Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Letters to Senator Huggins

Below are two letters that have been sent to state Senator Charlie Huggins in response to Huggins move to abandon Republicans and join with Democrats to form a coalition much like the one formed in the last session:

Dear Senator Huggins;

I am very disappointed that you once again decided to form a coalition with the Democrats in the Senate, especially considering that there’s still an undecided senate seat in the Fairbanks area that could establish a definite Republican majority.

The coalition that you lead last year was not good for our state. It produced capitol and operating budgets that both the senate and house members agreed were bloated and publicly admitted that they were relying on the governor's line item veto authority to correct their irresponsible actions.

That wasn't the biggest issue however.

The reason that the bills prohibiting partial birth abortions and parental consent were not even brought to the floor of the senate for a vote was because Senator French blocked them in his committee. You and Senator Green were instrumental in placing Senator French in this position and for reasons that are unclear to me failed to persuade him to release the bills.

When I saw your reaction to Senator Dyson’s floor speech on the subject, I thought that you might have realized the gravity of your mistake. Apparently that wasn’t the case.

As I’m sure you realize from your military service, a soldier wears a uniform to enable his comrades to identify their allies from their opponents. In this case, you are wearing the uniform of the Republican Party but you have aligned yourself with those who oppose our beliefs and principles.

If power is indeed more important than principle to you, I would respectfully ask you to change your party affiliation to the other party so your intent would at least be more transparent. If that isn’t the case, then I hope that you’d reconsider your decision to break rank and re-unite under our banner.


Mike Prax

Charlie Huggins the Democrat
I would like to Commend Linda Menard for being elected to her Senate seat and for sticking up for her constituents and not joining the democrat coalition
Senator Charlie Huggins was elected to his office, by his constituents, as a conservative Republican. Mr. Huggins has spent every HOUR in Juneau as part of a liberal Democrat
Coalition. This means he has not supported his constituents, that elected him, for one day.
SHAME on you Charlie for NOT supporting the people who elected you, JUST for POWER. The people COUNT, not Power, Charlie.

Donald A. BensonDonald A. Benson

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Dear Alaska Eagles:

This is just in from our friends at RNC for Life:

Friends: Please see below excerpted remarks from Governor Palin at today’s rally in Johnstown, Pennsylvania where she talked about compassion and promoting a culture of life in contrast to Barack Obama’s extreme and troubling record on abortion. Earlier this year in Johnstown, Barack Obama said that a woman shouldn’t have to be “punished with a baby.”

Excerpts below:
“In this same spirit, as defenders of the culture of life, John McCain and I believe in the goodness and potential of every innocent life. I believe the truest measure of any society is how it treats those who are least able to defend and speak for themselves. And who is more vulnerable, or more innocent, than a child?

When I learned that my son Trig would have special needs, I had to prepare my heart for the challenges to come. At first I was scared, and Todd and I had to ask for strength and understanding. But I can tell you a few things I’ve learned already.

Yes, every innocent life matters. Everyone belongs in the circle of protection. Every child has something to contribute to the world, if we give them that chance. There are the world’s standards of perfection … and then there are God’s, and these are the final measure. Every child is beautiful before God, and dear to Him for their own sake.

As for our beautiful baby boy, for Todd and me, he is only more precious because he is vulnerable. In some ways, I think we stand to learn more from him than he does from us. When we hold Trig and care for him, we don’t feel scared anymore. We feel blessed.

It’s hard to think of many issues that could possibly be more important than who is protected in law and who isn’t – who is granted life and who is denied it. So when our opponent, Senator Obama, speaks about questions of life, I listen very carefully.I listened when he defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions. He said that a woman shouldn’t have to be – quote – “punished with a baby.” He said that right here in Johnstown –“punished with a baby” – and it’s about time we called him on it. The more I hear from Senator Obama, the more I understand why he is so vague and evasive on the subject. Americans need to see his record for what it is. It’s not negative or mean-spirited to talk to about his record. Whatever party you belong to, there are facts you need to know.

Senator Obama has voted against bills to end partial-birth abortion. In the Illinois Senate, a bipartisan majority passed legislation against that practice. Senator Obama opposed that bill. He voted against it in committee, and voted “present” on the Senate floor. In that legislature, “present” is how you vote when you’re against something, but don’t want to be held to account.
Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a Democrat, described partial-birth abortion as “too close to infanticide.” Barack Obama thinks it’s a constitutional right, but he is wrong.

Most troubling, as a state senator, Barack Obama wouldn’t even stand up for the rights of infants born alive during an abortion. These infants – often babies with special needs – are simply left to die.
In 2002, Congress unanimously passed a federal law to require medical care for those babies who survive an abortion. They’re living, breathing babies, but Senator Obama describes them as “pre-viable.” This merciful law was called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. Illinois had a version of the same law. Obama voted against it.

Asked about this vote, Senator Obama assured a reporter that he’d have voted “yes” on that bill if it had contained language similar to the federal version of the Born Alive Act. There’s just one little problem with that story: the language of both the state and federal bills was identical.

In short, Senator Obama is a politician who has long since left behind even the middle ground on the issue of life. He has sided with those who won’t even protect a child born alive. And this exposes the emptiness of his promises to move beyond the “old politics.”

In both parties, Americans have many concerns to be weighed in the votes they cast on November fourth. In times like these, with wars and a financial crisis, it’s easy to forget even as deep and abiding a concern as the right to life. And it seems our opponent hopes that you will forget. Like so much else in his agenda, he hopes you won’t notice how radical his ideas and record are until it’s too late.

But let there be no misunderstanding about the stakes.

A vote for Barack Obama is a vote for activist courts that will continue to smother the open and democratic debate we need on this issue, at both the state and federal level. A vote for Barack Obama would give the ultimate power over the issue of life to a politician who has never once done anything to protect the unborn. As Senator Obama told Pastor Rick Warren, it’s above his pay grade.

For a candidate who talks so often about “hope,” he offers no hope at all in meeting this great challenge to the conscience of America. There is a growing consensus in our country that we can overcome narrow partisanship on this issue, and bring all the resources of a generous country to the aid of both women in need and the child waiting to be born. We need more of the compassion and idealism that our opponent’s own party, at its best, once stood for. We need the clarity and conviction of leaders like the late Governor Bob Casey.

He represented a humanity that speaks to all of us – no matter what our party, our background, our faith, or our gender. And no matter your position on this sensitive subject, I hope that spirit will guide you on Election Day. I ask you to vote for McCain-Palin on the November fourth, and help us to bring this country together in the rational discussion of compassion and life.” ~ remarks by Governor Sarah Palin, Johnstown, PA on October 11, 2008.

Remember this when you hear that there is no difference in the parties or the candidates!

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Friday, September 12, 2008

Blog Policy

It still is the policy of Eagle Forum Alaska to post only comments from those who want to discuss issues without name-calling and are willing to put their name on thier comments. We have had a flood of anonymous name-calling as of late. I have been asked why we pulled the 2006 questionnaire from our page and that is your answer. Obviously the left has found this page and delights in posting anonymous bad mouthing of Alaska's Governor and conservatives in general. If you are interested in trashing individuals and if you like hiding your identity, your posts are not welcome here. I am sure there are a number of sites that welcome conservative bashing, this isn't one of them. Have a great day! ~ Debbie Joslin

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire

The following questionnaire was sent to all candidates for Governor with their responses listed in the order we received them.
JB = John Binkley (R ) http://www.binkley06.com/
SP = Sarah Palin (R ) http://www.palinforgovernor.com/
FM = Frank Murkowski (R ) http://www.frankmurkowski.com/
MH = Merica Hlatcu (R )
GH = Gerald Heikes (R ) http://www.heikesontherock.com/
TK = Tony Knowles (D) http://tonyknowles.com/
EC = Eric Croft (D) http://www.ericcroft.com/
BL = Bruce Lemke (D)
EB = Eddie Burke (AIP) http://www.eddieburke.com/
DD = Daniel DeNardo (AIP)
DW = DonWright (AIP)

1. Complete the sentence by checking the applicable phrases (you can check more than one).
Abortion should be:
Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
Legal in case of rape and incest.
Legal if the baby is handicapped.
Legal if the baby has a genetic defect.
Legal in the first trimester.
Legal in the second trimester.

Legal in the third trimester.

JB: Banned throughout entire pregnancy.
Legal to save the life of the mother.
SP: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

2. Will you support the right of parents to opt out their children from curricula, books, classes, or surveys, which parents consider privacy-invading or offensive to their religion or conscience?
JB: We should always encourage parents to participate in the curricula decisions of our school.
SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?
JB: We should not exclude abstinence-until-marriage education programs.
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

4. Will you support efforts to raise or lower the mandatory age of education? Why or why not?
SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

5. Will you support an effort to expand hate-crime laws?
JB: No.
SP: No, as I believe all heinous crime is based on hate.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6a. Do you support the expansion of gambling in Alaska?
JB: No.
SP: No, in so many cases, gambling has shown ill effects on families and as Governor I would not propose expansion legislation.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

6b Would you sign any bills that expand gaming in our state?
JB: No.
SP: No.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

7. Do you support statewide restrictions on the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another?
JB: Yes.
SP: Yes.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

8. Do you support parental choice in the spending of state educational dollars?
JB: As it relates to home schooling, we should give parents options in program spending.
SP: Within Alaska law, I support parents deciding what is the best education venue for their child.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

9. Do you support legislation requiring labor unions to obtain permission from their members before using dues for political purposes?
JB: No Response
SP: Yes, unions represent their workers and as such, should be accountable to them
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
No. The constitutional amendment was clear to me.
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
JB: No.
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

12. In relationship to families, what are your top three priorities if elected governor?
JB: I will always support and work to strengthen families.
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.
FM: No Response
MH: No Response
GH: No Response
TK: No Response
EC: No Response
BL: No Response
EB: No Response
DD: No Response
DW: No Response

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Closing Remarks by Senators Huggins, Dyson and Green

I listened to the floor session in the Alaska Senate this afternoon as Senator Lyda Green and others congratulated themselves on a good, productive session. If you would like to hear the floor session audio, click on here. The remarks by Dyson, Huggins and Green are toward the end at about 57 minutes into the session.

Senator Fred Dyson(R), Eagle River, made remarks and talked about the lessons he learned as a member of the minority. His speech exhibited grace, wisdom and humility. He then talked about HB364, the parental consent for abortion bill. He quoted Justice Carpenetti’s dissent in the opinion handed down by the Alaska Supreme Court last year. He talked about HB301, the partial birth abortion ban. He described the heinous process of killing a partially born baby in this manner. Dyson ended his remarks by noting that these subjects will come up again and he hopes that the other members of the senate will think deeply on these things.

Shortly afterward, Senator Charlie Huggins (R), Wasilla, spoke at length about his values. He commended Senate President Lyda Green(R), Wasilla, on her values. He said he had not voted on a parental consent for abortion bill or on an abortion bill. (This was actually untrue, as his votes this weekend to not move the bills were votes to kill the bills themselves) Huggins spoke at length about his values. He grew up dirt poor and his dad had values, he himself got values at seven years old and passed them down to his children who now have values. He spoke of the military service he, his father and his children have performed. Then he spoke more directly to the point, so I wrote the balance of his remarks down as best I could. They are as follows:

“The insinuation of any vote that I make on that board about abortion or parental consent is false. There’s chivalry that comes with values. I am angry for someone to insinuate that my values in this hall were violated. Anybody wants to talk to me about values or ethics
and I don’t care what you write on a sheet of paper about your ethics, how many Bibles there are. It’s about ethics, it’s about your values and I’m proud of my values and I have not backed away from those and I have not voted in any way to reflect anything other than those values. And I apologize to you for being emotional but I’m sad today because someone insinuates that by implication. That saddens me and for that I apologize for getting emotional.”

The gavel then went down and Senator Lesil McGuire started to speak but was cut off by Senator Lyda Green who then gave her own brief statement. “I have yet to vote against any sanctity of life issue. I will continue to do that.” Then Lesil McGuire made the motion to adjourn the session and so the 25th legislature ended in the Senate without voting on parental consent, partial birth abortion, and the constitutional amendment on gaming as well as many other good bills.

Now, for my remarks:

It was quite obvious that Senator Huggins and Senator Green were disturbed to think that someone might think they had not voted pro-life. They seem to want to be considered pro-life legislators. That is good. I am glad they do want that. However, pro-life voters are politically savvy people. We recognize lip service for what it is and we expect more from pro-life legislators. Having the conviction that abortion is wrong is only part of the puzzle. Former President Bill Clinton even said that abortion should be rare, safe and legal. That was not enough. If our Alaska state legislators want the votes of pro-life voters, they must have not only the conviction but they must follow it up with action. These Senators will try to tell us they did not vote on HB301 and HB364. But they did! They will tell us that if they had rolled the chair and taken the bills from Senate Judiciary Chair Hollis French there would have been chaos. In fact the Masons Rules the legislature operates under provide for that very motion to stop any committee chair from obstructing the will of the body. Senator Green and Senator Huggins may be pro-life to some degree but their pro-life convictions were feeble in comparison to their conviction that Hollis French should have his way as committee chair. In other words, their allegiance was to liberal Senator Hollis French and to the “working majority” and not to the Republican Party Platform and the values it contains. Deny it though they will, actions speak louder than words.

The six “Republicans” who joined with the Democrats to form the “working majority” are Senators Lyda Green, Charlie Huggins, Lesil McGuire, John Cowdery, Gary Stevens and Bert Stedman. Please let them hear what you think of their performance this session.

Senator Lyda Green 877 465 6601 Senator Bert Stedman 877 463 3873
Senator Gary Stevens 800 821 4925 Senator John Cowdery 888 269 3879
Senator Charlie Huggins 800 862 3878 Senator Lesil McGuire 800 365 2995

Here are the five Republicans you can contact to thank:

Senator Con Bunde 800 892 4843 Senator Gene Therriault 800 860 4797
Senator Thomas Wagoner 800 964 5733 Senator Gary Wilken 907 465 3709

This Senator not only VOTED YES TO MOVE THE BILL, he stood up and made the Motion. Please give special thanks to: Senator Fred Dyson 800 342 2199

I know many of you are as disappointed as I am in the outcome of this session. Do we give up? Never! We roll our sleeves up a little higher, and we dig in a little deeper. There is work to be done! Stay tuned.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

Testimony for HB353, Public Library Porn Filters

The following testimony was given by Debbie Joslin, President of Eagle Forum Alaska to the House Finance Committee, Alaska State Legislature, on Tuesday, April 1, 2008:

My name is Debbie Joslin, I am President, of EFA, a pro-family group with over 1,000 members, and I live in Delta Junction. I am here to support passing HB353 with an amendment to restore the original language of the bill prior to the amendment of 3-25.

First and foremost, my concern is for our children. Allowing our public libraries to become the go-to place for those wishing to view porn, at best puts a thin shellac over a very sleazy industry – the porn industry.

Purveyors of porn specialize in trying to lure our children into their sordid sites and as a parent I want to know that my children are safe when they log onto a public library computer. Children don’t always have the best judgment and we guard them from the sinister motives of online dangers at home but we want porn filters installed in our public library computers. Even when our children don’t mean to go to a porn site, there are those who specialize in childish misspellings to trap our children. Another component to consider where our children are concerned is that the adult who may be viewing porn at the library could be alternately looking at the screen and then at our children, not something this mother of three girls relishes.

Librarians and others have testified that they can police the use of computers without filters, or even better than filters. I don’t think library patrons would be comfortable having the librarian look over their shoulder constantly and I really don’t think they have the time or the logistics to make monitoring by library employees feasible.

Not only that, but the American Library Association has spent millions of dollars fighting porn filters at the national level. They are on record as saying that porn filters are an infringement on first amendment rights. On their website they stated “The ALA today expressed disappointment in today’s very narrow decision (6-3) from the US Supreme Court upholding the Children’s Internet Protection Act.” After a statement like that, do we really want them to tell us, “Honest, you can trust us to monitor these computers ourselves?”

As far as the cost for filters goes, 60% of the state’s libraries already use porn filters, somehow they were able to afford the cost. Certainly the other 40% can.

Filters are used successfully in many places. Many employers use filters, including the state of Alaska. We need to decide what kind of places we want our libraries to become. A safe place where people of all ages can get information or a good book or do we want them to become places where those wishing to view hard porn or even child pornography can come knowing that their sordid trail leads not to a computer registered to their name but to a public computer. This is not an issue of free speech; patrons can easily ask the librarian to turn off the filter if they wish.

Monitoring by librarians is not enough. HB353 needs to be restored to the original language to require filters to be put in place and passed immediately.

Friday, March 28, 2008

Rep. LeDoux Fails to Uphold Party Platform

At my urging, many people have contacted the offices of Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux and Rep. Paul Seaton to inquire about their failure to to vote YES on HB301, the partial birth abortion ban. Their NO vote shows a lack of respect for the values of Alaskan Republicans and a calloused disregard for the lives of innocent unborn babies. The correspondence below was sent to me by receipients of our Eagle Forum Alaska Legislative Alert. Rep. LeDoux's shallow response did not get past their eagle eyes! We must continue to hold Rep. LeDoux and Rep. Seaton accountable for their poor voting records.
Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Message to Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux

Message to Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux:

My husband and I are appalled that you opposed the ban on partial-birth abortions-- simply a brutal form of infanticide. A partial-birth abortion is NEVER necessary for the health of the mother. In fact it is a dangerous procedure for her, and a cruel and deadly procedure for the child-- who often could survive, if she (or he) were not stabbed in the back of the neck by the abortionist as she enters the world outside her mother's womb.

Anchorage, Alaska

From: Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux
Date: 03/28/08 10:36:56
Subject: RE: HB 301 - Partial Birth Abortions

Thank you for writing and expressing your heartfelt opinion. I oppose partial birth abortions except when necessary to protect the life or physical health of the mother. It is my understanding that there are certain rare circumstances where a woman could suffer severe damage if this procedure is not used.

Unfortunately the bill which I voted against did not have an exception for the physical health of the mother. I introduced an amendment to allow the procedure when it was necessary for the physical health of the women. This amendment failed and thus I could not in good conscience vote for the bill.

Representative Gabrielle LeDoux
District 36
Capitol, Juneau, Alaska 99801
(907) 465-2487
(907) 465-4956 (fax)

Reply to message from Rep. Gabrielle LeDoux:

I have worked for the protection of unborn children for 35 years. There is NEVER a circumstance when the partial birth abortion procedure would be better for the health of the mother. Believe it! A health of the mother exception in other state laws has allowed abortions for no reason at all. The infamous late-term abortionist in Boulder, Colorado, Warren Hern, has boasted that he can certify ANY pregnancy a risk to the mother's health. To leave this kind of determination to the benefiting physician is to sacrifice many, many healthy babies.

Have you considered changing your party affilliation? Or do party platform positions mean nothing to you? The national Republican Party has taken a position of protecting unborn children from abortion since 1976 at their Michigan convention.

Thank you nonetheless for the prompt reply.

Anchorage, Alaska

Friday, February 29, 2008

Posts Must be Signed

Our policy is to publish only posts that are signed. We received an anonymous comment last night and will not be posting it but we do appreciate the author's comment. Thank you.
Debbie Joslin

Saturday, February 23, 2008

Abortion Kills Women Too

The big story this week is the sad report of the young woman in the U.K. who committed suicide after aborting her 8 week old unborn twin babies. I saw the story on LifeNews and have had four or five other people send me a copy. This young woman's death has proved the painful point I made recently in my January 22 speech; many women are having abortions because someone else wants them to. If you are a woman who is pregnant, do what you really WANT to do. Have your baby. If there are people in your life who pressure you to abort, don't listen to them. Look in the phone book for a Crisis Pregnancy Center where you can get help to carry your baby to term. And, by the way, adoption is a loving option too.
Debbie Joslin

Friday, January 25, 2008

A Very Tiny Miracle

I am a Girl Scout leader in my small town of Cordova, Alaska. I was preparing to take a group of girls and moms to a World Girl Scout Center high in the Alps in Switzerland in May 2006. We would spend a few days in England and 10 days hiking in the Alps, and learning about Swiss culture.

We were preparing to leave in a week and I was also pregnant and starting to miscarry. What happened next was an amazing event of small proportions.

I hoped that I wouldn't miscarry on the plane so I prayed. Two days before we left, the baby came out but in an unexpected way. A large chewing gum-like bubble came out. I picked it up and saw movement in the bubble. I opened the bubble and there was a small baby! The body was about 2 1/2 inches long. It had a square-shaped head with eyes and mouth a little bigger than the head of a pin. It was approximately 6-7 weeks old.

The most unusual part of this awesome event was that the baby was crying. I could hear no sound but the mouth was moving in the exact motion that a crying baby does. My heart was full of love towards this tiny newborn of mine.

The baby had little arm buds. I happened to touch them with the rounded end of a tiny pair of scissors and he grabbed them and held on to them and continued crying his silent little cry. What a sweet miracle of life I was witnessing!

His eyes were staring at me the entire time while he was crying. The eyelids were not developed but the head was turned directly towards my face.

The lower part of his body seemed fused into the placenta. After a while, this little one left us and immediately, the little form turned into a small pool of fleshy blood. You would have never know there was a baby once there.

I think God gave me this precious little one to demonstrate how small human beings can be and still have ability to cry, see, feel & interact with others.

I remember telling this story to some of our traveling group while we were in a B & B in London. I was thankful that I didn't miscarry on the plane and I was thankful to see a tiny part of God's creation.

Jennie Grimwood


Friday, January 18, 2008

Presidential Preference Poll - February 5th

February 5th will be Super Tuesday in Alaska. Registered Republicans, and those willing to register Republican, will be allowed to pledge their vote for their favorite candidate or vote unpledged (undecided). What this will do is determine how many votes each candidate gets at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, MN September 1-4.

Polling places will be set up around the state of Alaska on February 5th and the voting will be from 4:30 to 8:30 pm. To find out where the nearest polling place is to you, log on to http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/ or call party headquarters at 276-4467. In addition to the presidential preference poll, districts will be holding their district conventions. To get the specifics of YOUR district convention go to http://www.alaskarepublicans.com/ and scroll down to your district number. It should tell you a date, location, time and delegate fee if there is one. Attend you district convention and let the person in charge, either the District Chair or District Secretary, know you want to be a delegate to state convention and to national if possible. They may ask you to pay your state delegate fee at that point, it is $225.

One reason that many good people don’t get involved in the party nomination process and conventions is that they have never done so before and feel they would be in over their heads. At every convention fully half of the delegates (or more) are participating for the first time. You would not be the only first timer. Being a convention delegate at the district or state, or even national level, is not as complicated as you might guess. This year more than ever the final outcome of the presidential nomination process is in flux.

I know some of you have decided to distance yourselves from the party because of the scandals caused by some legislators and some of the party leadership. I must point out that leaving the party will not fix what is wrong. No, if you believe the Alaska Republican Party needs to be purged of corruption and scandal, and you believe in our conservative party platform, you need to attend your district convention and volunteer to be a delegate at the state convention. This will accomplish several things:

1) By attending your district convention/presidential preference poll, you will have a voice in deciding how many votes each candidate receives at the Republican National Convention Sept. 1-4. Delegates from Alaska will be apportioned according to the percentage of votes their candidate received February 5. For instance, if Giuliani receives 50% of the votes on February 5, then half of the delegates to national convention will have to be pledged to vote for Giuliani. Voters will also have the option of voting “unpledged.” If 50% of the votes are unpledged, then half of the Alaska delegates to the National Convention will also be unpledged and able to vote for any candidate they choose at the national convention. Voters will be able to choose from the seven candidates who have paid their fee and registered to be candidates in Alaska. Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, and Duncan Hunter have qualified for the Alaska ballot by collecting petition signatures and submitting a filing fee.
2) If you attend your district convention on February 5 you will be eligible to vote for your district chair and other district party officers. The district chair represents your voting district on the Alaska Republican Party State Central Committee (SCC). In districts where the elected Representative is also a Republican, the district also elects a “Bonus Vote” to sit on the SCC. These officers are very important; they conduct party business at the district level and represent their districts at the state level. They are also involved in promoting candidates for the legislature and putting together a list of names for the Governor to choose from when there are vacancies in the legislature.
3) Last but not least, you will be eligible to attend the Alaska Republican State Convention held in Anchorage March 13-15 at the Captain Cook Hotel. Delegates will vote for National Committeeman and National Committeewoman and conduct other party business including updating party rules and platform. Currently the party platform is pro-family, pro-life and a document conservatives can be proud of. That can change if good conservatives fail to show up at the state convention.

Saturday, April 28, 2007

EFA Press Release, 04/26/2007

Those who support treating homosexual relationships the same as marriage have been calling for scientific polling as a better gauge of how Alaskans feel on the issue, but they won’t like the results. In the latest Dittman poll Alaskans once again call for the state legislature to follow the results of the recent special advisory vote and put the proposed constitutional amendment on the November, 2008 ballot. 56% responded in favor of strengthening the marriage amendment in the constitution. Only 54% of those polled believe lack of ethics is a serious problem and those who support reinstating the longevity bonus only comprise 49% of respondents to the poll. The legislature continues to move ahead on ethics reform and restoration of the longevity bonus. The results of this poll are a mandate to the lawmakers of Alaska. Alaska voters consider protecting marriage to be of the highest priority.

These encouraging results come from a recent poll by Alaska’s premier pollster, Dave Dittman between April 9 and April 18. The poll was requested by the State Senate Majority Working Group. 410 Alaskans were surveyed in households randomly selected from current registered voter lists using the same methods Dittman Research has successfully used for 37 years in Alaska.

Eagle Forum Alaska calls on the legislature to trust Alaskans with the decision on this vitally important issue. The legislature has asked the people twice now if they want the opportunity to vote on a constitutional marriage amendment. How many more times must we say YES before the legislature acts on the will of the people? Eagle Forum Alaska President, Debbie Joslin states, “To maintain the trust of the voters, our legislature must respond to the advice the have asked for and pass HJR9.”

EFA Press Release, 04/19/2007

In response to yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the ban on partial birth abortions, Eagle Forum Alaska has issued the following statement:

“For those who love liberty and justice, this decision was a resounding victory and a glimmer of hope for our future. That a civilized nation would even have to seriously debate the issue of whether or not a baby should have her head punctured with a pair of scissors during the birthing process, is ludicrous. The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ban on this horrific procedure is a sign that sanity is returning to the Court. We look forward to seeing more common sense jurisprudence from this Court.”

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Monday, March 26, 2007


We encourage you to check out www.voteyesformarriagealaska.org. We are still receiving emails from individuals wishing to post comments on this (EFA) website. It is our policy to NOT post anonymous comments or those with foul language or name calling. Intelligent discussion is encouraged. We have yet to get one comment from anyone who disagrees with us on the subject of homosexuals seeking marriage benefits whose remarks meet all of the above criteria. The hate speech we have received has been shocking and disappointing. We look forward to having some meaningful dialogue on this subject.

Friday, March 02, 2007

Debbie Joslin's Compass Piece

"Alaskans voted in 1998 to protect in our state constitution the definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman. In October 2005, the Alaska Supreme Court essentially thumbed its nose at this vote of the people by ruling that homosexual relationships and marriage are "similarly situated." Alaskans have an opportunity to right this wrong by voting yes on the statewide advisory vote April 3. A yes vote on April 3 will tell your legislator that you want a constitutional marriage amendment to reverse court encroachment. . ."

Read more by clicking on title.

Vote Yes For Marriage Flyer

Click on title above to see what you can do to support Marriage in Alaska.

Print out a copy for each of your friends.

Friday, February 09, 2007

Adultery: It Ought to be a Crime

The Center For Moral Clarity
Rod Parsley
President and Founder
email: rodparsley@centerformoralclarity.net
phone: 614-382-1188
World Harvest Church
4595 Gender Rd.
Canal Winchester, OH 43110

Lawmakers and judges in Michigan are holding married couples accountable for their vows of fidelity. An appeals court has ruled that anyone involved in an extramarital affair can be prosecuted for first-degree criminal sexual conduct, a felony punishable by up to life in prison.

"Adultery is a violation of biblical instruction as well as an offense against the other partner in what should be a sacred relationship. Furthermore, the breach of faith is disastrous to children - as well as the broader society," said Pastor Rod Parsley. "Too many men and women are willing to surrender to passion and desires of the flesh without considering the repercussions of those fleeting moments of pleasure."

It's one thing to pass a law and something else entirely to enforce it. Although Michigan has adultery on the books as a felony, until recently, no one had been prosecuted under that law since 1971. The rest of the nation should take a look at the Michigan statute. Criminal laws are designed to force people to conform to certain acceptable standards of personal behavior. Most of society's code of conduct has its roots in the 10 Commandments.

It's interesting, though, that the commandment to be faithful in marriage is treated as insignificant by popular culture. Adulterous behavior is just as wrong - just as much a sin - as lying, cheating, stealing and murder. Yet in 21st century America, there seems to be few consequences for a "harmless" fling on the side.

Even in this particular Michigan case, prosecuting adultery wasn't the intended purpose of the statute. The wording of the law led to this interpretation. The statute actually specifies that two people who engage in sex during the commission of any other felony is guilty of a first-degree sexual offense - the case in question involved a man who provided Oxycontin pills to a cocktail waitress in exchange for her sexual favors. The maximum punishment for this charge is life imprisonment. Since adultery is a felony in Michigan, the act of having sex outside marriage could put illicit couples behind bars.

Perhaps court systems across the nation should treat adultery for what it truly is: lying, cheating and stealing.

Friday, February 02, 2007

Michigan Court of Appeals Gets it Right

In a unanimous decision Friday upholding the 2004 marriage initiative, appellate judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra declared “The protection of the institution of marriage is a long-standing public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan”. Siding with Attorney General Mike Cox, the three-judge panel reversed a March 2005 ruling by an Ingham County judge that would have allowed “domestic partner benefits” in the state. The case is expected to be appealed to the supreme court by the 21 petitioners, gay employees of the city of Kalamazoo, universities and the state.

For now, the state, cities, and public universities in Michigan can not provide health insurance to the partners of gay employees.

This suit resembles one decided by the Alaskan supreme court in October of 2005. Filed by gay couples employed by the Municipality of Anchorage and the State of Alaska, the suit sought to give same-sex partners the benefits of marriage, without requiring the responsibilities of marriage. The two courts could not have ruled more differently. Where Michigan ruled marriage-like benefits illegal, the Alaskan court decided they were not just allowed, but mandated by the constitution.

The different rulings can be traced directly to the wording of the respective marriage amendments. In 1998, Alaskans voted to add the words “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman”. Short and to the point. In 2004, Michiganders added a more verbose “the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.” The final 6 words make all the difference.

While it can be argued that voters in Alaska and Michigan had the same goal in mind when passing their respective marriage amendments, clearly the voters of Michigan did a much better job in choosing their words wisely.

The judges did not declare their own feelings as to whether same-sex partners should receive benefits, but stuck to the letter of the law. "It is a cornerstone of a democratic form of government to assume that a free people act rationally in the exercise of power, are presumed to know what they want, and to have understood the proposition submitted to them in all of its implications, and by their approval vote to have determined that the proposal is for the public good and expresses the free opinion of a sovereign people", wrote the court.

Click to See Michigan Amendment

Click to See Alaskan Amendment

Local Coverage

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Hillary's "Mom Strategy" Gets Off To A Bumpy Start

Jan. 31, 2007
by Phyllis Schlafly

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her run for the presidency. According to her erstwhile friend, political pundit Dick Morris, she will run on the "Mom Strategy" which, he says, "gives her a credible way to tack to the left on the war."

Hillary launched her Mom Strategy on the ABC television show "The View" when a co-host asked her if being a mom gives "a would-be President kind of an edge up on, say, a male rival?" Hillary replied, "Well, you know, nobody's ever been in a position to ask that question, 'cause we've never had a mother who ever ran for or held that position."

Wrong, Hillary, you're not the first mom to run for President. That niche in the history books goes to Ellen McCormack, mother of three daughters and one son, and even a grandmother, when she ran for President in 1976.

Running for the Democratic Party nomination for President, Ellen McCormack campaigned in 18 states (in chronological order): NH, MA, VT, FL, WI, PA, IN, GA, NE, MI, MD, TN, OR, KY, RI, SD, NJ, and CA. She didn't win any primaries, but she won some delegates and received 22 votes for President at the Democratic National Convention, more votes than were cast for Frank Church, Hubert Humphrey, Henry "Scoop" Jackson, or Fred Harris.

Mrs. McCormack was the first woman to receive Secret Service protection as a presidential candidate in a major party. She was also the first woman to receive federal matching funds for her primary campaign.

In 1980, Mrs. McCormack ran for President again, that time as the candidate of New York's Right To Life Party. She received 32,327 votes in New York, New Jersey and Kentucky, three of the states where she succeeded in getting on the ballot.

Ellen McCormack played a major role in the rise of the pro-life movement. Her leadership enabled the then-young pro-life movement to flex its muscles and demonstrate political courage, determination and perseverance.

After her campaigns for President, politicians who had been timid about saying they opposed abortion and Roe v. Wade came out of the woodwork and confidently stated their views. Mrs. McCormack was also important in the growth of the conservative movement in New York State.

It is curious that, like Hillary Clinton, the Associated Press also ignored Ellen McCormack's ground-breaking campaign for President. An AP news story, timed to coincide with Hillary's proclamation of her Mom Strategy, omitted Mrs. McCormack from a list of eight "women who have run for president," a list that included several whose insignificant campaigns terminated almost before they got started such as Pat Schroeder's.

The AP cited as its source for this list the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. The Center's list, which is posted on its website and claims to be complete, names 15 women who sought major party nominations but also omits Ellen McCormack.

If I were conspiratorially minded, I might think that the pro-abortion feminists in the media and in universities are trying to drop Ellen McCormack, one of the original, valiant pro-life leaders, down the Memory Hole. Today, she has eight grandchildren and one great-grandchild, and she deserves her place in history.

Hillary Clinton's announcement of her Mom Strategy was part of her book tour to publicize a re-issue of her ten-year-old book called "It Takes a Village." The revised cover shows her surrounded by a collection of adoring children (like the photo-op of Nancy Pelosi when she took over as Speaker of the House).

The word village is a euphemism for government, and the concept of the village raising a child is the socialists' dream. It's based on the idea that children should be raised, guided and educated by an assortment of so-called experts, including teachers, counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, judges, and daycare employees.

Hillary invites us to "imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three and five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms." That children's paradise is France, which "makes caring for children a top priority," and where "more than 90 percent of French children between ages three and five attend free or inexpensive preschools."

The assumption of "It Takes a Village" is that daycare, run by tax-salaried and licensed "professionals" in centers regulated by the government, is preferable to mother care. Hillary praises the fact that many French children are in full-day programs "even before they reach the age of three."

The reissue of Hillary's old book dispels the notion that she is re-inventing herself as a moderate. Her Moms Strategy is badly out of sync with her book praising a country that starts government daycare for children at age 2.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

At the RNC, Resistance is Futile

For Star Trek Fans Only

By Denise McNamara, Republican National Committee

I have always been a big fan of Star Trek. When I was in the sixth grade, it was my favorite television show. (Yes, I am a nerd.) But you don't normally hear references to Star Trek on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. So when Congressman David Wu of Oregon , a Democrat, recently compared Republicans in the White House to Vulcans and Klingons, he got a lot of attention. Brit Hume played the clip on Fox News. If you missed it, you can watch the video clip of Wu, who bears a striking resemblance to Lt. Sulu, at the following link: www.clipstr.com/videos/ThereAreKlingonsInTheWhiteHouseRepDavidWu. While I don't agree with the Congressman's assessment, I have to admit it was hilarious.
Having just returned from the RNC meeting, another Star Trek analogy comes to mind. You see, members of the Republican National Committee are expected to assimilate. Any independence of thought or opposition to leadership is seen as unacceptable. The RNC has become the Borg. Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
The top-down leadership of the RNC attempts to squelch individuality. Most members do not publicly express their true thoughts because, just as with the Borg, resistance will be punished. Few are willing to vote against the majority because that could mean the loss of a committee position or the prospect of future retaliation.
In politics, examples of classic Star Trek characters abound. We have Ferengi, those who profit from their positions. We have Changlings, or shape-shifters, who change their position to fit the situation. But I don't believe that we have Klingons in the White House. On the contrary, I think that President Bush is more like Captain Kirk. Vice President Dick Cheney is logical and unemotional like Spock. And perhaps Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is an effective diplomat because she possesses qualities similar to those of Ambassador Deanna Troi, a Betazoid. The United States , just like the Federation, is a force for good. Little did I know as a child watching Star Trek that it paralleled the politics of the era. For the rest of my tenure on the RNC, I will continue to resist, futile or not, because damn it, Jim, I'm a conservative. I will boldly go where no conservative on the RNC dares to go. And as Spock would say, live long and prosper.

Monday, January 22, 2007

RNC Meeting Report

By Denise McNamara

Election of Senator Martinez as General Chairman

On Friday, during the General Session of the Winter Meeting of the RNC, Senator Martinez was elected as the new “General Chairman” with only a handful of the members voting “No.” All three members from Texas voted no.
The first debate concerned the creation of a new office of General Chairman. The Committeeman from North Dakota employed an independent parliamentarian who rendered an opinion which stated that a dual leadership structure was not authorized.
While I appreciated the Committeeman’s efforts, our rules do state that the RNC may elect “such other officers as the RNC shall deem necessary.” The context of that wording seems to suggest the creation of a minor office, such as historian, corresponding secretary, or a lesser office, but nothing prohibits the creation of a general chairman. Consequently, that effort was unsuccessful. Only two or three people on the RNC voted to prohibit the creation of the new position.
Although the committeeman from North Dakota had discussed making a motion for a secret ballot, no one made such a motion. The election was a voice vote. It is hard to identify who actually dissented. All three of us from Texas, the committeeman from Arizona, the committeewoman from Utah, and the committeeman from North Dakota may have been the only ones who cast a vote against Martinez. There could have been a few more. Most members, although unhappy with the choice of Senator Martinez, decided to support Senator Martinez publicly. Privately, many expressed dismay with the choice. I was very surprised that several RNC members told me that they were getting phone calls and emails and postcards asking them to vote “No,” yet they were still going to support the Senator.
The most common reason cited for supporting ill-advised decisions of the RNC leadership is that we must support the President. I, for one, would never insult the President. He has a tremendous challenge with the war in Iraq. I support him in the war. My purpose in speaking out at the RNC is to communicate to the leadership the unprecedented level of discontent that I am hearing from the voters in Texas. Morale is definitely low among our conservative base. The election of Senator Martinez does not help.
There is also an undercurrent at the RNC meetings that creates an enormous pressure on members to follow the instructions of the leadership. It is unfortunate that this atmosphere exists, but I do feel that everyone knew and understood our objections, and those of us who feel that this is a mistake were successful in making our voices heard.
Committeeman from Kentucky Mike Duncan was elected as the new day-to-day Chairman. Ohio Committeewoman Jo Ann Davidson was reelected as Co-Chairman. Committeeman from California Tim Morgan was elected as treasurer. Secretary Sara Gear Boyd, Committeewoman from Vermont, was re-elected.

Theme of the Meeting

The RNC Winter Meeting was named “Recommitting to Reform.” During the Resolutions Committee meeting on Thursday, we unanimously passed a resolution entitled, “Resolution Recognizing the Need to Recommit to Traditional Conservative Principles.” The resolution states, in part, “Whereas, Ronald Reagan reinvented the Republican Party in the 1980’s as the party that would change government, not sustain it, and Whereas the Republican class of 1994 swept to power in Congress for the first time in 40 years with a detailed list of reforms that took power away from the government and returned it to the people,” that “we should stay true to the principles of limited government, fiscal restraint, individual freedom, and a strong national defense.”
Mike Duncan, Committeeman from Kentucky since 1992, was elected as the new day-to-day Chairman of the RNC. He stated that, “We need to get back to our plans, programs, policies, and practices.” He stated that we are all disappointed by the November elections, but that his job is not to make policy or even headlines, but to win elections. He stated that Senator Martinez would be the voice of the party and its ideals. Duncan reiterated that when we are true to our principles of lower taxes individual responsibility and limited government, we win.
Outgoing Chairman Ken Mehlman stated that, “If we are hesitant or apologetic about our principles, then it won’t matter how good our ground game is, and we must be committed to conservative principles.” Mehlman’s legacy at the RNC is the 72 Hour plan, the RNC Get-Out-the-Vote program, and his use of demographics and voter profiling to identify Republican voters, which led to the successful 2004 reelection of President Bush.

Remarks by President Bush

When President Bush addresses the RNC, he is of course in front of a friendly audience. It is always amazing how comfortable and effective he is in such a setting. On Thursday afternoon we were invited to a White House reception. The President focused his remarks mainly on the war in Iraq. He was passionate in stating that we are doing the right thing by persevering in Iraq. The President communicates with Prime Minister Maliki via videoconferencing. He understands that Americans want results. He has made changes in military leadership. President Bush stressed that if we pull out of Iraq prematurely, that terrorists will have the opportunity to use the oil revenues to purchase WMDs, and the situation will get much worse. He said “woe be it” to any Democrats who try to block funding for the military. He also said that he does not want his children or grandchildren to ask why he pulled out of Iraq and have to answer that it was because of a poll. It is obvious that the threat to our country is great, and President Bush’s prosecution of the war on terror is his greatest priority.


Reflecting on the entirety of the meeting, it is apparent that the RNC leadership understands that a recommitment to conservative principles is essential to victory. However, in their opinion, immigration reform and border control does not fall under the traditional conservative principles that they are focusing on. Fiscal responsibility has been lacking, and a return to that bedrock principle is important. I believe that the GOP will face a huge challenge in 2008, and we definitely have our work cut out for us. I thank all of you who contacted me and expressed your opinion. Please do not be discouraged. Your concerns have been passed on, and you were heard. That is the most important thing that all of us can do, is to continue to make our voices heard.

One More Thing – Presidential Contenders

I was invited to only two events for Republican presidential hopefuls. Senator John McCain had a reception on Thursday night. I attended for a short time, but the Senator was not present. He had a table with his books available. It was crowded, but it was not a large venue. I understand that Senator McCain was also meeting with individual RNC members at his Senate office throughout the day Thursday. One of his primary supporters on the RNC is the Committeeman from Michigan.
Governor Mitt Romney also had a reception on Thursday evening. I attended and actually met and spoke with Romney. I asked him how he was elected in a liberal state like Massachusetts. He responded that the state was faced with a tax increase, and he ran on the promise of not raising taxes and solving the fiscal crisis. He had a larger crowd than McCain. He addressed the entire group and was introduced by the Committeewoman from South Carolina, who is a conservative. In her introduction she said that God raises up leaders for times such as this, and she believes that Governor Romney is just such a leader. Romney has the endorsement of at least 16 RNC members. The Committeemen from New Jersey and Massachusetts were also with Governor Romney during his introduction.
There was little or no activity from any of the other Republican presidential candidates.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

The Race To The Middle For 2008

by Phyllis Schlafly

The best postmortem on the 2006 election came from that perennial politician, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). He said, "People want to know who's on their side. Whether it's health care or wages or retirement issues, they want to have someone on their side."

The biggest electoral bloc of the "they" who are seeking friends is the middle class, which includes people variously labeled blue-collar workers, skilled workers, or Reagan Democrats. They are the swing voters, often called the moveables. President Ronald Reagan's victories absolutely depended on their support. But Presidents Bush I and II kicked them away from the Republican Party, particularly on the issue of jobs.

Did the 2006 election teach Republicans that it is smart to be friends of the middle class? Have Republicans realized that jobs were second only to the unpopular war as the issue of 2006, and will surely be the number-one issue in 2008? George W. Bush carried Ohio in 2004 because the marriage amendment brought out the values voters. But Democrats can play that game, too: in 2006 the Ohio referendum on increasing the minimum wage raised the jobs issue, passed by 57 percent, and helped to bury Republican candidates.

Ohio has lost its manufacturing base. Some of the good jobs went to plants that were outsourced overseas and some disappeared in the tsunami of cheap Chinese goods as Wal-Mart replaced small businesses and left behind towns with empty streets and boarded-up windows.

Incumbent Republican Senator Mike DeWine was badly defeated by Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) who had led the congressional fight against CAFTA and wrote a book called "Myths of Free Trade." Brown's TV ads showing him standing in front of a "plant closed" sign were powerful.

Almost every one of the Republican Members of Congress who bit the dust in the 2006 election had been an enthusiastic booster of the globalists' agenda: NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO (World Trade Organization), Fast Track, PNTR (Permanent Normal Trading Relations), and Free Trade Agreements (FTA) with countries most Americans never heard of. Republicans were badly on the defensive in the face of Democrat ads touting the issue of jobs.

The United States has lost over three million manufacturing jobs since Bush became President. The U.S. trade deficit hit a record high of $717 billion last year, and is expected to be even higher this year.

The middle class is not placated by feel-good talk that the stock market has climbed to a record high, or that unemployment is at a record low, or that the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is growing. Unemployment statistics don't count the guys who lost $50,000 jobs in manufacturing and are now working $25,000 jobs in retail, and job-growth figures happily do count the wives who have been involuntarily forced into the labor force just to keep groceries on the table.

The middle class is not placated by glib slogans that free trade is good for the economy and that protectionism is a nasty word. Common sense tells them that there is no such thing as a free lunch and yes, indeed, they do expect friends in government and industry to protect American jobs against unfair competition from foreigners who work for 30 cents an hour. Americans relish competition, as our national fixation on sports contests proves every day. But the globalists have destroyed a level playing field and, in addition, have subordinated us to an umpire (a.k.a. the WTO) that is biased against us.

Globalist policies have encouraged U.S. employers to use near-slave labor in Asia, whose products are then guaranteed duty-free or low-tariff re-entry to the United States. Those products are then sold here for prices that are cheap by U.S. standards but have a high markup of up to 80 percent.

Globalist policies also allow discrimination against U.S. manufacturers by the Value Added Tax racket, whereby foreign governments subsidize their products both coming and going. For example, German automobiles cost 16 percent less in the United States than the same car sold in Germany, and U.S. automobiles cost 16 percent more in Germany than the same car bought in the United States.

Nancy Pelosi plans to shift the dialogue on Capitol Hill to worker's pay, college tuition, health-care costs, and other issues that touch ordinary families. Her solutions are all bad economics and very expensive, but they will enable her to pose as a friend of the middle class.

All six U.S. Senators thought to be planning a run for the Democratic nomination for president voted against CAFTA. The issue would be dramatically joined if the Democratic nominee were opposed, for example, by Senator John McCain, who supported NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, and PNTR for China.

Will Republicans continue to follow George W. Bush in his post-election travels to solicit even more Asian products made by cheap labor and subsidized by their governments? Or will Republicans get smart on the jobs issue and reestablish their friendship with the Reagan Democrats?

This article originaly posted Nov. 29, 2006 here.

Same-sex partnerships are not equal to legal marriage


I am continually amazed to read about the Alaska Supreme Court's decision ordering health benefits to be paid to same-sex partners. I salute anyone who is against this decision and encourage continued opposition.

We are a state and nation of laws. Same-sex relationships are not the same as a legal marriage between one man and one woman. Because these relationships are not legally binding, how can the state be ordered to accept them for benefit purposes?

If same-sex partners are allowed a legally recognized marriage, benefits should be provided. It is unlikely that this will happen. We have addressed this issue before, and the majority has spoken. Their decision should be respected by the minority who choose this "alternate" gay lifestyle.

For state employees in the system, think about what this type of action does to an already overtaxed system. Health-benefit costs continue to rise for singles and those of us who are legally married. This type of decision by a confused Alaska Supreme Court only opens the floodgates. What is next? Male-female shack-ups? Multiple partner shack-ups? Why should they also not be considered equal to married people and receive benefits?

It is a fact that most same-sex relationships rarely last. With no legal documentation as to when these same-sex relationships start and end, how in the heck are the benefit administrators supposed to do their jobs? As a state employee, I was required to present a marriage certificate before my spouse could receive benefit coverage. With same-sex relationships, what proof will the benefit providers require? A note from their "lover" saying they really are in a relationship?

Likewise, if these same-sex relationships end, it's very likely the partner will continue to receive benefits because there is no legal proof of dissolution of the relationship. How about the case where same-sex partners decide to switch partners? Again, no legal proof is available that any kind of relationship even existed. There is a lot room for abuse of the system with such an open-ended policy.

The vast majority of people are opposed to same-sex shack-ups and the very nature of this behavior is so disgusting to many of us that most people would rather not even think about it, much less speak out. Women who engage in sex with other women, and men who have sex with other men, and call it a loving relationship are simply deluding themselves into thinking it is OK. It is just flat out wrong, but as a free country we tolerate many types of distasteful behaviors. Tolerance is OK, but don't expect us to accept it.

Most people will agree with what I am saying, but few will speak out. The gays will obviously rebut this letter and scream "gay-bashing." I wish anyone who is gay no harm whatsoever. You do have the right to do what you do. Others have the right to say it is wrong. Should this letter come to print, it will likely cause a lot responses from the relatively few gays out there. Unfortunately, when you expose their behavior for what it truthfully is, they will get angry. It is predictable.

I strongly encourage all nongay citizens, legislators and judges to consider the truth of the matter. We all have a pretty good sense of what it is right and what is wrong; listen to your common sense. Any law or court decision can be changed. Have the courage to speak out on this. There is more at stake here than just health benefits. This decision is an attack on our social morals.

Finally, to you gays out there - seriously, listen to your own conscience and quietly reflect upon your behavior. Deep down inside, just admit it, you know it is wrong and you can change your behavior. If you can't be honest with yourself and admit your error, at least stop trying to cram your way of life down our throats; keep your sex life private, like any respectable person would, be they gay or not.

Douglas Grimm is a Juneau resident.
This letter reprinted with permission of the author.
It was published in the Juneau Empire on Dec. 28, 2006

Palin wrong on gay benefits

By Rep. Mike Kelly

I was deeply disappointed when Gov. Sarah Palin ordered marriage benefits to be provided for homosexuals who pair up with public employees, teachers, legislators, judges, commissioners, administrators and local officials.

In 1998 the Legislature and Alaskans acted wisely and clearly to prevent same-sex marriage. During that public process they also showed little interest in providing marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual pairs at public expense.

To the delight of the American Civil Liberties Union and other promoters of the activist homosexual agenda and socialized medicine, the five-member Alaska Supreme Court is ignoring the will of the majority of Alaskans and their elected legislators, to whom we delegate the powers of law-making and appropriation of public funds. The Supremes are clever and experienced at twisting our constitution to advance their agenda against Alaska's families. Perhaps we should elect, not appoint them.

When Representative Coghill and I discussed the same-sex benefits issue with Gov. Palin by phone in November, she voiced serious concern about providing these benefits at public expense. After this conversation, I was floored when she caved in without a fight and announced plans to implement marriage-equivalent benefits for homosexual partners effective Jan. 1, 2007.

Make no mistake, provision of benefits to homosexual pairs will be just the beginning. Bets are on that the next lawsuits will come from shacked-up heterosexuals and common-law marriage folks who will claim the Supremes have treated them shabbily when compared to homosexual pairs.

Gov. Palin's decision to support the Legislature's action to provide for an April '07 vote of the public was commendable, but falls way short. Now is not the time to "go along to get along."

Her decision to create and fund a benefits-rich new public employee tier should rattle all Alaskans who are concerned about: 1) maintaining the separate executive, legislative and judicial powers of government; 2) the court taking another "detour into Oz" by equating unnatural homosexual pairings to the time-honored status of legitimate marriage between a man and a woman, entrusted by God and society with forming families as the essential building blocks of our communities, and with birthing, loving, feeding, clothing, housing, nurturing, educating, protecting and counseling our young; and 3) addressing the $10 billion public retirement system unfunded liability.

Governor, here is what I and many Alaskans had hoped the Palin/Parnell team would say in this regard:

"People of Alaska, the record is clear that in 1998 you stood strong against homosexual marriage and indicated no desire to provide marriage benefits to homosexual pairings at public expense. Nonetheless, our Supreme Court seems bent on forcing our legislative and executive branches to implement and fund these benefits with your money. I believe their decision is based on a tortured reading of our constitution, with complete disdain for families and the constitutional separation of government powers.

"Gov. Murkowski tried to stop the court, but erred by providing a set of proposed regulations implementing the benefits and then suspending the regulations pending action by the Legislature and new governor.

"The Legislature, which received the court's decision after close of the last regular session, tried in special session to prevent implementation by providing for a vote of Alaskans next April. They also ordered the commissioner of administration not to implement same-sex benefits that have not been approved or funded by the Legislature.

"Most Alaskans and their elected representatives don't want the state providing homosexual marriage benefits. The courts took seven years to make their decision. I've only had a few days. Therefore, pending investigation my administration will not, in defiance of the people of Alaska and the Legislature, provide these benefits or write a check to pay for them until the people have an opportunity to weigh in and unless the Legislature approves and funds these benefits. If this action causes a constitutional crisis, so be it. Threats of incarceration will not deter me or the lieutenant governor or my commissioner. Should my position change, you will be among the first to know."

We need action that flows from the same moral outrage and constitutional indignation that Alaskans displayed when they voted for the constitutional amendment in 1998. It's not too late, governor. Pull up! Pull up!

Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Fairbanks, was elected to the District 7 House seat in 2004.

Read this article online.

Babies killed for stem cells?

Healthy new-born babies may have been killed in Ukraine to feed a flourishing international trade in stem cells, evidence obtained by the BBC suggests.
Disturbing video footage of post-mortem examinations on dismembered tiny bodies raises serious questions about what happened to them.
Read full article here

Let Time Know You Support Dr. Dobson

Let Time Know You Support Dr. Dobson

Gay-activist groups have mobilized to oppose an editorial in Time magazine written by Dr. James Dobson. Write the publication’s editors and let them know that you appreciate them publishing “Two Mommies Is One Too Many,” Dr. Dobson’s piece on why children “do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father.”

You can read Dr. Dobson's Time editorial by clicking here

Homosexual-advocacy groups posted Internet and email alerts this week expressing “outrage” that Time published Dr. Dobson’s essay. Supporters of same-sex marriage, parenting and adoption are trying to challenge long-standing social science data that children do best with a married mother and father, claiming that newer research discredits these findings — a claim that many respected experts in this field reject. As part of this effort, gay activist organizations are asking their supporters to write Time and complain that Dr. Dobson’s essay is inaccurate.

In reality, Time editors fact-checked Dr. Dobson’s commentary before it was published and found it to be accurate.

So, what can you do to support Dr. Dobson and traditional families?

Write a brief, polite note (200 words or less) to the editors at Time and thank them for publishing the truth about parenting from Dr. Dobson. Thank them for allowing Dr. Dobson to share with the nation what gay activists don’t want anyone to know: Children do best when raised by their married mother and father.

E-mail your letter to the editor to letters@time.com

Last Chance for Pro-Life Legislation

Last Chance for Pro-Life Legislation
Urge your Representative to vote YES on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act!
Your help is needed in pushing through an important piece of pro-life legislation expected to be considered in the House next week during the final days of the Congressional session! Sponsored by Representative Chris Smith (R-NJ), the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act, H.R. 6099, would require abortion providers to notify women who want to have an abortion 20 weeks after fertilization that their unborn child feels pain and that they may request anesthesia for their unborn child in order to reduce or eliminate that pain.
Currently co-sponsored by 93 Members, this bill was previously introduced in both the 108th and 109th Congress in light of compelling testimony offered during the Partial Birth Abortion trials. Witnesses testified that unborn children past 20 weeks from fertilization feel excruciating pain during the course of an abortion. Passage of this bill is crucial because women have the right to know the facts about the medical development of their unborn children and that the option to minimize the child's pain exists!
Congress has an interest in decreasing the pain of aborted human babies, as it even requires, by law, for pain to be minimized when livestock are slaughtered! A majority of the American people favor such common sense legislation, as a 2004 Zogby poll found that 77% of the public favors "laws requiring that women who are 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancy be given information about fetal pain."
Since this bill is likely to be considered under the "Suspension Calendar," a two-thirds majority is required for passage. Consideration of this bill is an opportunity to draw attention to the pain felt by those most vulnerable — the unborn! We need your help! Please call your Congressman today!

Take Action
Call your Representative and urge them to vote YES on the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act!

Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

EFA Legislative Alert, Nov 13, 2006

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Governor Murkowski ordered the legislature to gavel in to a special session in Juneau today to pass legislation that meets the approval of the Alaska Supreme Court and grants benefits to same sex partners of state employees and retirees. I had asked you to call your legislator and if you tried to do so today you may have had a hard time contacting anyone. It seems that God had other plans – snow and weather caused flight delays and cancellations to flights into Juneau today. Many of our legislators are sleeping in Sitka tonight and planning on making the last leg of the journey (Tuesday) tomorrow morning, weather permitting. Please try again tomorrow to contact your legislator if you did not do that today. Our legislators need to be encouraged to stand up to the courts and refuse to participate in ignoring the will of the people. The people of Alaska made it quite clear that marriage is for one man and one woman and giving benefits to same-sex partners undermines the intent of the constitutional amendment.

The contact information is below.

I have just been handed a copy of a letter from the Dept. of Administration to an Alaska state retiree along with a special enrollment packet for same sex partners. These letters and packets were mailed to state employees and retirees who do not have a spouse registered under the health insurance plan. The packet contains regulations that “have been submitted to the Lt. Governor’s Office for filing.” The enrollee may enroll their “same-sex partner” if they “have been in an exclusive, committed, and intimate relationship with each other for the last consecutive 12 months and intend to continue that relationship indefinitely.”

The state has added a link to their official state website for issues related to same sex benefits. There is a lot of information there and you really should check it out. Don’t expect it to be infallible though. The website says that adding same sex partners as dependents will only marginally affect costs to the state.

It is time for Alaskans to stand up and let our voices be heard on this issue. Our legislators need to know we care about this issue.

Working for the family,
Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

Monday, November 13, 2006

EFA Legislative Alert, Nov 12, 2006

Dear Eagles and Friends:

Governor Murkowski has called the legislature into special session starting Monday, November 13 to address the demand by the Alaska Supreme Court that the state implement regulations to allow spousal benefits to homosexual state employees and retirees. The court has completely ignored the 1998 marriage amendment to the constitution and declared that homosexuals are being discriminated against because we do not allow them to marry and they cannot receive spousal benefits without marrying.

The court has overstepped their authority and is attempting to write legislation to implement their wrongheaded decision. The Murkowski administration has not stood up to the court and has called the legislature to Juneau to rubber stamp the “bill” written by the court. Enough is enough!!

We must contact our legislators and let them know what we want:

Please vote NO to granting marriage benefits to homosexual couples. Please stand up to the court and Governor Murkowski and do not vote to undermine our constitutional protection of marriage.

Please call YOUR legislators and any others you have a good relationship with. Be sure to identify yourself as a constituent to your legislator. The contact information is below. Time is critical, please call ASAP.

Working for the family,

Debbie Joslin
President, Eagle Forum Alaska

To subscribe/unsubscribe to this alert, email joslin@wildak.net

Representative_Tom_Anderson@legis.state.ak.us 800 465 4939
Representative_Ethan_Berkowitz@legis.state.ak.us 8884654919
Senator_Con_Bunde@legis.state.ak.us 800 892 4843
Representative_Mike_Chenault@legis.state.ak.us 800 469 3779
Representative_Sharon_Cissna@legis.state.ak.us 800 922 3875
Representative_John_Coghill@legis.state.ak.us 877 465 3719
Senator_John_Cowdery@legis.state.ak.us 888 269 3879
Representative_Harry_Crawford@legis.state.ak.us 888 478 3438
Representative_Eric_Croft@legis.state.ak.us 800 689 4998
Representative_Nancy_Dahlstrom@legis.state.ak.us 877 460 3783
Senator_Bettye_Davis@legis.state.ak.us 800 770 3822
Senator_Fred_Dyson@legis.state.ak.us 800 342 2199
Representative_Jim_Elkins@legis.state.ak.us 800 303 2455
Senator_Johnny_Ellis@legis.state.ak.us 888 330 3704
Senator_Kim_Elton@legis.state.ak.us 907 465 4947
Representative_Richard_Foster@legis.state.ak.us 800 478 3789
Senator_Hollis_French@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 3892
Representative_Les_Gara@legis.state.ak.us 888 465 2647
Representative_Berta_Gardner@legis.state.ak.us 800 331 4930
Representative_Carl_Gatto@legis.state.ak.us 800 565 3743
Senator_Lyda_Green@legis.state.ak.us 877 465 6601
Representative_Max_Gruenberg@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4940
Senator_Gretchen_Guess@legis.state.ak.us 800 550 2435
Representative_David_Guttenberg@legis.state.ak.us 800 928 4457
Representative_John_Harris@legis.state.ak.us 888 465 4859
Representative_Mike_Hawker@legis.state.ak.us 800 478 4950
Senator_Lyman_Hoffman@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4453
Representative_Jim_Holm@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 3466
Senator_Charlie_Huggins@legis.state.ak.us 800 862 3878
Representative_Reggie_Joule@legis.state.ak.us 800 782 4833
Representative_Mary_Kapsner@legis.state.ak.us 800 323 4942
Representative_Mike_Kelly@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4976
Representative_Beth_Kerttula@legis.state.ak.us 907 465 4766
Representative_Vic_Kohring@legis.state.ak.us 800 468 2186 (district only)
Senator_Albert_Kookesh@legis.state.ak.us 888 288 3473
Representative_Pete_Kott@legis.state.ak.us 800 861 5688
Representative_Gabrielle_Ledoux@legis.state.ak.us 800 865 2487
Representative_Bob_Lynn@legis.state.ak.us 800 870 4931
Representative_Lesil_Mcguire@legis.state.ak.us 800 365 2995
Representative_Kevin_Meyer@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4945
Representative_Carl_Moses@legis.state.ak.us 800 898 4451
Representative_Mark_Neuman@legis.state.ak.us 800 505 2678
Senator_Donny_Olson@legis.state.ak.us 800 597 3707
Representative_Kurt_Olson@legis.state.ak.us 800 463 2693
Representative_Jay_Ramras@legis.state.ak.us 877 465 3004
Representative_Norman_Rokeberg@legis.state.ak.us 800 773 4968 (district only)
Representative_Woodie_Salmon@legis.state.ak.us 800 491 4527
Representative_Ralph_Samuels@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 2095
Representative_Paul_Seaton@legis.state.ak.us 800 665 2689
Senator_Ralph_Seekins@legis.state.ak.us 800 336 7383
Senator_Bert_Stedman@legis.state.ak.us 877 463 3873
Senator_Ben_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4993
Senator_Gary_Stevens@legis.state.ak.us 800 821 4925
Representative_Bill_Stoltze@legis.state.ak.us 866 465 4958
Senator_Gene_Therriault@legis.state.ak.us 800 860 4797
Representative_Bill_Thomas@legis.state.ak.us 888 461 3732
Senator_Thomas_Wagoner@legis.state.ak.us 800 964 5733
Representative_Bruce_Weyhrauch@legis.state.ak.us 800 968 6744
Senator_Gary_Wilken@legis.state.ak.us 907 465 3709
Representative_Peggy_Wilson@legis.state.ak.us 800 686 3824