Friday, July 31, 2026
Home Blog Page 919

Anybody want to run as a Democrat? Anyone at all?

The Alaska Democratic Party is so desperate for candidates that it’s now sending out text messages, trolling for a Democrat — any Democrat — to run for office for Anchorage.

“Hi ——-, this is Sarah, a volunteer w/ the Alaska Democratic Party. We’re looking for folks in Anchorage to run for office. Would you like info on how to run?” the Democrats wrote in a text message that got waylaid by Must Read Alaska.

The Alaska Democratic Party is a brand fraught with peril. Many liberals have started to file as “undeclared” or “nonpartisan,” rather than be saddled with the Democrat label, since it’s so closely bound with the Black Lives Matter, Critical Race Theory, post-gender, and Antifa identities.

Masks required for the help, but not for Hillary at the Met Gala.

For instance, Al Gross, who ran with Democrat Party support in 2020 against Sen. Dan Sullivan, kept his party affiliation secret then, and is doing so today as a candidate for Congress. Rep. Cal Schrage, who has the support of Democrats, also doesn’t want his affiliation known. He caucuses with Democrats but with his clean-cut look and buzz cut, he cosplays as an independent. Former Gov. Bill Walker is running without the Democrat label, although he had the party’s support in the 2018 race for governor, which he lost. His running mate, like his last running mate, ditched the Democrat label for the election cycle. The only brand-name Democrat the party could get to file for Congress is Chris Constant of the Anchorage Assembly.

The Democrats are specifically interested in filling slots in the new redistricted political areas of Anchorage — areas they fought hard to secure as Democrat-controlled. Must Read Alaska has learned that the Alaska Republican Party is using a more traditional method of recruiting candidates and has not yet resorted to sending text messages into the wild.

June 1 is the filing deadline for state offices.

Opinion: Sarah Palin quit on Alaska for fame and fortune, but now wants a second chance

By RYAN NELSON

In national politics, Sarah Palin is a household name as a firebrand who can get a Lower 48 crowd of conservatives engaged and excited with her word-salad speeches.

In Alaska, the conservative base is far more divided about Sarah Palin’s political ambitions than national figures like Donald Trump and Corey Lewandowski could possibly understand.

Some Alaskans still like Palin and will bend over backward to support her. Some might even defend her even if she shot someone in front of Anchorage’s 4th Avenue Theater. Other conservatives who have lived in Alaska for years and pay attention to politics remember her reign as governor of Alaska and are less enthusiastic.

While Palin supporters are well meaning in their loyalty, they are often not aware of her failures as a policymaker. As governor, her progressive tax on Alaska oil production (ACES) destroyed Alaska’s oil industry and sent companies like Exxon to greener pastures in North Dakota and Texas, where the business environment was friendlier.

Her many ethics scandals included Troopergate. The time she spent tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars as Wasilla mayor to renovate her office brought shame to her legacy. Perhaps her most embarrassing mistake was her endorsement of the former Gov. Bill Walker, the governor who cut the Permanent Fund dividend, nearly sold Alaska’s gasline to China, and appointed left-wingers like Scott Kendall, who would eventually go on to be responsible for destructive ballot initiatives like Ballot Measure 2.

Her support for Walker arguably tricked many conservatives into voting for him, making up the difference in a narrow gubernatorial election with Gov. Sean Parnell in 2014.

This wasn’t the only time Palin stabbed a fellow Alaskan in the back. In 2008, when former Sen. Ted Stevens was federally charged weeks before an election in a sham federal investigation meant to target and destroy him, instead of coming to Stevens defense against a clear witch hunt, Palin called for Sen. Stevens to resign. This ultimately damaged Stevens’ image right before a tough reelection, and aided in his loss to Mark Begich. Stevens, of course, was cleared of all charges — after the election.

Did Palin ever apologize for her condemnation of Ted Stevens? No.

Did Palin ever apologize for her endorsement of Walker? No.

Did Palin apologize for doubling the size of Alaska’s state government, and punishing Alaska’s most important industry? No.

Did Palin apologize for her many ethical scandals such as Troopergate? No.

Did Palin ever speak up for Alaskans as Gov. Walker willfully stole our Permanent Fund dividends for more government spending? No.

Did Sarah Palin speak out against Ballot Measure 2 as dark money from out-of-state funding a misleading campaign to change Alaska’s election system? No.

Instead, Palin has always been too self-absorbed to fight in the trenches with us as enemies target Alaska. She has yet to show any remorse for any of her mistakes.

I’m sure everybody remembers back in the days of 2009 when Sarah Palin resigned as Alaska governor. To this day I hear people making the excuse that Palin was forced out by angry attacks from the left that prevented her from effectively governing. However, that argument could not be more unsupported. Gov. Mike Dunleavy endured far worse from the Left with a full-on coordinated attack by the media and Scott Kendall’s campaign to recall him, which began only weeks after he was elected. Yet, he did not resign. He fought on for Alaska. Donald Trump didn’t quit because the going got tough, with two impeachments. He fought on for America.

After Palin’s resignation, these pending lawsuits and litigations did not prevent her from living a lavish lifestyle. I wouldn’t expect a person buried in litigation to have the time to tour the country to promote her book. I wouldn’t expect a person buried in litigation to have the time to fly over to the East Coast to be a contributor to Fox News. And I certainly wouldn’t expect a person buried in litigation to have the time to start her own reality show, “Sarah Palin’s Alaska.”

It’s clear that the reason she resigned was not due to attacks from the leftist media, or because resigning from governor would allow her to better fight for Alaska.

Instead, Palin resigned because she discovered she didn’t like governing. She became drunk on fame, intoxicated by the media spotlight, the paid speaking engagements at large conservative gatherings, and the luxurious life that followed. She could have at least been honest about why she resigned. But she wasn’t. She expected us to believe that she could better serve Alaska with her reality TV show.

If Palin manages to get elected to Congress despite her being a politically polarizing figure in Alaska, it will be all fun in games at first. There’s no doubt she will be on the Sean Hannity Show, and will get a lot of attention from the national media to keep the lights lit in her out-of-state mansions. But at the end of the day, it’s all about Sarah, Sarah, Sarah.

Some may argue, “At least she can’t do much damage in a U.S. house seat as she did as governor of Alaska.” To that, I paraphrase Barack Obama’s quote about Joe Biden: “Don’t underestimate Sarah’s ability to F*** things up.”

Alaska, please consider giving a candidate with new blood like Nick Begich a first shot before you recycle Palin.

Murray Walsh: Palin’s political felonies

By MURRAY WALSH

It may not matter to you that Sarah Palin has not been loyal to the State of Alaska or the Alaska Republican Party, but it should.  Palin has not been active in the party since 2008, but that is no crime. Donald Trump was not active in the party before his election either, but I still voted for him, twice. Just as I voted for Sarah, before I knew of her first political felony.

What is a political felony? It is an act that is so contrary to the well-being of your state, and to the expectations of your party, that it should doom your future in politics unless you apologize in public. Sarah Palin’s first felony was allowing herself to be led by Democrats in the Alaska Legislature to pass ACES, an oil tax regime so draconian that not one more nickel was spent on oil exploration in Alaska after she signed the bill.

This felony occurred in 2007, early in Palin’s first year. The Dems and Palin forgot that Alaska has to compete with other petroleum-bearing regions for oil company investment in exploration and new production. If you tax too much, the oil companies will go somewhere else to look for new oil. The TAPS line was well below capacity then. We needed new oil then and we still do.

The Dems have always had a contempt for the oil biz and a willingness to bite the hand that feeds them. Republicans do not worship the oil business, but they do try to understand and respect it. Why would Palin allow herself to ally with the Dems in this scheme? See below. The key point is that she did the deed and got very lucky, in the years after, that the public did not realize how foul a deed it was.  I didn’t know either when I voted for Palin and McCain in November of 2008.

Palin was criticized in mid-2009 for resigning the governorship, but not by me. There were a lot of good reasons for her to abdicate and the best one was that Sean Parnell became governor. He began working on a fix for ACES, but it took several years, including getting re-elected in his own right in 2010 to finally fix the tax regime in 2013.  

Exploration resumed and there is new oil in the pipeline today. Parnell was cool about this. He didn’t blame Palin or make an issue of her gullibility at the hands of Democrats. He just got it fixed and was on a good path for re-election in 2014 when Sarah Palin committed her second political felony.

You can recover from widely known political mistakes if you acknowledge the deed and atone for it convincingly. Bill Clinton and Donald Trump did. But, in 2014, Palin’s first crime was not publicly understood because Parnell had cleaned things up. Rather than heave a sigh of relief, Palin went on to openly support Bill Walker and his strange brew campaign to unseat Parnell. That was as dark a day in Alaska politics as I can remember.   

Why support Walker? Well, as near as I can tell, he and Palin are part of a splinter group of people who claim to be conservative but have the same contempt for oil as Democrats. I also suspect she resented Parnell for terminating her once-much-bragged-about ACES plan.

I have watched campaigns in Alaska with great attention. Sarah Palin had, and still has, a lot of star power. She communicates well, holds the attention of the room and is entertaining to many.  So does Donald Trump, but he also governed well and has been respectful of the party that put him in office. I don’t think Sarah Palin’s political felonies are known to Trump. He is clearly smitten with Palin’s star power and gives it more value that he should. 

She is in this for herself. Don’t vote for her, ever.  Nick Begich has earned my vote.

Murray R. Walsh is a semi-retired land use consultant.  He has lived in Juneau since 1976 and has been involved in the Republican Party since arriving in Juneau. 

Bill to protect women athletes scheduled for Senate floor

Legislation authored by Sen. Shelley Hughes to protect women’s sports from unfair transgender competitors is scheduled on the Senate floor for Thursday, May 5.

Hughes says opponents of SB 140 have gotten organized and are emailing statements of opposition to senators. She has reached out to Alaskans who care about girls and women athletes’ right to fair competition to ask them to counter the tactic from the Left.

In a statement, Hughes wrote:

“Fifty years ago, women’s sports changed forever. In 1972 slightly over 300,000 women and girls played college and high school sports in the United States. When I was a teenager, the only option for a female to be connected to a public-school athletic program was to be a cheerleader, and the cheerleading squads were small (5-10) at each high school. As of 2022, the number of female athletes in the U.S. has increased by over 900 percent to more than 3.5 million women and girls thanks to the passage of Title IX. This year, as we celebrate Title IX’s 50th anniversary, women and girls stand, once more, at risk of losing an even playing field in sports. An ever-increasing trend of males and transgender women who were born male playing in women’s sports threatens competition and fairness. Girls and women should not be robbed of the chance to be selected for a team, to win a championship, or to beIn a statement in support of SB 140, Hughes writes, “Fifty years ago, women’s sports changed forever.

“In 1972 slightly over 300,000 women and girls played college and high school sports in the United States. When I was a teenager, the only option for a female to be connected to a public-school athletic program was to be a cheerleader, and the cheerleading squads were small (5-10) at each high school. As of 2022, the number of female athletes in the U.S. has increased by over 900 percent to more than 3.5 million women and girls thanks to the passage of Title IX. This year, as we celebrate Title IX’s 50th anniversary, women and girls stand, once more, at risk of losing an even playing field in sports. An ever-increasing trend of males and transgender women who were born male playing in women’s sports threatens competition and fairness.

“Girls and women should not be robbed of the chance to be selected for a team, to win a championship, or to be awarded a college scholarship due to the physical advantages of transgender women.

“The goal of SB140 to ensure discrimination against girls and women does not occur – that they are treated fairly and not disadvantaged in athletic programs compared to male-bodied athletes. Undeniable evidence and scientific research conclude that the average biological male body is stronger, larger, and faster than the average female body even after testosterone suppression treatment. This is particularly true in high school athletics. For example, many male high school track and field athletes consistently beat the times of the best female Olympians who’ve trained intensely for years. Male-bodied athletes have a substantial physical advantage over female athletes in sports, regardless of the beliefs that the male-bodied athlete may hold about their sexuality or gender identity.”

The current version of the bill can be found at:

“This legislation is critical to ensure that the gains women have made since the passage of Title IX are not lost due to recent and unfounded interpretations of Title IX by the left. Senate Bill 140 is inclusive of all student athletes and every competitor would have at least two teams that they are eligible for under this bill—a coed team and a team that aligns with their biological sex at birth. Including transgender athletes in sports, should not come at the cost of discrimination against women and the loss of athletic opportunities and scholarships for Alaskan women,” Hughes said. The bill specifies that student athletes are to compete with their biological gender, not their gender appearance.

Emails can be addressed to the entire Senate body.  The list is as follows: 

[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected];[email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected][email protected]

Mayor Bronson vetoes Assembly big spending

Anchorage Mayor Dave Bronson announced his vetoes of AR 2022-98 (S), the Anchorage Assembly resolution adding more spending to the Fiscal Year 2022 Operating Budget.

The vetoes reflect the mayor’s priorities, he said in a statement: Protecting the public’s safety; creating a prosperous and business-friendly community; compassionately addressing our homelessness crisis; re-organizing for a more efficient and effective government; and aligning costs to better reflect cost causer/cost payer.

The mayor’s vetoes save taxpayers $3.4 million and delivers a budget for 2022 that is $4.7 million below the tax cap.

The veto items include:

$2,308,894 –  Police, Fully fund School Resource Office (SRO) program (additional 9 months) remove revenue receipt from Anchorage School District (ASD).

The reason for the veto:  The ASD approved budget includes Anchorage property taxes to pay for the SRO program during the 2022-2023 school year. The Assembly’s action taxes property owners a second time to pay for the same program. At its inception in 2002, the SRO program was funded through a federal matching grant. Over time, the responsibility for funding the SRO program has shifted between general government and ASD. “My proposal would allow for the program to be funded by a cost-causer/cost-payer model, accurately representing ASD’s utilization of the services. While I continue to support the work of the SROs, I believe it is appropriate that ASD pay for the program during the school year and general government pay for it in the summer months. For these reasons, I have vetoed funding from general government for school year operations and continue to support a shared arrangement,” he said.

$314,636 – Development Services, Starting July 1, fund 1 Electrical Inspector, 2 Mechanical/Plumbing Inspectors, and 1 Structural Inspector.

The reason for the veto:  The reduction of these positions is part of an effort to right-size the inspector staff with the anticipated workload. “This will not impact service and is part of my strategy to bring the Building Safety Service Area Fund (163000) to be self-sustaining and reduce its current negative fund balance,” Bronson said.

$1,061,897 – Health, Maintain funding 8 Anchorage Health Department (AHD) positions out of AHD’s operating budget; correct any associated labor expense (Jan – April) for these positions to be paid for in AHD’s operating budget.

The reason for the veto:  These positions are critical in servicing populations experiencing homelessness, substance misuse, and mental health crises—all of which were expressed priorities in establishing the alcohol tax. “The Assembly amendment switched funding to property taxes; my veto continues funding these positions using alcohol taxes,” Bronson said.

$657,176 – Fire, Maintain funding for MCT for a total recurring amount of $1,575,180.

The reason for the veto:  Current collective bargaining agreements do not allow for the Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) program to be fully implemented at the Anchorage Fire Department (AFD) ($918,004 is currently in the department’s budget for this program). Because of this limitation, additional funds will not achieve the amendment’s desired outcome. In addition, AFD’s program is intended to be an interim solution while community partners stand-up the 988 Crisis Now model (see December 1, 2021 Assembly Health Policy Committee Presentation by the Alaska Mental Health Trust). It would not be prudent to build out this program now, only to lay off trained personnel when the Crisis Now program is deployed, he said.

$872,000 – Fire, Increase MCT to be 24-7 starting July 1 (Total program needs to be $2,447,358).

The reason for the veto: Current collective bargaining agreements do not allow for the MCT program to be fully implemented at the AFD ($918,004 is currently in the department’s budget for this program). Because of this limitation, additional funds will not achieve the amendment’s desired outcome. In addition, AFD’s program is intended to be an interim solution while community partners stand-up the 988 Crisis Now model (see December 1, 2021 Assembly Health Policy Committee Presentation by the Alaska Mental Health Trust). It would not be prudent to build out this program now, only to lay off trained personnel when the Crisis Now program is deployed. 

$122,000 – Fire, 1FTE for new, permanent position in MCT – Logistics Coordinator.

The reason for the veto: Current collective bargaining agreements do not allow for the MCT program to be fully implemented at the AFD ($918,004 is currently in the department’s budget for this program). Because of this limitation, additional funds will not achieve the amendment’s desired outcome. In addition, AFD’s program is intended to be an interim solution while community partners stand-up the 988 Crisis Now model (see December 1, 2021 Assembly Health Policy Committee Presentation by the Alaska Mental Health Trust). It would not be prudent to build out this program now, only to lay off trained personnel when the Crisis Now program is deployed.

$1,061,897 – Health, Maintain funding 8 AHD positions out of AHD’s operating budget; correct any associated labor expense (Jan – April) for these positions to be paid for in AHD’s operating budget.

The reason for the veto:  The effect of this veto is that it reinstates funding for these positions from alcohol tax revenue instead of property taxes. These positions are critical in serving populations experiencing homelessness, substance misuse, and mental health crises, all of which were expressed priorities in establishing the alcohol tax.

$788,379 – Health, Operational costs for shelter to balance increase to MCT program.

The reason for the veto:  Shelter operational costs are a high priority to the mass care exit strategy from the Sullivan Arena. As explained in other sections, the MCT program has sufficient funding for its current operation and, accordingly, this funding is better used for the more critical need of shelter operations.

$500,000 – Alcohol Tax Program – Police, specifically to fund trainings that will focus on the roll-out of new equipment, case law updates, de-escalation, cultural awareness, wellness, and significant policy changes.  This would allow up to 20 hrs of in-service training per officer in 2022.  APD will provide a report to the Assembly on these efforts no later than October 2022.

The reason for the veto: Anchorage Municipal Charter (Charter), Article XIV, Section 14.07 provides that net receipts from the alcoholic beverages retail sales tax (Alcohol Tax) are dedicated and to be available only for:

  1. funding for police, related criminal justice personnel, and first responders;
  1. Funding to combat and address child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence; and
  1. Funding for substance misuse treatment, prevention programs, detoxification or long-term addiction recovery facilities, mental and behavioral health programs, and resources to prevent and address Anchorage’s homelessness crisis.

Further, the net receipts of the Alcohol Tax cannot be used to supplant funding for existing service levels as contained in the Municipality’s actual operating budget for fiscal year 2020. Charter, art. XIV, § 14.07.(e). The net receipts of the Alcohol Tax are to be used only for additional services above the 2020 baseline.

Here, the intended use of funds in Zaletel Amendment #1 are inconsistent with the expressed limitations in Charter of Alcohol Tax net receipts. The amendment does not add police or criminal justice personnel, nor does it fund substance misuse treatment or behavioral health programs. As approved by the Assembly, the amendment also provides no analysis of how the funds will be specifically used to combat and address child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence. “Because the Assembly has not shown a nexus between the proposed use of the funds and the limitations of Alcohol Tax revenues, I must veto the Amendment,” he said.

$50,000 – Alcohol Tax Program – Fire, to fund a study to review and make recommendations regarding the personnel levels, staffing structure, national standards and other contributors to overall costs related to the labor costs within the Anchorage Fire Department.

The reason for the veto: As discussed above, Charter Article XIV, Section 14.07 expressly restricts use of Alcohol Tax net receipts to very narrow purposes. Here, an appropriation to the Assembly to “fund a study to review and make recommendations regarding personnel levels, staffing structure, national standards and other contributors to overall costs related to the labor costs with the Anchorage Fire Department” is not an acceptable use of alcohol tax net receipts. The appropriation does not add personnel, it does nothing to combat domestic violence or sexual assault, and it does not provide services for mental health or substance misuse. As such, this appropriation is an improper use of the alcohol tax.  

$50,000 – Alcohol Tax Program – Police, for specific recruiting efforts to increase the number of officers with APD specifically focused on recruiting individuals that are reflective of the overall demographics of the community.  APD will provide a report to the Assembly on these efforts no later than October 2022.

The reason for the veto:  In this amendment, the Assembly is again attempting to use net receipts of the alcohol tax inconsistent with the plaint language of Charter. “While I support efforts to create a more diverse workforce within APD, the Alcohol Tax cannot be used for recruitment alone. This amendment does not show, or provide any analysis tending to show, how these funds would add services above the 2020 baseline. In other words, this amendment does not directly add personnel above the 2020 service levels. Instead, it seeks only to recruit a more diverse applicant base. Without showing how these funds will add personnel or increase services above the baseline 2020 level, the appropriation is an improper use of the Alcohol Tax net receipts.”

$50,000 – Alcohol Tax Program – Assembly, Facilitate an education effort on the Alcohol Tax Program, including an opportunity to collect feedback from the public.

The reason for the veto:  Dunbar, Quinn-Davidson, & Zaletel Amendment #2 is another improper use of Alcohol Tax funds. The expressed language in Charter provides that the net receipts of the tax must be used in very specific ways. Nothing in the plain language of Charter leads to the conclusion that an education effort on the Alcohol Tax Program is acceptable. As stated above, to spend from the Alcohol Tax fund, an appropriation must be for purposes allowed in Charter and code and also show how the appropriation will increase services above the 2020 baseline. This amendment fails to do so and, as a result, must be vetoed, Bronson said. 

THE MAYOR HAS NOT VETOED THE FOLLOWING:  

  • $360,000 – Funding 4 FTE permanent Firefighter positions  
  • $128,873 – Maintain Mayor’s Community Grants program and allocate $35K to Arts Grants
  • $530,000 –  Special election costs, security and legal contract increases, Clerk’s Office and Elections staffing and pay disparity corrections
  • $114,000 – Anchorage Economic Development Corporation (AEDC)
  • $12,000 – Short term rental study in Girdwood
  • $25,000 – Winfluence AKRR claim of use along tracks
  • $14,995 – Increase funding on Girdwood EMS contract
  • $199,100 – Evidence-based grants to providers for child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence
  • $125,000 – Grant to Standing Together Against Rape (STAR)
  • $13,293 – Whittier Police Department and Girdwood Fire & Rescue Training

Once a pro-life politician, Bill Walker embraces Democrat position of easy-access abortion-on-demand

Former Alaska Gov. Bill Walker made the transformation from pro-life Christian to pro-choice politician while he was governor from 2015 to 2018. Heavily influenced by his Democrat handlers and staff, he’d previously favored sparing the life of babies, a position he abandoned in efforts to get reelected by Democrats in 2018.

Between 2010 and today, Walker has backtracked from life and liberty protections for the unborn. He went from hosting a “parental consent” bill fundraiser in his own home to becoming the “I am the defender of all women’s bodies” candidate for governor. In 2010, Walker and Mead Treadwell were battling to be the Number 1 donors for the parental consent bill.

Now, he is running on a pro-death platform that conflates a Supreme Court decision reversing Roe v Wade with the Alaska Constitution. About the leaked draft decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on the overturn of the Roe v. Wade abortion law, Walker wasted no time in saying that the Supreme Court decision overrides the Alaska Constitution.

Indeed, Walker, a lawyer licensed by the Alaska Bar Association to practice in Alaska, believes a draft decision overrides Alaska’s Constitution.

“Today’s announcement is an attack on the privacy rights preserved in Alaska’s Constitution,” Walker wrote on Twitter.

In reality, the draft Supreme Court decision leaves the matter to the states, and Alaska is a pro-abortion state with a pro-privacy Constitution and a deeply pro-abortion Supreme Court.

But Walker went on: “Whatever our personal beliefs, they do not supresede our founding legal document. When I take an oath to be Alaska’s next governor, I will swap to protect our state’s Constitution … which ensures that Alaskan women have the right to make decisions that impact their own health without interference from politicians. That’s why I acted on my own to expand access to Medicaid, which provided tens of thousands of Alaskan women with health insurance and access to contraceptives.”

Then he called abortion a partisan issue that extremists are using: “If any legislation threatens to curb the right to privacy, I will veto it. The pending action of the U.S. Supreme Court also highlights the importance that we band together as Alaskans and defeat the effort by partisan extremists to shred our Constitution.”

Walker, like President Joe Biden, is looking for a toehold for the upcoming midterm elections, where Democrats are already performing poorly. They are hoping that abortion will be the fire that ignites their base and that the upcoming decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse what is now seen to be a red wave in the election cycle.

Biden also framed it as an election issue: “At the federal level, we will need more pro-choice Senators and a pro-choice majority in the House to adopt legislation that codifies Roe,which I will work to pass and sign into law.”

Catlan Sardina: The Supreme Court leaked opinion on Roe v. Wade and the journalists who covered it

By CATLAN SARDINA

This week the U.S. Supreme Court had a significant information leak of a draft opinion on a continuing case. The draft opinion strongly suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn the precedence of the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973.

Read: Leak shows Supreme Court is overturning Roe vs. Wade

Much ink has already been spilled over the moral implications of both the original Roe v. Wade decision and the potential for a different decision in the coming months. I do not intend to pour more ink into the moral discussion, even though I hold a strong moral opinion on this very significant matter.

What I would like to address is the choice of narrative used by journalists covering the subject. In my past life I was a psychological operations officer in the U.S. Army. That often meant that I was a propagandist. There is a stark difference between propaganda and journalism. The purpose of propaganda is influence. The purpose of journalism is to inform.

The gold standard for American journalism has traditionally fallen to the Associated Press. Most of the news coverage in the modern media market is sourced in the original coverage offered by the Associated Press, then regurgitated and critiqued by the highly opinioned semi-news agencies. The Associated Press failed in its coverage of the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion.

Read the AP coverage of the incident referenced in this column at this link.

There are two specific phrases within the article that unfortunately transformed journalistic coverage into loaded semi-propaganda.

The first, and more significant of the two phrases is found in the second paragraph of the article, “the language that would end the constitutional right to an abortion.” This phrase is a missed opportunity to correct an unfortunate narrative surrounding both this topic and the general coverage of the Supreme Court. The judiciary does not grant or remove constitutional rights. The judiciary reviews laws and circumstances, then deems whether the circumstances or law are constitutional or unconstitutional already.

If abortion is a constitutional right, the Supreme Court will find justification within the U.S. Constitution to maintain the opinion of Roe v. Wade. If abortion is not a right protected in the U.S. Constitution, then it is not a constitutional right. This finding should be amoral and based solely on the language and intent of the legal framework. If the Supreme Court finds a matter to fall outside the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment holds that the matter is no longer a federal concern but falls to the states.

The Supreme Court should not evaluate the morality of Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court should make a decision based upon the constitutionality of Roe v. Wade. Unless something very dramatic has changed in the powers of the judiciary, they will not grant or end any constitutional rights any time soon.

The Associated Press’s decision to use this phrase has furthered the emotional charge against the direction of the Supreme Court. If I had been as crafty as these journalists when I was a propagandist, I may have been better at my Army psychological operations career.

The second journalistic misstep was at least reserved for later in the article. The article states, “The daily rituals unfolded as they always do: protesters screamed at people walking inside.” At first I thought this may have been a quote by a frustrated abortion services provider. I was surprised to find that this characterization was done by the journalists, not an interviewee. I’m sure that protesters scream outside of abortion clinics. I’m sure that at times protesters scream at people walking inside a clinic. I would however not attach such a loaded generalization to all protesters of abortion clinics.

This characterization denies the opportunity for a reader to form their own opinion of the matter at hand. If protesters of abortion services are screaming at innocent people, they must be the villain in this story.

If you wonder why many conservatives accuse the media of taking the side of liberals, look no further than the coverage of this event. Rebecca Santana, Emily Wagster Pettus, Claire Galofaro, and their editors should revisit their journalistic purpose. They must consider their journalistic integrity. I long to be informed; I could only wish to be given the opportunity to let my influence-guard down for the occasional article.

Catlan Sardina is a pastor who writes in his own capacity.

Supreme Court rules Boston unconstitutionally censored a Christian flag on its public forum flagpole

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the City of Boston acted unconstitutionally when it censored a private flag in a public forum simply because it was a “Christian flag.”

Justice Stephen Breyer, a court liberal who will retire after this court term and be replaced by radical Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote the opinion for the court, which had voted 9-0. Joining him in the majority opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elana Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Three concurring opinions were filed by Kavanaugh, Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, and another concurring opinion was added by Gorsuch, joined by Thomas.

Liberty Counsel Chairman Mat Staver presented oral arguments before the court in January on behalf of Boston resident Hal Shurtleff and the Christian civic group he runs, Camp Constitution. Camp Constitution had asked the city for a permit to raise the Christian flag on a certain Boston City Hall flagpole to commemorate Constitution Day and Citizenship Day, along with the civic and cultural contributions of the Christian community to the City of Boston and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The flagpole in question is used to fly many types of flags and is designated as a public forum flag; other flagpoles are used for the city, the commonwealth, and the U.S. flag.

The Supreme Court wrote that “Boston did not make the raising and flying of private groups’ flags a form of government speech. That means, in turn, that Boston’s refusal to let Shurtleff and Camp Constitution raise their flag based on its religious viewpoint ‘abridg[ed]’ their ‘freedom of speech.’”

“We do not settle this dispute by counting noses—or, rather, counting flags,” the court wrote. “That is so for several reasons. For one thing, Boston told the public that it sought ‘to accommodate all applicants’ who wished to hold events at Boston’s ‘public forums,’ including on City Hall Plaza. App. to Pet. for Cert. 137a. The application form asked only for contact information and a brief description of the event, with proposed dates and times. The city employee who handled applications testified by deposition that he had previously ‘never requested to review a flag or requested changes to a flag in connection with approval’; nor did he even see flags before the events. Id., at 150a. The city’s practice was to approve flag raisings, without exception. It has no record of denying a request until Shurtleff’s. Boston acknowledges it ‘hadn’t spent a lot of time really thinking about’ its flag-raising practices until this case. App. in No. 20–1158 (CA1), at 140 (Rooney deposition). True to its word, the city had nothing—no written policies or clear internal guidance—about what flags groups could fly and what those flags would communicate.”

In addition, the Court wrote, “Here, Boston concedes that it denied Shurtleff ’s request solely because the Christian flag he asked to raise “promot[ed] a specific religion.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 155a (quoting Rooney deposition). Under our precedents, and in view of our government-speech holding here, that refusal discriminated based on religious viewpoint and violated the Free Speech Clause.”

The justices referred to the “Lemon Test,” which has been used to determine if a law violates the First Amendment. It refers to Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Supreme Court ruled that a Rhode Island law that paid a portion of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional. The test has resulted in several contradictory decisions concerning 10 Commandment monuments and cross monuments around the country.

Justice Gorsuch’s concurrent opinion stated, “It’s time to let Lemon lie in its grave.”

Gorsuch continued, “How did the city get it so wrong? To be fair, at least some of the blame belongs here and traces back to Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971). Issued during a “‘bygone era’” when this Court took a more freewheeling approach to interpreting legal texts, Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, 588 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (slip op., at 8), Lemon sought to devise a one-size-fits-all test for resolving Establishment Clause disputes. That project bypassed any inquiry into the Clause’s original meaning. It ignored longstanding precedents. And instead of bringing clarity to the area, Lemon produced only chaos. In time, this Court came to recognize these problems, abandoned Lemon, and returned to a more humble jurisprudence centered on the Constitution’s original meaning. Yet in this case, the city chose to follow Lemon anyway. It proved a costly decision, and Boston’s travails supply a cautionary tale for other localities and lower courts. The only sure thing Lemon yielded was new business for lawyers and judges.”

“Ultimately, Lemon devolved into a kind of children’s game. Start with a Christmas scene, a menorah, or a flag. Then pick your own ‘reasonable observer’ avatar. In this game, the avatar’s default settings are lazy, uninformed about history, and not particularly inclined to legal research. His default mood is irritable. To play, expose your avatar to the display and ask for his reaction. How does he feel about it? Mind you: Don’t ask him whether the proposed display actually amounts to an establishment of religion. Just ask him if he feels it ‘endorses’ religion. If so, game over,” Gorsuch wrote.

Justice Kavanaugh wrote, “A government violates the Constitution when (as here) it excludes religious persons, organizations, or speech because of religion from public programs, benefits, facilities, and the like.”

Justice Alito, in his concurrence, wrote, that “courts must be very careful when a government claims that speech by one or more private speakers is actually government speech. When that occurs, it can be difficult to tell whether the government is using the doctrine ‘as a subterfuge for favoring certain private speakers over others based on viewpoint,’ id., at 473, and the government-speech doctrine becomes ‘susceptible to dangerous misuse….To prevent the government-speech doctrine from being used as a cover for censorship, courts must focus on the identity of the speaker. The ultimate question is whether the government is actually expressing its own views or the real speaker is a private party and the government is surreptitiously engaged in the “regulation of private speech.’ Summum, 555 U. S., at 467…. Consider first ‘the extent to which the government has actively shaped or controlled the expression.’

Government control over speech is relevant to speaker identity, in that speech by a private individual or group cannot constitute government speech if the government does not attempt to control the message. But control is also an essential element of censorship, Alito wrote.

“First, I want to give God the Glory,” Shurlteff said in a statement on Monday. “His Hand was in this case from the beginning. I want to thank the folks at Liberty Counsel that did an incredible job, and all of the people who support and make Camp Constitution possible. The main mission of Camp Constitution is to teach people the U.S. Constitution.  I think that this issue has given the nation a good lesson on the 1st Amendment.”

Liberty Counsel is known recently for defending several members of the U.S. military who objected to the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate for all members of the military.

Read the timeline of the Liberty Counsel’s Navy Seal vs. DoD Austin shot mandate case here.

In 2006, Liberty Counsel represented Anchorage Baptist Temple and other churches in defending against a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and Alaskans who challenged a state law giving property tax exemption to property owned by a religious organization, if that property is the residence of an educator in a private religious school. The house in question that received the exemption was not owned by Dr. Jerry Prevo, then-pastor of ABT, but was his residence that is owned by the church.

Chief Justice Roberts says leak of Supreme Court abortion decision will be investigated

Chief Justice John Roberts said that the leak of the draft opinion striking down Roe vs. Wade is a betrayal of the confidences of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The draft opinion, like other draft opinions that are written to reflect the will of the majority, was written by Justice Samuel Alito and was being circulated among the justices for review prior to finalization. The leak appears to critics as an act of political sabotage intended to persuade one or more of the justices into changing their position on the question of whether Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 abortion legalization decision, will be overturned.

If it is overturned, it returns the matter of abortions to the states, where Legislatures would make the decision about how far into pregnancies abortions can be performed. Currently, the Roe vs. Wade decision has vast control over that question.

Roberts issued a statement today:

“To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the Court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed. The work of the Court will not be affected in any way,” Roberts wrote.

“We at the Court are blessed to have a workforce — permanent employees and law clerks alike — intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law. Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the Court. This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the Court and the community of public servants who work here.

“I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.”

On Monday, Politico published a copy of that draft opinion by Alito, and Justice Roberts confirmed the document is authentic. But it doesn’t necessarily represent the final opinion or position of the members of the Court. Initial votes can change as the wording of draft opinions circulate among the justices. The Supreme Court is expected to release the final decision this summer.

There were five votes to overturn Roe vs. Wade, according to the document. One is possibly uncommitted, which would explain why an employee of the court would choose to release the draft opinion, in the hopes of creating social unrest that would sway that one justice — likely Roberts — into voting against the initial opinion. The leak was a way to crowdsource the intimidation of the justices in terms of their physical safety and the safety of their families. On Monday, barricades were erected around the Supreme Court and protesters from both sides of the abortion debate gathered, noisily.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski said the leak is “absolutely reprehensible and needs to be condemned in the strongest possible terms. I really find it shocking that this would happen. I understand that it is unprecedented. Second point is Roe is still the law of the land. We don’t know the direction that this decision may ultimately take but if it goes in the direction that this leaked copy has indicated, I would just tell you that it rocks my confidence in the court right now.”

President Biden will likely come under increased pressure from the Left to pack the Supreme Court, as he tried to do earlier in his presidency. Whether Murkowski was signaling that she might go along with that court packing as a result of this decision is unclear, but Sen. Joe Manchin, a Democrat who opposes abortion, is so far holding against court-packing.