Today is the Alaska Senate Primary and Joe Miller is going down thanks to Sarah Palin

Today is Primary Day in Alaska.  And Skanky has endorsed 2010 loser Joe Miller again!

Let’s send in the reinforcements!

To restore liberty, to defend our Constitution, to build American exceptionalism, we must send fighters to the U.S. Senate who will stop Barack Obama’s fundamental transformation of the nation we love. The status quo has got to go, and in Alaska the man who understands this key to our state and country’s future also has the guts, wisdom, experience, and optimism to fight for what is right – and win. We said we'd send the good guys in Washington their reinforcements; so, Alaska, here we go! Vote for Joe Miller on Tuesday and shake off the liberal stranglehold so we can get on the right track.

Thank you, Alaska!

- Sarah Palin




Of course Joe was going to lose anyway because of stupid shit he said earlier in the year.


Why run again?
The country’s facing problems that are similar to what we saw in 2010, but worse… A debt, of course, which is now over $17 trillion. Huge unfunded liabilities…

We now have documentation that our government was involved in the surveillance of our phone calls.

Clandestine agencies have admitted to metadata gathering. You know, there are NSA whistleblowers who have suggested that in fact most digital cell phone calls are recorded. You’ve got all sorts of aggressive action taking place at the federal level which is really, I think, a violation of what the founders intended with the Fourth Amendment – unreasonable search and seizure. And I agree with what some have said, that this is essentially turnkey tyranny. That you’ve got a government with now so much information that’s gathered unconstitutionally, that it does pose a threat to freedom…

The expanse of the federal government in ways that the founders didn’t intend… intruding on states’ rights — another area that gives me great cause for concern.

And when I look at Alaska and how that race is shaping up, and we see two other candidates in the Republican primary that really represent more of the same – we call them establishment candidates, some call them RINOs – we had no choice but to run.

In the struggle over the future of the Republican party, what are the centers of power now?
 The nation to a certain degree faces a duopoly where both parties are effectively doing the same thing, and that’s growing the expanse of power in Washington, D.C.…

There’s an enormous degree of power that’s exerted against both parties by multinational corporations.

You see that with the [Trans-Pacific Partnership]. You see that with respect to, you know, crony regulations and statutes that are embedded in the laws at the behest of lobbyists. You see that even down to the impact that we’re seeing today economically in the country, with middle class having immediate net worth that is lowest in decades…

The people aren’t being properly represented.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act that passed the Senate – would you have voted for it?
No. I would not have. No, I think that private employers should be able to make decisions as to what they do in their private businesses, and I think the people then are entitled to make decisions as to whether or not they use their services.
They can boycott. I think the market can have a proper impact in determining whether or not a business succeeds, based on those decisions that are made. But I mean, right now, what we see is we see this conflict between, you know, the First Amendment and other concerns, where [groups] believe that they have a Free Exercise right – and I think justly so – to decide what they’re going to do in their private business. And I don’t think, for example, somebody that is a traditionalist, that believes in traditional marriage, that runs a bakery for weddings, should necessarily be compelled to do something that’s against their conscience. And I think that’s effectively what the First Amendment was designed against, is someone being forced to violate conscience. So I would’ve voted against it for that reason.

Should a hotel be able to turn away a couple because they’re gay?
I believe that if you’re a private employer, you have the right to do what you want with respect to your business, and that the people of the country then have the right to do as they will, with respect to whether or not they boycott or take other action to financially penalize. I don’t think the government has a role in that.
And you know, what we’re in today, with free enterprise, this is effectively no longer a pure free enterprise system. What we have is a government that’s picking winners and losers. And any time that the government is engaged — whether it be with respect to enforcing the type of protections that you’re talking about, or whether it’s creating regulations to freeze others out of the market, or creating subsidies, or some sort of tax shelter for the big business so that others can’t succeed, where others don’t have those type of benefits — I think it’s an improper role of government. I take more of what you might call a federal libertarian perspective with respect to that.
States, on the other hand, have a wider breadth of action, you know, within the parameters of the Constitution. And if somebody wants something like that — if they want an environment where those types of laws are enforced, then they should be encouraged to move to a state that provides for that. But we’re becoming an increasingly diverse country, and I don’t think anybody – even in your readership – would disagree with that. That the country – I’m not going to call it necessarily “polarized,” but there are different expectations of government, there are different worldviews, there are different values. And the more heterogeneous we become, the more difficult it is to impose a one-size-fits-all solution.
So instead, why don’t we take kind of the direction that our founders intended? And that was, you know, the laboratories of democracy. Different states offering different approaches. And the states that prevail and succeed, obviously that’s a model that can be adopted by other states. But I really do think fundamentally that’s where we’re at. And I think that, at the federal level, the better thing is not to impose the one-size-solution-fits-all, but to reduce the involvement of the federal government, in favor of the people in the states.

So at the federal level, then, should it be legal for that hotel to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, that’s all I’m going to say about it. The state has the right to act. The federal government should be more of a libertarian stance. And that’s all I’m going to talk about on that issue. I’m a state’s right advocate in those areas.

So should a restaurant then be able to turn someone away because they’re African-American?
Again, I’ve said my piece on that.

And so would you repeal the Civil Rights Act?
Again, I’ve said my piece on the issue.

And –
And of course not. I would not. I’ve said my piece on the issue of ENDA. That was your specific question, that’s my response to it. If the states want to act in that area, they certainly have the ability to do it.

Specifically the public accommodation portion of the Civil Rights Act — should that be repealed?
I’ve already made it clear what my position is.

Last year, reportedly you said that “The President of the U.S. and his allies are engaged in a form of systematic spiritual and religious apartheid.” How so?
I think that we’ve seen a president that is more antagonistic and antithetical to free enterprise than any president in the history of the country…
You see that with a complete disrespect, for example, [for] religious institutions to decide whether or not they want to provide certain things under their health plan that they pay for. It’s – if you have a religious organization that’s founded on religious principle, funded by donations, they certainly have the right not do things that they believe violate their doctrine and their conscience. It to me can’t be any clearer.
If the president wants to enforce upon religious groups his version of what should be done, I think that he needs to take into account the fact that he’s got limitations of the Constitution which are designed in the Free Exercise clause to allow those particular religious groups to pursue what they see as appropriate within their particular religious views. When you look at, for example, even internationally what our country is doing in Syria, in the disrespect for what we see going on with the religious minorities there – even Iraq to a certain extent, Afghanistan even. I mean, I think there is almost a degree of, perhaps — internationally — apathy toward those issues [from the administration]. In the United States, almost a degree of hostility in domestic policy.
And so I think that’s a correct assessment of the president. Whether he intends it or not, I mean, I don’t know his heart. But I can certainly see his actions.

What is the apartheid comparison there? Is there one group that you think is being privileged over another group?
Well, we’re talking about different groups, aren’t we?

So who is in what position there?
 I thought we were talking about religious groups and irreligious groups.

So are you suggesting that irreligious groups have more rights than religious groups?
Well, a religious group has a free exercise right to practice their religion. If you’ve got a secular group, there is not a free exercise protection there. But a religious group absolutely has free exercise rights. The people are there, they bind together in community, for the purpose of their worship and their religion. And they have a right to be free of government interference and government mandates that require them to act in a way that violates their very beliefs and, you know, their fundamental worldview.
That’s – I mean, I – I guess maybe I need to take you on a history lesson. I mean, this country was founded on the idea of free exercise. Many of the people that came to this country at its origin – not all, but many of them came here because of the persecution that they were experiencing…
They said…”We want the ability to practice our beliefs as we believe God has directed us, and that’s an area that’s sacrosanct.” And yet this president doesn’t seem to have any respect for it. And that’s what led to that comment…
I think that any time that you show a degree of disrespect for the Constitution, that it should cause all of us to be concerned. Especially – I mean, your magazine… I assume that you’re a civil libertarian, one that embraces the rights that are described in the Bill of Rights. So, what, you’re going to trample the First Amendment free exercise clause… and you don’t think that your other rights are going to be at risk? Any time that you empower the central government and you give way on one of those rights, you’re going to give way on the rest of them…
It really frankly humors me to some extent when I hear those on the left that are out there saying, “Oh you know we ought to mandate the religious groups, go out there and provide for abortions and provide for contraception, even though we know it’s a First Amendment free exercise violation,” but then you scream bloody murder over the fact that the government’s involved in this massive surveillance state, which is clearly a Fourth Amendment violation.
I mean, we have to bind together to protect all those rights. Even though it may feel uncomfortable. You know, I’m a traditionalist; I believe in the traditional family. But I’m also willing to say that the federal government does not have a role in that area – that that’s a state issue…
I think that the unifying concept is the Bill of Rights.
And if someone has a religious objection to serving an African-American at their business, then –
I’m — again, I’m not going there. I already talked to you about the Civil Rights Act.
Are religious objections to interactions with African-Americans equivalent to religious objections to interactions with gay people?
They’re – look – I’m not even going there. I mean, we’ve already talked. We’ve talked about ENDA that was the discussion that you had. The Civil Rights Act is not up to debate. It’s not something that anybody, with any reasonable approach, would ever even consider repealing. So that’s not even – it’s not even a dialogue. I mean, what you’re doing is playing “gotcha” journalism. I’m not gonna play that game with you.
And if someone has a religious objection to paying taxes for foreign wars, that they don’t support, then –
Obviously the courts – no, obviously the courts have established a balancing act. And I assume that you’re knowledgeable enough in the legal area to understand that. I mean, just because somebody claims free exercise doesn’t mean that any moron that claims some sort of free exercise right can do whatever they want. You know that, I know that. And this interview is done.
Well, I appreciate you taking the time…
You know, I’m willing to engage in a dialogue, but we aren’t going to go into the moronic on this, OK?
What was moronic?
What is absolutely moronic is you suggesting that you don’t understand that there are limits to the free exercise clause. And you know there are, and you know that there are balancing tests that are imposed.

What the fuck is a duopoly?  Is that a Sarah Palin term?

I would like Joe to win the primary just so Mark Begich can kick his ass!

Bill Fulton's interview with the LA Times

From January of this year:

In another life, William Fulton was "Drop Zone Bill," a bounty hunter who ran a military surplus store in Anchorage. You need a tactical vest? A bayonet that would clip neatly onto an M-4? Bill Fulton was your man.

"We do bad things to bad people," his company jackets said.

Fulton was also a go-to guy for Republican politicians who occasionally needed to reach out to the far right fringes of the party — those who spent weekends in the woods in camo gear and considered the 2nd Amendment an expression of divine intent.

When then-Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin was plotting a move against the Republican Party chief at the state convention in 2008, Fulton was there strategizing over whiskey and cigars with Palin staffer Frank Bailey and Joe Miller, who later made a well-publicized run for the U.S. Senate as a tea party conservative.

That was the meeting where Fulton was introduced to Schaeffer Cox, an up-and-coming young firebrand of the far right who was running for the state Legislature and had, as it turned out, plans that went well beyond upending the Republican Party in Alaska.

It was a meeting that opened the door to a dangerous cat-and-mouse game that would transform the two men's lives and leave them at opposite ends of one of the federal government's biggest prosecutions of right-wing extremism on the West Coast.

Cox, 28, was sentenced Tuesday to 25 years in prison for heading a militia that plotted to kill judges and other government employees and conspired to accumulate the firepower needed to do it from Fulton. And Fulton, who became one of two key informants the FBI used to gather evidence against Cox and his cohorts, went from being the Alaska Peacemakers Militia's "supply sergeant" to its most celebrated snitch.

Today, Fulton, 37, is nowhere to be found in Alaska.
The very moment that Cox and his associates were being arrested in Fairbanks in 2011, an FBI-paid moving van showed up at Fulton's door in Anchorage — stunning his wife, who until then had known nothing about his double life — and the family relocated to another state. Fulton transferred his surplus store to his partners, sold his house at a loss, changed his appearance and went dark.

"They would have killed me immediately," Fulton said at a cafe in his new hometown, as he sipped cappuccinos between furious smoking breaks outside. "If they found out I was working for the feds? I knew everybody up there in that right-wing militia area.... So there were quite a few people that would have liked to have offed me at some point."

The story of Fulton's foray as a militia arms supplier ended with not just Cox behind bars. Three codefendants were sentenced to prison terms ranging from 15 to 25 years. From his new base, Fulton is continuing to work with the FBI on other gun-related cases and writing a book about the improbable events that transpired in Anchorage over the last two years.

 "If you look at it from a sane standpoint?" he said. "Even I sometimes look at the whole story and how it unfolded and I think, this is unbelievable."

Fulton and the other FBI informant, former drug runner J.R. Olson, offered the FBI an inside look at a group that seemed to be moving from right-wing, antigovernment rants — perfectly legal under the 1st Amendment — to something more dangerous. Cox had been boasting that his militia planned to set up common-law courts that would try people under principles they saw as more faithful to the U.S. Constitution. Those found guilty of serious offenses could be hanged or sold into slavery.

Fulton, who had long worked with Army criminal investigators through his surplus shop, had gone to the FBI in 2010 about a potential domestic terrorism case when the FBI learned he knew Cox.

"The wheels started turning: How can we use this to our advantage, to try to get more information? Is Cox really going down that path? Which inevitably, he was," said Sandra Klein, a supervisory special agent who became Fulton's chief handler.

Fulton's first assignment was to attend a gun and military surplus sale intended as a fundraiser for the Interior Alaska Conservative Coalition, which Cox had helped establish in Fairbanks. Cox had been trying to get in touch with Fulton, who had ignored him "because I thought he was an idiot." The night before the event in August 2010, Fulton invited Cox to meet him at his hotel. The militiaman arrived with Les Zerbe, a retired missionary ranked as a captain, and another associate.

Cox had been accused of assaulting his wife, and worried that state authorities were trying to take his son away. He talked about Fulton serving what he called common-law warrants on the officials he thought were out to get him.

"He said these guys need to be arrested and brought to trial," Fulton recalled. "I said, 'What are you going to do with them?' He said, 'We'll either fine them, or we'll hang them.'"

Reason #11 not to vote for Sarah Palin for President-Update

JOE MILLER!

Joe has since lost the election, yet he refuses to concede  He has filed an appeal with the State Supreme Court

During the election at a campaign event, he had a journalist handcuffed When Joe worked as an attorney for the Fairbanks North Star Borough, he admitted using the computers there for political purposes, resulting in a suspension

Joe thinks unemployment insurance is unconstitutional yet his wife collected it

Joe got an indigent hunting and fishing license yet he may not have been an AK resident at the time and he owned a home

He thinks the federal minimum wage should be abolished, yet the Supreme Court said it was constitutional back in the 1930's

He wants to abolish the 17th amendment, which gives the voters the right to elect Senators, and not the state legislature. My feeling is that the AK state legislators all owe Joe a favor. The reason the amendment is in place is because of William Clark, who bribed Montana state lawmakers into electing him a Senator back in 1899.

A Federal Judge threw out Miller's lawsuit, awarding Murkowski the victory

This man is a nutcase, and $arah endorsed him.  She shows poor judgement and supports guys like this.  Lisa Murkowski was right, this man wants to repeal the past century.