Wednesday, December 17, 2025
Home Blog Page 6

Chugach Electric Pauses ‘Cents of Community’ Amid Legal Scrutiny

6

The Chugach Electric Association Board of Directors voted Tuesday to suspend for three months its anticipated “Cents of Community” program, a member-driven initiative aimed at bolstering local nonprofits through voluntary bill round-ups.

The agenda item revisited the program first greenlit by a majority of voting members in a 2023 bylaw amendment. Under the plan, Chugach’s roughly 90,000 members would automatically round up monthly electric bills by an average of 50 cents—totaling about $6 annually per participant—with funds distributed to 501(c)(3) charities via the newly formed Chugach Electric Association Charitable Foundation. Similar opt-out programs have thrived for over 15 years at Matanuska Electric Association and Golden Valley Electric Association without issue.

Discussion centered on a abrupt shift by the Alaska Attorney General’s Office, which in September 2025 flagged potential constitutional violations, including First Amendment “compelled speech” concerns due to the automatic enrollment of captive utility customers. Previously neutral, the AG argued the opt-out model could force unwilling contributions, prompting an indefinite delay. Board materials emphasized Chugach’s belief that the concerns are “unfounded,” but highlighted unacceptable financial risks and the need for compliance. The Chugach Board of Directors underscored the program’s alignment with the cooperative’s “Concern for Community” principle, while directors weighed alternatives.

The decision follows months of backlash, including opt-out complaints and regulatory filings, but reaffirms the utility’s commitment to grassroots philanthropy. As legal consultations proceed, members can monitor updates via Chugach’s website.

The Boondoggle Behind Affordable Housing 

13

By Larry Talley 

Juneau, Alaska could lose seven irreplaceable historic structures on Telephone Hill. Their imminent destruction is not from fire or other natural hazards, but from citizen tax dollars at work. The City and Borough of Juneau have decided to spend $5.5 million to demolish this historic neighborhood, in the forlorn hope that it can be developed as high-density housing. 
 
Among the structures slated for demolition is the Webster House, built in 1882, one of the oldest continuously occupied homes in Alaska. 

The Boondoggle Begins 

In 1984, the State purchased the site, in some cases from unwilling sellers via eminent domain, with intentions to build a new Alaska capitol complex. Thus starts the boondoggle. The new capital failed to materialize and in March 2023 the site was conveyed to the City and Borough of Juneau. The city began a multi-year public process to redevelop Telephone Hill into a “major urban housing development.”  
 
Emotions at public meetings were higher than ever before. Perhaps to calm nerves, City Manager Rorie Watt promised: “[The] range of options would certainly include a ‘do nothing’ option and leave the houses as they are today.” However, when the city presented its survey results in December 2023, these were the four concepts presented:  

Concept A:  Demolish the existing structures to build new townhomes 

Concept B: Demolished existing structures to build a mix of new townhomes and apartments 

Concept C: Demolish existing structures to build new mid-rise apartments 

Concept D: Preserve existing structures and add infill homes and apartments 

The survey was inconclusive with Concept C and D tying. “Do nothing” was not a choice. 

CBJ Pushes Ahead Despite Zero Developer Interest 

In late 2024, CBJ issued a request for information to ascertain developer interest in redevelopment of Telephone Hill. One developer responded, but with no plan, design, timeline, or cost. Disappointed with the results, the city decided to demolish existing homes to make a more attractive opportunity for developers even though there was no developer interest and no public purpose declared. 
 
After site prep, CBJ’s idea was to seek a developer to build high-density housing on a difficult site in challenging market conditions. According to the CBJ’s Juneau Telephone Hill Market Analysis, Feasibility Analysis and Development Strategy: “…both the specifics of the site and the general state of development in Juneau make it a very expensive place to develop… There is no scenario that breaks even.” 

Lacking Proforma, Lacking Accountability 

Residents who preferred the preservation of Telephone Hill rallied behind Concept D, the concept to retain existing structures and add infill homes and apartment buildings. 

Standard protocol obliges the municipality to produce a proforma (a financial feasibility study) that discloses the cost per housing unit.  A proforma answers an important question: Is the price tag per housing unit acceptable to the City and the voters?   

The Assembly has not provided a proforma for Concept C.  However, the public record reveals that large, unquantified subsidies will be required for housing units under Concept C. Constituents make clear the unpopularity of starting demolition without answers to the cost question. 

The Market Analysis proposes that 25% (roughly 39 units) of the 155 units in Concept C are destined for short-term rentals— essentially AirBnBs. 116 units would remain for people who live in Juneau. 

According to the Telephone Hill Place Guide, Concept D results in 36 new units plus 16 current units, equaling 54 total. Many locals believe that more than 13 current units is unrealistic, so Concept D may only yield 51 units for people who live in Juneau. 

Renovations required for Concept D could be offset by revenues upon the sale of properties. Not guaranteed of course, but not an unfounded assumption. (Nowhere close to the magical thinking that demolition will suddenly attract builders.) 

According to this math, the housing difference between Concept C & D, for which CBJ will assume financial and development risk of between $5.5 to $9 million, is 116 units minus 51 units, or 65 additional units available for people in Juneau. That’s either $107,843 per unit (at $5.5 million demo / siteprep) or $176,470 / unit (at $9 million demo/siteprep/road). Keep in mind that the Concept C units are a mix of 469-square foot studio, 728-square foot one-bed, and 947-square foot two-bed apartments, while some of Concept D units are more generously sized. 

Either way, a subsidy of $107,843 or $176,470 per unit seems quite large. What a shame that for so much subsidy, no affordable units will be guaranteed. In fact, the Market Analysis states that these units are likely to “rent for a premium over existing housing stock.”  

Additionally, CBJ indicates that more subsidies may be needed in the future. CBJ also recognizes that 155 units may be an overestimate of what is possible. Missing from the boondoggle is any sense of accountability to taxpayers or evidence of a return on investment. 

Unreasonable Risk 

The City Manager told the Assembly at a November 3rd meeting that Concept C is risky and bold. As a citizen, I believe it is unreasonably risky because the Assembly would spend a large amount of public funds to demolish the current housing on Telephone Hill, without first providing a proforma for Concept C as compared to Concept D. The pro forma for Concept C would include a minimum of $5.5m for demolition and site preparation that will be spent before a single housing unit is built. Concept D will not begin with that large a liability.  

CBJ assembly members should direct staff to provide the Assembly with a proforma for Concept C and D. Additionally, CBJ should quantify the re-cycle value of demolished building materials owned by taxpayers.

Larry Talley was born in Ketchikan, attended the University of Alaska Fairbanks, moved to Juneau in 1977 and worked in Juneau for over forty years as a computer programmer. Finding retirement not perfectly satisfying, he occasionally captains a whale watch boat and guides hikes.    

Turmoil Over Crime and Immigration: National Guard Quick Reaction Force Addresses Lawmaker Concerns and Bolsters Nationwide Security

29

In the face of surging crime and protests across U.S. cities in 2025, the National Guard Quick Reaction Force (NGQRF) has proven essential for swift intervention, directly responding to worries voiced by Alaska State Rep. Andrew Gray (D-Anchorage) about its implementation in states like his own.

In a November 14 X post, Rep. Gray highlighted concerns over an October 31 memo mandating Alaska to ready a 350-member NGQRF equipped with non-lethal tools such as batons, tasers, and pepper spray for riot control. He questioned its necessity in riot-free Alaska, transparency in training and supplies, deployment triggers, and risks of misuse on U.S. streets. The memo clarifies the NGQRF focuses on civil disturbance operations with graduated response protocols, monthly readiness reports, and deployment only upon federal or gubernatorial requests, ensuring accountability and preventing overreach. While Alaska lacks precedents, the force enables interstate support for national crises, fostering preparedness without local mandates.

Real-world examples from 2025 illustrate its critical role. In Washington, D.C., a declared crime emergency led to a specialized NG unit for public safety, hiring extra personnel and establishing a nationwide quick reaction capability to curb violence.

Portland’s prolonged ICE facility protests turned chaotic, with federalized troops from California and Oregon quelling unrest despite gubernatorial objections and brief judicial blocks, preventing further escalation.

In Memphis, National Guard assisted in thousands of arrests and anti-crime operations since October, though a judge halted deployment, underscoring how delays can prolong dangers to communities.

Chicago’s immigration-related demonstrations garnered the authorization of 300 troops to assist when called upon to maintain order at ICE sites.

In each of these cities, the protests included groups like Antifa, Democratic Socialist of America, or the Party for Socialism and Liberation. These groups have active chapters in Alaska. Although these chapters are not quite as big as in the other cities, they have the same potential to organize and create a situation where a quick reaction force would be necessary for public safety.

President Donald Trump defended the initiative stating they are needed to suppress civil unrest, support immigration enforcement and fight crime. Without such reaction forces, unrest intensifies, endangering lives and property, making the NGQRF vital even for low-risk states.

Diverging Views on Political Violence: Hunter Biden and Brian Harpole

19

In the wake of rising political tensions in the United States, two recent interviews highlight starkly contrasting perspectives on political violence and its toll on the nation. Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, and Brian Harpole, former head of security for assassinated conservative activist Charlie Kirk, offer insights that underscore deepening divisions amid events like Kirk’s assassination on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University.

Hunter Biden, a Yale-educated lawyer and businessman, has faced scrutiny over his foreign dealings, including board positions at Ukraine’s Burisma Holdings and ties to Chinese firms, amid allegations of influence peddling. His personal struggles with addiction, detailed in his 2021 memoir, culminated in a 2024 federal gun conviction (later pardoned) and ongoing tax probes. Republicans have long accused him of exploiting family connections, fueling congressional investigations, and a leaked laptop scandal.

In his November 6, 2025, appearance on the “Wide Awake Podcast,” Hunter Biden portrayed political violence as primarily fueled by right-wing extremists, using Kirk’s death to criticize the MAGA movement’s response. He suggested such incidents suspiciously benefit conservatives, exacerbating national polarization by amplifying partisan rhetoric. “I don’t know why Charlie Kirk was shot, but I do know this: It’s only served one group of people, Charlie Kirk’s death — MAGA. They have taken this, they have wrapped themselves in it, they have righteous indignation!” Hunter Biden stated.

Conversely, Brian Harpole, a former Texas police officer with 14 years in law enforcement, founded Integrity Security after retiring in 2008. As Kirk’s security chief, he has endured conspiracy theories post-assassination, including accusations of negligence, cover-ups, or foreign intelligence involvement— all denied amid harassment and emotional strain.

On the November 17, 2025, episode of the “Shawn Ryan Show,” Harpole addressed violence from a non-partisan, human-centered angle, lamenting its erosion of trust and calling for de-escalation through transparency and prayer. He emphasized personal devastation without assigning blame, urging unity to halt the trend that’s fracturing society. Speaking of the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, “I don’t want to know something that feeds a narrative of hate and division,” Harpole said.

These interviews reveal a chasm: Hunter Biden’s accusatory stance risks inflaming divisions, viewing violence as a tool for political gain that deepens America’s ideological rift. Harpole’s plea for resolution, rooted in direct experience, promotes healing and accountability, potentially bridging gaps in a country grappling with misinformation and grief. As midterm elections loom, such voices illustrate how political violence not only claims lives but poisons discourse, demanding bipartisan efforts to restore civility.

The Five Principles of Eaglexit 

15

By Michael Tavoliero and Catherine Margolin

Eaglexit seeks to incorporate a home-rule borough that restores the proper balance between social power and state power by re-establishing local government as the servant of the people. Beneath every fiscal debate and administrative dispute lies one guiding purpose: return authority from distant bureaucracy to local citizens. Grounded in the Alaska Constitution, Eaglexit recognizes that all governmental power originates in the people and endures legitimately only when it protects their God-given rights and governs by their consent. 

Through formation of local government, Eaglexit aims to build governance where laws serve freedom, communities direct their own affairs, and property, education, and opportunity are preserved as expressions of personal liberty. By reducing centralized control and reaffirming the people’s right to limited self-government, Eaglexit represents a peaceful, constitutional redistribution of power, returning it to the people, one person and one community at a time. 

The Alaska Constitution reflects and preserves the Jeffersonian synthesis of the Declaration of Independence: the reconciliation of God-given rights with the consent of the governed. Thus, the embodiment of these principles renews a local government founded on liberty, consent, and moral accountability. 

#1: Purpose of Government 

Our communities seek a small local government to serve, not to rule. The Alaska Constitution affirms that our rights come not from the State but from God. The government’s purpose is to secure those rights, not define or limit them. 

History shows freedom thrives when government remains simple, decentralized, and accountable. When laws multiply and authority grows distant, liberty weakens. Therefore, Eaglexit’s purpose is to restore government to its rightful foundation: limited power, answerable to the people, and devoted to protecting liberty, responsibility, and the common good. Sovereignty shall remain permanently with the citizens of local government, and no office or agency shall exercise powers not granted by them. 

#2: The Jeffersonian Principle of Limited Government and Local Sovereignty 

Restoring government to its smallest effective scale begins where authority rests with the people and rises only by their consent. Power is exercised within families, neighborhoods, and communities, delegated upward only when necessity demands, and confined to clearly defined purposes. 

Thomas Jefferson recognized that both liberty and governance depend on the limits of human relationships. The capacity for connection and comprehension is finite. Just as we can nurture only a limited number of close relationships, we can effectively oversee only those governments that remain within the reach of our sight, understanding, and daily experience. 

When power grows distant, it escapes public scrutiny and invites waste, fraud, and abuse. Keeping government near and narrow preserves liberty and responsibility. 

#3: Fiduciary 

Today’s local, state and federal governments suffer from the corruption of fiduciary trust. Citizens’ confidence has eroded under the weight of bureaucracy and preemption. Yet Alaska’s Constitution provides a corrective: it restrains government and limits it strictly to powers expressly granted. The State may act only within those bounds; the people, conversely, retain every right not denied. 

As Article I, Section 21 declares, “The enumeration of rights in this constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This clause mirrors the U.S. Constitution’s Ninth Amendment affirming that government’s powers are restricted, while the people’s rights are infinite. 

The fiduciary duty of local government begins when authority is delegated. From that point forward, officials are trustees, not masters. They must use every power and dollar for the people’s benefit, under the oversight of consent and accountability. 

#4: Civic Renewal and Education 

A free society depends on citizens willing to govern themselves. The Alaska Constitution entrusts all political power to the people, declaring government exists by their consent and for their benefit. This covenant renews civic participation as the heart of public life, allowing neighbors to deliberate openly and communities to set their own priorities while the government remains transparent and restrained. 

Education stands at the center of that renewal. Public education bears the purpose of cultivating capable, thoughtful, and responsible citizens; individuals who reason freely, work cooperatively, and act with integrity. Schools must reflect local values, empower parents, and inspire every child toward excellence, curiosity, and civic purpose; nurturing in each student a lasting connection to our communities. 

Fostering civic engagement and educational excellence builds competent institutions and a living community of self-governing citizens. Success will be measured not by the size of government but by the confidence of future generations. 

#5: Stewardship and Intergenerational Trust 

Every act of government carries a duty to those who come after us. That obligation extends to our community’s resources, land, infrastructure, and natural wealth management. All must be handled with prudence, transparency, and long-term sustainability. Stewardship means fiduciary duty carried forward in time; the obligation to ensure that the decisions we make today leave our progeny a community freer, stronger, and more prosperous than the one we inherited. 

Is liberty lost whenever power is centralized? Freedom endures only when responsibility is shared; when each person holds a stake in public life and bears the weight of that trust. The vitality of a community flows out from individuals, families, and local assemblies, not down from the state. 

Intergenerational trust requires more than budgets or infrastructure. It requires cultivating strong families, honest institutions, and a civic culture that prizes duty over privilege. The model of such stewardship ensures each generation grows in freedom, competence, and belonging. When people govern close to home, they govern with care. When they see their children’s future bound to the land and community they love, liberty ceases to be abstract and becomes a living inheritance. 

Conclusion 

Eaglexit’s five principles aim to create local government consistent with Alaska’s constitution, not to invent a new system. We insist that government exists to serve, not rule, and must govern only by the people’s consent. Our goals are limited government, lower costs, stronger schools, and a secure future for the next generation. 

Should People of Faith Run for Public Office?

61

By Paul A. Bauer, Jr.

America was founded on the belief that moral conviction and civic responsibility go hand in hand. People of faith—pastors, ministers, rabbis, and lay leaders alike—have long shaped our communities through service, education, and compassion. But when a pastor or faith leader decides to campaign for elected office, it raises a question as old as democracy itself: Should those called to spiritual leadership also seek political authority?

The answer is not simple, but it is deeply important. A person of faith should not be disqualified from leadership simply because they hold strong religious convictions. Our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. People of faith are citizens, taxpayers, and neighbors—each with the same right, and perhaps even the same duty, to serve their community in public office.

When Faith Strengthens Leadership

A pastor or faith-driven candidate brings more than sermons; they bring compassion, moral grounding, and a servant’s heart. These are qualities sorely missing in politics today. Their leadership is guided not by polls or profit, but by principles—truth, integrity, and justice. When a faith leader enters public service humbly, without exploiting their pulpit or congregation, they can elevate the tone of debate and restore trust in institutions. “The measure of a leader is not how much power they hold, but how much truth they stand for.”

From local assemblies to the U.S. Congress, our nation has been blessed by men and women whose faith gave them courage to challenge corruption and defend freedom. Faith-based leadership can unite rather than divide, if rooted in service rather than self-interest.

When Politics Can Harm the Ministry

Yet there are also real risks. A pastor’s spiritual mission—to shepherd all souls—can clash with the divisive nature of political life. Campaigning often demands partisanship, while ministry calls for compassion without condition. Once a pastor becomes a political candidate, the congregation may split along party lines, eroding unity within the church.

There is also the danger of public perception: using faith as a political tool can diminish both the sanctity of religion and the integrity of governance. For this reason, any pastor who runs for office must draw clear lines—stepping aside from active ministry, ensuring no church
funds or property are used for campaigning, and maintaining humility and transparency in all dealings.

The Balance of Calling and Citizenship

Ultimately, whether a pastor should run for office depends on the individual’s calling and capacity. If their motivation is to serve and to stand for truth, not for ambition or vanity, their candidacy can be a moral force for good. But if their entrance into politics blurs the line between gospel and government, the cost may be too high.

In every generation, faith and freedom must coexist—not as rivals, but as partners in the American experiment. The challenge for people of faith is not to dominate the political world, but to redeem it through example, humility, and unwavering integrity.

Closing Thought

Politics needs more truth-tellers, not fewer. It needs leaders who see public service as a sacred duty, not a career ladder. If pastors or faith-driven citizens can enter that arena with clean hands and courageous hearts, they should. But they must always remember: their first allegiance is not to a party, but to the truth that made them who they are.

Paul A. Bauer Jr. is the Founder of Protec Public Integrity Strategies, a U.S. Army Veteran and UAA Alum.

Trump Restructures Federal Education Programs 

Accelerating U.S. educational system reform, the Trump Administration this past Tuesday announced sweeping changes to leadership structures in charge of educational programs. The move shifts education programs out of the U.S. Department of Education and into several new agencies using interagency agreements that do not require congressional action. While these actions accelerate the Trump administration’s commitment to reduce federal control over education, the US Department of Education will retain limited oversight.  

According to the Official Announcement from the U.S.Department of Education, the most significant change is the Department of Labor’s new leadership of an interagency agreement, which covers programs within the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education and some postsecondary programs. 

Other agencies also gain new authority under the reforms: the Department of the Interior will lead Indian Education programs, and the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of State will assume a role with other education-related programs. 

In a recent memorandum, CEO of Center of Education Reform Jeanne Allen informs Governors, State Chiefs, legislative leaders, and education innovators about what comes next.  

According to Allen, public support for the DOE is supported by polling data, but contingent upon continued funding of K-12 education and “core student protections.” However, a national shift toward “autonomy meets purpose” requires innovation at every level, particularly the state and local district level. Models of success exist which present opportunities to improve outcomes and all that is required, according to Allen, is flexibility and application of CER’s simple formula: “Opportunity + Innovation = Results.”  

Trump’s plan embraces decentralization of federal control and the return of education to the purview of individual states. While this implies greater flexibility, it also means uncertainty as each state struggles with different educational priorities and disparate outcomes. Each state must decide to what degree they will embrace innovation in the form of funding portability, private charter of faith-based schools, and flexible rather than one-size-fits-all curriculum. 

In this transition, many states join CER in advocating for more flexible educational opportunities. Here in Alaska, rural villages with largely indigenous populations argue for more customized curriculums and programmatic flexibility. Urban school districts also appear too rigid and top-heavy with administration and union control over teaching standards. In her release, Jeanne Allen states: 
 
“Today’s move is exactly what this Administration has said it would do: disrupt a federal system that hasn’t worked for students in decades…As we’ve argued repeatedly, the Department has become an obstacle—not a partner—to good education. Districts have increasingly become real estate, HR, and compliance operations rather than institutions centered on student learning. The recent UCSD analysis showing students with under 30% proficiency entering college is yet another stark reminder that the current model is broken.” 
 
 
Allen adds that the traditional education establishment may resist the move. She urges leaders across the political spectrum to seize this moment: 
 
“More than a thousand education groups draw their relevance, funding, and political power from the federal bureaucracy. They will predict disruption because it threatens their interests, not because it threatens students…This shift creates new space for every education leader — Republican, Democrat, independent — to rethink how they serve students. Washington should not dictate how every school in America operates. If this transition reduces bureaucracy and puts decisions closer to families, students will be the better for it.” 
 
 

Defending Normalcy: Chloe Cole and Logan Lancing Speak Out Against Queer Ideology at “Never Extinguished” Event

Editor’s Note: this story was updated on 11/23/2025 to provide a complete list of political dignitaries who attended the “Never Extinguished” event either Friday or Saturday.

This past Friday and Saturday, Alaska Family Council (AFC) invited de-transitioner Chloe Cole and author Logan Lancing to speak about their experience and expertise fighting the inundation of Queer Theory in American culture. AFC provided two opportunities to hear from the normalcy defenders: at a BBQ dinner on Friday in the Valley or over dessert on Saturday in Anchorage. 

Candidates for Governor Bernadette Wilson, Nancy Dahlstrom, Shelley Hughes, Treg Taylor, Adam Crum, Matt Heilala, and Edna DeVries attended the event, as well as Dave Donley, who is running for the Anchorage Assembly and State Representatives Julie Coulombe, Jubilee Underwood, Cathy Tilton, and Elexie Moore.

Love Leads the Fight 

AFC leaders Jim and Kim Minnery and Tim Barto unabashedly centered the four-hour long event on Jesus Christ and biblical principles. The event began and ended with prayer and carried a theme of warrior-like faith throughout. Emphasizing the need for Christians to defend biblical principles during a time of increasing secularization in America, Jim Minnery quoted G.K. Chesterton: “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him but because he loves what is behind him.” Jim then stated: “Love is what puts us in the arena.” 

Logan Lancing: “The War on Normal” 

After announcements about AFC’s recent work and initiatives, TPUSA-UAA President Jack Thompson introduced author Logan Lancing. Logan shared his research on Queer Theory, helping listeners understand what Queer Theory is and the role it plays in education according to its own proponents. According to Kevin Kumashiro’s 2002 article “Against Repetition: Addressing Resistance to Anti-Oppressive Change,” the goal of education is not to help children understand the world around them, but rather to cause children to experience mental crises that prompt them to create their own realities. Kumashiro puts it this way: “Educators have a responsibility not only to draw kids into a possible crisis, but also to structure experiences that can help them work through their crises productively” (74-75). 

As Logan continued to quote a plethora of queer theorists, the consensus among academics favoring Queer Theory became clear: Queer Theory promotes whatever contradicts a society’s understanding of normalcy and seeks to instill the philosophical principle that reality exists only in the mind of the individual, who may shape reality in any way and must assert the validity of that reality on anyone who opposes it. Logan sums this up as “the war on normal.” 

Chloe Cole’s Testimony 

Following intermission after Logan’s intense speech, Candidate for Governor Shelley Hughes introduced the 21-year-old keynote speaker Chloe Cole. Hughes again grounded the event in a Christian worldview, stating, “Kingdom principles are common sense principles.” 

With notable courage and eloquence, Chloe Cole shared her personal testimony of transitioning at 12 years old and then de-transitioning at 17. Chloe explained the main reasons that led to her initial gender transition: 1) she was assaulted at school shortly after she began puberty, 2) her impression of becoming a woman was highly negative and hyper-sexualized, 3) internet access exposed her to the transgender community, 4) her therapists presented gender therapy as the only solution to her distress. Her parents were skeptical of the hormone therapy, but the doctors scared them with an ultimatum: “you can either have a dead daughter—because she will kill herself—or an alive son.” Chloe stated she was never suicidal, and the ultimatum was pure manipulation. 

As a junior in high school, Chloe’s feelings about her gender transition began to shift. She said that at first, she was happy living as “Leo” and that her classmates and teachers accepted her transition and treated her as any other boy. However, as she began to think about what she wanted her adult life to look like, she could not shake a strong desire to be a mother, to bring forth life from her own body. 

When she decided to de-transition, all the support she had received when she transitioned evaporated. Her doctors refused to help. Her friends abandoned her. The trans community, who had welcomed her so warmly, now regarded her as an enemy. They told her she had wasted her parents’ love and acceptance, wasted important “healthcare” that could have been used for “a real trans kid,” and that she herself was a waste of life and she should kill herself. 

However, Chloe never gave up. She began speaking out across the nation on the dangers of gender-denying care on minors. While she never regretted her de-transition, Chloe still felt a hole in her heart. She had scars from her double mastectomy, and she had scars on her soul. These wounds led her down a dark path of frequent truancy and drug use. She testified that she experienced true healing only after she accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord of her life. “Through my relationship with Christ, I have experienced health in my body, mind, and soul,” she stated. 

Defending Normalcy 

Logan Lancing and Chloe Cole are two defenders against the ongoing assault of normalcy in American culture. It is not merely a modern assault, but one that has been relentless since the beginning of human history. Humanity is faced with this fundamental question: who is God? Queer ideology proclaims that the individual is God and that the individual has the right to live in whatever reality that the individual’s psyche chooses to create. Christianity proclaims that the Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is God and that the individual lives in the reality that this external deity has designed. 

At the end of the day, everyone worships either an external deity, or they worship themselves. Alaskans are faced with the same choice. Such a foundational choice is deserving of intentional, sober, and respectful attention and conversation.  

The Hard Truth of Alaska’s 2026 Gubernatorial Election 

36

By Michael Tavoliero

Have Alaskans finally learned the hard truth? Do Alaskans understand that it no longer matters who becomes governor if Juneau’s permanent coalition of legislators, special interests, bureaucrats, and their media echo chamber, still holds the real power? 

Under Ranked Choice Voting and a fractured conservative field, we are on track to repeat the same cycle; multiple Republican candidates burning millions to split the vote, only to produce another executive who enters office already gelded or in other cases, spayed, by an unaccountable legislature and its minions. Alaska cannot afford another symbolic governor paired with a legislature that refuses to govern. 

If these candidates truly care about Alaska’s future, if they are more than the recycled sound bites the public no longer hears, and more than polished resumes seeking their turn at the mic, then they must finally face the truth we, Alaskans, have been forced to swallow. The real threat to this state is not the other candidates on the debate stage. It is the legislative machine that has failed us, drained us, and dismantled our sovereignty. And unless these would-be governors have the courage to confront that machine, openly and ruthlessly, then they are all campaigning for a job that will leave them impotent on day one; stripped of power, boxed in by the same permanent coalition, and forced to preside helplessly over Alaska’s continued decline. 

No speech, no slogan, no last-minute ad-buy can hide this anymore. Alaska is not dying because we lack charismatic governors. Alaska is dying because the legislature has become immune to the voters and insulated from consequences. If these candidates cannot acknowledge that, and act together to change it, then they are not fighting for Alaska. They are auditioning for ceremonial roles in its slow and inevitable collapse into Alaskan Marxism. 

From Walker’s unilateral Medicaid expansion in 2015, to the institutionalization and breach of trust of PFD in 2018, to the legislature’s silence on education collapse, federal overreach, energy strangulation, and election-law degradation, the pattern is unmistakable. This past decade was not an accident. It was a slow, deliberate corrosion of sovereignty, competence, and public trust. These failures were not inevitable; they were planned. And unless the political structure, strategy and plan change, they will be repeated. 

The Alaska Legislature’s post-Trump trajectory appears to rest on a single, dangerous move: consolidating power. Alaska is on the verge of formally embracing a fully centralized government, and the signs are no longer subtle. 

The only viable path forward is unity. And while Alaska’s hardened political class insists that “tradition” must be preserved, dismissing any alternative as naïve or out of bounds, I ask them one simple question: under your way of doing things, has anything improved, or has everything gotten worse? 

Instead of multiple gubernatorial campaigns competing to become the next powerless figurehead, Republican and conservative candidates must agree on a shared platform.  

Look at our operating budget: according to Truth in Accounting, Alaska balanced its books only because it received $5.1 billion in federal money, making federal aid the single largest source of revenue, accounting for 52% of all operating funds. And, as if dependence were not alarming enough, the Legislature then pulled an additional $4.8 billion from the Earnings Reserve Account to manufacture a small surplus. 

What if all candidates agreed to support the following four-part platform:  

1. Fix Medicaid Before It Consumes the Budget 
Medicaid expansion is driving Alaska into a fiscal trap by ballooning long-term liabilities and deepening dependency. Without real reform, it will keep devouring unrestricted revenue and leave the state financially paralyzed. 

2. Demand Results from a Failing K–12 System 
Despite record spending, Alaska ranks near the bottom in student outcomes. Our children are being shortchanged, our workforce weakened, and taxpayers forced to fund the most expensive, least effective education pipeline in the nation. 

3. Unleash Alaska’s Energy Wealth 
Alaska has world-class energy resources, yet high costs and shrinking production persist because government blocks development. Clear the obstacles, end the delays, and let Alaska power its own prosperity. 

4. Protect the Permanent Fund Trust and the PFD 
For decades the PF and PFD operated as a trust for the people. Diverting earnings to government was the first breach; merging the Fund with the ERA would destroy the trust entirely. Alaska’s resource wealth belongs to the people, not to the government. 

What if they all committed to select and support a single nominee? One name goes on the ballot; the others form the war council.  

All remaining campaign funds, all parties, and all conservative voters are then directed toward the real objective: building a durable conservative supermajority in both state legislative chambers. Without that supermajority, no governor, no matter how competent or sincere, will ever have the power to repair the damage of the last decade or protect Alaska’s future. 

Alaska is approaching a political breaking point, not because of any single policy failure, but because of a deeper mindset that has taken root in the electorate: the belief that the State is inherently benevolent, indispensable, and responsible for solving every problem. When a population thinks this way, the State expands naturally, absorbs power effortlessly, and becomes immune to accountability. Its failures are tolerated, its intrusions normalized, and its growth mistaken for progress. That is the condition Alaska now faces. 

This mindset explains why the legislature remains unmovable, why the bureaucracy grows unchecked, and why even major breaches of policy stability, Medicaid expansion, education collapse, cheap energy, PFD diversion, and federal dependency, were not reversed. Voters have been conditioned to view the State not as something to restrain, but as something to petition, praise, and depend upon. As long as this mentality prevails, no governor, however talented, can overcome the machinery that actually governs Alaska. 

This is why the current field of multiple gubernatorial candidates is so dangerous. Each believes he or she alone can fix a system that is fundamentally protected by the public’s own thinking. The blind selfishness of this mentality only affirms the fact of the past: history will repeat itself. By running separately, they reinforce the illusion that the governorship is the lever of power, when in reality the true power lies in a legislature and bureaucracy that voters have ceased to question. Fragmentation all but guarantees another gelded/spayed executive. An Alaskan governor entering office in 2026 will already be overpowered by an entrenched political structure that no longer fears the voters who created it. 

Unless the candidates unite, speak from a shared platform, and begin shifting the public mindset away from dependence on the State and back toward citizen sovereignty, Alaska’s political condition will not change. The problem is not merely who gets elected; it is how Alaskans have been taught to think about government itself. Until that changes, the State will continue to grow at the expense of the people, and every governor will inherit the same fate: a title without power, and a mandate without the means to fulfill it.