HB69: A National Disgrace

HB69: A National Disgrace

2
40
SHARE

The most controversial bill in recent Alaska history – and beyond – might be this session’s House Bill 69, sponsored by Speaker Mike Chenault. This House legislation was advertised as a declaration of state sovereignty as it related to owning firearms in Alaska. But that was more of a side note to the actual threat the language of the bill presents.

HB69 includes provocative language stipulating that state authorities could, should the bill pass, arrest federal agents who attempted to enforce federal law regarding gun regulations. For instance, if Washington DC passed a law tomorrow stating that high capacity ammo clips are illegal, Chenault’s bill would deem that law invalid. It would empower state troopers to arrest any FBI agent seeking to enforce the law. It would tell citizens that they had more power than the feds.

Chenault’s legislation was a proposed solution to non-existent gun reform being discussed in the nation’s capital. In other words, it nullified federal law.

Chenault’s HB69 passed out of the Republican-dominated House Judiciary Committee with ease and passed through the House on Monday by a vote of 31 to 5.

The crux of the bill is as simple as it is falsely advertised by its proponents: states can pick and choose which federal laws to abide by, and can assert authority over federal agents enforcing federal law.

We’ve been through this. It caused the creation of our Constitution in light of the obvious inefficiency of the Articles of Confederation.

Daniel Day-Lewis just won an Oscar for the next time our country faced the issue.

The people who Alaskans elected, who have been chosen to create policy that ensures a stable, viable, prosperous 49th estate, these people have made three fundamentally shortsighted and flawed determinations in advancing Chenault’s nullification law.

The first mistake is the misguided presumption that this bill is, in any way, constitutional. The second mistake is the legislators’ choice to propagate the false premise that HB69 is about the Second Amendment; that this proposal in any way protects our right to bear arms in a way that the actual Second Amendment fails to. The third mistake hinges on this bizarre notion that arresting federal agents is the proper way to publicly disagree with poor decisions made at the federal level.

The Constitutions.

There’s this thing known as the Supremacy Clause. United States Constitution, Article 6, Section 2:

“The Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in ever State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Our founders loved federalism and arbitrary capitalization. And I salute them. They were clear: federal law trumps state law. The courts decide when Congress has acted in a way that violates the Constitution.

Alaska State Constitution, Article 12, Section 4 details “Disqualifications for Disloyalty” for elected officials:

“No person who advocates, or who aids or belongs to any party or organization or association which advocates, the overthrow by force or violence of the government of the United States or of the State shall be qualified to hold any public office of trust or profit under this constitution.”

A general attribute of a failed state is an erosion of the authority to make collective decisions; to uphold the law. When one state in a United States claims that they can assert dominance over the whole for the laws it follows, and bands together with other states who feel the same – to a degree where they claim they can arrest federal agents, what do you call that?

North Pole Republican Tammie Wilson objected to criticism of HB69 by way of defending it’s beyond-a-reasonable-doubt-unconstitutionality: “So one attorney has said it might be [unconstitutional]. We don’t know that for sure that this is unconstitutional.”

Shouldn’t the legislature be confident that they are pursuing legislation “in pursuance thereof” the Constitution, and not a dark horse gamble that might possibly slip-by judicial review by the skin of its teeth? (Which it wouldn’t.)

Enough is Enough.

It’s tough to be an elected politician. You want to be seen as a champion of the peoples’ will. And you have to prove your case to those people if you wish to retain your seat. So, you figure out what your district cares about and try to become that lightning rod of unwavering support for whatever that issue is. Even if it’s a nonexistent issue, or if you’re making a stink about something you don’t need to be. You find something that tends to keep people from showing up to protest the very idea of you. That’s the theater that our politics have become.

In Alaska, gun rights are hugely important. We hunt. We often live in secluded areas – Alaska tops the national census data at 1.2 persons per square mile. Protection in Alaska is something very different than an urban apartment complex in Oakland. Gun rights are different here, and laws need to reflect that. National laws need, also, to respect that.

But there’s a disconnect between the reality of respecting gun ownership and the defense of a bill in the state legislature that takes hostile action towards the nation we’re the forty ninth star of.

This was a fact pointed out by freshman representative Andy Josephson (D-Anchorage):

Mr. Speaker, we decided in 1955 to submit a state constitution. We joined the team. Our star’s on the flag. I see it there. We didn’t have to do that. We demanded it. We implored our forty-eight… brothers and sisters, let us join this great team. And I care greatly about my state. But I’m very proud to be an American. Very proud. And if the courts say that an administration law is constitutional, it is. I think this is secessionist talk. That’s what I think it is.

That is tough to argue, because what Mike Chenault is talking about is, at its unrelenting core, secessionist talk.

But Representative Peggy Wilson (R-Wrangell) was, nonetheless, there to make a haunting declaration: “[W]e are joining a team. We’re joining a team with eleven other states that are saying enough is enough.”

Sorry, I’m just trying to get past the “this isn’t condoning a new Civil War” sentiment in light of the whole “we’re joining a team of eleven states seeking to preempt the federal government’s authority” argument.

I feel like this is charted territory.

The reality is that there is a group of politicians that, at best, want to secure re-election by honing in on a topic that gets their base aflutter – and satisfies that aflutteredness dishonestly, by posing as paper heroes saving a constitutional protection in no need of rescue.

Some actors reach this conclusion, as it would appear, innocently. Representative Benjamin Nageak, for instance, is a Democrat in the Bush Caucus who was admittedly very conflicted. His support of the bill was not a tacit endorsement of arresting federal agents in an offensive movement against the federal government, but as a reaction based in fear of losing guns used to hunt for subsistence. He drank the HB69 proponents’ Kool-Aid.

I don’t think he understands the bill he just voted on.

Other actors are using this to promulgate a wildly incorrect paranoia, one that believes MoveOn.org special ops will be knocking on their door and confiscating their firearms tomorrow if not for the actions of the Alaska State Legislature – so long as they pass this entirely unrelated bill that is an act of aggression against the United States.

For instance, Palmer Republican Representative Shelley Hughes:

I’ve heard from many, many constituents and Alaskans from across the state that this is something that they would indeed like addressed. And when I listened to all the details, I’m sitting here thinking about something that’s more of a principle.

She is acting as though they are reaffirming a Constitutional right which they are not reaffirming. The Second Amendment is not a question, it’s a Constitutional right. This is not a principle, it’s a bill. A really bad bill.

I doubt that her constituents believe that Alaska has a federal agent problem that needs to be addressed by arresting American citizens.

We’re hunting bogeymen.

Arresting Federal Agents.

The overarching anti-American sentiment housed in HB69 is the rebuke of the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Speaker Mike Chenault, and 21 of his House colleagues, have decided this is a fine idea. The punishment its consequences could potentially dole out on the constituents they were elected to serve is collateral damage that had yet gone unmentioned.

Representative Les Gara (D-Anchorage) led the floor deliberations with a chilling speech that was promptly ignored.

[HB69] says it’s a crime for an FBI agent to arrest somebody for violating a federal criminal law. Well, in order for that to be a crime, that means that somebody has to arrest them. That means a trooper has to arrest them. A police officer has to arrest them. And when a police officer or a trooper arrest an FBI agent, they have done what federal law calls impeding a federal officer from doing their job. So they’ll be subject to a criminal penalty of somewhere between one year if no scuffle happens to twenty years if a major scuffle happens.

There are better ways to express your dissatisfaction with what the federal government does. By resolution, perhaps. By letter. By electing congressional representatives who will stand up for the things that we believe in. But it is not right to make our constituents think that illegal conduct is okay; to make our constituents think they can do things that are going to land them in the federal clink, only to have them, when they’re in federal jail, write us and say “I thought you said we could do this.” I’m not willing to do that. I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their liberty, I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their freedom, I’m not willing to deprive my constituents of their time with their family, and their children at home.

Freshman GOP Representative Gabrielle LeDoux decided to rebut Gara’s argument with a complete misunderstanding of how states can disagree with federal laws without openly rebelling against the Union.

[W]e all do know that the federal constitution trumps the state constitution and trumps state law. But we also know that it is very, very difficult for the federal authorities to enforce federal law when they are getting no cooperation from the state authorities. So, just as the federal government has said, in response to the various marijuana initiatives across the country which are legalizing marijuana in certain places, just as they’re saying “no, we’re not going to go into those states and arrest people for marijuana,” I contend that with the passage of this law, the federal government is just as likely to blink as not to blink.

I contend that she hasn’t spent much time looking into a damn thing she’s talking about.

Colorado and Washington passed citizens initiatives this past year that legalized marijuana usage. This is, of course, in direct violation of the federal law classifying marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug under the Controlled Substance Act.

But here’s where the comparison dies a tragic, uninformed death – visible to anyone who plays the narrative to its conclusion, one sentence later.

Washington state, to serve as an example, publicly voted to legalize marijuana use. (Kudos!) But they asserted no such dominance over the federal government. They passed a state law hoping that the federal government would recognize the antiquated and unsuccessful stance we’ve taken through our war on drugs and prohibition policies.

Colorado Governor Hickenlooper is currently lobbying the feds to work with his state and not against it.

In other words, they’re out on a limb, hoping that the valid and populist argument they’ve presented is enough to sway national public opinion that ultimately reverses the stance taken by the federal government.

That’s not the same as codifying the mandate that state authorities can arrest federal agents enforcing federal law. One of these things is not like the other.

Not by a long shot, Representative LeDoux.

Jumping the Shark.

There’s plenty of sympathy out there for legislators who have really struggled with the issue of gun rights, post-Sandy Hook. Some have arrived at logical conclusions, others have decided that logic is for communists. How about the unjustifiable?

I give you Representative Doug Isaacson:

This well regulated militia is not a hunting club. It is not a recreational force. As a matter of fact, it is to keep and bear arms; a right to have free, non-tyrannical government. Therefor, if the government can afford an F-22, and I as a private citizen can afford to own an F-22, this article gives me the right to own exactly the same type of armament that the federal government has. That may sound like it’s way on the edge, but remember when we were talking revolutionary terms, our forefathers talked revolutionary terms, they were looking at keeping the very same type of armament that the country of England had.

Following the model, I’d like you to look under your chair. You get a nuke! You get a nuke! Everyone gets a nuke! It’s a Second Amendment Right! We can totally serve out our patriotic duty to start a war with the country we pledge allegiance to and we’ll totally win – against the U.S. Army.

What are we going to do with all of our treasured yellow ribbons?

Reality.

This bill, complete with the justifications listed in this article, passed the House by a vote of 31 to 5. If the Republican-controlled Senate chooses to bring it to the floor, I don’t see the votes to stop it from becoming law. The safeguard we’ve benefitted from, with a bipartisan coalition in the Senate, has ceased to be.

Anchorage Republican Charisse Millett, who bore the task of introducing and concluding discussion of the bill, summarized by saying: “I hope to God that the federal government gets the point that states want to have a voice.”

Rep. Wilson lamented the same sentiment; that HB69 was necessary “[B]ecause there’s not really an area where we can really – maybe I should say a forum – where we can go and say ‘that’s not fair’”.

Perhaps she should Google “Congress” – the democratic forum where the 50 states congregate and lobby for public policy that pays homage to the needs of all states in the Union.

Maybe our legislators should have to stop pretending that they’re the fail-safe between our democratic republic and some authoritarian regime that confiscates our guns. No one is coming for your firearms. Really. No one. And we shouldn’t incite Civil War-invective just for shits and giggles because we’re worried about a potential background check.

These are the worst of politicians. They’re reading polls and figuring out how to get you to feed your debit card to their campaign. Or they haven’t taken the time to scrutinize the seditious blather they have just lent their votes to, as HB69 progresses towards becoming law.

It’s not a one-party issue. I’ve heard of Reagan Democrats and Kennedy Republicans, but Alaska gave birth this week to Calhoun Democrats by way of Representatives Chris Tuck, Geran Tarr, Bryce Edgmon, Neal Foster, Bob Herron, and Benjamin Nageak. Oh, And Lindsey Holmes should probably bear a bit of culpability in there as well, if you’re a West Anchorage Democrat who voted for someone who you thought might uphold the views she’d campaigned on.

The Republicans who followed their Speaker are no better. Of our 40 elected members of the state house, 31 are dually national embarrassments and insurrectionists. It’s bipartisan.

Three quarters of our State House showed up and said that the United States of America is a bad idea, unless the 50 states agree to their terms. That doesn’t sound patriotic to me. That sounds like a hostage situation. How does it sound to you?

SHARE
Previous articleFedEx 727 Lands at Merrill Field [VIDEO]
Next articleSaturday Morning Funnies: This Week in Internet Memes
John Aronno is a co-founder, managing editor, and award winning political writer at Alaska Commons. Aronno has had his work featured in the Huffington Post, the Anchorage Press, the Alaska Dispatch, and the Rachel Maddow Show, and is listed among the state’s top reporters on the Washington Post’s “The Fix.” He writes the weekly column “On Politics” for Alaska Commons. Aronno lives in Anchorage, Alaska with his wife, Heather Aronno, and a lot of pets.

40 COMMENTS

  1. Reinforce your t-shirt, John. Make way for lots of ribbons and medals for this excellent journalism. I appreciate the research, clarity, and interesting read. Thank you.

  2. Can we PLEASE as a state do ONE THING unexpectedly positive? Let’s just legalize gay marriage or mandate puppy adoptions for people making over 100k. Let’s say any oil company wanting to drill in Alaska has to fully fund our homeless shelters. Can we do ONE THING THAT ISN’T BATSHIT BACKWARDS STUPID? PLEASE?!?!?!?! Give me SOMETHING.

  3. Or you could just shut the shit up and live and let live. Whats the problem with allowing us to live peaceably with our arms that are Constitutionally protected? And wh o put you on your high horse to tell us how they should be resolved?

    • What’s the problem you ask?

      Simply put, uninformed, ungrounded, narrow-minded, and totally contrarian individuals not unlike yourself.

      You’re all to ready to claim the Constitution in your own misguided defense, and yet thoroughly trash that same Constitution when it comes to someone else’s Constitutionally protected right to participate in public debate.

      The problem is you couldn’t shut up and live and let live at the same time you expect everyone else to conform to your directives that you don’t abide by yourself.

      Correcting that problem should be easy for you. We’ll see.

  4. I was surprised by the lopsided vote.

    Excellent comparison between the WA and CO voter initiatives (there will be a few more to pass in 2014) and Alaska’s HB69. Every Spring, as a legislative session ends, I say to myself, “It can’t be worse than this!” The 28th Legislature is proving me wrong in an epic way.

    • That only shows that every spring you haven’t been paying close enough attention. Not only can it get worse each spring, it’s been happening in exactly that manner for several decades now. You can quit being surprised, it’s not a new phenomena.

  5. Nerdish nitpicking follows:

    1) After the creation of the US Constitution, the *next* time the states directly challenged federal authority was not the Civil War but the Nullification Crisis of 1832. Also precipitated by slave-owning assholes in South Carolina, it came about when the SC legislature declared a tariff passed during the Andrew Jackson administration unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable in South Carolina. It was solved, pretty much, by Andrew Jackson scowling angrily and threatening dire retribution if the assholes tried to stop federal revenue agents from carrying out their appointed duties.

    (Side note, with lesson: One of the reasons that the 1832 crisis ended without violence and the 1860 crisis killed 600,000 people is because many Northern politicians spent the intervening decades doing their best to mollify and meet the increasingly outrageous demands of Southern assholes, in the hopes that it would satisfy them. Whenever anyone talks about “appeasement” and its failures they think of Neville Chamberlain’s umbrella and Munich, but the North appeasing the South in the 1840s and 1850s is at least as compelling a case. In other words, I commend your efforts to stand up and speak out against this appalling bullshit.

    2) Individual states legalizing marijuana is not “in direct violation of federal law,” unless the enacting legislation declares that whatever section of the Controlled Substances Act is ‘null and void’ within the boundaries of Colorado [or wherever]. It just means that there aren’t also *state* laws against marijuana. In states where MJ is still legal and you light up a doob [and are not a member of the privileged classes] you might get busted by a local cop, a state trooper, *or* a federale; and, depending on who wants to handle it, you might end up in state or federal court. Legalizing marijuana in a particular state just means that the state court system and law enforcement apparatus no longer has an interest; it has nothing to do with what the feds are up to.

    3) Don’t take this as in any way supportive of this embarrassing law, but it’s not quite true to say that it deals with “non-existent” gun reform provisions. This isn’t coming out of nowhere; there really are stricter federal gun laws being discussed, and there is current pending legislation that would ban high-cap clips. HB69 is preemptive, but it’s not the same as ginning up an imaginary threat out of no one a la the state legislature of Oklahoma and its diligent efforts to stamp out creeping Sharia in Muskogee.

    • I certainly like the corrections/amendments numbered 1 and 2 but I have to take issue with the contention asserted in number 3 that this bill wasn’t in response to an imaginary and wholly fictitious set of circumstances.

      Yes, the language included in the bill is over-reaching, but that’s a result of it being a rehash of a previous iteration of the insanity which gave rise to the legislation. If you remember Chenault’s stated reason for his bringing this inane debacle back into the light of day, he specifically described imaginary and manufactured fictions as leading to his decision.

      Clearly, the record shows that the intent of this legislation was to address a fictitious manufactured ‘crisis’ that has and had no basis in reality. According to the man who resurrected and breathed new life into this tragedy, his reason for doing so was in response to wholly constructed fictions and lies. Of that there is no question, he willingly and publicly stated as much, and it’s unequivocally part of the public record.

    • Excellent nitpicks.

      I’d offer two more points – not so much nitpicks as external references providing interesting context for quotes above.

      RE: Rep. LeDoux’s comments suggesting federal weakness enforcing marijuana laws in the face of state legalization:

      Rep. LeDoux should check with the state-law-abiding medical marijuana dispensaries in Montana to see how weak they think the Fed’s are. The Fed’s simultaneously raided a couple dozen dispensaries across the state in 2011, and then aggressively pursued prosecutions in 2012. Who exactly does Rep. LeDoux think is saying “no, we’re not going to go into those states and arrest people for marijuana,”?
      http://missoulian.com/news/state-and-regional/feds-arrest-montana-medical-pot-providers-suing-government/article_775bdeba-7dd3-11e1-aea3-0019bb2963f4.html
      Also:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/the-fight-over-medical-marijuana.html

      RE: Rep. Isaacson’s comment that “This well regulated militia is not a hunting club. ”

      No. No it’s not. In fact, if historians are to be believed, the “well regulated militia” verbiage is in fact a compromise offered to the Southern state’s to allow them to keep their state slave-law-enforcing militia’s intact.
      http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hidhist.htm

  6. “The candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.”

    Abraham Lincoln

    • Well, Andy What do you think you can assume from cherry picking a partial quote from Lincoln’s first Inaugural address?

      You see, given the entire quote and the context within which it appears in the whole speech, any misguided point you seemingly want to assert, or any misrepresentation you attempt to lay at Lincoln’s feet simply isn’t supported by Abe Lincoln at all.

  7. You liberal left wing radicals would give up the last shred of freedom just to keep others from having any. There is a reason for “extreme legislation” When the law of the land becomes all encompassing and tyrannical. The people or local governments must do what they can to improve matters. Most of you do not realize that the policies of the federal government at this time are destroying our beloved country, and unless patriots act, we will lose everything and our society will take a great leap backwards. We have already lost many years of progress that will need to be regained. Here is another piece of legislation that needs to be made law A.S.A.P.:
    http://larouchepac.com/restorethebank?utm_source=ElectionMall%20Technologies%20Inc.&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NewDraftLegislationforCongress

    • “Reavers might take issue with that philosophy…if they had a philosophy…and they weren’t too busy gnawing on your insides. Jayne’s right. Reavers ain’t men. Or they forgot how to be. Come to just nothin’. They got out to the edge of the galaxy, to that place of nothin’, and that’s what they became.”

    • Lets just talk about your Patriot Act then. I suppose you feel comfortable knowing that the government is reading your emails and can wiretap your phone with only the merest suggestion that you may be involved in terrorism. I suppose you think that is a liberal invention too.

      I’m sick of you holier-than-thou asswipes shitting on the Constitution claiming you’re protecting it, when you don’t have the brainpower or reading ability to understand what it says.

      I don’t live in fear…however, you seem to. Why don’t you turn off Fox News and go do some research, you know, that function where you actually have to read…and if you can read, you review opposing arguments, and then you read the laws, and only then can you make an informed conclusion.

      Until then, why don’t you have window installed in your belly button so you can see what the reasonable folks are doing.

      • I agree with you the patriot act is a perfect example of excessive federal intervention. It is not mine! The Democrats love it as that is what they do best, they intervene. The federal Government created it and supports it. The bloated Dept. of homeland defense is a perfect example of Democrat spending. Security over freedom is a Democrat policy and desire . I fear very little for myself, I only fear for the next generation and the country. The ignorance of the liberal mindset that can only be overcome by education. In the meanwhile , they vote. I have one T.V. channel as I live remotely, unlike most liberals, and it does not have FOX, on it in fact it is PBS, so I don’t watch it much.
        If anyone is “shitting on the Constitution” it is folks like you that distort and twist the document to your own interpretation instead of reading it as it was written. It is in plain English and quite easy to understand, yet liberals seem to think it speaks a different language, and, or is irrelevant to our modern times. It is as relevant now as it has ever been, and the only safeguard to our liberty and freedom.
        The reason for this state legislation the article talks about is because of Federal intervention and threats to the Constitution. Just remember. The government does not rule us, IT WORKS FOR US. Our rights are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and are NON-NEGOTIABLE!

        • Pssst, Thomas ? Are you listening?

          …… You’re very confused.

          Remotely isn’t just where you live, it’s apparently how your mind evidently functions also, ….and it’s a wonder who might have control because it appears to be functioning quite faultily. I wish you luck in trying to regain control.

          • I am in total control of my life and thoughts, I learned long ago the errors of influences. I do not follow that road anymore. I don’t much care what people think of me. It is you that is controlled by outside forces. Thinking for yourself may be an alien concept to you but try it sometime, You might be enlightened, if you can break free of whatever controls your thoughts and actions.

        • A couple quick questions, Thomas: Who were the sponsors, in the House and the Senate, of the PATRIOT Act? What about the Homeland Security Act, which created the Department of Homeland Security? When they came up for a vote, who voted for these bills and who voted against them? And who signed these bills into law? And how did you feel about it at the time?

          It’s possible, I admit, that you are a principled libertarian and were just as strident in your opposition to federal overreach during the first eight years of the 20th century as you are now.. But, having lived the consequences of George W. Bush-style big government for 14 unpleasant months, I’m painfully aware that most of the same people who are right now yarbling about the evils of big government were in 2005 enthusiastically cheerleading the expansion of the national-security state and the grand old effort to build American-style liberal democracy at gunpoint in Mesopotamia.

          • The Patriot Act was a terrible breech of the governments responsibility. Adding another huge layer of bureaucracy did not help keep costs down, or efficiency either. I opposed most of what the military was tasked with in the last 40 years or so also. We need to abolish Government intervention wherever we can and that is one Act that needs gotten rid of.
            I am more libertarian in my beliefs than anything, though will claim no party. Yes, Republicans that were Bush supporters are also pushing for smaller government, but that is a fundamental core belief of conservatives. The Republican mainstream in my opinion are as bad as Democrats at spending and growing government. They tend to grow it in different ways but It still grows. I would like to see a 20% cut in all departments across the board and maybe another one a year later. There are very few real conservatives in our federal government.

    • Thomas, when you have to preface your remarks with a preconceived assumption it’s doubtful you’ve got anything to contribute other than your own misguided pretense.

      Ever consider that ‘patriot’ does not mean what you think it might.

      Has anyone told you that promoting the bat s hit crazy isn’t likely to make you look at all rational?

      • Hey billywilli, for a person that does not even put his or her real name on this blog, you have a big mouth.
        I am sorry for you if you cannot understand. History is full of examples of what is going on today. “insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome” Wake up and think for yourself for once. The propagandized and slanted information available in most media sources in this country is why this country is where it is today. A lot people do not know how to think for themselves and most of the rest are too lazy. Patriots seek the truth intelligently and work toward improving society and protecting freedom. They sacrifice much for their ideals.
        If you do not like Alaska, I say leave. I have lived here all my life and over a half century. I have seen many decades of history here and been involved with many issues facing the state. I give praise where it is earned. I am a non partisan voter, Do NOT tell me how to live my life!

        • That’s a lot of disconnected and immaterial yammering you’ve offered up and all without any part of it addressing your erroneous suppositions. Ping-ponging around whatever strange and imaginary connections you may perceive isn’t addressing what people here have asked you.

          You haven’t provided any defense of those erroneous suppositions, you’ve merely demonstrated you very obviously cultivate a somewhat symbiotic level of hysteria and disassociation of the sort that goes a long way towards explaining why you cling to such erroneous suppositions.

          It’s not a question of how you live your life, Thomas, it’s a question of how you living your life according to the misperceptions you hold to adversely effects others. Hopefully, you’ll learn soon that your preconceptions and presuppositions have no foundation. When that time finally comes, it will be a relief to others as well as to yourself.

          You have a computer, use it to learn a few things, it’s surprisingly easy to find out factual information if you only minimally apply yourself to the task. I wish you luck.

          • Disconnected and immaterial yammering is all I am hearing from you BillyWilly. If you got nothing to say of importance maybe you should just go away as what you are writing gotta be boring as hell for others to read.
            I don’t do “suppositions” I speak the truth.

          • To demonstrate the limits of Thomas’ reality impairment, he clearly telegraphs that he isn’t capable of much else than a peevish PeeWee Herman type response.

            He can produce no substantive evidence that his suppositions are grounded in any reality, so he resorts to the sort of tactics small children fall back on.

            Lacking any substance and unwilling to cede his mythical and imaginary apprehensions, only avenue left to him is to assume the role of petulant choleric.

            As is the case with small petulant children, all one can do is wonder how long it might take before a bit maturity supplants the fretful behavior.

            For the foreseeable future, adolescence appears to have the upper hand.

          • Thomas, you didn’t provide any support for your claims.

            It’s probably best if you do stop responding, you aren’t doing yourself any favors when you do respond you just sound like a spoiled kid who says he didn’t eat the chocolate while that same chocolate is all over his face.

  8. What Alaska doesn’t know is that in November, we secretly replaced all their legislators with Folgers crystals. Let’s see if they notice.

  9. To the folks that keep saying I am stating anything false. Everything I said is a matter of public record including me. Look me up on the search engines if you want, I HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE. A review of history will show anyone the path this country is taking has regressed even further under the present administration. Can anyone here tell me the economy has improved under Obamma?? Most folks here criticizing my posts do not even post their names. (who the hell are they??) In my book that makes anything they say pretty damned unworthy of consideration.

    • If what you say is supposed to be a matter of public record, show us any link, even just one, to any part of that public record proving any part of what you say has anything at all to do with reality.

      So far you haven’t offered even one source to back up your claims.

      I will go so far as predict that you can’t provide even one link to any public records that support your claims.

      And Thomas, it doesn’t matter what someone name is, what matters is being able to provide substantiating evidence that what you claim has some basis in reality. You haven’t done that. I doubt you will.

      • And Thomas,

        You do know what comprises the public record, right?

        If you need help with that, let someone know, most anyone can point you in the right direction.

  10. Steve , John and Andy and some others here are people I will respond to as they have names I can assume are real, and YES it does matter. If you want to hide behind an alias you do not have authority for anything, including an opinion. After all an opinion on this blog is all that seems to matter. I made very few if any “claims”, I am not sure what Steve is asking about but It appears everyone here is interested in the Patriot act , even though I did not bring it up to begin with. As I said before I myself am totally against any legislation that intervenes, and the Patriot Act is very intervening. There are thousands of “links” to the Patriot Act. All one has to do is put it in a search engine and press the little spy glass. Take your pick.
    I find it almost impossible to respond to people that Hate anything and anyone that disagrees with them. Communicating with them is very difficult as their minds are closed. When one responds to me with obvious hate, It does inhibit my response. I give respect to those who respect me.

  11. The 2A protects the armaments that a typical foot soldier carries, whatever that may be, so as to muster in defense of home, community, state and country. Not too long ago a fellow could go up to the hardware store and buy a box of tnt for whatever reason he wanted, like say, to blast stumps, mine his own coal, excavate land for building, etc. No questions asked. Nobody cared. No reason to care. It’s too bad we bought into the Marxist crap sold by Lenin starting around 1920. We forgot how to be free after giving it up to the government and allowing all the cultural intricacies of liberty to atrophy and to be forgotten. Liberty is a difficult skill set to learn. If we somehow find our freedom once again, tanks in private hands won’t be a problem – they weren’t historically. If a People value freedom as a whole, they simply won’t do the things that would bring about liberty’s demise. It’s just too precious and everyone knows and understands that and their behavior will reflect it. However, if we keep going with this Marxist/Leninist agenda we may have a problem with frustrated car-bombers and eventual collapse with civil war. I fear we’ve already dropped the ball and war is inevitable. Hope not. Guess we can all submit and be good little communists, right?

What do you think?