Tuesday, August 5, 2025
Home Blog Page 306

Fritz Pettyjohn: Time for term limits in Congress

By FRITZ PETTYJOHN

There are three things that large majorities of Alaskans, and Americans, right, left and center, can agree on. One is the need to stop the reckless deficit spending, and the ballooning national debt, which are causing inflation. Another is the need to impose term limits on members of Congress. The third is reform of a campaign finance system which currently corrupts Congress and gives incumbents an enormous advantage as they seek reelection.

None of these reforms will ever get through Congress. All will require the use of Article V to amend the Constitution. Short of revolution, it’s the only way any of them can happen.

First up will be fiscal reform. The need is urgent, and there may already be enough valid Article V resolutions on this subject to force Congress to call the first Article V Convention of States.

When that Convention takes place, legislative leaders from all 50 states, Republican and Democrat, will be charged with crafting a solution which is satisfactory to a large supermajority of the country. Friendships will naturally form, relationships will be established.  When they have finished their business, it will only be natural for them to ask themselves,, “Is there anything else we can agree on?”

Term limits for Congress is a no brainer. Large, bipartisan majorities of voters want it, and opening up Congress to new blood will give some of these state legislators an opportunity to advance their own careers. Delegates to the Convention will be the leaders of their respective state legislatures and can agree among themselves that they will go home and pass the needed Article V resolutions for a 2nd Convention of States, to propose a term limits amendment.

Once that’s done, campaign finance reform should be the next item on the Article V agenda. Among the delegates to the 1787 Convention there was great distrust of the state legislatures, where hostility to a new federal Constitution was rampant. Madison, in particular, didn’t want to give these legislatures control over congressional elections. He feared that they would use that power to somehow hamstring the new Congress. So, in Article I, Sec. 4, he inserted a provision giving Congress the power to regulate the “Times, Places, and Manner” of its own elections.

This may have made sense at the time, but in modern practice it has turned out to be a serious problem. Congress has constructed campaign finance laws so that challengers to incumbent Congressmen are at a huge disadvantage. The easy and practical way to solve this problem is to amend Article I, Section 4 to give each state the authority to control its own campaign finance law. The state legislatures would control congressional campaign finance and can impose a new campaign finance regime which would result in a more level playing field and reduce endemic corruption. Each state will have its own law. Citizen initiatives could be used to institute campaign finance restrictions which legislatures refuse to pass.

Thus, the laws of Alaska will be quite different from the laws of New York, which is fine. It’s called federalism, and it works. Delegates to a 3rd Convention of States, dealing with campaign finance, would be empowering themselves, at the expense of Congress. From their perspective, what’s not to like?

At this point such talk is mere speculation.  But what is beyond doubt is that the first use of Article V in almost 240 years will begin a process of reviving federalism, a bedrock constitutional principle which has eroded over time, as the federal government has amassed more and more power, at the expense of the states.  It would be a concrete demonstration of the fact that, ultimately, the states, acting collectively, can control the federal government.

When state legislators pass Article V resolutions, they are attempting to return political power to their states, and themselves, at the expense of Congress and the federal government. Returning power to the states, and the people, from a bloated and dysfunctional federal government is good policy, and good politics.

It’s an idea whose time has come.  If and when it happens, it would be historic, a watershed.

In 1988 Rep. Fritz Pettyjohn introduced HJR 54, an Article V resolution calling for the limitation of congressional terms.  He blogs at ReaganProject.com.

Linda Boyle: Doctors seek restitution from medical boards that maligned them during Covid pandemic

By LINDA BOYLE

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons Educational Foundation (AAPS) has filed a lawsuit against the American Board of Internal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology, and the American Board of Family Medicine for injury incurred by physicians over their Covid-19 “censorship” campaigns.

The case was initially reviewed in 2023 by District Judge Jeffrey Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Brown dismissed the lawsuit stating the AAPS “lacked standing to pursue the litigation.” His ruling also prevented AAPS from being able to file an amendment to the original lawsuit.

AAPS appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals located in New Orleans. In a three-to one-decision, the appeals court ruled the lawsuit should be revived, thereby “reversing the U.S. district judge’s dismissal of the case.”  The Fifth Circuit Court went on to say, “Judge Brown wrongly barred AAPS from amending its complaint or bringing forward an updated version. He cited a local rule, but that rule undercuts federal judicial rules, according to the panel.”

The panel believed there was plausible alleged injury to early treatment doctors by threatening to take away or taking away their board certification for speaking out against Covid-19 jabs, using masks in the pandemic, lockdowns, or speaking out against Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases from 1984 to 2022, and chief medical advisor to President Joe Biden from 2021 to 2022.

Board certification is extremely important to a doctor and requires much more training to pass the board certification test. Board certification often garners higher salary in managed care facilities and it is also something patients look for to make sure their doctor has at least met some additional education in their particular area of expertise. 

So, what exactly did these board certifying organizations do? The American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology made statements in 2021 and 2022  recommending Covid-19 jabs for many. It further stated, “doctors who disseminated ‘misinformation and disinformation about COVID-19’ and abortion would be investigated.”

That is a threat the AAPS complaint stated that  “infringes on the constitutional rights of physicians.” 

The ruling was as follows: 

“AAPS sufficiently alleges injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability for its First Amendment claims against the board defendants, meaning it has standing to pursue those claims,” U.S. Circuit Judge Kurt Engelhardt said, writing for the unanimous panel of judges.

Judge Brown wrongly barred AAPS from amending its complaint, or bringing forward an updated version, the appeals court said. He cited a local rule, but that rule undercuts federal judicial rules, according to the panel.

The Appeals Court also said AAPS’s claims should have been dismissed without prejudice, which would have enabled a fresh suit to be filed.

The case was remanded back to Judge Brown.  

Andrew Schlafly, general counsel of AAPS, stated the decision was a “landmark ruling that will be cited nationwide for decades to come.”  

No, the case is not yet won, but it is a step in the right direction. The ability to argue both sides of a scientific question has always been part of the art and science of medicine — or at least it was before Covid hit and the mass “misinformation” campaign was started against anyone who dared to disagree with the Covidian doctrine.   

These board certification organizations were operating outside their jurisdiction when threatening doctors who dared to have a different opinion. Those threats were an attack on the scientific method. 

The threats were real — and some of our doctors stood firm. Thank God for them.

Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance.

Supreme Court will hear Tennessee case: Is state ban on transgender chems, surgery for kids constitutional?

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday has agreed to hear a challenge to a Tennessee law that bans doctors from tinkering with the gender appearance of children with hormones, chemicals, and the surgeon’s knife.

The case is United States v Skrmetti, and it involves Tennessee Senate Bill 1, which prohibits all medical treatments that are intended to help a child “identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity.” The plaintiff says the law violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

The case will be argued at the Supreme Court this fall. The next term for the court begins in October and it’s unlikely a decision will be delivered before June of 2025.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing plaintiffs Samantha and Brian Williams of Nashville, and their 15-year-old son who believes he is a girl and who has been medically and chemically altered to appear as a girl. There are two other anonymous plaintiffs and transgender-services Dr. Susan Lacy also represented by ACLU, which says the entire medical community supports being able to alter a child’s gender appearance at the request of the families.

Chase Strangio, Deputy Director for Transgender Justice at the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, said, “These bans represent a dangerous and discriminatory affront to the well-being of transgender youth across the country and their Constitutional right to equal protection under the law. They are the result of an openly political effort to wage war on a marginalized group and our most fundamental freedoms. We want transgender people and their families across the country to know we will spare nothing in our defense of you, your loved ones, and your right to decide whether to get this medical care.”

Major U.S. medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association oppose laws against gender-chemistry treatments for children, which they call “gender-affirming care.”

This new area of medicine has become a major profit center for doctors and pharmaceutical manufacturers that are creating customers for life, as they hook children on hormone treatments that must be continued for the duration of their lives.

An Alaska House bill sponsored by Rep. Jamie Allard of Eagle River would clarify the liabilities that physicians have if a child who they transition later has buyer’s remorse and sues the doctors for malpractice. That bill, which created civil liability language for such physician decisions, failed to move in the Legislature this year.

Fact-check: Even Snopes says Trump never said there are ‘fine people’ among neo-Nazis

For years, leftwing media and social media accounts have repeated a lie, that former President Donald Trump said that there were sone “very fine people” who were neo-Nazis and white supremacists at a Charlottesville “Unite the Right” rally in 2017. Some leftist commentators at Must Read Alaska have even made the allegation.

Snopes, a leftist fact-checking website, has declared the rumor false.

“Trump did say there were ‘very fine people on both sides,’ referring to the protesters and the counterprotesters. He said in the same statement he wasn’t talking about neo-Nazis and white nationalists, who he said should be ‘condemned totally,'” Snopes wrote.

The fake Trump’s comments, Snopes said, “spread like wildfire” and were repeated by President Joe Biden in his 2020 campaign.

Anchorage said no to Portland Loos, so the city awarded a $50,000 contract to try to flush that vote

By SUZANNE DOWNING

There is an old saying after an election: “the voters have spoken…and now they must be punished.”

Let’s hope for our neighbors in Anchorage that such a crack doesn’t hold water. The largest city in Alaska rejected balance in its municipal government, opening up City Hall to the fawning supporters of a tax hungry, government creeping assembly majority. So, what urgent matters will Suzanne LaFrance, the incoming Mayor, expect to consider once in office? 

For one, bathrooms. 

This is not a joke. Indeed, the issue of public sanitation is important, a foundational role of government. However, like most matters that come before our city leaders, the proposed path on almost anything is San Fransisco and Portland rather than Southcentral Alaska. 

The same voters who elevated LaFrance to the mayoralty, and passed a slew of bond proposals, made it a decided point to vote down a proposal to fund up to $5 million for modular public bathrooms in the municipality. This wasn’t even close. Nearly two-thirds of the residents who bothered to vote made it a point to say No! to the Anchorage Assembly’s “Portland Loo-style” bathrooms. 

If elections have consequences, and the people have spoken (pretty loudly), why is this subject in front of your reading eyes again? 

For one, with this Assembly, nothing is settled. Case in point: the alcohol tax. In 2019, a measure to tax beers, ciders, wines, cocktails, and liquor purchases for homeless services was decimated by voters at the ballot box. The reaction from the tax’s supporters at that time, including now-disgraced former Mayor Ethan Berkowitz, was to blame misinformation and the alcohol industry’s  peddling (never mind the tax had been rejected numerous times over 20 years). 

The very next year, in the middle of the Covid lockdowns imposed by Berkowitz and the Assembly, the tax was put back on the ballot, and narrowly passed after some cosmetic changes to where the funds would go. Berkowitz is now gone, but his enablers on the Assembly are largely here, and Anchorage residents are paying taxes they had previously rejected. 

That brings us back to bathrooms. A recent story in the newspaper, which retains its perch as the megaphone for the swift set on the left in power, disclosed that a nearly $50,000-dollar contract was issued to survey Anchorage residents on what kind of public toilets they would want.

You can take that survey at this link.

This would seem like something to be done before taking a plan to the voters. 

But the mask slipped a bit on next steps, when an Assembly member was quoted that the incoming mayoral administration would be more supportive of getting funding for this initiative. 

The translation is clear: Voters said no to paying for modular public toilets at this time, but no worries, city hall will help us come up with the moneys for this. No further permission needed. And why is it not needed? Because the voters elected a mayor with the powers to do so. So, the voters who said no actually also said yes. 

Confused yet?

But it is the second, and bigger issue, that the Anchorage area’s supposed paper of record let the town down.

At no point in the article was one quote found from a public figure, group, or someone who could explain why one of the largest voting margins in the past election went the way it did. That is a disservice on many levels. 

The same Assembly member quoted in the Anchorage paper said the big issue seemed to be messaging. Apparently, it was the name “Portland Loo-style,” that sunk the attempt to provide relief to folks on trails and streets. Like the former mayor, it was misinformation and labeling, not the merits apparently. 

Anchorage should have an honest discussion about this. Supporters of the bathroom initiative may find out that a lot of folks who voted “No” are in fact sympathetic to the need for clean places to do what all humans must. The Municipality has a world-class trail system, and an active community of runners, cyclists, hikers, photographers, and countless sporting events. The demand is definitely there. 

But that is not the issue. And the fact that the big issue is not being discussed, even mentioned in the article, makes it an even bigger issue. 

Ask an average person if they will walk on the Coastal Trail with their family, they may very well say yes. Ask them if they will go to Cuddy Park, and the answer will likely be the complete opposite. Is it a coincidence that massive homeless populations make people feel unsafe, and not want their loved ones near the area? 

Ask those same average Anchorageites who they think will be the most-frequent users of publicly funded, unattended, modular toilets, and then ask if they are comfortable with their family using them afterwards. 

Being concerned about subsidizing closed spaces that can be abused with drug use or other harmful actions, destroying public property, and making it essentially unsafe or unusable for law-abiding members of the public is the issue. It doesn’t take a five-figure survey to understand the discontent. The people of Anchorage are reasonable, charitable Americans. That isn’t an opinion: look at disclosures of donations to charities and the purple voting record of the city. Treating them like adults, and for once listening, and not attempting to ram something down their throats, is not only politically expedient; it is the respectful thing a civil society’s leaders do. 

There is still a window for the incoming mayor to defy the aphorism, and not impose suffering on a voting public that asked for balance. Please madam Mayor, do not erase the chance to have balance. Above all, please treat the public with the respect that it showed when voting for you but against specific measures. Today, it is public restrooms. But trust crosses all policy issues. Start building it.

Suzanne Downing is the founder of Must Read Alaska and serves as editor.

Peltola’s playbook: Free beer for votes

Rep. Mary Peltola has been holding “meet and greet” campaign events all over the state, and she is boldly advertising free drinks at all of them. In Fairbanks last week, her campaign headquarters in the center of town posted a sign that read, “FREE BEER!”

A sign a couple of blocks away directs people to the free beer at Mary Peltola’s
campaign headquarters.

Peltola’s campaign headquarters is at 514 2nd Ave., just a couple of blocks from where inebriated Alaskans line the sidewalks of downtown Fairbanks and huddle in the doorways of businesses as tourists walk by.

Peltola’s region of Western Alaska is largely dry, with most outlying communities banning alcohol importation and sales, due to the troubles with addiction in Alaska Native communities.

In her hometown of Kwethluk, students marched for sobriety in 2016, to raise awareness about the scourge of alcohol in Alaska Native villages. Their banner said, “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.”

It’s one thing to offer “beverages,” which many event organizers do. But it’s another thing to boldly advertise free alcohol. Some have suggested that what she has done is illegal, citing AS 04.16. 015 which states that offering or delivering, as a marketing device to the general public, free or complimentary drinks, is illegal under AS 04.16. 015.

Nick Begich, running for Congress against Peltola, called her out on social media by saying, “When you can’t run on your record, you’re left with just one option…”

Peltola, however, has played fast and loose with the law. Earlier this year, she had a campaign event at a public school in North Pole during school hours, something that is strictly forbidden by law.

Cherry pick: White House adds controversial Interior communication director to its comms team

Just last year Tyler Cherry was named communication director for the Department of Interior. But he has just been promoted to associate communications director for the Biden-Harris White House.

Cherry has the usual resume for a Democrat communications director: He was director of rapid response (Twitter warrior) for the Biden-Harris Arizona coordinated campaign in 2020. Before joining the Biden campaign, Cherry was director of public affairs at a Democrat political consulting firm, where he executed strategic communications plans for political campaigns.

He previously worked at the ultra-left Media Matters for America as a campaign associate and researcher. He graduated from UCLA with degree in political science and minors in civic engagement and gender studies.

Cherry lives in Washington, D.C. “with his partner and two exuberant cats,” his biographical description reads at the Department of Interior.

But beyond that, he brings a lot more to the White House in the way of extremist views:

He identifies as nonbinary, while most records at the government refer to him as male.

He has called for defunding police.

“Praying for #Baltimore, but praying even harder for an end to a capitalistic police state motivated by explicit and implicit racial biases,” Cherry wrote in 2015 during race riots.

He compared police to slave patrols.

“Apt time to recall that the modern day police system is a direct evolution of slave patrols and lynch mobs,” he wrote later.

He supports the radical and lawless Black Lives Matter organization.

He opposes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE.)

He refers to Hamas extremists as “resistance.”

He opposes Israel.

Cherry is part of a “queer DJ collective” that pushes LGBTQ politics in DC nightclubs.

The pick of Cherry is curious due to the high profile of the White House and its activities during an election year, particularly one in which President Biden is losing in the polls, and is exhibiting signs of senility.

Rep. Mary Peltola has disputed that characterization of senility, saying Biden is one of the sharpest people she has met in D.C.

Read the story about his radical history at FoxNews.com

Dave Bronson: Sales tax – relief or burden for Anchorage?

By MAYOR DAVE BRONSON

For decades, Anchorage residents and local government have discussed the idea of a sales tax to alleviate property taxes. As the cost of living has escalated and property taxes have continued to rise, I have publicly supported a sales tax—but only if it provided dollar-for-dollar relief of property taxes. The most recent sales tax proposal, Project Anchorage, does not aim to do that. Instead, two-thirds of the sales tax revenue would alleviate the property tax burden, while one-third would fund special projects. 

At a high level, Project Anchorage seems like a reasonable compromise. The tax is designed to partially relieve property owners and fund new projects. However, this could easily turn into another tax pipeline that increases municipal government spending, much like the alcohol tax has.

During the budget process in 2023, the Anchorage Assembly moved the funding for the Mobile Intervention Team and Mobile Crisis Team from the alcohol tax to the general operations budget. They then used the freed-up alcohol tax funds to finance new programs. This ultimately increased the city budget, placing a greater burden on property taxpayers.

While lowering property taxes would certainly benefit homeowners and potentially make Anchorage more attractive for new residents and businesses, the regressive nature of sales taxes means they disproportionately impact lower-income families. This raises concerns about fairness and equity. Moreover, there is the question of how effectively the additional funds for community projects will be managed. Will these projects truly enhance our quality of life, or will they become yet another way to inflate municipal budgets?

I have seen firsthand the challenges our community faces with high property taxes that make first time homeownership a challenge. While a sales tax is not ideal, its potential benefits in terms of housing affordability and community enhancement make it a worthy consideration. However, the Project Anchorage approach does not relieve property taxes, so I remain skeptical. 

Ultimately, Project Anchorage presents a vision for our city that requires careful scrutiny. I encourage everyone to look closely at the details, weigh the pros and cons, and participate in the upcoming discussions. Our collective voice and decision will shape the future of Anchorage.

Dave Bronson is mayor of Anchorage.

Scientific American calls for federal regulation of homeschool families

A leading magazine devoted to science journalism says American homeschoolers are being left behind and that their parents should be investigated and have to pass a background check in order to educate their own children at home.

Scientific American, in its May issue, says “With few states tracking who is being homeschooled and what they are learning, an untold number of U.S. children are at risk of a poor education or even abuse.”

The magazine shows alarm that parents are pulling their children out of government schools at an increasing rate. It says that in 2019, nearly 3% of U.S. children — 1.5 million — were being homeschooled.

“No one knows by how much, and that is part of the problem. Home­school­ing is barely tracked or regulated in the U.S. But children deserve a safe and robust education, whether they attend a traditional school or are educated at home,” the magazine argues.

“This number, calculated from a nationwide survey, is surely an undercount because the home­schooling population is notoriously hard to survey, and more children have been home­schooled since the COVID pandemic began. Eleven states do not require parents to inform anyone that they are home­schooling a child, and in most of the country, once a child has exited the traditional schoolroom environment, no one checks to ensure they are receiving an education at all,” Scientific American says.

Alaska has the highest percentage of homeschool students in the nation, with over 15.4% of families homeschooling their children. Alaska is followed by Idaho at 8.9%, Tennessee at 8.5%, and Oklahoma at 8.3%.

The magazine wants government oversight on homeschool families, just in case children are being abused. However, the magazine offers no evidence to support such an overreach by the federal government into families’ lives. Nor does the magazine address the constitutionality of such an action; the Department of Education is a relatively new federal agency, created during the Carter Administration and a growing number of conservatives believe the department should be dismantled due to the quality of public education having declined ever since the department was created and because it is skimming money that could be used for schools.

Scientific American argues that homeschool students aren’t required to take assessments that students who attend government schools take.

“This makes sense, since the individualized learning environment afforded to homeschool students lends itself to more flexible and diverse assessment modalities. While standardized tests might be the most efficient way for teachers to measure the content knowledge of a class of 25 students, a written analysis based on a recent visit to a museum might be a more meaningful demonstration of knowledge for a homeschool student,” says the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

View Alaska’s homeschool subject proficiency data here.

“What doesn’t make sense, however, is the editors’ argument that the practice of exempting homeschool students from taking the same types of assessments as their peers in a classroom setting ‘enables educational neglect that can have long-lasting consequences for a child’s development.’ This is an unscientific logical fallacy with harmful consequences, including misleading the public about the reality of homeschooling. While neglecting a child’s education is certain to have a negative impact on his or her development, exempting a homeschool child from taking standardized assessments is not a form of educational neglect,” the policy group writes, in a pointed critique of the magazine.

Scientific American also smeared Christians in its opinion column, saying that “some Christian home­school­ing curricula teach Young Earth Creationism instead of evolution. Other curricula describe slavery as ‘Black immigration’ or extol the virtues of Nazism.”

While it’s true that homeschool learning can be tailored and individualized to reflect a family’s deeply held values, one main reason that more families are choosing it as an option for their children is because during the Covid pandemic, while students were learning at home, parents became concerned about the concepts their children were being taught, especially when those things were in conflict with family values, such as non-scientific gender identity ideology and anti-Christian dogma.

The science magazine, which has been published for 178 years, prescribes federal intervention and monitoring of homeschool families:

“It is clear that home­school­ing will continue to lack accountability for outcomes or even basic safety in most states. But federal mandates for reporting and assessment to protect children don’t need to be onerous. For example, home­school parents could be required to pass an initial background check, as every state requires for all K–12 teachers. Home­school instructors could be required to submit documents every year to their local school district or to a state agency to show that their children are learning.”