Friday, October 9, 2026
Home Blog Page 1420

Let’s keep MRAK going

9

Dear Reader,

Must Read Alaska comes to you every day, determined to give Alaskans a conservative home for news, events, and context. In fact, MRAK has hardly missed a day of publishing during 2019, and this website has had over 7.6 million views and nearly 28,000 comments on stories.

Because you support this alternative-to-mainstream-media project, now in its third year, we keep publishing the truth here and in the newsletter that hits 11,800 email inboxes in Alaska three times a week from Ketchikan to Kotz.

Must Read Alaska has changed the media landscape in Alaska. It comes to you at no cost because you deserve to have a source of news independent of the liberal-bias mainstream media narrative. With your support, MRAK will remain strong and independent, the way Alaska ought to be.

Please consider making a year-end financial contribution to MRAK. (No, this is not technically a “nonprofit,” organization and thus, there is no tax deduction. But your gift makes sure Alaska will have an alternative source of news as we head into one of the most dynamic political seasons of our generation.)

Alaska’s marketplace of ideas needs a strong conservative voice. That’s what makes Must Read Alaska so vital to our state’s future, as our public policy is being primarily informed — and bullied into submission — by the very loud voice of the Left.

Yes, the Left calls names, bullies, threatens, and tries to intimidate Must Read Alaska. But they can’t, and it drives them crazy that MRAK has survived, grown readers so quickly, and won’t back down.

Thank you in advance for your help in the fight.

And also … Have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukah, a safe New Year, and a joyous season in all that you celebrate.

Best wishes,
Suzanne Downing
Editor and Publisher

P.S. Miss the link? Here’s where you can click to make donations to keep Must Read Alaska alive. Checks can go to MRAK, 2525 Gambell Street, Suite 405, Anchorage, AK 99503.

Pelosi invites Trump to give State of Union address

9

WILL DEMOCRAT GALS DRESS ALL WHITE, ALL BLACK OR…?

Just two days after she led the impeachment of President Donald Trump, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Friday invited the target of her partisan dagger to deliver his 2020 State of the Union address on Tuesday, Feb. 4.

The address is given before a joint chamber of the House and Senate. Trump accepted the invitation.

Trump’s speech could come at the same time as his Senate trial for the articles of impeachment, if and when Pelosi sends those articles to the Senate. She has delayed that action, saying she needs more information from the Senate about how they intend to conduct the trial.

During his last State of the Union address, the women Democrats in the House dressed in all-white ensembles, just as they had the year before for his speech. Their group-think fashion choice was mirrored by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who clapped in an exaggerated fashion when Trump spoke of working together in a spirit of cooperation.

“We must reject the politics of revenge, resistance and retribution, and embrace the boundless potential of cooperation, compromise, and the common good,” Trump had said, just before Pelosi’s now-immortalized alligator clap.

The year prior, the Democrat women of the House wore all black, to protest Trump and as a nod to the MeToo movement and Black Lives Matter.

Will the Democrat women don their whites again on Feb. 4? The odds are they will, since 2020 marks the 100th anniversary of the passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, guaranteeing women the right to vote.

In 2017, Rep. Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat, said the all-white garb was intended to send a message to the Republican Party:

“Democratic members will wear suffragette white to oppose Republican attempts to roll back women’s progress,” Frankel wrote on Twitter. So the white is about women’s progress, which refers to abortion, in Frankel’s world, unless she really thinks that women will lose the right to vote.

Must Read Alaska predicts there will be a run on white in the F Street Stores in Washington D.C. in February. But the ladies may want to add a bit of irony for their accessories. It was the Republican Party that led the fight for women’s right to vote.

In 1878, at the request of Susan B. Anthony, a Republican senator from California introduced the 19th Amendment. It was defeated four times by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

It wasn’t until the Republican Party regained control of Congress in 1919 that the Equal Suffrage Amendment passed. It still needed to be ratified, which didn’t occur until 1920, when Tennessee became the 36th state to approve it.

Of the nine states that voted against ratification, eight were held by Democrats. Twelve states, all Republican, had already given women the right to vote before the amendment was ratified.

Mum’s the word: Galvin still silent on impeachment

16

Twenty-four hours after the U.S. House Democrats voted in favor of impeaching the president, Alaska candidate Alyse Galvin has still made no public statement on the historic matter, the third time in history a president has been impeached by the House.

Galvin has held coffee meetings in Anchorage and Fairbanks, and may be making private statements in small, supportive groups, but her social media account has not mentioned a word about where she stands on impeachment of the president, a man who has received her harshest words in the past. She’s issued no statement. In fact, in the past 48 hours, all she’s done is post a fundraising video pitch on Facebook. And announced her swag shop for stickers and shirts.

“We have stickers, shirts, and hoodies for every campaign supporter on your holiday shopping list!” she wrote.

It may be that she has studied the polling in Alaska, and knows that her probable opposition to President Donald Trump would not play well among the undeclared voters whom she seeks to woo. She is, after all, running as a nonpartisan who is not a registered Democrat but who is in the Democrats’ primary and who has been endorsed by the Democratic Party. But she needs those undeclared voters.

Galvin has picked up the pro-abortion endorsement of NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Don Young issued the following statement on impeachment:

“From the moment President Trump was elected, Congressional Democrats have been working to undermine him; trying to undo the results of the 2016 election. Frankly, this has been a political stunt all along. The impeachment process is very serious, and if Democrats are so intent on removing the President from office, they should leave that up to the American people to decide on election day, and not through an entirely partisan process with a pre-determined outcome. House Democrats tried to take down President Trump with the Mueller Report and failed. When this circus makes its way to the Senate, they will fail once again.

“I have seen no evidence of an impeachable offense. That is why I voted NO on both articles. It is my great hope that the House can now return to the people’s business. I am going to continue doing the job I was sent here to do: fighting for Alaska, and making our state and country a better place for future generations.” – Congressman Don Young

After the vote on impeachment the House gaveled out; it will convene Jan. 7.

Congressman Young is returning home to Alaska for the Christmas holidays. He’ll be ringing the bell for the Salvation Army in Anchorage in the days leading up to Christmas. Between lunch at the Lucky Wishbone and constituent meetings, Young has a full schedule over the holidays.

Sen. Hughes files for Seat F; & Rep. Wilson files for what?

2

Sen. Shelley Hughes made it official this week, filing for reelection for Senate Seat F, Palmer.

Hughes has lived in Alaska 43 years and in Palmer 29 years. With her husband Roger, she raised four children and now is grandmother to seven. She served for four years in the State House, and three in the Senate.

In her last election, she was primary challenged by Steve St. Clair and Adam Crum, and won in the solidly Republican district.

There’s a primary challenge in Eagle River. Ken McCarty has filed as a Republican against incumbent Rep. Sharon Jackson, who serves Eagle River District 13. McCarty applied to be chosen as representative when Rep. Nancy Dahlstrom became the commissioner of Corrections at the outset of the Dunleavy Administration, but Gov. Mike Dunleavy selected Jackson to serve out that term. This will be Jackson’s first run for the seat. She was previously a candidate for lieutenant governor.

[Read: Who will replace Nancy Dahlstrom?]

Rep. Tammie Wilson

Rep. Tammie Wilson filed for the state primary this week, but did not specify if she is running for her own House seat or if she’s going to challenge Sen. John Coghill, as has been rumored.

Both are up for re-election; Coghill filed with Alaska Public Offices Commission in November for Seat B, Fairbanks / North Pole.

Goldman Sachs dumps on Alaska while investing in Russian Arctic oil

16

While Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment enterprises in the world, has caved to radical environmentalists by saying the company won’t invest in Alaska’s Arctic oil, it’s investing heavily in oil development in the Russian Arctic.

Goldman Sachs, in fact, is investing in unregulated dirty oil.

[Read: Goldman Sachs redlines Alaska]

The bank is pouring its resources into the independent Irkutsk Oil Company, known as INK. Along with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Goldman Sachs is a minority shareholder in INK, which operates the Yarakta oil field in Irkutsk, as well as in Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in Siberia.

In Russia, environmental laws are merely suggestions. There is little enforcement and the industry is notorious for leaks, spills, and contamination, especially in far-flung Siberia. Corruption is just a cost of doing business in Russia, and Goldman Sachs is a party to that system of doing business, and the U.S. government can’t do a thing about it.

“INK is not subject to the U.S. sectoral sanctions that apply to Russia’s biggest energy firms and which place restrictions on the type of financing they can attract from Western creditors. INK’s minority shareholders include Goldman Sachs and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD),” according to a report from Reuters in April.

[Read: Upstart Russian oil company with Goldman Sachs backing]

Goldman Sachs International has a 3.75 percent stake in INK, which works in both the Irkutsk region and the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) in eastern Siberia.

INK told Reuters that it plans to invest $3-4 billion into the Arctic oil field over the next three years, and develop more of its gas business with four new processing plants.

Building up the Russian oil industry while taking a pass on Alaska’s Arctic is just another calculation on profitability for Goldman Sachs. But its decisions, profitable as they may be, have global consequences, both environmentally and geopolitically.

Earlier this year, when Iran’s oil was cut off from Syria by the impounding of an Iranian tanker, the war-torn country looked to Russia for help.

Analysts predicted the move would make Syrian President Bashar al-Assad even more dependent on Moscow and less able to withstand Russian demands. Russian oil, then, makes Russia more influential in that war-torn region of the Middle East.

“The Kremlin has sought to wield the main influence over Syria and reap geo-strategic and business benefits from its military intervention in the eight-year Syrian war and its propping up of the Assad government,” according to Voice of America.

[Read: Goldman Sachs-backed Russian oil firm plans expansion]

Goldman Sachs has a history of making deals with some of the world’s biggest polluters and baddest political actors. People like Moammar Qaddafi in Libya.

[Read: Hot Mess: How Goldman Sachs lost $1.2 billion of Libya’s money]

According to Goldman Sachs’ oil analyst Michele Della Vigna, there’s still money to be made in Big Oil. “In our view, the first wave of final investment decisions will likely take the form of brownfield developments with quicker payback, particularly in West Africa, the Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea. We should see a strong recovery in the number of projects in 2019 and 2020, led by Big Oils’ deepwater and liquefied natural gas investments. We expect roughly $120bn in LNG projects during those two years as the industry catches up with the production gap resulting from four years of low investments and strong underlying demand,” she said, in a Goldman Sachs publication.

In other words, the company is still investing in oil. But it’s investing in other countries, where regimes are corrupt and environmental organizations don’t have influence.

New taxes with ‘Project ’20s’

ANCHORAGE DAILY PLANET

While you might not ever know it from local news media, a shadowy group has formed to push a sales tax initiative, “Project ‘20s Anchorage,” onto the city’s April ballot – while dodging the city charter’s 60 percent vote requirement for such levies.

The proposal, which needs eight Assembly members’ support to reach the ballot, would impose a 3 percent “temporary” sales tax, to take effect in January 2021. It would raise $375 million for capital projects before it sunsets in five years, the effort’s website says. It promises to exempt food, gasoline – which the Berkowitz administration already taxes – and other “essentials” and even sets up a one week “back to school” tax holiday.

“The projects funded through the initiative will go towards downtown revitalization and needed public safety improvements throughout Anchorage, including added shelter capacity and substance abuse treatment,” says a flier describing the initiative.

Some of that sounds eerily similar to rhetoric some Assembly members and the Berkowitz administration currently are using as they try for the second time in less than a year to push through a 5 percent retail alcohol tax – complete with its own “one-time exemption” to the city charter.

Because the Project ‘20s Anchorage initiative is a general sales tax, the charter requires a supermajority vote, or 60 percent of the votes cast, for passage. But the initiative – surprise! – includes a one-time amendment to the charter that would reduce that supermajority to 50 percent, a gambit increasingly popular with our Assembly as it tries to dodge the charter.

The Project ‘20s Anchorage spending would include: $25 million for Downtown winter upgrade, whatever that might entail; $75 million for trails rehabilitation; $85 million for Alaska Center for Treatment; $25 million for 4th Avenue pedestrian redesign; $40 million for an Eagle River Valley fire station; $25 million for Hillside fire evacuation roads; $50 million for Ship Creek promenade and brewing district; $30 million for Performing Arts Center and Town Square Park rehabilitation; and, $20 million for a tax administration and small business assistance fund.

Who are those pushing the tax? They are not saying. “Project ‘20s is an Anchorage-based citizen- and business-led group working to advance capital projects that make our city a destination for residents, visitors, and investment,” says it website. But under “Who we are” and “Contact Us” on that website there are no names. No telephone numbers. Nada. Zip.

The only name associated with the group is on its Alaska Public Offices Commission filing: Moira J. Gallagher, chairperson. She is former director of the Live. Work. Play. program at the Anchorage Economic Development Corp. The group has not reported contributions or donations for the third quarter, nor will it have to until the initiative makes the ballot.

Like the Recall Dunleavy effort, Alaska law allows this initiative’s contributors and backers to remain secret forever unless the group rolls over into the election campaign any money collected to win a spot on the ballot.

The lack of transparency in Project ‘20s Anchorage should be enough to set off alarm bells. What we have is a ballot initiative full of Anchorage-could-be-a-garden-spot gobbledygook being peddled to the Assembly by …. who? How much has been spent? How much will be spent? Is it a coincidence that what this group wants seems to echo what some on the Assembly and in the administration want?

A cynic might think there could be linkage between the tax effort and some in city government; that Project ‘20s Anchorage is a cover, but there is only one way to dispel any of that: Who are the people backing the initiative and where is the money coming from?

Alaska’s tobacco minimum age could be 21, if Trump signs spending bill Friday

4

BILL REPEALS CADILLAC TAX FROM ALASKA HEALTH INSURANCE

The minimum age to buy tobacco products will go from 19 to 21 in Alaska and several other states, if President Donald Trump signs a spending bill that was passed by the U.S. Senate on Thursday to avert a government shutdown.

The tobacco provision was one of many policy elements in the spending bill that included funds to build a wall along the border with Mexico, a 3.1 percent increase for military personnel, and the full repeal of Obamacare-related taxes on the most expensive health insurance plans, sometimes called “Cadillac plans.”

Currently, 19 states have set the minimum age for tobacco purchases at 21, but in Alaska, 19-year-olds can still buy cigarettes and e-cigarettes. The new age limit, supported by the many in the tobacco industry and by the president himself, would take effect in September. The bill stopped short of banning flavored vaping products, something anti-smoking forces had lobbied for, since those products are more attractive to young people.

The president must sign the bill by Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska issued a statement after the passage of the spending bills, which drew strong bipartisan support. The first one passed with on a vote of 71-23.

“While I continue to believe that the process by which we fund the government is fundamentally flawed and must be reformed, these bills include significant wins for Alaskans. At long last, we were able to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s so-called Cadillac Tax. This tax, up to 40 percent on health insurance plans, threatened the vast majority of plans offered in Alaska—including union plans and plans offered to state workers—and had the potential to collapse the entire health insurance market in Alaska had it been fully implemented. We were also able to do away with the ‘Kiddie Tax,’ which, among others things, targeted young Alaskans receiving their PFDs, and we were able to provide tax relief for those impacted by the 2018 Southcentral earthquake. I also fought hard to make sure this bill funded the Secure Rural Schools Program. Further, we made continued progress on substantial Alaska military investments, including over $50 million of Coast Guard infrastructure investments to be ready to take new ships arriving in Kodiak and Southeast. I’ve continued to press for these investments as chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, and also as Chair of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Security. I applaud Senator Murkowski for her diligent work on the Senate Appropriations Committee and Congressman Young for securing these provisions in the House.”

Goldman Sachs redlines Alaska and Trump, (but was OK with funding Hillary?)

A MAJOR FLIP-FLOP ON ARCTIC OIL AND GAS INVESTMENT

It was just 18 months ago that former Gov. Bill Walker announced he had struck an agreement with Goldman Sachs to participate in financing of a gasline from Prudhoe Bay to Nikiski, along with other global players, such as the Bank of China. The agreement is technically still on the books.

That was then. Of course, the gasline has proven to be financially unfeasible at this time, and other private sector players are now looking at shipping natural gas through newly opened Arctic Ocean shipping lanes.

[Read: Group to bypass gasline, ship Arctic gas via ocean]

Today, Goldman Sachs has done a massive flip flop and turned its back on oil and gas investments in the Arctic, specifically naming the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which Goldman Sachs has suddenly redlined against investment.

Goldman Sachs, one of the largest investment companies in the world, says it’s also going to shrug off a lot of forestry and mining. Basically, if it is an Alaska resource, one of the largest banks in the world is saying it’s just not that into it.

“Oil development in the Arctic Circle is prone to harsh operating conditions, sea ice, permafrost coverage, and potential impacts to critical natural habitats for endangered species,” Goldman Sachs said in its Environmental Policy Framework. “The unique and fragile ecosystems of the Arctic region also support the subsistence livelihoods of indigenous peoples groups that have populated certain areas in the region for centuries.

“For transactions relating to Arctic oil, we apply enhanced due diligence including understanding companies’ strategy and commitment to reducing overall [greenhouse gas] GHG emissions. Among factors, we consider: energy use and GHG emissions; environmental impacts; emergency management plans; forest and biodiversity preservation; endangered species protection and management plans; and any local community impacts, including those relating to indigenous peoples and subsistence resources.

We will decline any financing transaction that directly supports new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development. This includes but is not limited to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. – Goldman Sachs

“Companies’ diversification strategy and carbon emissions reduction initiatives will be a key consideration in our evaluation of future financings with the goal of helping their transition strategy,” the Environmental Policy Framework added. “We will phase out our financing of thermal coal mining companies that do not have a diversification strategy within a reasonable timeframe.”

Goldman Sachs makes no mention of its 2018 agreement with the Alaska Gasline Development Agency, which under the supervision of Gov. Bill Walker had developed a funding framework for the gasline.

The decree against Arctic oil and gas development is coming from the company that during the 2016 presidential election forbade its top executives from donating to the campaign of Donald J. Trump, while allowing them to donate to the Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Wall Street Journal took note of the company’s turning its back on Alaska’s economy.

In an interview with the newspaper, Gov. Mike Dunleavy told columnist James Freeman that Alaskans will have to decide “whether we want to do business” with Goldman Sachs anymore.

“And who can blame Alaska if it chooses to cut ties with the Wall Street megabank?” the columnist wrote.

Goldman Sachs’ newest version of its environmental policy says the company  “will decline any financing transaction that directly supports new upstream Arctic oil exploration or development.”

Dunleavy told the newspaper that the unintended consequences of the company decision are real, and that Alaska has some of the most stringent environmental standards in the world. Oil producers will just head to regions that are less regulated.

“You’re going to push jobs and wealth and revenues” to overseas areas and “exacerbate” ecological problems, Dunleavy told the newspaper, which added the obvious: If Goldman Sachs takes this stance against Alaska, other investment institutions will step up and see opportunity. There’s plenty of capital out there right now. Goldman Sachs can virtue signal all it wants, but it’s not the only dance partner.

Could Alaska cut ties with Goldman Sachs? Not only does Alaska have a $67 billion Permanent Fund that is invested on Wall Street, but has billions invested through other trust funds, such as:

A political firewall between the executive branch and the funds’ managers makes it difficult for the Dunleavy Administration to take any specific retaliatory actions against Goldman Sachs through the Alaska Permanent Fund investments, as much as he and Alaskans would like to.

But that doesn’t mean Dunleavy has to remain silent. He can talk with the Legislature and the people of Alaska about whether the State wants Goldman Sachs to handle its bond sales (for oil and gas tax credits, ironically), now that the East Coast banking company has decided it wants to shut down Alaska’s economy. Those bond sales are handled by the Department of Revenue, in the Executive Branch.

In addition, with an ally like President Donald Trump, Dunleavy has some additional leverage of his own in the court of public opinion. And he’s shown he’s not going to be bullied by the environmental organizations that want Alaska to be a playground for the elite to come visit during the summer.

Ranked choice voting? Why progressives want it here

9

By ANN BROWN

The day before the Independence Day holiday last summer, local progressives filed a petition ironically named “Alaskans for Better Elections,” which would destroy the integrity of Alaska’s elections. If passed, the ballot initiative would bring us ranked-choice voting. The petition was sponsored, in part, by former District 22 Rep. Jason Grenn.You may remember that Mr. Grenn was soundly defeated by now-Rep. Sara Rasmussen in 2018. Are sour grapes on the menu here? 

In a ranked-choice general election, voters would “rank” their choice of four candidates for a given office. Candidates garnering more than 50% of the vote in the first ranking would win office immediately. If no one person wins a majority, candidates are whittled away and ranking continues until one individual is declared the winner. 

This initiative is backed nearly entirely by Outside donations; its major supporter is a Colorado-based organization that gave $500,000 in one pop last month.

Progressives will say this election system brings more moderate voices to the Legislature. Perhaps that is the way Mr. Grenn sees himself. When viewed in practicality, however, this initiative can largely be seen as a plan by progressives to take control of Alaska’s political system. Ranked-choice voting has been implemented in Maine, as well as in municipalities in California and Michigan, locations which can hardly be considered strongholds of conservative political thought. 

Perhaps what is probably most appealing to Mr. Grenn and his initiative supporters is, however, that ranked-choice voting enables candidates with limited voter support to win elections. Maybe Mr. Grenn believes he could have defeated Rep. Rasmussen in 2018, even without support from his constituents, under this system. All Mr. Grenn would have had to do to continue to be considered is not be the candidate with the lowest votes received; he could have persisted in the race long after his expiration date. 

Consider this – a 2015 study of four local elections in Washington and California using ranked-choice ballots found that the winner in all four elections never received a majority of the votes. This is because voters usually do not rank all possible candidates.

For the sake of expediency and their own sanity, voters typically only list their top two or three candidates. If those candidates are eliminated, then so are the votes of these individuals. Under a ranked-choice system, ballots that do not include the ultimate victors are summarily cast aside.

While this creates the appearance of a majority of votes in favor of the winner, it obscures actual voter choices; it’s a system that fundamentally disenfranchises voters. 

In Maine’s 2018 federal congressional race, the conservative incumbent was thrown out, despite receiving a plurality of votes in the initial election. Maine’s Secretary of State eliminated more than 14,000 ballots that didn’t rank the remaining candidates and handed the win to the liberal challenger. 

Australia’s 2010 election had a strikingly similar outcome; the liberal party took over the House, despite receiving 38% of the initial vote. The conservative party received 43% of the vote, but was somehow denied victory. 

One can see why progressives are so excited about this proposal. It reeks of elitism and is engineered to pad the fortunes of liberal candidates. Alaskan voters, don’t let yourselves be taken in. If this initiative reaches your ballot next year, vote it down.

Ann Brown, formerly of Fairbanks, now lives in Anchorage. She is an experienced trial lawyer who was the managing partner of her firm’s branch office, with a focus on labor and employment law. Currently retired, she is the vice chair of the Alaska Republican Party.