Saturday, October 17, 2026
Home Blog Page 92

Russians in Alaska: History of Exploration 

18

By Alexander Dolitsky

The most important aspect of the high north’s ethnohistory was the exploration and colonization of Siberia and Alaska by Russian empire officials. The process of exploration of the northern territories in the seventeenth century caused a significant transformation of population, strengthened conflicts between local ethnic groups, and changed modes of production and material culture of the aboriginal population, among other effects. Russian officials did not wish to exterminate the aboriginal northern population, but rather, in cooperation with local native leaders, to reform them into meticulous suppliers of valuable furs. 

From the point of view of Russian officialdom, the process of exploring the North American territories presumably had the same rationale as in Siberia; the Russians viewed North America as a geographical continuation of their politics (Alekseev, [Explorations of the Far East and Russian America by the Russian People]. Moscow: Nauka, 1982, p. 86). The Russians used a socioeconomic and political strategy in North America like that used in Siberia, imposing the local head tax (yasak) and strengthening their influence. 

The process of colonization of the eastern territories was quite elaborate. One of the peculiarities of Siberia’s aboriginal populations, the Far East, and northwestern North America was the absence of any State organization. Lacking an institutional defense against the sophisticated social organization and military superiority of Russia, the native population had to accept Russian dominion and consequently agreed to pay yasak. Another peculiarity in the Russian population of the eastern territories was the absence of serfdom. Oppressed Russian peasants who had escaped from their landlords in the European part of Russia often fled to Siberia, the Far East, or North America to attain freedom. The Russian authorities, instead of having them prosecuted, surprisingly promoted them to government jobs. 

Thus, when the government had established its control over the northeastern territories, the commercial people (promyshlenniki and kuptsy) began organizing commercial companies (artels) and markets (yarmarkas and bazaars), and the Russian Orthodox Church began sending missionaries to the East. Thus, in contrast to peasant movements, which had a spontaneous character, the organized government expeditions to the East already had in place a colonial system, i.e. the imposition of regular yasak and the extension of State territories. 

After discovery of the Aleutian Islands and southern Alaska, series of commercial expeditions to North America from Siberian and Far Eastern Pacific ports (Okhotsk and Nizhne-Kamchatsk) took place. Between 1743 and 1786, the Russian Government Treasury received from North America commercial products (primarily fur and sea mammals) worth 193,798 rubbles. In addition, they collected products worth 42,394 rubbles in yasak (Makarova, [Russians in the Pacific Ocean in the middle of the eighteenth century]. Moscow: Nauka, 1968, pp. 55, 81). One effect of these enterprises was a significant increase in the Russian population in North America. In 1794, the Russian population in Alaska was over 800, compared to 500 in 1788 (Alekseev 1982: 38-39). In 1799, the population in Russian America controlled by Russians was about 8,000, which included only 225 Russians (Fedorova, [Russian Population of Alaska and California]. Moscow: Nauka, 1971, pp. 140-141). 

Russians in North America hunted sea mammals, fished, built ships, and attempted to cultivate crops. Several Russian settlements were established on the Aleutian Islands, Kodiak Island, the Kenai Peninsula, and southeastern Alaska. By the end of the eighteenth century the Russian-American Company was founded in Alaska. The company monopolized all commercial enterprises in Russian North America and held almost all political power in the region. Until the U.S. government purchased Alaska in 1867, Siberian-North American contact was very close. The Russians’ management of Alaska always represented the interests of the tsarist government and was carried out in cooperation with their Siberian partners and supporters. 

It is important to stress that many historic material and textbooks published prior to the 1990s describe the Russian period of Alaska’s history as a bloody and ruthless colonization of northern territories. Russia’s Eastward expansion into Siberia, the Far East, and Alaska was motivated by exploration of new hunting territories (James R. Gibson, Feeding the Russian Fur Trade. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969). Often, Russian explorers were ruthless toward aboriginal populations, but overall, this movement was much more humane than the colonization of Australia or the colonization of North American territories in the Lower 48. The aboriginal population in Siberia and Alaska had not been placed on reservations or dislocated from their homeland as they were in the Lower 48. 

The writer was raised in the former Soviet Union before settling in the U.S. in 1978. He moved to Juneau in 1986 where he taught Russian studies and Archeology at the University of Alaska, Southeast, and Social Studies at the Alyeska Central School of the Alaska Department of Education and Children Development. From 1990 to 2022, he served as director and president of the Alaska-Siberian Research Center, publishing extensively in the fields of anthropology, history, archaeology, and ethnography.

Juneau Assembly Set to Vote on Ranked Choice Voting for Local Elections

19

The Juneau Assembly is scheduled to decide Monday whether to implement ranked choice voting (RCV) for municipal elections, potentially making the city the first major Alaskan municipality to adopt the system locally. The vote on Ordinance 2025-13(c) comes after months of deliberation, with a public hearing set for 6 p.m. at Centennial Hall or via Zoom, allowing residents to weigh in before the final decision. If passed, the ordinance would take effect January 1, 2026, applying to single-member races where voters rank candidates by preference, aiming to ensure winners have majority support through sequential tabulation rounds.

The proposal, initially advanced by the Assembly’s Committee of the Whole in June, has sparked debate over its impact on voter representation and election processes. Under RCV, ballots are counted starting with first-choice votes; if no candidate reaches over 50% of active ballots, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and their supporters’ next preferences are redistributed until a majority emerges. Proponents argue it encourages diverse candidacies and reduces negative campaigning, while critics question its complexity and timing amid concerns about election trust.

Assembly member Ella Adkison, who proposed the change, emphasized its benefits for competitive races. Opposition has highlighted potential drawbacks. Recent voter sentiment in Juneau leans supportive, as locals rejected a statewide RCV repeal effort that failed narrowly last year.

If adopted, initial first-rank results would mirror state practices, but full tabulation might delay final outcomes by days, according to Deputy Municipal Clerk Andy Hirsch. The ordinance aligns with systems in cities like New York and San Francisco, marking a shift from Juneau’s traditional single-vote method. Assembly members will consider public input before voting, with the outcome shaping future local contests.

For details on how to participate: https://juneau.org/assembly/assembly-calendar?trumbaEmbed=view%3Devent%26eventid%3D179175006

“Ready to Rock and Roll:” Shelley Hughes Resigns from Senate, Launches Full-Time Gubernatorial Campaign 

20

At 5pm today, Shelley Hughes takes her leave of the Senate and transitions to launching her full-time gubernatorial campaign.  

Hughes focuses her campaign on unleashing Alaska’s wide array of natural resources. “As your Governor, we will unlock Alaska’s potential, responsibly and boldly,” Hughes stated. “We will return Alaskan lands to Alaskan hands, achieve affordable energy, build the infrastructure to power our future, empower responsible development of our natural resources, elevate wildlife management, tackle head-on our declining fish, unleash the wealth around us and beneath our feet, and—importantly—unlock the wealth within Alaskans themselves.” 

Addressing the widespread concern of outside influence in Alaskan elections, Hughes highlights that her campaign team is an “A-Team” of Alaskans who bring real Alaskan experience and expertise. She states: “We’re not relying on people who’ve never set foot in Alaska, national consultants, DC insiders, and Wall Street. Our team is made up of real—and very smart and competent—Alaskans. We are ready to rock and roll.” 

On her campaign website, Hughes provides a detailed action plan, promising “solutions over soundbites.” The plan identifies three main objectives: forging Alaska’s fiscal path, unleashing Alaska’s potential, and opening doors for Alaskans. Read her full plan here.  

“No One Is Above the Law”: From the British Beginnings of Liberty to Alaskan’s Right to the Permanent Fund Dividend 

35

By Michael Tavoliero 
 

The Alaska Constitution does not pledge loyalty to the State, its bureaucracy, or its capital; it pledges loyalty to the people. Article I begins not with government authority, but with a declaration of inherent and God-given rights retained by the citizen, meaning the State exists only as their servant and fiduciary.  

In Alaska today, that shift is seen in the way public institutions increasingly treat the Permanent Fund Dividend as government property rather than the people’s right. The constitutional duty runs from the State to citizen, not the other way around. Where government inverts this order, the law itself must be invoked to restore it. 

John Cowell’s Monarchical Sovereignty 

Every great constitutional principle has a moment of birth. England’s history is one of the dominate sources in American jurisprudence. There was a time when someone dared to claim what power most wanted to deny.  

The phrase “no one is above the law” is one of those moments. It was born not in a courtroom or a modern democracy, but in the heat of an English quarrel four centuries ago, between John Cowell and Sir Edward Coke. 

John Cowell was the eighth Regius Professor of Civil Law, directly appointed in 1594 by the Crown. In 1598, he became the master of Trinity Hall, Cambridge. This Mastership besides being the head of the college also signaled leadership of one of England’s chief centers for civil and canon law learning in the Elizabethan era. Moreover, he was a loyal servant of King James I.  

England between 1600 and 1610 moved from hopeful stability under the new reign of James I to growing tension, as James’ claims of divine-right authority clashed with Parliament’s defense of common-law liberty. 

In 1607, John Cowell published “The Interpreter”, the first major English law dictionary, written to explain legal terms, offices, and constitutional concepts to lawyers, judges, and educated readers. Besides Cowell’s entries on “Parliament,” “Prerogative,” “Recoveries,” and “Subsidies,” which were read as endorsing absolute monarchy over common-law limits and parliamentary authority, the word “King” produced a most remarkable upheaval. 

Cowell wrote that the King “is above the law by his absolute power.” The law, he said, was “his creature.” The people had no right to limit him. Parliament itself was but his instrument. 

It was the distilled essence of monarchy: law exists because the sovereign wills it. Cowell’s logic was pure absolutism. The ruler stands above the rules. 

Sir Edward Coke’s Defense of Liberty 

Sir Edward Coke, then Chief Justice and one of the greatest common lawyers in English history, responded with fury. He reminded Parliament that England’s constitution was older than any monarch. In his Institutes of the Laws of England, Coke wrote words that still echo through every free society: 
 
“The King himself ought not to be subject to man, but to God and to the law, for the law makes him King.” 
 
That was the reversal. Cowell said the king made the law. Coke said the law made the king. It was more than a legal dispute; it was a moral declaration that no man, however crowned or elected, may stand above the law that gives him authority. 

As a result, King James I was caught between supporting Cowell’s royalist theory and needing Parliament’s subsidies. Parliament sided with Coke. Cowell’s book was condemned as “pernicious,” publicly burned, and ordered suppressed by King James, who was forced to retreat. For the first time in English history, the monarchy was told, in the open, by law, that its power was limited. 
 
Out of this confrontation grew the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Bill of Rights of 1689. From there the idea crossed the Atlantic to a generation of American colonists who took it further than even Coke had imagined. 

Alaska Participates in the Conversation 

Jefferson, Madison, and Adams all built on the Cokean principle: the law precedes government. The Constitution is not an act of grace but a constraining chain limiting the power of the State. Sovereignty belongs to the people only within the boundaries set by God-given right. 

Today, the struggle has shifted forms but not meanings. Where once men like Cowell defended the absolute power of monarchs, we now defend the absolute power of majorities, bureaucracies, or executives. The claim has changed uniforms but not substance: someone still believes they are above the law. 
 
When a legislature treats the constitution as advice, or an agency spends what it has not been granted, we redress Cowell’s argument in modern clothes. The sovereign may have changed, from king to government, but the temptation remains the same. 
 
In Alaska, when lawmakers reduce the Permanent Fund Dividend not by law but by appropriation, when constitutional protections and the law are treated as inconveniences, we see the quiet return of Cowell’s logic: that law is whatever those in power declare it to be. 

The State is the Tool of the Law 

The phrase “no one is above the law” is often used to celebrate accountability of public officials. But its meaning runs far older and deeper. 
 
It means that law is not the tool of the State; the State is the tool of the law. 

The State is the organization of political means. It does not create wealth but takes it through taxation, regulation, compulsion, and command. The State is therefore not the source of right, but its subordinate, permitted to act only within limits set by a moral and legal order that comes before it and stands above it. 

Its authority is not inherent; it is borrowed, and it remains legitimate only so long as it serves the rights it did not create and cannot erase. 

In a republic founded on natural rights, to stand “above the law” is to stand outside the moral order that justifies political power at all. 

The PFD: A Right Given by Law, not a Privilege Given by Government 

John Cowell believed sovereignty was absolute. The absolute power of a monarch created law. Edward Coke taught that sovereignty was conditional because law limits power. Their quarrel gave birth to modern liberty. 
 
But that liberty, like every inheritance, must be defended in each generation, or it quietly dissolves into the same complacent servitude it once overthrew. We should remember that “no one is above the law” is not a slogan. It is a warning. It means that when lawmakers rise above law, citizens fall beneath it. 

So, it is with the Permanent Fund Dividend. Since its first check, Alaskans have not only received a dividend, they have received it in a quantified and formula-defined amount, derived from the annual earnings of the Permanent Fund and calculated openly, consistently, and without interruption under a constitution which demands stewardship.  

The State itself taught the people what their share was. The legislature reaffirmed the formula each year. Households built their lives and planned around it. Children grew up expecting not charity, but their portion of the commonwealth. 

This is possession in the fullest legal and moral sense. Under the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the State cannot now claim that this decades long practice was merely discretionary. And under the principle of long-settled possession, the people’s right has ripened not only in kind but in amount. The share is not abstract; it is measurable, because it always has been measurable. A right without its measure is no right at all. It is permission. 

To uphold the PFD now is not to grant a privilege, it is to recognize and secure a vested, quantified right already earned and already lived. It is to ensure that sovereignty remains with the people, that government remains their servant, and that the wealth of Alaska continues to belong to those to whom it was promised: the people themselves. 
 

Air Force Vet from Eagle River Nominated to Serve as Judge on Federal District Court 

6

Yesterday, Nov 12, President Trump announced the nomination of Aaron Christian Peterson to serve as Judge on the United States District Court for the District of Alaska. Senator Sullivan, who played a key role in Peterson’s nomination, lauded the announcement, highlighting Peterson’s “demonstrated commitment to the rule of law and federalism.” 

Peterson was contacted on January 1, 2025, by an attorney working on Governor Dunleavy’s federal transition plan. The attorney encouraged him to apply to Senator Sullivan’s Alaska Federal Judiciary Council. The Council serves as an organized effort to timely find and recommend qualified candidates for federal judgeship vacancies.  

After serving his country in the Air Force, Peterson served his home-state as assistant attorney general in Alaska’s Department of Law Office of Special Prosecutions and then as senior assistant attorney general in DOL’s Natural Resources Section.  

When asked to describe the ten most significant litigated matters which he personally handled, Peterson listed United States v Alaska, 1:22-cv-ooo54-SLG as his number one case. In this case, Peterson defended the State of Alaska against the United States’ lawsuit intending to “prevent the State from managing fisheries on navigable waters within conservation system units created by the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act.” 

Peterson’s career is marked by a significant focus on defending Alaska’s right to manage its own natural resources and prosecuting fish and wildlife crimes.  

The “Questionnaire for Judicial Nominees” below details Peterson’s career, education, military service, process of nomination to the federal court, publications, interviews, and the nine other most significant litigated matters handled personally by Peterson. 

Keith Dobson: How AI Transformed Human Engagement, Looking Back From 2030

3

By Keith Dobson

From Passive Consumption to Active Creation

Looking back from 2030, the transformation seems almost miraculous. Just five years ago, billions of people spent hours each day doom scrolling through endless feeds, their minds numbed by passive content consumption. Today, those same devices have become portals to deeply interactive experiences that challenge, educate, and inspire us in ways our 2025 selves could barely imagine.

The shift was not about more technology— it was about better technology. We moved from being audiences to becoming participants, from consumers to creators, from spectators to active learners.

Remembering What We’ve Lost—and Gaining It Back

Those of us who remember the days before social media carry precious memories: gathering at playgrounds after school, lingering after class to ask teachers questions that sparked our curiosity, summer evenings filled with conversation and creativity. For nearly two decades, from roughly 2010 to 2025, something precious was lost. The screens that promised connection delivered isolation instead. Young people stopped lingering after class, playgrounds grew quieter, and the cognitive and social skills that once developed naturally began to atrophy.

The transformation documented here is not about replacing what we lost with artificial substitutes. It is about using technology to reclaim and democratize what was always best about human interaction and learning— while extending those opportunities to everyone, regardless of economic status or geographic location.

Today’s AI avatars work collaboratively with human teachers, counselors, coaches, and mentors—amplifying their reach and impact, not replacing them. A student in rural Alaska can now have conversations with AI tutors while benefiting from their human teacher’s guidance. A young person struggling with anxiety can access AI support at 3 AM and maintain their relationship with a human therapist. The technology fills gaps; it does not replace the irreplaceable.

Education: The Personal Learning Revolution

Students no longer sit passively listening to lectures. Instead, they step into immersive learning environments where AI avatars adapt to their individual learning style, working alongside human teachers who provide irreplaceable mentorship, emotional support, and wisdom from lived experience.

Professor Ada, an AI educator, teaches quantum physics to Maya, a 16-year-old in rural Montana, through visual metaphors and interactive experiments. But Ada works in partnership with Mr. Jones, Maya’s human physics teacher, who reviews her progress, provides encouragement, and offers the kind of personal mentorship that no AI can replicate.

Language learning has been revolutionized. Instead of memorizing vocabulary lists, learners have daily conversations with AI companions who speak only their target language. This constant AI practice allows human language teachers to focus on cultural nuances, emotional expression, and the subtle art of communication that machines cannot fully teach.

Perhaps most importantly, education has become truly lifelong and accessible to all. A 55-year-old factory worker in rural West Virginia can have evening conversations with an AI mentor about transitioning to software development, while connecting monthly with a human career counselor. Learning is no longer confined to youth or to those who can afford expensive schools— it is democratically available to everyone with an internet connection.

Healthcare: Your Personal Medical Team

Healthcare in 2030 is proactive, personalized, and conversational. People have ongoing relationships with AI health avatars that know their complete medical history— working seamlessly with human physicians to provide comprehensive care.

Dr. Frank, an AI primary care avatar, notices subtle changes in James’s speech patterns during their weekly check-ins. She initiates a conversation about neurological screening and coordinates with James’s human physician, Dr. Rodriguez, for immediate testing. An aneurysm is caught early. A life is saved. Dr. Rodriguez credits the AI’s continuous monitoring while emphasizing that the treatment plan required his medical judgment, experience, and ability to counsel James’s family through a frightening diagnosis.

Mental health has undergone its own revolution. People in remote areas or with limited income now have access to AI counseling avatars that help them process emotions and develop coping strategies in real-time. These AI tools work alongside human therapists who provide the deeper therapeutic relationship, help clients work through trauma, and offer the irreplaceable value of human empathy and understanding.

The AI doesn’t replace human doctors— it augments them, making quality healthcare accessible regardless of geography or economic status. Perhaps most importantly, excellent healthcare is no longer limited to those who live near major medical centers or can afford concierge services.

Beyond Education and Healthcare

This transformation extends across every domain of life. Legal services have been democratized— minimum-wage workers can now understand their rights through dialogue with AI legal avatars, while human attorneys focus on complex cases requiring judgment and advocacy. Entertainment has shifted from passive viewing to participatory experiences that engage creativity and critical thinking. Professional development happens continuously through AI mentors available anytime, complemented by human managers who provide career guidance rooted in organizational understanding.

Perhaps most remarkably, mental health support is now always available. AI counseling avatars provide evidence-based therapy at 3 AM when crises strike, working alongside human therapists who offer the deeper relationship and wisdom that only human experience provides. This combination has helped address the mental health crisis, with teen depression rates dropping from 21% in the early 2020s to 12% by 2030.

The Cognitive Renaissance

The most remarkable change is not in any single domain— it is in the aggregate effects of shifting from passive consumption to active interaction. Critical thinking skills have improved measurably. Creativity has flourished. Attention spans have recovered. Mental health has improved broadly.

Most importantly, these cognitive benefits are distributed across society— not limited to those who can afford expensive schools or live near universities. A teenager in rural Alaska has access to the same interactive learning tools as a student at an elite boarding school. A pipeline worker can develop new skills as readily as someone with a trust fund. Technology has become a great equalizer, unlocking human potential wherever it exists.

The Path Forward

The vision of 2030 described here was not inevitable— it required deliberate choices by individuals, families, companies, and policymakers. Successful families established “dialogue-first” principles, prioritizing interactive experiences over passive consumption. Companies shifted to business models aligned with user wellbeing. Governments invested in digital public infrastructure, treating interactive AI as a public good while protecting privacy and data rights.

The transformation succeeded because enough people recognized a fundamental truth: technology is never neutral. The doom-scrolling era was not inevitable. Similarly, the interactive revolution of 2030 emerged from conscious decisions to demand and create something better—something that works collaboratively with human teachers, counselors, coaches, and communities to unlock human potential for everyone, everywhere.

Conclusion: A More Human Future

From the vantage point of 2030, the doom-scrolling era seems as quaint as black-and-white television—a primitive phase we had to pass through on our way to something far more profound.

We have fundamentally transformed how we use these tools— from passive consumption devices to active engagement platforms. In the process, we have rekindled something essential about what it means to be human: the joy of genuine interaction, the satisfaction of learning through dialogue, and the profound cognitive stimulation that comes from being an active participant in your own life.

The future is not about less technology or replacing human connection. It is about better technology— technology that works alongside human teachers, counselors, therapists, coaches, mentors, and communities. Technology that calls forth our capabilities rather than exploiting our vulnerabilities. Technology that helps us become more fully human rather than less. And crucially, technology that makes these opportunities available to everyone.

We have not eliminated human connection or replaced irreplaceable human wisdom. Instead, we have used technology to extend the reach of great teachers, caring counselors, skilled coaches, and wise mentors— ensuring that geography and economics no longer determine who has access to enriching, interactive experiences that develop human potential.

That is my hope for the promise of AI: not to replace us, but to help us remember and reclaim what was always best about human learning and interaction— the curiosity of children on playgrounds, the lingering after class to ask one more question, the joy of creation and conversation —while democratizing these experiences for all.

Keith Dobson is an Alaska-based IT leader with nearly 40 years in consulting, engineering, sales and management. At INVITE Networks, he advances responsible, forward-looking AI to strengthen both private and public services. A Big Lake resident and active volunteer, Keith is passionate about civic engagement and public policy—helping communities across Alaska use technology for practical solutions that deliver better outcomes for all Alaskans.

Alaska’s Citizen-Only Voting Initiative Mirrors Trump’s Election Security Focus

12

In a move that resonates with President Donald Trump’s emphasis on safeguarding American elections, a new Alaska ballot initiative seeks to explicitly bar non-citizens from voting in state and local races. The “Alaskans for Citizen Voting” (ACV) measure, sponsored by prominent former lawmakers, aims to amend state statutes to clarify that only U.S. citizens meeting age, residency, and registration requirements can cast ballots. This comes amid ongoing national debates over voter integrity, a hallmark of Trump’s tenure.

In 2025, Trump signed an executive order requiring documentary proof of citizenship for voter registration, part of a broader overhaul to enhance election security. This policy aligned with the Republican-backed SAVE Act, which mandates citizenship verification for federal elections and has been adopted in several states to curb perceived vulnerabilities. Critics, including the ACLU, challenged such actions as unconstitutional overreaches, leading to court rulings blocking elements like citizenship proof on federal forms.

Trust in elections is fragile across the country. In Alaska, there is already layered in complexity – ranked choice voting and open primaries – that many voters are still getting used to. Regardless of how Alaskans feel about those reforms, there should be absolute clarity about who is eligible to vote.

It is also a matter of respect for those who took the oath of citizenship. Naturalized citizens worked hard to become Americans, and their voice at the ballot box should never be diluted by policy experiments that separate voting from citizenship.

Former Rep. Mike Chenault, an ACV sponsor, emphasized the shared values: “This is common sense, consistent with what Alaskans have long assumed the law already says.”

The application for the initiative has been approved by the Lieutenant Governor. ACV will begin gathering tens of thousands of signatures statewide to qualify for the 2026 general election ballot. Expect to see petition circulators – who themselves must be U.S. citizens under Alaska law – at community events, outside post offices, and at local gathering spots. If passed in 2026, Alaska would join states reinforcing citizen-only standards, reflecting enduring Trump-era priorities on immigration and voting amid polarized national discourse.

More information can be found on the press release:

The Plan to Avoid Gelding Part 2

24

By Michael Tavoliero

Remember the last two of Alaska’s largest administrations, the State of Alaska and the Municipality of Anchorage, and you will certainly remember the gelding experienced through the “struggle sessions” of both the first term of Governor Michael J Dunleavy and the only term of Anchorage Mayor David Bronson. I went over them in Part 1. 

The 2026 Gubernatorial “Beauty Pageant” 

Today, we are greeted by a dozen Republicans who have declared or are preparing to declare their intent to run for governor in 2026. Among them are Click Bishop, Dave Bronson, Adam Crum, Nancy Dahlstrom, Edna DeVries, Matt Heilala, Shelley Hughes, James Parkin, Treg Taylor, Henry Kroll, Bruce Walden, and Bernadette Wilson. In other words, the full roster of the “I Would Like to Govern Alaska, Please!” club. 

At this stage, it resembles less a political field and more the opening lineup of an Alaska-style beauty pageant, where the judging criteria lean less toward structural reform proposals and more toward who can smile warmly while saying, “I care deeply about Alaska’s future.” We saw a similar production during the 2016 Republican presidential primary; a crowded stage, many microphones, and very few knives sharpened for the actual work ahead with the exemption of Donald Trump. 

Readers of Part 1 will appreciate the irony: the club’s name suggests governing power, but the structure of Alaska politics guarantees that none of these candidates, on their own, would be allowed to exercise it if and when elected. Candidates, please let that sink in. I am very open to a discussion on why and how you believe this will change if and when you take your hand off the Bible. 

What stands out, and is worth acknowledging with sincerity, is that every one of these candidates is stepping forward because they believe Alaska deserves better, and that is no small thing. They generally share the same core Republican commitments: responsible resource development, reducing energy costs, expanding job opportunities, supporting law enforcement, strengthening parental roles in education, and guarding against federal overreach. 

Where they differ is less in principle than in temperament. Some, like Click Bishop, lean toward consensus-building; others, like Bernadette Wilson, bring a reformer’s urgency and willingness to challenge entrenched systems. The distinctions among them tend to be in how they approach leadership and how they connect with the public, rather than in the substance of their platforms. 

Their appeal, in other words, rests more in who they are than in sharply contrasting policy visions, and that is part of the challenge before us. Vanilla is still vanilla. 

High Costs, No Return 

If each of the declared candidates continues campaigning through the August primary, and if we use the 2022 gubernatorial cycle as a benchmark, we can reasonably expect individual campaign expenditures to approach $500,000 on average, not including independent expenditures. Collectively, the field could easily spend $5 million or more simply to determine which one of them advances before any general election effort even begins. 

It is notable that none of the major 2026 gubernatorial candidates publicly address Medicaid expansion, the single largest structural cost driver in Alaska’s budget. No one proposes to reform it, audit it, expand it, or roll it back. It is treated as a subject not to be acknowledged, even though it was originally implemented without legislative approval and remains central to the State’s long-term fiscal crisis. 

This reflects the broader pattern Alaska has lived through for more than a decade: we elect a chief executive who promises spending discipline, resource development, and restoration of the statutory PFD. The public mandate is consistent and clear. Yet once in office, the governor confronts a state legislature, public unions, mainstream media and bureaucratic structure that is not aligned to carry that mandate forward. The result is not reversal of voter intent, but the neutralization of it. 

This is the condition we have already identified: Elections change officeholders, but not the system that limits them. The pattern is unmistakable. Now we must consider what must be built to replace it.  

Alaska’s Path Forward: A Unified Strategy 

Keep in mind, candidates, that the entire Alaskan voting population by now has figured out that no matter who gets elected, the new governor will be gelded, especially if Juneau’s permanent coalition stays in place. 

Alaska cannot afford twelve Republican candidates running twelve separate campaigns burning through several million to divide the vote and produce another executive with no power, especially under the Ranked Choice Voting labyrinth.  

If these candidates truly care about Alaska’s future, will they agree to one shared platform? 

  1. Medicaid expansion and welfare cost reform and restructuring 
  1. Education reform with parental governance 
  1. Cheap, reliable, abundant energy and natural resource development 
  1. Restoration of the statutory PFD formula 

Instead of competing to be the next figurehead who gets gelded: Will all candidates agree to draw lots for a single candidate? One becomes the nominee. The others form the war council. 

Every remaining candidate redirects their campaign funds in concert with every Alaskan conservative political party, the Alaska Republican Party, the Alaska Libertarian Party, Alaska Independence Party, and others, not to defeat each other, but to reform the single obstructive force in Alaska politics, the state legislature. 

A simple goal: Conservative Supermajority 

A concerted campaign finance goal for 2026 and 2028 to move conservative control in a supermajority 40-seat House and 20-seat Senate 

The result: No coalition control. No “bipartisan majority.” No gelding. 

The Outcome 

The governor elected under this framework will not govern alone. 

The governor will govern with: 

  • The Legislature aligned 
  • The bureaucracy restructured 
  • The mandate protected 
  • The PFD restored 
  • The welfare and healthcare structure rationalized 
  • Education returned to parents 
  • Resource development unleashed 

This is not idealism. This is simply the only workable strategy. 

Alaska does not need another governor to be gelded. Alaska needs a government aligned with the people who elected it. 

Censorship of Ultrasound Image Exposes Pro-Choice Contradiction 

23

On November 1, Must Read Alaska published my article titled “State of Alaska Appeals to the Supreme Court, Challenging 2024 Planned Parenthood-backed Ruling.” When MRAK posted my article to Facebook, Facebook removed the ultrasound picture of my baby and replaced it with the MRAK logo. I chose to publish this image with my article for a specific reason: Jonah Paul is a real, living human person. As his mother, I will always defend his right to life, and I urge all mothers and fathers to do the same for their children. 

The legal sanctioning of abortion is not a political issue; it is a moral issue. It is a horrendous humanitarian crisis. Millions of unborn babies are being killed under the disastrous misnomer “reproductive healthcare.”  

One thing has always stuck out to me during my experience in the pro-life movement: the pro-choice side shuns images, videos, and real-life testimonies. In fact, organizations that benefit from the pro-choice movement have been caught multiple times in undercover investigations doing far worse than most people imagine would ever happen in the US.

I have seen videos of abortions being performed, images of thrown-away torn-up baby limbs, testimonies from women who underwent abortion surgery not because they felt they made the best choice but that they had no other choice, and an abortion survivor’s powerful testimony given before a U.S. Senate Committee in 2024. All these experiences created in me a strong conviction that abortion is a moral evil because abortion destroys human life. While these videos, images, and testimonies impacted me greatly, nothing has cemented my pro-life conviction as deeply as seeing the ultrasound image of my own son.  

When I found out Facebook had censored Jonah Paul’s picture, I had two reactions. First, I had the emotional reaction of “how dare you?” My son has done nothing wrong! He is a beautiful little boy, and I am a proud momma. My second reaction was confusion. Hang on, from a pro-choice perspective, what exactly is wrong with a woman sharing a picture of “her own body?” If we accept that a fetus is a real, living human person, the picture should not have been removed. If we believe that a fetus is part of the mother’s body and it is therefore “my body, my choice,” then again, even with this logic, the picture should not have been removed. 

The logical reason behind the removal of the picture is this: it speaks the truth that unborn babies are unique individuals to a culture lulled by the lie that abortion is “healthcare” and a “fundamental right.” If my unborn baby is truly my body, why can I not post a picture of my own body? Could it be because such a picture clearly reveals that Jonah Paul has his own little body, his own little arms and legs? 

As an intern at Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI), I saw how major academic journals censor scientific findings in support of life and the humanity and dignity of unborn babies. I spent hours reading FDA reports, obtained by FOIA request, of clinical trials for the abortion pill. Not only did the FDA take two years to send the requested documents, but the FDA had also redacted all significant information in the reports. CLI is in the process of challenging the redactions, which could take another couple of years. Why redact the information from clinical trials?  

The answers lie in the perpetual softening of the American moral conscience. Our culture is consequence adverse. Our culture demands consequence-free sex, and anything less is “oppression.” Our culture demands the “right” to pleasure without the hardship of responsibility. Abortionists have gotten away with 1984-esque language games that have convinced millions that two plus two does equal five. A baby in the womb is “the mother’s body.” It is time to call it what it is: abortion is murder.

Numerous women who underwent abortion have expressed that they felt unsupported by their partners, betrayed by medical professionals, and grieved for the loss of their child. Women facing motherhood during times of financial, relational, or emotional distress deserve genuine love and support just as much as their little babies deserve the right to life. Being a young woman headed into single motherhood, I cannot imagine the weight of being offered death rather than loving support as the solution to my situation.

The stakes being played by both sides are eternal. Many people are left with a God shaped hole in their lives after having gone through such an experience. We cannot forget, that just like each of the little babies who are created in the image and likeness of God, so too are the men and women who have experienced abortion and they need to know that God sees us in our brokenness. He puts us back to together and makes all things new. Powerful institutions and businesses may be able to censor the message but nothing will stop the truth of the testimony of what God has done in our lives for the cause of life.