The Left’s plan for those who don’t subscribe to its ever-changing ideological orthodoxy hasn’t changed much since the days of Lenin. To dissent from the Left’s core dogmas is to lose your place in society.
Because that orthodoxy is ever evolving, no deeply held conviction is ever truly safe. One feminist group in New York recently discovered it the hard way when their event called “Canceled Women” was itself canceled by the New York Library. Every conviction, no matter how sincerely held, bears the risk of one day being cancelled by the Left.
Many who were reluctant to line up for injections last year (or who were simply reluctant to supply that information on demand) got a taste of this.
To one segment of society, religious objections didn’t matter. Moral objections—didn’t matter. Personal medical objections—didn’t matter.
The fact that you already possessed natural immunity and didn’t need it also didn’t matter.
Skepticism based on your own peer-reviewed research wasn’t considered a valid objection.
To the Left, individual rights, including conscience rights, are only to be respected when exercised in the furtherance of societal goals (the chief of which is always more power to the Left).
If you dissent from these societal goals, no matter how incoherent they may be, you will be marginalized. You will be ostracized. Even your livelihood will be considered fair game if the threat of losing it can be used to bring you (or your neighbor) to heel.
Your right to defend yourself in court won’t fare any better than your right to keep your job or honor your religious convictions.
Your right to vote, to be represented in government by someone who holds your same views, will likewise be forfeit if those views clash with the imposed dogma.
This is what awaits “deplorable,” non-woke Americans.
And remember, that dogma can turn on a dime. One day you are encouraged to dine out and hug a stranger to fight racism. The next you are told to lock down—but attending BLM protests is always ok.
Your measure as a citizen will be the extent to which you can accommodate yourself to the changing narrative. A citizen who does not comply (or can’t) will have no rights in this brave new world.
Ask me how I know this. For the last six years no one in the Alaska Legislature has dissented more strongly, or more consistently, from left-wing dogma than I have. I vote against woke nonsense every time it comes across my desk, and I don’t apologize. And with the state house under Democrat control for the last six years there has been a lot of woke nonsense.
I’ve stood against every attempt to inject race into state law, even when it meant standing alone. When Democrats sought to sideline Columbus Day for Indigenous People’s Day, I voted no. When there was a move to classify Vietnam Veterans based on race, I voted no. When a bill came forward to recognize some veterans, and ignore others, based on the color of their skin, I voted no.
Sometimes the ask is simply to look the other way and ratify the lie. When Democrats sought to memorialize Byron Mallott as a “noble” and “extraordinary leader”, a “visionary”, I was one of three legislators who voted no. I was accused of being a “racist” simply for voting no.
In the economy of the Left, dissent is an existential threat. It is interesting to watch how they have responded.
First there was talk of a recall, and then a public campaign by the PSL and the Democratic Party to have me expelled from office.
Now I am being sued by a left-wing law firm who wants to label me a subversive American and prevent the ballots in my race from counting.
While Alaskans focus their attention on next week’s elections, the Left has already launched an attack in court to make one election irrelevant, and to change entirely the way that future elections are conducted in Alaska.
The name of the case is Kowalke v. Eastman, and if you thought ranked-choice voting would upend Alaska elections, those behind this particular lawsuit want to make even bigger changes. Bill Walker’s former chief of staff, Scott Kendall, is supporting this effort as well. For those watching this train wreck about to happen, I have two words: Buckle up.
Up until now, the Alaska Division of Elections has been empowered to disqualify candidates only based on objective criteria; specifically, date of birth, citizenship, and length of residency. Court cases on these issues have been few and far between. They are fixing to change that.
This lawsuit asks the Division of Elections to begin disqualifying candidates based on the inherently subjective criteria of a candidate’s political allegiances (and the political groups they associate with). If you are saying to yourself that no judge would ever open that Pandora’s Box, the judge in this case just decided that the state now has a legal obligation to do exactly that.
The reason the Division of Elections has never done this before is sound, both legally and practically.
Legally, while there is a prohibition on subversives working in government, there is no prohibition against a candidate running for office who belongs to even the most disfavored political party. Under the Alaska Constitution, you can advocate for communism or monarchy as much and as strongly as you like and still have the opportunity to compete with other candidates for votes on Election Day (though I wouldn’t recommend it).
No matter who you are, you will of course have to come to terms with the Constitution and publicly acknowledge its supremacy before taking office.
Practically, it’s also a sticky wicket to have a state agency making decisions concerning anything as subjective as determining an individual’s political allegiances. No matter what the decision is, there is a good chance of it being appealed to the courts if the outcome of an election is at stake. Plus, any court battle will be taking place during an election campaign, which creates further incentives to tie up the other party’s candidate in court proceedings.
As the Department of Law pointed out, one especially troubling aspect of this case is that it opens the door to sue parties who have never violated a law. In this case, the judge has green-lighted the suit against both me and against the Division of Elections, even though neither of us have violated a law or been charged with a crime.
The complaint against me is that I won an election and am currently serving out my term. Likewise, as a candidate, I am not being sued for a campaign violation, but simply for the act of campaigning while engaged in wrongthink (demonstrated by my refusal to condemn a disfavored group that the January 6th Committee is now prosecuting…I mean investigating).
In another time and place, prosecutors might have first waited for an organization to begin actually proselytizing about the need to overthrow the government before accusing it of doing so and the media trying to label it as a subversive organization. Goodness knows, some of those who have been leading the effort to expel me for the past two years have been loud and proud about the fact that “Capitalism cannot be voted out of power” and that the only solution is to overthrow the government:
“Only a revolution can do away with the rule of the capitalists once and for all.” Source: PSL Official Website
“The standing army and police must be disbanded and replaced by the armed people, organized in workers’ defense councils.” Source: PSL Official Website
They even boasted about their effort to expel me on Communist News.
I hope you understand if I don’t readily accept the argument that, in order to save the Constitution, I must be removed from office for “supporting the violent overthrow of the government” when that argument is being made by individuals who are publicly committed to overthrowing that same Constitution through a violent revolution.
Maybe, just maybe, a more plausible explanation is that these these types of groups would like to see me removed from office because they would prefer the Constitution to be overthrown and, as someone loyal to that Constitution, I am one of the people currently standing in their way. Just maybe.
The truth is, if prosecutors had waited for the Oath Keepers to begin publicly proselytizing for the overthrow of the government, this case would never have gotten started because, unlike some of these other groups, the official Oath Keepers website and bylaws explicitly prohibit such advocacy, without exception. But sure, it makes for a good soundbite that a Republican legislator is committed to the violent overthrow of the government.
Another reason the Division of Elections is concerned about this case in particular is because the judge just discovered a hitherto unknown private right of action for anyone in Alaska to sue the Division of Elections, or any candidate or public officer, at any time over this.
How can you truly be a part-time legislator if even filing as a candidate for office opens you up to being sued at any time, deposed under oath by your political enemies, and instructed to turn over literally thousands of personal emails to the very people who are hoping to defeat you in the current election?
Many Alaskans will not pursue office under such circumstances. Who can blame them?
And that seems to be the idea. If the Left can use threats of lawsuits to keep some conservatives from running for office, and move elections like mine from the ballot box to the court room, that is fewer candidates they will need to run against on Election Day. Remember, the vision being pursued today is one where you, as a conservative, do not deserve to have someone carry your voice and your deplorable views into elected office.
At present, I am the only public official in court defending the results of my 2020 election, and the results of the recent August primary in the Mat-Su. You may be surprised to learn that there is no state agency tasked with defending your legislator if they are sued for simply serving in office.
Obviously, the outcome of this lawsuit will impact me personally. But if you think that those on the other side of this lawsuit will be satisfied with simply suing me, and that they wouldn’t love to turn around and use this suit as a springboard to sue other public officials and candidates, I believe you underestimate their resolve in silencing conservative voices.
I didn’t file this lawsuit, but I will ask for your help in putting an end to it. Help us close the door on those who would use the courts to go after candidates and public figures who have committed no crime. Help us do battle in the courtroom to prevent the Division of Elections from being weaponized against candidates based on their political convictions (either real, or imagined by their opponents).
I would ask you to visit www.DavidLegal.org and please give as generously as you can to enable us to fight against this rather brazen attempt to take an election out of the hands of Mat-Su voters and put it in the hands of a judge in Anchorage. Thank you.
One attorney the Jan. 6 Committee has been working overtime to destroy, John Eastman (no relation) will be assisting me on this case. In my next installment I will address the ongoing campaign to disbar conservative attorneys like John who have had the temerity to defend clients against assault by the Left.
David Eastman is a state representative for Wasilla, District 10.
I’d rather meet in-person to give cash anonymously at a fundraiser not coinciding with work hours hopefully in anchorage.
David, your is not a conservative voice. Stop saying that yours is.
Yes, you’ll eventually be found in violation of both the Alaska and US constitutions. That will affect you professionally as you will lose your job.
Any personal hurt felt will be to your own ego.
Irony.
Responding to an article about how society no longer respects the individual perspective by telling the author that his opinions will cause him to lose his job and affect him personally.
When given the choice I recommend against ranking Lenin.
David said in the article above that his court concern is gonna hurt him personally. I helped him understand better.
Did you read the article?
In “violation” of both the US and Alaska Constitutions?
Care to lay out the legal case in support of that contention? In your own words?
Show your work. Cite to precedent. No cutting and pasting.
Seditious conspiracy, some already copped to it.. when Rhodes goes down so will Eastman.
It will happen. Try US constitution Amendment 14, section 3, AK constitution Article 12, section 4.
Other states have done it already.
“……It will happen…….”
And if it doesn’t, will you then concede that you’re just another legal conspiracy theorist?
Matt, How about I call your hand, and ask you to address separation of powers and a thing called the fifth amendment, and how these might figure in. Please, also show us how this unprecedented use of Lawfare against a political opponent is justified. I am looking forward to your response. Oh, and don’t cut and paste from Commie News Network or any of the junk that leftist legal scholars sell on the “News” shows.
Why do you say that? Violation of what in the constitution? You have zero basis for your comment.
I have never joined NRA or BSA even though I have always considered them good institutions. But being in public office, you should know better than join organizations that could be misconstrued in any way. And to brag about being a member to boot. I agree with much that you do, But you seem to enjoy antagonizing the left to the extent that makes you a target, then seem to enjoy that as well. Hardly productive. Any bill you produce, no matter how good intentioned, is shot down because you have been labeled an extremist. Not to say that you are wrong, just that you go about things in an extreme way. I don’t believe that what they are trying to do to you is correct or within the law, or that I agree with it at all. But I will say that you seem to go out of your way to produce drama, which is nonproductive to the cause that you claim. Straighten up and fly right, young man. Or you run out of your support.
Considering Alaska is a breeding ground for corruption and do as you please until a judge says otherwise since before statehood? Bitch please.
“I have never joined NRA or BSA even though I have always considered them good institutions. But being in public office, you should know better than join organizations that could be misconstrued in any way………”
If you can’t grow a pair and at least help represent the fight with membership in an organization, I suggest to you that your feeble advice won’t deter a leader in the fight like Mr. Eastman.
This is exactly what’s wrong with politics. Cowards like you
How nice to see Ms liberal Suttman here. Up to your usual gobbledygook “I’m was a counselor so you don’t know yourself” garbage. Nowhere else to post now that ADN cut off your comments?
Name calling, belittling my profession with quotes I did not say?
Suzanne-civility?
Awww, some one is picking on poor wittle Maureen. Quick: run and tell mommy.
David Eastman is a strong Conservative! The Marxist, BLM crowd fear him! He stands up for his country not only in words , but by graduating from West Point, and serving his country. Don’t let the woke communist tell you different!
You lost any credibility you had went you blocked a full PFD during economic hardships to grandstand.
Even if you are dead right in your assessment, your message is fatally tainted because you are the messenger.
Hi Masked. What you aren’t mentioning here is that they had already agreed to cut the dividend retroactively before it even came to us for a vote. I was not part of that agreement. So if we had voted yes, we would have signaled our support for a $5,500 dividend (and some other stuff), but it would never have reached the people. In order to buy the votes to pass the budget that day, they were already offering to sell the dividend just to get those votes. It was always about getting enough votes to pass their budget. The PFD wasn’t the priority. If it was, they would have pursued a way for other pro-PFD legislators like myself to be able to vote for it. We already wanted to and had every reason in the world to do so politically.
Representative Eastman,
That is some seriously leftist thinking there, you singlehandedly stopped ‘them’ from cutting the PFD by cutting it yourself!?!?! Hahaha, you can’t be serious! You have really outdone yourself with that comment, I always knew you are the most effective leftist in the legislature as your record shows. You are able to bring conservatives, moderates, and liberals together like no other. The results of your votes and style of legislating over the years show you for what you are, and it’s certainly not conservative.
David, why do you expect a MRAK reader to understand how the legislative branch works?
Masked Avenger or Winged Chicken Warrior, Eastman is more than right in his assessment, try this one one on for size, “first they came for the socialist, then the Trade Unionist, then the Jews… Martin Niemoller.
They, Them, the haters of individual liberty always start at the fringes, reading your comments it sure looks like you will be next up to bat.
Quit being a drooling knucklehead and start acting like a super hero.
Plus shameless trolling for money?
David Eastman is a strong conservative who acts on behalf of his constituents. He has stood for what we in the MatSu valley have asked him to stand for. The liberal agenda behind this is all about that they can’t beat him as those of us in the MatSu want conservative representation in our government. So they are breaking state law by allowing a court to rule over what we the people have said by our votes. To the other commenters David was never against the full PFD he was against some line items in the budget that we here in the valley asked him to stand against so there for he was doing his job by representing our wishes. If you don’t like it to bad! That is how our system works!
Green, yours is a righteous comment. Refreshing.
Leaders of the OathKeepers may have gone off the deep end, but nowhere have I seen statements from the Oath Keepers organization itself advocating for the violent overthrow of the US Government. To the contrary their theme is adherence to the US Constitution to the extent of not obeying orders perceived as a threat to the institution. How in the world can any Judge rationally justify the unsupported argument that Eastman is proposing violence against the US? I don’t understand how the lawsuit against him has progressed this far.
The leader of the Oath Keepers lamented that they didn’t bring rifles on January 6. They violently attacked the constitution. Judge them by their actions.
Lucinda,
According to you, “they didn’t bring rifles” and we should “Judge them by their actions” duly noted.
I’m not an apologist for idiots, so I won’t judge those who didn’t bring rifles on January 6th or those who claim those who didn’t bring rifles were violent attackers. Instead I will do like you say and judge them both by their actions.
“The leader of the Oath Keepers lamented that they didn’t bring rifles on January 6…….”
Thus proving that January 6th was not a planned insurrection, but a protest demonstration that turned into a riot.
It’s sad to see so many ignorant (not stupid) people forming an knee-jerk opinion about someone, based on what his political opposition contends. Eastman is one of the too few constitutional patriots in the Alaska legislature, and it’s no surprise political opponents want him gone. Wrongly using the court system to over reach constitutional authority to remove David Eastman from office is just plain wrong and undermines the democratic process his constituents use to select their representation.
If Alaskans truly see a threat posed by Oath Keepers organization, they need to revisit the political platform of the Democrat Party. Which one poses the greatest threat to US Constitutional authority?
It is fundemental piece of our democracy that constitutional concerns get addressed by judiciary.
Yes, watch for ignorant people pushing political beliefs.
“……Yes, watch for ignorant people pushing political beliefs.”
One doesn’t have to look hard or far to find that.
Maureen, yes and the State Constitution requires that Four Democrats pick the Judiciary. Especially in light of your uninformed statement about the Judiciary. Who controls the Judicial Council? The Alaska Bar. Who Controls the Bar? Hmm.
Vote Yes on ONE!
To Green GOB. Then why did all the other Valley Senators except Kurka, vote YES For the full PFD Budget. Senator Mike Shower came on the Mike Porcaro Radio Show, and was Raging Mad that Eastman and Kurka ABORTED the full PFD Budget. I voted and supporter Representative Eastman in the past, but he destroyed the work of Governor Dunlevey and the GOOD SENATORS who have worked 4. Years to get the CITIZEN SHAREHOLDERS THEIR FULL PFD. David Eastman VOTED Along with the Walker Communist Legislators to KILL IT. Eastman ALIGNED With the People who are SUEING HIM on that Vote.. His vote cost every Alaskan over $2,000. Now he wants us to send him money.. Stuart Graham is running against Eastman. Please VOTE FOR Stuart Graham, he is for a full PFD, Balanced Budget, and all things Conservative.
Sarge,
Very simple some say that they had the backing of the constituents ( I find this hard to believe but not for me to judge) others simply stated that even thought there voters did not want certain line items in the budget that they were unwilling to make the stand that they were voted in to do so. “Unwilling to die on that hill” as one put it, even though that is why they were elected. Remember that a full PFD was never on the table there were already back door deals made to cut part of it off for special interests of several representatives. Even ones who claimed to be conservative! This was prior to it coming to a vote! I am so sick and tired of representative like Mike Showers, who say one thing and do another! Just look and his voting record it doesn’t not align with what he said he was going to do!
David Eastman and Kris Kurka have stood behind their word 100%. And again you will never get a full PFD with these wishy washy representatives unless we have a constitutional convention to take the PFD out of their hands! Eastman and Kurka are not the problem the worthless other “conservatives” are!
Wow, such liberal nonsense. Makes sense for an Eastman follower. Not surprisingly the liberal Eastman followers attack actual conservatives with conservative values. If you are in fact “sick and tired of representative…who say one thing and do another” then you must be tired of Eastman.
Fact: The FULL STATUATORY PFD was on the table
Fact: Representative David Eastman voted against the FULL STATUATORY PFD, keeping the FULL STATUATORY PFD from every single man, woman, and child in Alaska
Fact: Representative Eastman claimed at the time that he voted against the FULL STATUATORY PFD because of abortion funding, even though the FULL STATUATORY PFD has absolutely nothing to do with abortion funding
Fact: David Eastman voted against the FULL STATUATORY PFD, keeping the FULL STATUATORY PFD from every single man, woman, and child in Alaska
Fact: David Eastman now says he voted against the FULL STATUATORY PFD because “they” would have voted against the FULL STATUATORY PFD. He voted to keep ‘them’ from deciding so he could be the ultimate decision maker.
Sarge, Vert simple when you break it down some claim that they were acting as their constituents asked. ( I can not confer nor deny that fact although I find is suspect) Others like Mike said that they were not willing to “Die on that hill” for what there voters were asking of them. Remember a true full PFD was never on the table those with special interests had already made promises to pass the “Full PFD” if they got there chunk out of it first, which is what happened. We will NEVER see a true full PFD until we change the state constitution and make it imposable for the legislators to pick at it for there pet projects, and we have a governor that is not a push over. The governor does not have to listen to the courts there rulings are only advisory, but he did as he was told to because he was afraid to make a stand. Eastman and Kurka did exactly what they were voted in to do stand for the rights of their respective districts, unlike showers and the other so call conservatives in the Alaska state government.
Doesn’t matter if you like him or not, what they are trying to do to him is the definition of fascism. I would stand with him, against them, 1000x. THEY are the enemy. You may think him a fool or a tool
And that’s fine, but they, and what they are trying to do to him, is evil, plain and simple.
You have been elected and re-elected by your constituents. You get nothing done because you refuse to compromise. You only care about changing the Alaska Constitution so that government can get between a woman and her doctor. Your constituents get what they voted for.
Frank Rast, Exactly right. Why I would want a majority of Representatives like Mr. Eastman in the House Chambers. You see Frank, in doing nothing, NO DAMAGE and or further HARM is being unleashed upon the populace.. Our founders understood this principle. Apparently Eastman’s constituents do also. Less is more sometimes Frank.
Frank, not everybody wants more babies killed. And it’s obvious that Eastman’s stand on abortion is why you and the other death cultist hate him so much.
Eastman gets elected by something like 70% of his district. Let them figure this out.
Next Eastman campaign slogan – “Vote for me – I do nothing!”
Terry, Beats the alternative. That being I screw stuff up with spending Money that goes to my campaign donners and friends! But then maybe you like it that way, that is as long as you are their pal’s?
“……You only care about changing the Alaska Constitution so that government can get between a woman and her doctor……..”
As if that woman got pregnant by herself? That child also has a father. Where does he fit in the death of his child?
Part of me really, really wants the courts and the lefties to be successful in bumping Eastman out of office. Think of the precedent they are setting:
– Group doesn’t need to be designated as terrorist. Only accusations are necessary.
– Anyone can bring the complaint.
– State judiciary will greenlight the process.
Once they set the precedent, we on the political right can have a lot of fun going after every single democrat (including judges) with any connection or sympathies to BLM / AntiFa (Forrest Dunbar, for instance), or any anti-abortion group (recent vandalism of crisis pregnancy centers).
We will see if the AK Supremes are smarter than this idiot judge is. My guess is no, but what do I know? The left is really gonna hate living under their new rules. Cheers –
David Eastman is a true courageous and brave patriot that represents of our national anthem correctly.
He supposed to reflect the constitution (circa 1789), not the national anthem (circa 1931).
“He supposed to reflect the constitution (circa 1789)……”
Then as a woman, you no longer vote (circa 1920).
Thank you D. Eastman for sharing the garbage that the Legislatures’ “bluff” they were trying to add to take away the PFD. I know you have been “straight” about all of this.
The existence of this circumstance calls the legitimacy of the Judiciary branch into question. Neither of these things should happen. It appears that a Constitutional Convention has the potential to speak to this and quite possibly fix it. Am I wrong?
Fix so we no longer have a judiciary branch to our government?
No thanks North.
The legislature writes the laws, not the judiciary. We the people need to cut the teeth of the judiciary to keep them in their lane and stop legislating from the bench. Their function is to interpret the laws written by the legislature and handing down opinions, not rulings. They’ve been the fox that rules the henhouse far too long. Eliminate the Judicial Council or severely clip their wings and restrict them to internal administrative matters regarding the administration of justice. Picking their own associates is not among those duties. That is not the elimination of the judicial branch, rather mending the fence that keeps them in their pasture. I also support that the bench be filled from recommendations by the governor or a select committee of non-politicians, even a Grand Jury selection recommendation, to the legislature who confirm or decline with an up or down vote after public testimony to involve the electorate in the process.
Comments are closed.