It’s been nine weeks since Alaska newcomer and Rep.-elect Jennifer Armstrong won her race for the Alaska House of Representatives, and three weeks since the case was heard in court that challenged her legitimacy to serve, since she missed the legal residency qualification deadline.
Still, no decision has been issued from Superior Court Judge Herman Walker Jr.
The Anchorage Democrat won on Nov. 8 over Republican Liz Vazquez for House District 16, West Anchorage. Vazquez and others in the district then challenged in court the certification of that victory by the Division of the Elections.
The hearing was Dec. 22, but now, just 12 days before the Legislature is set to convene, the judge has issued no ruling, which gives the plaintiffs no time to appeal his ruling before Armstrong would be sworn in on Jan. 17.
Armstrong had not been a resident in the state for three years before filing for office, Vazquez and her fellow plaintiffs say. The proof is in a social media post by Armstrong saying she was visiting, as well as in a fishing license application she made as a non-resident, and when she registered to vote.
Armstrong is hoping to become the first “pansexual” legislator to be sworn in in the Alaska House of Representatives.
Pansexual is just another word for Pedophile
Only to people that don’t know what a pedophile is. To the rest, it’s bad name to hurl at those with different preferences.
Reliable Voter, what is your definition of a pedophile? I ask because I’ve heard arguments that pedophilia is just another one of those different preferences. Perhaps the woman in question might suffer from Chronophilia as well, given that she and the commie leftist party to which she is joined has an inability to follow Candidate Qualification norms regarding TIME of residency. Just Sayin…
The only people making that argument are pedophiles and trolls. Pedophiles are adults that seek illicit contact with minors. There is literally no support for accepting this behavior from any other group.
The term grooming is the process by which individual predators manipulate potential victims (and sometimes they’re caretakers).
Grooming is not advocating for equal treatment for consensual adult behavior. Pedophiles/ groomers aren’t interested in adults.
Don’t you EVER tell ME I don’t know what a pedophile is. As someone who endured YEARS of sexual abuse as a child, I know exactly who they are. They are people like YOU. Pedophilia is an abomination against God our Creator and the antithesis of the natural order of life. People like you will do anything, say anything and BE anything to carry out your apocalyptic destruction of anything good and right. You are nothing but a chaotic churning mess of hate and abuse and greed. You and all your like souless minions will lose because I am your enemy.
I’m sorry for your trauma, but that doesn’t justify baseless accusations against others. People like me spend careers fighting pedophiles and advocating for their victims. But watering down the term by applying it to those whose choices you disagree with just minimizes the atrocity of actual pedophilia that victims like you have to live with.
Fire, I am truly sorry for the abuse you have suffered. Many of us have also been similarly afflicted.
My point is that these definitions describing so called sexual preference may be overlapping. Meaning that perversion may not always fit nicely into a given little category and one abomination might begat another.
We are not enemies but fellow soldiers.
You are your own enemy. You create your own suffering through hate. I am sorry about your past, I truly am. Hopefully one day your suffering will not be a reason to demand the suffering of others.
Does this help?
pe⋅do⋅phile /pidəfajl/
noun
an adult who is sexually attracted to children ?
syn: paedophile
ORIGIN: From pedo- + -phile, after Ancient Greek παιδόφιλος (from παῖς (boy, child) and φιλέω (I love)).
I thought a pansexual was a person who got turned on by the cookware in anyone’s kitchen.
A far better interpretation than Fire had. Admittedly, the same thought occurred to me. Especially those expensive ceramic no-stick pans at Metro Cooks – they never scratch!
Ha!
Pansexual means sexually or romantically attracted to people regardless of their sex or gender. Of course your comment leads on me to believe you don’t want to have an honest conversation about the topic. As with many commenters on MRAK, thinking people that fall under the LGTBQ category are synonymous with pedophilia is outrageously ignorant and only serves to fan the flames of hate. I also get the impression few who comment like you have care if it inflames hatred. That is probably why few republicans will even enter into the conversation without silly talking points like yours. Maybe one day you will get out of your head and realize people’s sexual preferences do not affect you in the slightest. I don’t hate you despite your feelings about he subject. Your hatred does not affect me either.
Perhaps you mean bi-sexual, Matt.
pan⋅sex⋅u⋅al /pænsɛkʃʊəl/
noun
a person who participates in (or is open to) sexual activities of many kinds ?
ORIGIN: pan (L from Gr. all) + sexual.
People can use these terms to mean different things, but most commonly Bi people would say they experience attraction to multiple genders while Pansexual people would say they experience attraction regardless of gender or despite gender. They really are not much different. It does not specifically refer to sexual activity, it is in reference to attraction.
nah, pansexual is a term liberal white women use to label themselves to stand out from the crowd it’s really boring B.B. stuff
She may not serve and she must cover the cost of a a fresh election to replace the one she compromised. Are all pansexuals too dumb to understand the pre-req’s or just this one?
Pansexual?
Are they making moves on cooking pots now?
Where does it end!
As the story goes a mate on the steam ship hollered out to a passenger, where are you from and the passenger said Chicago but another passenger relayed the answer and said, ”He’s a CHEECHAKO”, ha,ha,ha
😉
Liz Vazquez is 1000% more qualified.
Period.
A majority of voters came to a different conclusion.
It’s telling. The democrats can recruit nationwide to being reliable politicians to Alaska and the GOP can’t even police its own ranks.
The judge is between a rock and a hard place. Herman Walker knows that the evidence will disqualify Armstrong from being sworn in but his handlers are forcing him to run the clock out.
Agreed, the judge seems to run out the clock and I hope Liz Vasquez complains. Clearly we can not count on the legislature to refuse to seat Mrs. Armstrong until the legal case is properly adjudicated. They need every democrat vote they can scrounge together…..
There are no “handlers”. Loosen the tin foil a bit. The stakes are high, the facts contradict themselves somewhat, and this decision will set a precedent. It’s better for all if the judge issues a reasoned order that withstands appeal. Put another way, would you be pushing for a quick finding if the winner was an R?
Absolutely! Party affiliation does not matter if the rules were ignored and a candidate is not eligible to run to begin with. This is a failure of the Division of elections to properly vet the statements made on the filing. It is interesting that on the one hand certain entities in this state want the DOE to ascertain the candidates suitability for office by their associations with others, while here actually enforcing statute seems not important. Why have rules, if you don’t apply them to all?
I generally agree with you, but DOE does not have the staff to fully vet each candidate. It’s logical, actually; this kind of thing is so rare that having dedicated staff on hand to investigate would financially irresponsible. And, most of the time opponents are doing that kind of research for them.
That said, I don’t see this particular rule as particularly important. A couple more weeks of residency does not make a candidate more or less qualified. And although you are confident she hadn’t established residency, I think there’s just enough gray area for her to slide by. She was here, then she wasn’t, then she was. The question is intent, and think it can’t be decisively proven either way.
SO are you saying that we all get to choose which rule is important and which one is not? Sounds like anarchy to me.
It is my contention that the statue requires 3 years BEFORE you file. I further find it curious that this newcomer believes she has the insight into the way this state runs, while literally just having arrived. Why not wait another year or so and run for a more local office first? The arrogance of that smacks of, “you all do not know what is good for you, so I will make the rules for you” Then there is the concern that she manages a non-profit that supports other non-profits,(according to her website) a clear conflict of interest, where state fund distributions are concerned for charitable entities. It reminds me of Meg Zaletel’s situation. The statute does not mention “intent” and her Louisiana address on that fishing license tells another tale.
It seems that judicial is handling this case much different than the Eastman case. Where is that icon, the lady with the scales. She must have offended someone.
We’ve go enough weird people already. Why are we importing them from Louisiana?
Where is that”savior of democracy ” kowalke??? I thought he wanted to save us all from ineligible politicians, or so he claims.
Jurisdictional reach could reasonably be stretched absent any other structural enforcement oversight to protect the US Constitutional structure. The doctrine of “public good” has not been resurrected post the overturning of Roe V Wade. However since applying whatever limited Alaskan corporate rules there are for running for office and the advent of advanced sociopathic personality disorders developing passionately within the populace as the groping masses are stimulated to explore even deviant traits within themselves among the public at large it is utilitarian and a public good for the judiciary to cast an uninterested eye toward enforcing what limited rules their are for volunteering to accept a generous subsidy by way of emolument. If something like residence can be ascertained and yet not enforced it is a public good for the judiciary to accept such a jurisdiction and either remand to an authorized agency to re-review with a mandate to the lower agency to review and find OR enforce the residency rule for them in the publics interest.
Your parents didn’t waist their money. That’s exactly what I wanted to say.
Comments are closed.