crisis.
Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division refuses to timely renew expired Cook Inlet oil and gas leases to exploration and development companies. This failure by Parnell’s Oil and Gas Division is incredible in the face of the alleged purpose of the bullet line.
Is Governor Parnell playing politics with a critical gas supply issue to the detriment of Alaska’s largest population segment?
Parnell’s fourth problem that is indefensible and, perhaps, the least recognized by the media, is Gov. Parnell’s decision to virtually eliminate the Alaska State Defense Force as a viable emergency response asset under DMVA.
In 2006, many of the Army National Guard assets were called to federal active duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo, leaving the ASDF to perform disaster response. ASDF was called to State Active Duty three times in 2006.
How is reducing the State’s ability to respond to a disaster a showing of leadership?
Are we voters going to let Governor Sean Parnell’s open contempt for the law and his failure in leadership stand?
Monday, July 12, 2010
Racism, just another tool of the new order
What is racism?
In fact, how can there be racism?
Racism implies that there are more than one race of homosapiens sapiens.
Were there separate races, we would not belong to the same genus, meaning that interbreeding would be impossible. Can horses bread with frogs?
Therefore, "racism" should be more properly termed "color" phobia or "color" based prejudice.
This prejudice has been around since time immemorial.
Christ died to end it.
Martin Luther King died to end it.
Yet even today, some black Americans hate white Americans and vice versa.
Same for Asians, same for Hispanics.
Some just hate.
Yet, there are those who foster the lie that only white Americans are capable of prejudice.
Male bovine offal.
The rantings of the head of the New Black Panther Party put that liberal lie to rest.
What is ignored is the fact that we all share the same physiology, the same emotions, the same tendency towards prejudice of one sort or another, and all feel pain.
Whether or not we admit it, we all know what is right and wrong when we denigrate another for whatever reason. We know that we are cowards when we bully the weak, but we excuse our conduct because the object of our prejudice is obviously a lesser being, weak, or limited in some manner or another.
There is an industry built around perpetuating this color intolerance.
The race baiters like Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a lot of money extorting claims of prejudice where, in all likelihood, none existed.
Much that is called racism is couched in subjective emotionalism on the part of the individual experiencing the conduct. I state this, because there are no more lynchings, armed incursions into homes, public beatings--although black on white crime and violence is ignored by the liberal media--simply because of the dislike of one color by people of another in this country.
How much longer that state will exist depends upon how far the socialist agenda of the Obama administration manages to make inroads into compromising and reducing the Constitution to just history without meaning.
Once our rights become the whim of man rather than inalienable as granted by a creator, our rights are no longer sacrosanct. Our rights are reduced to edict.
The liberal agenda is to denigrate, reduce and remake our Constitution into their vision of social utopia. A false utopia where judges eclipse legislators and regulators make the law according to political whim.
Prejudice is something that plays into this. The alleged need to remake society in the 1960s with the Great Society was an attempt to atone for evils that should never existed. Yes, there was prejudice in the United States that has existed since before the Great Revolution. In that regard, the U.S. was not unique. Nor, is it the fault of the Northern European. Slavery has existed since one man bested another and one tribe bested another, and one city state bested another, and one nation bested another, and one empire bested another and took the losers into bondage.
How did slaves come to the U.S.? Slavery came before there was a U.S. The vanquished of whatever conflict became the fodder for the slave market. The military stronger power making a profit over the vanquished.
Prejudice came as the lie that allowed one man to "own" another. It has existed throughout history.
The same lie permeates the liberal Congress and the Marxist President to give them impetus to destroy our rights in the name of making us all the "same". In that regard, they use prejudice as a tool to create conflict and to divide.
Emotionalism is the imperative that drives.
"Feel good" is the Valium of the masses. Why if we all are the same, then we will all be happy.
Note how riots are now ignored by authorities. The rioters, usually black, are excused for their irresponsible and outrageous lawlessness on the basis of "well, they deserve to steal that TV".
No. They deserve to be shot in order to restore order.
We are a nation of law, not disorder, not color, not the whim of the despot or a Congress and President that pursue the destruction of all that made this nation great.
Prejudice will always exist as long as there is envy of another for whatever reason. There will be prejudice in the minds of those small enough to believe that one "man" is superior to another.
In the mean time, we must deal with the cancer eating at the fabric of this nation called diversity. Diversity is the attempt by the liberals and Marxists to compromise the unity that made this national great.
In order for the destruction of the United States to be accomplished, the social fabric must be destroyed. The conventions of marriage, family, culture, language, borders, and history must be destroyed or suborned in order to reach the end goal of a socialist/Marxist utopia where the dictatorship of the proletariat is the outcome.
In many regards, this has already happened.
The movements to give women equal rights has been perverted into something that now encompasses the elimination of the father figure in raising progeny, the needless, irresponsible killing of the unborn in the name of a woman controlling her own destiny and body in order to achieve the end game of accomplishing the end of the American family as we know it. The further perversion of the family by giving homosexuals parental rights and the ability to adopt have further diminished the role of the heterosexual family in our society.
Our borders and culture have been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why, the U.S. should not have borders! And, the national security and national identity issues are irrelevant. No nation in history has survived the loss of national integrity by failing to secure national boundaries.
Culture has been replaced by diversity. Why, every culture on the Earth is superior to ours.
That's why we are still a super power and the rest are third world offal holes. However, that leadership diminishes daily as our technological base is eroded by an education system that teaches diversity, the normalcy of the abnormal and deviant and "feel good" rather than hard nosed COMPETITION and how to read and write. The theft of our technology and our trade secrets, not to mention military technology and national secrets are openly sold as if they are meaningless.
How many nations have survived when the enemies of the nation have had the gates opened to them and the knowledge of their military and tactics compromised?
We have sold our national soul to the slave labor of communist China and other third world offal holes.
Our manufacturing and technology base, the envy of the world is now in the hands of the great copiers of Asia. Countries incapable of creating their own counter to our success. Done to level the playing field, to make us less threatening to the rest of the world. Our pols have sold our future down the river.
What happened to Rome, when Rome became "less threatening"?
Between the new religion of the left and the religion of climate change, the survival of western culture, much less that of the U.S. is in serious doubt. It was the liberal idiots that let the rabble from Islamic nations into western Europe . . . and the U.S. And, what have they contributed? The very real threat of revolution from and subordination to a 7th century theocracy. Yeah, Islam is sooooo tolerant and forgiving it calls for conversion . . . or death. Heck of a choice, eh?
As Dr. Michael Savage states: "Everything that is wrong is now right."
Every perversion is now to be accepted under the new order. Using children as sex toys is just another step towards social utopia.
Who determines what is right and wrong?
We do.
This election and the 2012 election will determine the fate of this nation.
In the mean time, shoot the looters in Oakland and restore order.
In fact, how can there be racism?
Racism implies that there are more than one race of homosapiens sapiens.
Were there separate races, we would not belong to the same genus, meaning that interbreeding would be impossible. Can horses bread with frogs?
Therefore, "racism" should be more properly termed "color" phobia or "color" based prejudice.
This prejudice has been around since time immemorial.
Christ died to end it.
Martin Luther King died to end it.
Yet even today, some black Americans hate white Americans and vice versa.
Same for Asians, same for Hispanics.
Some just hate.
Yet, there are those who foster the lie that only white Americans are capable of prejudice.
Male bovine offal.
The rantings of the head of the New Black Panther Party put that liberal lie to rest.
What is ignored is the fact that we all share the same physiology, the same emotions, the same tendency towards prejudice of one sort or another, and all feel pain.
Whether or not we admit it, we all know what is right and wrong when we denigrate another for whatever reason. We know that we are cowards when we bully the weak, but we excuse our conduct because the object of our prejudice is obviously a lesser being, weak, or limited in some manner or another.
There is an industry built around perpetuating this color intolerance.
The race baiters like Jessee Jackson and Al Sharpton have made a lot of money extorting claims of prejudice where, in all likelihood, none existed.
Much that is called racism is couched in subjective emotionalism on the part of the individual experiencing the conduct. I state this, because there are no more lynchings, armed incursions into homes, public beatings--although black on white crime and violence is ignored by the liberal media--simply because of the dislike of one color by people of another in this country.
How much longer that state will exist depends upon how far the socialist agenda of the Obama administration manages to make inroads into compromising and reducing the Constitution to just history without meaning.
Once our rights become the whim of man rather than inalienable as granted by a creator, our rights are no longer sacrosanct. Our rights are reduced to edict.
The liberal agenda is to denigrate, reduce and remake our Constitution into their vision of social utopia. A false utopia where judges eclipse legislators and regulators make the law according to political whim.
Prejudice is something that plays into this. The alleged need to remake society in the 1960s with the Great Society was an attempt to atone for evils that should never existed. Yes, there was prejudice in the United States that has existed since before the Great Revolution. In that regard, the U.S. was not unique. Nor, is it the fault of the Northern European. Slavery has existed since one man bested another and one tribe bested another, and one city state bested another, and one nation bested another, and one empire bested another and took the losers into bondage.
How did slaves come to the U.S.? Slavery came before there was a U.S. The vanquished of whatever conflict became the fodder for the slave market. The military stronger power making a profit over the vanquished.
Prejudice came as the lie that allowed one man to "own" another. It has existed throughout history.
The same lie permeates the liberal Congress and the Marxist President to give them impetus to destroy our rights in the name of making us all the "same". In that regard, they use prejudice as a tool to create conflict and to divide.
Emotionalism is the imperative that drives.
"Feel good" is the Valium of the masses. Why if we all are the same, then we will all be happy.
Note how riots are now ignored by authorities. The rioters, usually black, are excused for their irresponsible and outrageous lawlessness on the basis of "well, they deserve to steal that TV".
No. They deserve to be shot in order to restore order.
We are a nation of law, not disorder, not color, not the whim of the despot or a Congress and President that pursue the destruction of all that made this nation great.
Prejudice will always exist as long as there is envy of another for whatever reason. There will be prejudice in the minds of those small enough to believe that one "man" is superior to another.
In the mean time, we must deal with the cancer eating at the fabric of this nation called diversity. Diversity is the attempt by the liberals and Marxists to compromise the unity that made this national great.
In order for the destruction of the United States to be accomplished, the social fabric must be destroyed. The conventions of marriage, family, culture, language, borders, and history must be destroyed or suborned in order to reach the end goal of a socialist/Marxist utopia where the dictatorship of the proletariat is the outcome.
In many regards, this has already happened.
The movements to give women equal rights has been perverted into something that now encompasses the elimination of the father figure in raising progeny, the needless, irresponsible killing of the unborn in the name of a woman controlling her own destiny and body in order to achieve the end game of accomplishing the end of the American family as we know it. The further perversion of the family by giving homosexuals parental rights and the ability to adopt have further diminished the role of the heterosexual family in our society.
Our borders and culture have been relegated to the trash heap of history. Why, the U.S. should not have borders! And, the national security and national identity issues are irrelevant. No nation in history has survived the loss of national integrity by failing to secure national boundaries.
Culture has been replaced by diversity. Why, every culture on the Earth is superior to ours.
That's why we are still a super power and the rest are third world offal holes. However, that leadership diminishes daily as our technological base is eroded by an education system that teaches diversity, the normalcy of the abnormal and deviant and "feel good" rather than hard nosed COMPETITION and how to read and write. The theft of our technology and our trade secrets, not to mention military technology and national secrets are openly sold as if they are meaningless.
How many nations have survived when the enemies of the nation have had the gates opened to them and the knowledge of their military and tactics compromised?
We have sold our national soul to the slave labor of communist China and other third world offal holes.
Our manufacturing and technology base, the envy of the world is now in the hands of the great copiers of Asia. Countries incapable of creating their own counter to our success. Done to level the playing field, to make us less threatening to the rest of the world. Our pols have sold our future down the river.
What happened to Rome, when Rome became "less threatening"?
Between the new religion of the left and the religion of climate change, the survival of western culture, much less that of the U.S. is in serious doubt. It was the liberal idiots that let the rabble from Islamic nations into western Europe . . . and the U.S. And, what have they contributed? The very real threat of revolution from and subordination to a 7th century theocracy. Yeah, Islam is sooooo tolerant and forgiving it calls for conversion . . . or death. Heck of a choice, eh?
As Dr. Michael Savage states: "Everything that is wrong is now right."
Every perversion is now to be accepted under the new order. Using children as sex toys is just another step towards social utopia.
Who determines what is right and wrong?
We do.
This election and the 2012 election will determine the fate of this nation.
In the mean time, shoot the looters in Oakland and restore order.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The intent was right, the execution sucked . . .
Reserve rush to judgment on soldier, part 4
Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.
She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.
Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.
The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.
The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.
Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.
The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.
The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.
I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.
Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.
I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.
I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.
I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.
I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.
Kari Sleight, Publisher, Frontiersman, called me yesterday (7/6/2010) to discuss why the Frontiersman published the piece on the Afghan incidents resulting in charges for murder for 4 U.S. soldiers.
She stated that the intent was to defuse the criticism received by the Frontiersman from those in the community who were anti-war and had posted to the article in a virtuperous manner. She said profanity was used and the vitriol against the young soldiers was egregious. If that were the catalyst for the op-ed piece, then the intent was to defuse and to remind. Unfortunately, the execution sucked.
Kari has a son-in-law who has served in both OIF and OEF as an MP and is still active duty. To him, we given our thanks for his service. It was his experience in returning from the war zone through New York and the anti-war comments he received that gave impetus to the op-ed piece.
The motivation for the op-ed was good, but the outcome, no matter what Kari Sleight may claim, was not what was intended.
The bent of the article was clearly not directed to reminding readers of the 6th Amendment rights of the soldiers, their UCMJ rights, and that the facts of the situation will not be known until they come out at trial. That damaging comments were made before the Article 32 hearing disclosures was dismissed as a misinterpretation on my part.
Kari stated that the piece was the work of the entire editorial board of the Frontiersman, that no one person wrote the piece.
The problem I had with the piece and still have with it is that it clearly draws conclusions from the Specifications in the charging document that can be found on-line. The language used in the op-ed piece could have clearly demonstrated the source of the allegations as the charging document, but that was not the direction demonstrated. Instead, the op-ed's first sentence clearly stated a conclusion.
The use of 'alleged' or 'allegations' should have been used liberally throughout with clear reference to the charging document to show that the soldiers were charged, but the issues had not been adjudicated. Instead, the Afghan's were pronounced civilians without any qualification.
I have a real problem with that designation of those alleged killed by the troops charged. We weren't there when the incidents happpened, and I am willing to bet, neither was the JAG officer who drafted the Specifications and Charges against the soldiers.
Too often, those who are civilians by day, are the enemy by night or on the weekends. Not too long ago, Reuters ran an article on Afghanis who fought NATO troops on weekends, but worked at legitmate jobs and participated in the goverment during the week. Therefore, the use of the term civilians is specious at this juncture. The status of those killed will come out at trial. "Alleged" should have been clearly stated. Instead, civilian was stated as a fact.
I disagree with the manner in which the Frontiersman op-ed was written. Conclusions were stated, not allegations. Kari and I will agree to disagree as to the interpretation of the op-ed piece.
I still believe that Wick Communications and the Frontiersman's Editorial Board should publically apologize to the family of SPC4 Morlock, to Morlock and the other troops charged, and to our troops.
I am still angry. I read and understand English very well. I do not believe that I misinterpreted the op-ed piece's message. Neither did my family who all read the content and reached the same conclusions. My youngest, a veteran of OIF, was as incensed as I was.
I understand Kari's sympathies in the matter and her intent. I still disagree that the op-ed piece says what she intended.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Frontiersman's Publisher's reply
Dear Mr. Wood,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.
I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.
I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.
Sincerely,
Kari
---------------------
Kari Sleight
Publisher
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
907-352-2255
http://www.frontiersman.com
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with us, and for taking my call this afternoon.
I understand your passion for those who serve in the military and share that respect with you.
I’m glad we had the discussion and hope you better understand our position. We believe that judgment on this case should be reserved until the matter is resolved in the tribunal.
Sincerely,
Kari
---------------------
Kari Sleight
Publisher
Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman
907-352-2255
http://www.frontiersman.com
E-mail to Wick Communications about Frontiersman
From: Larry Wood wood.lawrence.d@wood-alaska.com
To: john.mathews@wickcommunications.com; will.chapman@wickcommunications.com; kari.sleight@frontiersman
Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 10:13 am
Subject: OP ed piece in Frontiersman: Reserve rush to judgment on soldker
To: Mr. John Mathews, CEO
Wick Communications, Inc.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/07/06/opinion/editorials/doc4c3298e9573ba548921296.txt
Read it.
Then tell me that the 6th Amendment is alive and well for our troops. Yes, they are presumed innocent under UCMJ.
The incident described has not been adjudicated nor has the Article 32 hearing taken place. The troops have been charged, and very likely have been placed under arrest.
One of those arrested grew up in this community.
How do you think his family feels about the hack job your paper did on their son?
He was tried in the press, not by the military.
Further, the failure to post the name of the person writing this hit piece against the military was an act of outright cowardice.
The prejudice shows in the comparison to the war in the RVN.
How many of our troops have been charged in 10 years of war with acts of violence against civilians in OIF and OEF?
How many have been convicted by military courts martial?
Maybe, three or four high level cases, and the rest thrown out.
I know troops who’ve been charged for a wrongful death in the conduct of operations against the enemy in hostile territory.
They are accused, have their weapons taken from them, put on quarters arrest until the battalion commander conducts his inquiry, after which, the issue either goes to brigade JAG, or higher if there is reason to believe that it is a wrongful death. Otherwise, the soldier is given his weapon back with an apology by the battalion commander, and returns to duty. What do you think that kind of treatment does to these guys and gals?
Oh, those poor Afghan “civlians”. Right.
Your writer made that determination, based upon what? I too read the charging documents.
Were these alleged victims civilians by day, enemy by night or on weekends?
Who really knows until the facts are heard before a military tribunal, but your writer cavalierly made definite statements as to their actual status without hearing any evidence.
Our enemy has no uniforms, nothing that gives them identification as a militia or regular unit of a hostile force.
There are no front lines.
This is war at its worst.
The ROE these guys fight under is the most restrictive in the history of armed warfare.
Our domestic police do not operate under such constraints as to the use of deadly force.
Yet, whomever decided that they have the righteous morality to stand in judgment before the facts are actually heard.
Had the individual who wrote this piece been other than a coward, we would have a name to demand an answer from as to why this outrage against the Morlocks and the honor of our military was committed.
Even my pieces submitted to that paper over the years bore my picture and name or at least my name. And, yes, I tend to be direct in my writing.
The Frontiersman and Wick Communications owe their readers and those soldiers accused an apology.
I suggest you make it so, if you have any courage and sense of justice.
I am 58 years old.
I grew up in Alaska.
I have never seen the Frontiersman publish such a demeaning and prejudicial article about our military.
If the troops accused did ‘bad’, then they will be convicted by a military courts martial, only after the facts are heard. Not by the press before the fact.
To do so the day after the 4th of July is an act of contempt on the part of the author and the failure to take credit for the piece by posting the name of the author, an act of abject cowardice on the part of the Publisher and Editor.
I demand that the Frontiersman and Wick Communications publically apologize to the community, the Morlocks, the other accused troops, and to all of our troops for this insult.
Best regards,
Larry Wood
Palmer, Alaska
Where I write:
Blog: Williwaw! Alaska! Alaska!
Anchorage Gubernatorial Examiner for Examiner.com
Websites:
Business: Terra Resources, Ltd.
Family: Wood Alaska
To: john.mathews@wickcommunications.com; will.chapman@wickcommunications.com; kari.sleight@frontiersman
Sent: Tue, Jul 6, 2010 10:13 am
Subject: OP ed piece in Frontiersman: Reserve rush to judgment on soldker
To: Mr. John Mathews, CEO
Wick Communications, Inc.
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/07/06/opinion/editorials/doc4c3298e9573ba548921296.txt
Read it.
Then tell me that the 6th Amendment is alive and well for our troops. Yes, they are presumed innocent under UCMJ.
The incident described has not been adjudicated nor has the Article 32 hearing taken place. The troops have been charged, and very likely have been placed under arrest.
One of those arrested grew up in this community.
How do you think his family feels about the hack job your paper did on their son?
He was tried in the press, not by the military.
Further, the failure to post the name of the person writing this hit piece against the military was an act of outright cowardice.
The prejudice shows in the comparison to the war in the RVN.
How many of our troops have been charged in 10 years of war with acts of violence against civilians in OIF and OEF?
How many have been convicted by military courts martial?
Maybe, three or four high level cases, and the rest thrown out.
I know troops who’ve been charged for a wrongful death in the conduct of operations against the enemy in hostile territory.
They are accused, have their weapons taken from them, put on quarters arrest until the battalion commander conducts his inquiry, after which, the issue either goes to brigade JAG, or higher if there is reason to believe that it is a wrongful death. Otherwise, the soldier is given his weapon back with an apology by the battalion commander, and returns to duty. What do you think that kind of treatment does to these guys and gals?
Oh, those poor Afghan “civlians”. Right.
Your writer made that determination, based upon what? I too read the charging documents.
Were these alleged victims civilians by day, enemy by night or on weekends?
Who really knows until the facts are heard before a military tribunal, but your writer cavalierly made definite statements as to their actual status without hearing any evidence.
Our enemy has no uniforms, nothing that gives them identification as a militia or regular unit of a hostile force.
There are no front lines.
This is war at its worst.
The ROE these guys fight under is the most restrictive in the history of armed warfare.
Our domestic police do not operate under such constraints as to the use of deadly force.
Yet, whomever decided that they have the righteous morality to stand in judgment before the facts are actually heard.
Had the individual who wrote this piece been other than a coward, we would have a name to demand an answer from as to why this outrage against the Morlocks and the honor of our military was committed.
Even my pieces submitted to that paper over the years bore my picture and name or at least my name. And, yes, I tend to be direct in my writing.
The Frontiersman and Wick Communications owe their readers and those soldiers accused an apology.
I suggest you make it so, if you have any courage and sense of justice.
I am 58 years old.
I grew up in Alaska.
I have never seen the Frontiersman publish such a demeaning and prejudicial article about our military.
If the troops accused did ‘bad’, then they will be convicted by a military courts martial, only after the facts are heard. Not by the press before the fact.
To do so the day after the 4th of July is an act of contempt on the part of the author and the failure to take credit for the piece by posting the name of the author, an act of abject cowardice on the part of the Publisher and Editor.
I demand that the Frontiersman and Wick Communications publically apologize to the community, the Morlocks, the other accused troops, and to all of our troops for this insult.
Best regards,
Larry Wood
Palmer, Alaska
Where I write:
Blog: Williwaw! Alaska! Alaska!
Anchorage Gubernatorial Examiner for Examiner.com
Websites:
Business: Terra Resources, Ltd.
Family: Wood Alaska
Monday, July 5, 2010
MORON at the FRONTIERSMAN . . .
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2010/07/05/opinion/editorials/doc4c3298e9573ba548921296.txt#blogcomments
The editorial is labeled "Reserve rush to judgment for soldier" and then goes on to excoriate the troops accused in the incidents alleged. Key word, alleged.
One, the author of this piece is an idiot. This sancimonious moron has decided to prejudge the case in the press without anything but knowledge of the charging document.
Apparently, the author of that editorial has decided the troops are at fault before the Article 32 hearing.
Civilians? Really?
How would this clown know? Was he/she there? Or, is this specious supposition based upon the charging document? And, what is the record for actual convictions of troops accused of unjustified deaths of alleged innocents in combat? 3 that I know of our of dozens of such charging documents filed with careers and reputations ruined over the zealous pursuit of trying to appease the liberal anti-war mindset.
What is this all about? Vietnam? Now, we know what it is that wrote this hack job on our military. A lib who 'remembers' Vietnam . . . and all the bad we did. Go fornicate a duck you moron!
"Do we support Morlock as advocates of his innocence? Of course not. That, too, would be premature and irresponsible."
WHAT!!!!!!
THE IDIOT THAT WROTE THAT PIECE SHOULD BE FIRED! A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED INNOCENT, EVEN IN A MILITARY COURT.
CALL THE FRONTIERSMAN AND DEMAND THE FIRING OF THE IDIOT THAT MALIGNED THIS SOLDIER AND HIS COMRADES. LET JUSTICE BE DONE, BUT UNDER DUE PROCESS, NOT IN THE PRESS!!!!!
The editorial is labeled "Reserve rush to judgment for soldier" and then goes on to excoriate the troops accused in the incidents alleged. Key word, alleged.
One, the author of this piece is an idiot. This sancimonious moron has decided to prejudge the case in the press without anything but knowledge of the charging document.
"From about Feb. 22 to May 5, three Afghan civilians were killed and another
beaten, allegedly by U.S. soldiers sent there to fight for their freedom.
Charging documents claim as many as five soldiers from B Company, 2nd Battalion,
5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team, killed the civilians with fragmentation
grenades and rifles. It’s a sad reality of war that
otherwise-unthinkable crimes can be perpetrated by a few who have lost their honor among the thousands of troops who bravely and selflessly represent the United States and freedom.
Tens of thousands of soldiers have deployed and a small handful have dishonored both themselves and their unit,” said Lt. Col. Tamara Parker, spokeswoman for Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash."
Apparently, the author of that editorial has decided the troops are at fault before the Article 32 hearing.
"It’s easy to make a leap ahead of the legal process and assume guilt unless
proven innocent. That three Afghan civilians were killed is fact. That they
allegedly died at the hand of the same soldiers who were sent there to fight for
their freedom is disturbing."
Civilians? Really?
How would this clown know? Was he/she there? Or, is this specious supposition based upon the charging document? And, what is the record for actual convictions of troops accused of unjustified deaths of alleged innocents in combat? 3 that I know of our of dozens of such charging documents filed with careers and reputations ruined over the zealous pursuit of trying to appease the liberal anti-war mindset.
"Sadly, allegations like these aren’t isolated to this incident. The actions
of a few in Vietnam prompted the disgusting label of “baby killer” to be hurled
at soldiers returning from that war."
What is this all about? Vietnam? Now, we know what it is that wrote this hack job on our military. A lib who 'remembers' Vietnam . . . and all the bad we did. Go fornicate a duck you moron!
"Do we support Morlock as advocates of his innocence? Of course not. That, too, would be premature and irresponsible."
WHAT!!!!!!
THE IDIOT THAT WROTE THAT PIECE SHOULD BE FIRED! A PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IS THE BASIS OF OUR LEGAL SYSTEM. THE ACCUSED IS PRESUMED INNOCENT, EVEN IN A MILITARY COURT.
CALL THE FRONTIERSMAN AND DEMAND THE FIRING OF THE IDIOT THAT MALIGNED THIS SOLDIER AND HIS COMRADES. LET JUSTICE BE DONE, BUT UNDER DUE PROCESS, NOT IN THE PRESS!!!!!
Leadership and Ralph Samuels
There has been much made about the lack of leadership shown by the current governor. Governor Sean Parnell has been described as lackluster, mediocre, behind the scenes and hard working, and a nice guy. Ralph Samuels has chosen “Leadership Now!” as his campaign slogan to emphasize his perception of the lack of leadership shown by Parnell. This is an interesting ploy on the part of Samuels, but akin to the pot calling the kettle black. Samuels has his own baggage as regards demonstrated leadership ability.
Samuels’ claim to fame, as touted by his avid radio entertainment advocates, was his solitary vote against former Gov. Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act, or AGIA. Ralph Samuels was the only legislator to vote against AGIA.
On the surface, this is a bold statement as to his principles. However, it is an indictment against any claims of leadership ability. You see, Ralph Samuels was the House Majority Leader at the time.
Leadership is the ability to induce others to do what the leader wants them to do, whether or not they want to do the task at hand. In the case of Samuels as Marjority Leader, his job was to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, to influence his fellow Republicans in the majority caucus to act united in supporting or defeating whatever legislation was at hand. Where AGIA was concerned, Ralph failed miserably to exercise his leadership position.
Sarah Palin was hardly the pinnacle of cooperation and encouragement for the Legislature. Former Gov. Sarah Palin was a magnet for criticism. AGIA was not quietly passed, but argued vehemently at times. Where were those who argued against AGIA during the legislation’s travails through the legislative process? Why did they fail to stand with Ralph?
Samuels’ standing alone was not a case of a subordinate stubbornly refusing to follow the superior’s orders in good conscience. There was little or no risk in his opposition. Sarah Palin could hardly fire him. This was a case of a ranking member of the Legislative Branch standing against the Governor’s pet project. A governor who was not exactly engaged in any process at any time. A governor too busy with soap opera theatrics to demonstrate any leadership whatsoever during her tenure as governor. Therefore, Samuels’ singular opposition was hardly a case of political courage.
Nor, was Samuels act that of the commander of the Forlorn Hope given the impossible task for which survival of any so ordered unlikely. There was no personal danger involved. No threat to livelihood. No risk whatsoever. How was his sole vote an act of . . . leadership?
I will concede the issue of principle. To Samuels’ credit, he did stand his ground. To what end? If he was so in opposition, why was he standing alone? Why could he allegedly see what others were blind to?
House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels failed to influence his caucus to rally against Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA. Not one of his majority caucus minions followed his lead. Not one.
Yet, to hear Dan Fagan and Rick Rydell on their respective talk shows, Ralph’s vote against AGIA is the equivalent of Patrick Henry’s hanging, or Washington crossing the Delaware. Only one politician in Alaska’s political history deserves any real accolades, and that is former Governor Walter J. Hickel who challenged the federal government’s usurpation of sovereignty. He managed to get AS 38.05.500-505 passed. Yet, Samuels could not get one other to vote against AGIA.
To be cynical, was Samuels’ act an act of calculated political strategy? Did Samuels see in a distracted Gov. Sarah Palin the opportunity to challenge what was increasingly perceived as a weak and ineffectual governor?
It is interesting that her Lt. Governor has managed to accrue the same lack of respect. And, Samuels’ challenge.
Ralph Samuels campaign slogan of “Leadership Now” is either a demand by him for someone to step up, or a claim that he is the missing link for leadership. In either case, he is not the panacea that others claim. He is a failed leader.
Ralph Samuels held a powerful legislative position with a clear majority. Yet, he was not able to impede or to hinder the passage of AGIA.
In this time in Alaska’s history, given the decades to get major projects underway, the steady decline in oil production that constitutes 90% of the State’s revenues, and the fiscal catastrophe that will befall this State once TAPS declines to 300,000 bpd to market and is shut down, can we afford a governor who is a failed leader?
Samuels’ claim to fame, as touted by his avid radio entertainment advocates, was his solitary vote against former Gov. Sarah Palin’s Alaska Gas Inducement Act, or AGIA. Ralph Samuels was the only legislator to vote against AGIA.
On the surface, this is a bold statement as to his principles. However, it is an indictment against any claims of leadership ability. You see, Ralph Samuels was the House Majority Leader at the time.
Leadership is the ability to induce others to do what the leader wants them to do, whether or not they want to do the task at hand. In the case of Samuels as Marjority Leader, his job was to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, to influence his fellow Republicans in the majority caucus to act united in supporting or defeating whatever legislation was at hand. Where AGIA was concerned, Ralph failed miserably to exercise his leadership position.
Sarah Palin was hardly the pinnacle of cooperation and encouragement for the Legislature. Former Gov. Sarah Palin was a magnet for criticism. AGIA was not quietly passed, but argued vehemently at times. Where were those who argued against AGIA during the legislation’s travails through the legislative process? Why did they fail to stand with Ralph?
Samuels’ standing alone was not a case of a subordinate stubbornly refusing to follow the superior’s orders in good conscience. There was little or no risk in his opposition. Sarah Palin could hardly fire him. This was a case of a ranking member of the Legislative Branch standing against the Governor’s pet project. A governor who was not exactly engaged in any process at any time. A governor too busy with soap opera theatrics to demonstrate any leadership whatsoever during her tenure as governor. Therefore, Samuels’ singular opposition was hardly a case of political courage.
Nor, was Samuels act that of the commander of the Forlorn Hope given the impossible task for which survival of any so ordered unlikely. There was no personal danger involved. No threat to livelihood. No risk whatsoever. How was his sole vote an act of . . . leadership?
I will concede the issue of principle. To Samuels’ credit, he did stand his ground. To what end? If he was so in opposition, why was he standing alone? Why could he allegedly see what others were blind to?
House Majority Leader Ralph Samuels failed to influence his caucus to rally against Gov. Sarah Palin’s AGIA. Not one of his majority caucus minions followed his lead. Not one.
Yet, to hear Dan Fagan and Rick Rydell on their respective talk shows, Ralph’s vote against AGIA is the equivalent of Patrick Henry’s hanging, or Washington crossing the Delaware. Only one politician in Alaska’s political history deserves any real accolades, and that is former Governor Walter J. Hickel who challenged the federal government’s usurpation of sovereignty. He managed to get AS 38.05.500-505 passed. Yet, Samuels could not get one other to vote against AGIA.
To be cynical, was Samuels’ act an act of calculated political strategy? Did Samuels see in a distracted Gov. Sarah Palin the opportunity to challenge what was increasingly perceived as a weak and ineffectual governor?
It is interesting that her Lt. Governor has managed to accrue the same lack of respect. And, Samuels’ challenge.
Ralph Samuels campaign slogan of “Leadership Now” is either a demand by him for someone to step up, or a claim that he is the missing link for leadership. In either case, he is not the panacea that others claim. He is a failed leader.
Ralph Samuels held a powerful legislative position with a clear majority. Yet, he was not able to impede or to hinder the passage of AGIA.
In this time in Alaska’s history, given the decades to get major projects underway, the steady decline in oil production that constitutes 90% of the State’s revenues, and the fiscal catastrophe that will befall this State once TAPS declines to 300,000 bpd to market and is shut down, can we afford a governor who is a failed leader?
Sunday, June 6, 2010
FERC Misinformation
A recent decision by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has provided the grist for the political mill of those opposing the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline and Bill Walker’s candidacy for governor. However, this is a case of the disinformationistas being aided by the silence of the lamb (Parnell), rather than it being the death knell to anyone’s campaign.
FERC recently declined to renew an application by Yukon Pacific Corporation for an LNG export train at Anderson Bay. This decision has been declared a death knell to Walker’s campaign by Walker’s detractors. Walker’s pipeline advocacy is in support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. The decision has been heralded as barring any export of Alaska gas, thereby ending both Walker’s candidacy and the Valdez pipeline option. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The silence being on the part of the Parnell Administration in keeping quiet an inquiry of Jan. 28, 2010 from Pipeline Coodinator Bob Swenson made to FERC as reported in the Oil and Gas Journal in an editorial dated March 22, 2010.
Cheniere, Inc. is converting its Sabine Pass, TX LNG import facility to receive foreign LNG and to loop it back for export to Asian markets. Cheniere cites a 42% drop in LNG imports between 2007 and 2008 into the U.S. because of increased domestic supplies. This market trend results from increased supplies of natural gas in the domestic U.S. market from shale gas and other unconventional sources.
Cheniere has also applied for permits to export U.S. domestic produced natural gas to global markets. This would be only the second facility in the U.S. built to export domestically produced LNG to foreign markets. The first such facility was built at Nikkiski, Alaska and has been exporting LNG to Japan since 1969.
In his Jan. 28, 2010 inquiry to FERC, Gov. Sean Parnell’s pipeline coordinator Bob Swenson described 3 scenarios and requested to know if FERC would have regulatory oversight.
Scenario 1 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state only. FERC’s response was that FERC would have no regulatory oversight authority for such use.
Scenario 2 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to domestic U.S. markets. FERC”s response was that FERC would regulatory authority over domestic export to the U.S. market.
Scenario 3 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to foreign markets. FERC’s response was that FERC would not have regulatory authority over North Slope gas exported to a foreign market.
FERC does not have regulatory oversight over North Slope natural gas exported to foreign markets. Therefore, the issue of FERC’s denial of Yukon Pacific’s permit to export North Slope gas from Valdez to the U.S. domestic market has no bearing whatsoever on Walker’s Valdez pipeline project.
Parnell knows that Walker’s Valdez pipeline plan is viable and economically sound. Cheniere, Inc.’s filing for an export permit to export domestically produced LNG to global markets further supports Walker’s contention that Alaska should export its natural gas to a global market rather than to an oversupplied U.S. market.
Rival Ralph Samuels has also lauded the FERC decision regarding the YPC permit as supporting his position that Walker’s plan is not viable. Obviously, in light of the response by FERC to the Parnell Administration’s inquiry, Samuels is wrong in his position. Samuels knows full well that FERC has domestic market oversight, not foreign, and that Walker’s plan is to export natural gas to Asia.
On the one hand, Parnell acts to withhold information, on the other, Samuels acts, as have others, to promote half truths.
The positions of the various candidates on the issues regarding the pipelines and the looming economic disaster facing the State would be illuminated at public forums where they would debate on the issues. Unfortunately, Gov. Sean Parnell has decided that he does not want to participate in any more debates until just before the Primary Election in August. He was put on the spot by Walker at the Kodiak Crab Festival on May 29th.
Walker asked Parnell about the $20,000,000,000 give-a-way that his refusal to sign SB 305 separating natural gas taxes from oil taxes will cost the State. This give-a-way amounts to a State subsidy for the Canadian route construction of AGIA or Denali. Both benefit from Parnell’s action. Apparently, Parnell chose to waffle and make polite noises rather than answer a direct question.
It appears that Walker’s growing support is making Parnell and Samuels a bit nervous in the service as it were.
FERC recently declined to renew an application by Yukon Pacific Corporation for an LNG export train at Anderson Bay. This decision has been declared a death knell to Walker’s campaign by Walker’s detractors. Walker’s pipeline advocacy is in support of the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline to Valdez. The decision has been heralded as barring any export of Alaska gas, thereby ending both Walker’s candidacy and the Valdez pipeline option. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The silence being on the part of the Parnell Administration in keeping quiet an inquiry of Jan. 28, 2010 from Pipeline Coodinator Bob Swenson made to FERC as reported in the Oil and Gas Journal in an editorial dated March 22, 2010.
Cheniere, Inc. is converting its Sabine Pass, TX LNG import facility to receive foreign LNG and to loop it back for export to Asian markets. Cheniere cites a 42% drop in LNG imports between 2007 and 2008 into the U.S. because of increased domestic supplies. This market trend results from increased supplies of natural gas in the domestic U.S. market from shale gas and other unconventional sources.
Cheniere has also applied for permits to export U.S. domestic produced natural gas to global markets. This would be only the second facility in the U.S. built to export domestically produced LNG to foreign markets. The first such facility was built at Nikkiski, Alaska and has been exporting LNG to Japan since 1969.
In his Jan. 28, 2010 inquiry to FERC, Gov. Sean Parnell’s pipeline coordinator Bob Swenson described 3 scenarios and requested to know if FERC would have regulatory oversight.
Scenario 1 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state only. FERC’s response was that FERC would have no regulatory oversight authority for such use.
Scenario 2 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to domestic U.S. markets. FERC”s response was that FERC would regulatory authority over domestic export to the U.S. market.
Scenario 3 was an in-state pipeline with North Slope gas being used in-state with some of the gas being exported to foreign markets. FERC’s response was that FERC would not have regulatory authority over North Slope gas exported to a foreign market.
FERC does not have regulatory oversight over North Slope natural gas exported to foreign markets. Therefore, the issue of FERC’s denial of Yukon Pacific’s permit to export North Slope gas from Valdez to the U.S. domestic market has no bearing whatsoever on Walker’s Valdez pipeline project.
Parnell knows that Walker’s Valdez pipeline plan is viable and economically sound. Cheniere, Inc.’s filing for an export permit to export domestically produced LNG to global markets further supports Walker’s contention that Alaska should export its natural gas to a global market rather than to an oversupplied U.S. market.
Rival Ralph Samuels has also lauded the FERC decision regarding the YPC permit as supporting his position that Walker’s plan is not viable. Obviously, in light of the response by FERC to the Parnell Administration’s inquiry, Samuels is wrong in his position. Samuels knows full well that FERC has domestic market oversight, not foreign, and that Walker’s plan is to export natural gas to Asia.
On the one hand, Parnell acts to withhold information, on the other, Samuels acts, as have others, to promote half truths.
The positions of the various candidates on the issues regarding the pipelines and the looming economic disaster facing the State would be illuminated at public forums where they would debate on the issues. Unfortunately, Gov. Sean Parnell has decided that he does not want to participate in any more debates until just before the Primary Election in August. He was put on the spot by Walker at the Kodiak Crab Festival on May 29th.
Walker asked Parnell about the $20,000,000,000 give-a-way that his refusal to sign SB 305 separating natural gas taxes from oil taxes will cost the State. This give-a-way amounts to a State subsidy for the Canadian route construction of AGIA or Denali. Both benefit from Parnell’s action. Apparently, Parnell chose to waffle and make polite noises rather than answer a direct question.
It appears that Walker’s growing support is making Parnell and Samuels a bit nervous in the service as it were.
Sunday, May 9, 2010
An Alaska legend passes . . . Hickel
One of Alaska’s true political powerhouses and true Alaska spirits has passed. Walter Joseph Hickel died at the age of 90 in Anchorage hospice. He had a very full life. He is survived by his wife Ermalee Hickel, his six sons and 21 grandchildren.
Hickel was born in 1919 in Claflin, KS. His family farmed. He was the Kansas Golden Glovers champion by age 20.
Walter Hickel came to Alaska when Alaska was still a frontier in 1940. He made his fortune here, and established himself as one of Alaska’s political powerhouses. He was a great promoter of Alaska and our resources. His stance on Alaska’s sovereignty was reflected in AS 35.05.500-505.
Hickel married Jannice Cannon, his first wife in 1941. She died in 1943. They had one son.
In 1945, he married his second wife, Ermalee Strutz. They had 5 sons.
Wally Hickel became our Governor twice. His first term in office was in 1966. He defeated Bill Egan, Alaska’s first governor. In 1969 Hickel was appointed as Secretary of the Interior under President Richard Nixon. He was fired in 1970 for writing a letter protesting the President’s handling of war dissension, notably the Kent State shootings.
Hickel was diligent at his job as Interior Secretary. He set high standards for the oil companies after an oil rig accident off the coast of California. He was also an advocate for the Everglades.
Hickel was a strong advocate for export of Alaska resources to Japan and Asia.
Hickel was again elected as governor under the Alaskan Independence Party in 1990. He pursued the injustices of the federal government in their dealings with Alaska resource development and lands issues in the federal courts. Unfortunately, his successor, Tony Knowles dropped the lawsuit with prejudice, leaving future governors no recourse.
Hickel supported Sarah Palin, until she dropped the all-Alaska pipeline project to Valdez in favor of AGIA. He became a vocal opponent of her resource development policies and her distractions.
He publically supported gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker in the 2010 campaign.
An as yet to be scheduled funeral mass will be celebrated in Anchorage.
Hickel was born in 1919 in Claflin, KS. His family farmed. He was the Kansas Golden Glovers champion by age 20.
Walter Hickel came to Alaska when Alaska was still a frontier in 1940. He made his fortune here, and established himself as one of Alaska’s political powerhouses. He was a great promoter of Alaska and our resources. His stance on Alaska’s sovereignty was reflected in AS 35.05.500-505.
Hickel married Jannice Cannon, his first wife in 1941. She died in 1943. They had one son.
In 1945, he married his second wife, Ermalee Strutz. They had 5 sons.
Wally Hickel became our Governor twice. His first term in office was in 1966. He defeated Bill Egan, Alaska’s first governor. In 1969 Hickel was appointed as Secretary of the Interior under President Richard Nixon. He was fired in 1970 for writing a letter protesting the President’s handling of war dissension, notably the Kent State shootings.
Hickel was diligent at his job as Interior Secretary. He set high standards for the oil companies after an oil rig accident off the coast of California. He was also an advocate for the Everglades.
Hickel was a strong advocate for export of Alaska resources to Japan and Asia.
Hickel was again elected as governor under the Alaskan Independence Party in 1990. He pursued the injustices of the federal government in their dealings with Alaska resource development and lands issues in the federal courts. Unfortunately, his successor, Tony Knowles dropped the lawsuit with prejudice, leaving future governors no recourse.
Hickel supported Sarah Palin, until she dropped the all-Alaska pipeline project to Valdez in favor of AGIA. He became a vocal opponent of her resource development policies and her distractions.
He publically supported gubernatorial candidate Bill Walker in the 2010 campaign.
An as yet to be scheduled funeral mass will be celebrated in Anchorage.
My father was a State Police officer. In 1959, he was sent to investigate the newly formed company to bring Cook Inlet and Kenai Penninsula gas deposits to market in south central. Walter J. Hickel was the man my father spoke with. My father asked about stock in the company, who could purchase, etc. Hickel smiled at him and told him suscinctly that my father could not afford the stock. You see, a State cop at the time made about $450/mo.
It was Cook Inlet gas supplying Ft. Richardson and Elmendorf in 1965 that shut down Evan Jones Coal Mine in Sutton. The coal mine provided the coal that previously had fueled the power plant and heating system for the bases. Over 60 families in the Mat-Su valley lost their livelihoods. Working at the coal mine was one of the good jobs--year round, non government, good money for the time.
Hickel pushed our timber to the Japanese during his first term in 1966, who bought Alaska timber in the round initially, started a timber industry in southeastern that grew until the feds shut down Tongass.
Hickel had a vision of Alaska that I did not necessarily agree with, but he was right. The "owner state" concept reeked of socialism to me and was distasteful. However, I did agree wholeheartedly with his exceptional and in your face protection of Alaska's sovereignty in opposition to the increasing federal encroachment.
I wish Hickel had lived to see the all-Alaska pipeline built. And, I wish Sarah Palin had been the governor that we and Hickel had hoped that she would be.
Oh, well. Life is a bitch and then you die.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
CAP AND TRADE THIS, YOU MORONS!
Hey, Nancy Pelosi! Here's a big source of revenue for your stupid cap and tax idiocy!
Now, all you have to do, is to figure out who pays!
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Ralph Samuels steps in "it" . . .
In an interview with the Frontiersman, gubernatorial candidate Ralph Samuels pretty much damaged his hopes for a successful run against incumbent Sean Parnell or fellow Republican Bill Walker.
In what has to be one of the weirdest statements of any candidate to date on resource development issues Samuels opined:
“A larger diameter in-state gas line running from the North Slope to Valdez presents problems and not enough room for future growth to make it worth the $20 billion investment. First, there is no LNG plant in Valdez, and the plant in Nikiski already has the permit to export the commodity.
Second, and more disturbingly the known reserves in Prudhoe Bay are large enough to supply the pipeline to Valdez with gas for 70 years. This means future gas development is no longer necessary to make the line to Valdez pay off. Why would you go explore for more? You don’t want the (Valdez pipeline) because that’s all you get.” –Ralph Samuels 3/30/2010
I characterize this statement as weird, as this is the first time that any candidate has stated that too much gas is a problem. This is also the first time that any candidate has stated that having enough gas for a 70 year supply of gas to tidewater at 3 billion cubic feet per day is a bad thing.
Samuels’ statement means that his estimate of 70 years of jobs, industry from keeping our gas liquids in-state, and keeping the money and infrastructure in Alaska while exporting a reasonable volume of gas from the North Slope would be bad for an economy that is cooling with the continuing reduction in oil flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
How is this “long term thinking” on his part, much less demonstrating any business acumen?
It is obvious that Samuels ultimately favors sending most of the North Slope gas to Canada. He states:
“The gas supply on the North Slope is big enough to keep a bullet line operating without harming the prospects of a larger, out-of-state gas line.”
Looking at his list of contributors to his campaign is a list of whose who at Conoco-Phillips and Enstar.
Samuels is another of the give it all to the Canucks and to heck with Alaska and Alaskans. He intends to give Alaska’s resources away without demanding anything in return.
It is common knowledge that Conoco-Phillips/BP’s Denali project intends to supply gas to free Alberta tar sands oil at the cheapest cost possible, with Alaska’s gas liquids—propane, ethane, hexane, butane—going to Alberta’s petrochemical industry. Alaska would get the lowest price for its gas were Denali to happen.
The Valdez line option championed by Republican Bill Walker and mandated by Alaska’s voters in 2002 has all permits in place and the Environmental Impact Statements up to date for the LNG train and the impact of LNG tanker traffic in and out of Valdez and Prince William Sound. This is the only pipeline option for export of our gas to market that keeps the jobs for Alaskans, the infrastructure in Alaska, and our gas liquids for use in-state to build a petrochemical industry. AGIA and Denali, the other two export options benefit Canada, not Alaska.
Samuels’ record is as a 6 year legislator with 2 years as House Majority Leader. Samuel’s was a legislator who voted for the greatest increase in state budgets and a significant increase in the growth of State government. He lacks the credentials to qualify him as a fiscal conservative.
The problem with the bullet line from the North Slope to Port McKenzie in the Mat-Su Valley, is that 1. the route is not finalized, 2. any route being considered crosses 2 wildlife refuges, a federal national park, a state park, and 12 fish streams.
It took 8 ½ years for the Valdez line Environmental Impact Statement to be approved by the federal government. I guess Samuels figures he will just declare such done and that is all there is to the process?
The bullet line sounds like a great idea. Except, the cost of transporting the gas is figured on a volume basis. Further, the impact upon future development and exploration in Cook Inlet by 500mcf/da was unstated by candidate Samuels. In fact, he missed the boat regarding the ability to resolve the real problem with Cook Inlet gas supply.
The problem is the 10 years it takes to get a permit approved to do anything, and then the impact of further delays from specious litigation on the part of the environmental, no growth groups. The Alaska Regulatory Commission is a major impediment with respect to the time it takes to get any permits for exploration, development and improvements where Cook Inlet oil and gas are concerned.
Samuels is a walking statement for why it is necessary to reject the incumbents and prior and serving legislators this coming election. They are the problem, not any answer.
Alaska is in a very serious predicament financially and economically. Without a viable economy, which Alaska’s runs on oil and gas, there is no hope for our sons and daughters staying here. There will not be any jobs here for them, given Samuel’s lack of foresight and logic.
Look at Samuels’ website at http://www.samuelsforgovernor.com/ . Please, if you can find one statement about any position, let me know! This guy evidently stands for . . . leadership? That’s all he says. He says nothing on the website about his positions for anything. And, he wants to be governor of Alaska?
Please be informed this election.
For more information:
http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/03/31/local_news/doc4bb161049c270431896290.txt
In what has to be one of the weirdest statements of any candidate to date on resource development issues Samuels opined:
“A larger diameter in-state gas line running from the North Slope to Valdez presents problems and not enough room for future growth to make it worth the $20 billion investment. First, there is no LNG plant in Valdez, and the plant in Nikiski already has the permit to export the commodity.
Second, and more disturbingly the known reserves in Prudhoe Bay are large enough to supply the pipeline to Valdez with gas for 70 years. This means future gas development is no longer necessary to make the line to Valdez pay off. Why would you go explore for more? You don’t want the (Valdez pipeline) because that’s all you get.” –Ralph Samuels 3/30/2010
I characterize this statement as weird, as this is the first time that any candidate has stated that too much gas is a problem. This is also the first time that any candidate has stated that having enough gas for a 70 year supply of gas to tidewater at 3 billion cubic feet per day is a bad thing.
Samuels’ statement means that his estimate of 70 years of jobs, industry from keeping our gas liquids in-state, and keeping the money and infrastructure in Alaska while exporting a reasonable volume of gas from the North Slope would be bad for an economy that is cooling with the continuing reduction in oil flowing through the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
How is this “long term thinking” on his part, much less demonstrating any business acumen?
It is obvious that Samuels ultimately favors sending most of the North Slope gas to Canada. He states:
“The gas supply on the North Slope is big enough to keep a bullet line operating without harming the prospects of a larger, out-of-state gas line.”
Looking at his list of contributors to his campaign is a list of whose who at Conoco-Phillips and Enstar.
Samuels is another of the give it all to the Canucks and to heck with Alaska and Alaskans. He intends to give Alaska’s resources away without demanding anything in return.
It is common knowledge that Conoco-Phillips/BP’s Denali project intends to supply gas to free Alberta tar sands oil at the cheapest cost possible, with Alaska’s gas liquids—propane, ethane, hexane, butane—going to Alberta’s petrochemical industry. Alaska would get the lowest price for its gas were Denali to happen.
The Valdez line option championed by Republican Bill Walker and mandated by Alaska’s voters in 2002 has all permits in place and the Environmental Impact Statements up to date for the LNG train and the impact of LNG tanker traffic in and out of Valdez and Prince William Sound. This is the only pipeline option for export of our gas to market that keeps the jobs for Alaskans, the infrastructure in Alaska, and our gas liquids for use in-state to build a petrochemical industry. AGIA and Denali, the other two export options benefit Canada, not Alaska.
Samuels’ record is as a 6 year legislator with 2 years as House Majority Leader. Samuel’s was a legislator who voted for the greatest increase in state budgets and a significant increase in the growth of State government. He lacks the credentials to qualify him as a fiscal conservative.
The problem with the bullet line from the North Slope to Port McKenzie in the Mat-Su Valley, is that 1. the route is not finalized, 2. any route being considered crosses 2 wildlife refuges, a federal national park, a state park, and 12 fish streams.
It took 8 ½ years for the Valdez line Environmental Impact Statement to be approved by the federal government. I guess Samuels figures he will just declare such done and that is all there is to the process?
The bullet line sounds like a great idea. Except, the cost of transporting the gas is figured on a volume basis. Further, the impact upon future development and exploration in Cook Inlet by 500mcf/da was unstated by candidate Samuels. In fact, he missed the boat regarding the ability to resolve the real problem with Cook Inlet gas supply.
The problem is the 10 years it takes to get a permit approved to do anything, and then the impact of further delays from specious litigation on the part of the environmental, no growth groups. The Alaska Regulatory Commission is a major impediment with respect to the time it takes to get any permits for exploration, development and improvements where Cook Inlet oil and gas are concerned.
Samuels is a walking statement for why it is necessary to reject the incumbents and prior and serving legislators this coming election. They are the problem, not any answer.
Alaska is in a very serious predicament financially and economically. Without a viable economy, which Alaska’s runs on oil and gas, there is no hope for our sons and daughters staying here. There will not be any jobs here for them, given Samuel’s lack of foresight and logic.
Look at Samuels’ website at http://www.samuelsforgovernor.com/ . Please, if you can find one statement about any position, let me know! This guy evidently stands for . . . leadership? That’s all he says. He says nothing on the website about his positions for anything. And, he wants to be governor of Alaska?
Please be informed this election.
For more information:
http://frontiersman.com/articles/2010/03/31/local_news/doc4bb161049c270431896290.txt
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
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.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
AGIA IS A SCREW OVER IF THE PIPELINE GOES TO CANADA!
“TransCanada's inclusion of an LNG option throws a curve into Alberta's hopes to expand its petrochemical industry, which is relying on Alaska gas volumes, especially the liquids contained in the gas stream, for feedstock. According to the Industry Canada website, there are currently insufficient volumes of feedstock to support big new investments in Alberta's petrochemical sector”.—Shaun Polczer, Calgary Herald 1/30/2010
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alaska+could+bypass+Alberta/2502872/story.html
There it is in black and white from a Canadian source for those of you who still feel that there is any upside to allowing our gas to be transported to Canada.
What does Alaska get out of AGIA to Canada or Denali? SCREWED, THAT’S WHAT!!!!!!!
Any Alaska politician who supports either of the Canadian options should be voted out of office, if not outright impeached!
There is it is, Governor Sean Parnell.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Alaska+could+bypass+Alberta/2502872/story.html
There it is in black and white from a Canadian source for those of you who still feel that there is any upside to allowing our gas to be transported to Canada.
What does Alaska get out of AGIA to Canada or Denali? SCREWED, THAT’S WHAT!!!!!!!
Any Alaska politician who supports either of the Canadian options should be voted out of office, if not outright impeached!
There is it is, Governor Sean Parnell.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
AGIA is dead but for the politics
Obviously, AGIA is not dead. However, the announcement Friday of a cost increase of an estimated $41B is not conducive to supporting a belief that either AGIA or Denali can be feasible economically. Especially, since the completion date is estimated to be at least 2020.
Given that costs of operations on the North Slope have risen 68% from 2001 to 2009, one can reasonably figure that AGIA’s costs will increase between now and any anticipated start date, say 2015. Since AGIA’s estimated cost was about $15B-$25B, depending upon the source during the Palin v. Murkowski campaign, one can estimate that the completed cost will be somewhere between $75B and $100B by estimated shipment of the first gas in 2020.
Shell announced that it is cutting back its expansion of production of oil from Alberta’s tar sands from a target of 700,000bpd to 225,000bpd for the foreseeable future. Shell will be shifting its emphasis to offshore and onshore exploration, something the company had not emphasized until a recent change in management. Increased cost in the reduction in the expansion of the tar sands recovery was cited as the reason.
It is my belief that AGIA is dead, given the shale gas production Outside and in Canada. Exxon spent $41B buying the company with the largest shale gas holdings in the U.S. One also has to remember that Exxon is committed to a 25 year commitment with Qattar to bring gas to the U.S. The expansion of LNG terminals in the U.S. to 4.5bcf is an interesting number, as that was the planned capacity of big diameter pipelines from Alaska to Canada to the U.S. Any introduction of Alaska gas at that rate would have a depressing effect on the price of natural gas in the region in which it is introduced.
There are those who believe that the President will not allow Alaska to export LNG. That given this belief, the all-Alaska pipeline would not be feasible as Alaska’s gas could not then be exported. This position is belied by the fact that Alaska has been shipping gas from Nikkiski to Japan for the last 40 years. Given this fact, the all-Alaska pipeline would have a market in Asia, primarily in Japan.
The big question now, is what will be the outcome of the AGIA Open Season? Will the producers step up to send gas to Canada? Not likely, for the reasons stated above. However, AGIA was flexible, with a 2.0bcf pipeline to Valdez as the LNG option. That option may see interest, as Asia offers higher prices to Outside markets now uncertain because of shale gas development.
The outcome of the AGIA Open Season will not be known until NOVEMBER, after the general election is over. This plays in the favor of Gov. Sean Parnell. However, if the arguments on the part of Bill Walker regarding the viability and benefits of the all-Alaska pipeline option continue to find favor with Alaskans, Gov. Parnell will need something substantive to show the people that AGIA will produce results before the August Primary.
It is obvious, with the filing of HB312, that Rep. Jay Ramras, Rep. Mike Chennault, Rep. Mark Neumann, Rep. Bill Stoltze, Sen. Lesil McGuire, Sen. Charlie Huggins are hoping to confuse the idea of the Noah Parks Highway 500mcf pipeline sufficiently to get the people to forget that we voted for the all-Alaska route back in 2002 and again in 2006 with the election of Palin/Parnell. These legislators forget that they have ignored the will of the people as egregiously as did governors Murkowski, Palin and Parnell.
The reality here is that although there was no announcement, AGIA’s viability is suspect, due to the doubling of the price tag over less than 4 years. That fact cannot be attractive to potential investors.
The only sure thing is the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed by Bill Walker, and voted upon by Alaskans in two separate elections. That pipeline is permitted, and ready to begin construction. All it needs is a governor to lead the way.
Given that costs of operations on the North Slope have risen 68% from 2001 to 2009, one can reasonably figure that AGIA’s costs will increase between now and any anticipated start date, say 2015. Since AGIA’s estimated cost was about $15B-$25B, depending upon the source during the Palin v. Murkowski campaign, one can estimate that the completed cost will be somewhere between $75B and $100B by estimated shipment of the first gas in 2020.
Shell announced that it is cutting back its expansion of production of oil from Alberta’s tar sands from a target of 700,000bpd to 225,000bpd for the foreseeable future. Shell will be shifting its emphasis to offshore and onshore exploration, something the company had not emphasized until a recent change in management. Increased cost in the reduction in the expansion of the tar sands recovery was cited as the reason.
It is my belief that AGIA is dead, given the shale gas production Outside and in Canada. Exxon spent $41B buying the company with the largest shale gas holdings in the U.S. One also has to remember that Exxon is committed to a 25 year commitment with Qattar to bring gas to the U.S. The expansion of LNG terminals in the U.S. to 4.5bcf is an interesting number, as that was the planned capacity of big diameter pipelines from Alaska to Canada to the U.S. Any introduction of Alaska gas at that rate would have a depressing effect on the price of natural gas in the region in which it is introduced.
There are those who believe that the President will not allow Alaska to export LNG. That given this belief, the all-Alaska pipeline would not be feasible as Alaska’s gas could not then be exported. This position is belied by the fact that Alaska has been shipping gas from Nikkiski to Japan for the last 40 years. Given this fact, the all-Alaska pipeline would have a market in Asia, primarily in Japan.
The big question now, is what will be the outcome of the AGIA Open Season? Will the producers step up to send gas to Canada? Not likely, for the reasons stated above. However, AGIA was flexible, with a 2.0bcf pipeline to Valdez as the LNG option. That option may see interest, as Asia offers higher prices to Outside markets now uncertain because of shale gas development.
The outcome of the AGIA Open Season will not be known until NOVEMBER, after the general election is over. This plays in the favor of Gov. Sean Parnell. However, if the arguments on the part of Bill Walker regarding the viability and benefits of the all-Alaska pipeline option continue to find favor with Alaskans, Gov. Parnell will need something substantive to show the people that AGIA will produce results before the August Primary.
It is obvious, with the filing of HB312, that Rep. Jay Ramras, Rep. Mike Chennault, Rep. Mark Neumann, Rep. Bill Stoltze, Sen. Lesil McGuire, Sen. Charlie Huggins are hoping to confuse the idea of the Noah Parks Highway 500mcf pipeline sufficiently to get the people to forget that we voted for the all-Alaska route back in 2002 and again in 2006 with the election of Palin/Parnell. These legislators forget that they have ignored the will of the people as egregiously as did governors Murkowski, Palin and Parnell.
The reality here is that although there was no announcement, AGIA’s viability is suspect, due to the doubling of the price tag over less than 4 years. That fact cannot be attractive to potential investors.
The only sure thing is the all-Alaska natural gas pipeline proposed by Bill Walker, and voted upon by Alaskans in two separate elections. That pipeline is permitted, and ready to begin construction. All it needs is a governor to lead the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)