Corruption probes still on the burner : comments

Posted by admin

Posted: February 21, 2008 - 6:12 am

Return to Corruption probes still on the burner

login or register to post comments

21 February 25, 2008 - 6:59pm | adventure

Without the feds our sad little state department of justice would still be at the fishing lodge with Ted, Don, Bill and Steve! Alaska citizens have no representation without the Feds!

20 February 25, 2008 - 6:15pm | adventure

The good ol boys can run but its hard to hide

The truth is coming. Good ol boys finally lose for once in Alaska. The residents have just started voting the crooks out. Can't wait to participate in the continuing eviction of the most overtly corrupt legislature in Alaska's history!

19 February 22, 2008 - 7:39pm | este

Accountability

Here's an idea. Since our employers can read our emails sent through their systems, and since our politicians work for us, how about if we get the chance to look at the emails to/from our elected representatives? And while we're at it, their spreadsheets and meeting notes. Maybe they do all this just because they can.

February 23, 2008 - 12:50pm | darkdakota

Will never Happen in Post 9/11 Police State

This is a great idea este but since 9/11 the official message shouted from the roof tops like a call to prayer is that the world has changed since 9/11 and we must tolerate un-Constitutional laws such as the Patriot Act. President Bush is claiming even now that we are less secure because the Democrats won't give big business a pass by making telecomms immune from lawsuits for illegal wiretapping. He held up the Defense budget because he wanted the Iraqi government to have immunity. He has tried to water down the Freedom of Information Act and even used a Replublican National Committee server to get around post Clinton Whitehouse email archiving laws.

Our own delegation here in Alaska is not pro Freedom of Information Act inclined as it is. When my fiance' received a bill for $550.50 from Ft Richardson for about 50 pages of information on himself that should have been free under the Privacy Act and did not include specifically requested documents he wrote to complain to all three of our representatives. Ted Stevens and Don Young's office wrote back and played interferrence for the Army. Even gave us a letter sent to Don Young from the US Army IG at the Pentagon referring to the IG complaint done at Ft Rich as "fraudulent", promised to look into why it was fraudulent and then dropped the ball.

Lisa Murkowski ignored letters of request for assistance sent to her by USPS certified mail....until we made that fact public. Almost two years after sending the request we got a verbatim letter from her that Uncle Ted sent us saying the original must have been lost in the mail. Okay Lisa, we understand.

Our government is going in the opposite direction. Try to get the phone business numbers of government officials to hold them accountable. More and more everyday are being removed from the public rosters in order to insulate them from the little people that pay their salaries. All in the name of "security". A new and dangerous terrorist filled world that bureaucrats, politicians, and law enforcement officials imagine at every turn.

I was in New York on 9/11 about 20 miles east of the WTC. I knew a few people that died in the towers. The only thing that changed that day was that the incompetence of the intelligence agencies could no longer be ignored. That was the second time militant Muslims tried to bring down the towers. They have been in New York itself for years. Growing both in numbers and their open hostility to our way of life. The day they caught Saddam I went into a 7-11 in Medford on Long Island. There were a half dozen sad faces. Pakistani, Egyption, a few others. I asked the American owner why and she said they were upset over Saddam being caught. I said rather loudly that someone should call Homeland Security and find out who these men were. Then I tried. I was told by the FBI I was being racist. They weren't interested in going out and asking these specific individuals why THEY were rooting for the otherside. Just why I was concerned. Go to the local FBI building here and you pass through metal detectors, show picture ID and then get to talk to the agent on duty thru bullet proof glass. I am sure the agents need their safety net. Maybe testosterone shots as well.

I hate to break it to them but all the Patriot Acts, secret supper dooper listening Acts, and safety glass won't stop the next terrorist hit on us. Until we shed our PC ways and bring common sense and HONEST, OPEN government FOR THE PEOPLE back we will be vulnerable. Look how Don Yound had a temper tantrum and cancelled a press conference because Richard Mauer insisted on standing up for OUR right to a free press. Kudo's Mr. Mauer and ADN. The little elected minions are regulary trying to figure out how to keep a forum such as this comments page from being free from government interferrence...you guessed it...for security.

G to G might be right in a perverse way. Until we have the guts to stand up and say we have had enough and vote in honest politicians that will clean house of this cesspool of elected politicians, appointed paperpushers, and police state LEO's, do we really deserve God's divine protection?

Read the Constitution, then think about the government we have now. Thomas Jefferson must be so glad he invented the dumb waiter to bring wine from his basement wine cellar to his bedroom before 9/11 and the war on drugs and the Patriot Act. Today I am sure it would be classified as drug paraphenalia, ATF would confiscate Monticello, Fox News would play the tape showing hundreds of agents in jackets with letters across their backs and police in riot gear doing the raid and Michael Chertoff would hold a press conference telling us how a dangerous man was stopped by an alphabet agencies due diligence. All the revelant documents telling the public the truth would be classified and hidden away for hundreds of years in the name of security and a brilliant, freedom loving man would have a felony record and probably spend the rest of his life in jail.

18 February 22, 2008 - 12:43pm | AlitakKid

In the words...

...of the great John Cougar Mellencamp:

"AND THE WALLS COME TUMBLING DOWN!"

If all these people keep refusing to comment, maybe you can try a little "Waterboarding".

After all "W" and "Dick" say it's okay under the proper circumstances.....

17 February 21, 2008 - 12:21pm | sargentpecker

stepping down

if uncle ted and fast donne were smart they would pull out of the race . if either or both of them win they will get indicted soon afterward to get them out of office. big daddy bill signed his name on the line and agreed to fully cooperate with the feds and they are going to use him thats why he is not in jail yet. these guys have been there too long and have abused their power. feds want them out and they are going one way or another. if both of them pulled out of the race tommorow, billy big will be playing cards with tommy and peteee by the end of next week.....

February 21, 2008 - 2:08pm | este

Yes!

Exactly. And if they did the right thing by resigning, we could all give them a healthy pat on the back for their years of service, then they can fight their indictments on their own time and on their own dime. That's all I want. It is shameful for them to take donation funds and divert them for personal legal bills. It is fraud, pure and simple. And they are preoccupied with fighting their defense so they are not much good for representing us. So my hope is that Young and Stevens would resign now, so we can get replacements in office and prepared for the election.

February 21, 2008 - 3:34pm | Glory_to_God

A measure of faith.

King David and Uriah were very much alike in that they respected authority. Please stand with your leaders until their authority is passed to another.

February 22, 2008 - 12:32pm | AlitakKid

Marx was right

Karl Marx said, "Religion is the opiate of the masses."

How right he was; and G to G - you been smoking way too much of it. Maybe you should think about cutting back a little?

16 February 21, 2008 - 11:56am | Diogenes_lamp

Nobody...

can make republicans look worse than republicans. Here come the party apologists!
There is a big difference Larro..there were no witches during the witch hunts. There is a target rich environment when it comes to corrupt politicians, especially within the Alaska republican party. Proof is in the pudding and in the courts and jails.

15 February 21, 2008 - 11:22am | ak_big_air

Election year

The ADN needs to publish as many articles they can that will make Republicans look bad. I guess they hope that will help out their democrat friends.

14 February 21, 2008 - 10:52am | aklarro

ADN still headlining

Well, corruption and "witch" hunting stories sell newspapers to the sheep.

You would think ADN could come up with something more interesting to write about...but then again it's the "bottom line" thinking at work.

What a company will do to make a few extra dollars.

Definitely shows a lack of journalistic breadth.

February 21, 2008 - 11:57am | TrayC1968

Yeah

The Anchorage Daily News doesn't need to report on corruption of our politicians. The people might find out and that just screws EVERYTHING up. They should know their role and shut their hole!

February 21, 2008 - 12:16pm | Diogenes_lamp

No lack of denial..

within the red Kool-Aid drinking republican party these days. If they keep their heads in the sand, it just opens their asses up for a good kicking.

13 February 21, 2008 - 10:50am | este

Murkowski seems honest

I don't see Senator Murkowski as being part of any of this. She backed out her profits from that real estate deal after she figured out it looked bad, but we all would have jumped at a deal like that. I have never seen any reason to believe she is anything other than hard-working and honest.

February 26, 2008 - 9:49am | onemanfromalaska

Don't look stupid,stupid

Don't ever cower to people on these blogs. Murkowski is the keeper of the gate that separates what is good and bad in her Dads Coffers. Alaska has been corrupt for many years, she is in place to make sure all this stays where it is. She is no better than her old man, Ted, or Dung Young. Ben, being an arrogant punk, failed to do so for his fathers relief. Why do you think someone as FEEBLE AND NARROW as Ted would be running. Don't think for a minute she didn't know what she was doing. This state is getting ready to party, don't find yourself on the wrong side holding a sign for corruption. I am a republican, so don't call this a witch hunt, call it a patriotic stand.

February 21, 2008 - 2:03pm | este

No, not related to the senator

I read each reply carefully, and I can indeed admit when I am wrong. You all made good points, and I am going to watch more closely. I still don't think she is involved in the VECO mess, nor any overt bribery. I understand the one point that the sweetheart deal wasn't offered to me or anyone I know, too. But I did see that she ultimately did the right thing, and gave back the profits. As for the nepotism thing, I didn't like how that happened, but I don't blame her for that. She simply saw the opportunity to serve Alaska in the larger arena and took it, like any politician would. Frank, on the other hand, took quite a cred hit on that one. Although it beats the alternative we were speculating on at the time... namely, that Benny would be the one picked. Gads, would that have been a disaster. Anyway, I appreciate the replies. This is a great forum for these discussions!

February 22, 2008 - 12:49am | schneidler

good attitude este

Hey, way to have some humility este, a rare gift around here. I'm with you, I think she is pretty good, especially compared to her peers! By the way, I WISH I was related to the Murks. Ol' Frank is a millionaire, right? No wonder he hated the idea of an income tax so much! : - ) I remember when that "Conference of Alaskans" was nearing a conclusion that an income tax was the most fair way to raise revenue (back when oil was not so high), followed by a raid on the PFD, followed by a sales tax. Frank wanted the reverse. Somehow on the last day of that conference everything got watered down and no strong statement came out one way or the other. It was interesting stuff though, I still have it all on tape...

February 21, 2008 - 1:46pm | AKN49

Are you serious?

Do you think she is so stupid that she could not see a deal that was too good to be true? She knew they would lean on her for something in return. She did not give up the deal when "she figured out it looked bad." She got caught! I was stupid and found the error in my ways and finally did not vote for this Republican. I learned from my mistakes with frank (doesn't deserve a capital letter.....at least not in his name, but maybe in other words that describe him), ben, ted, etc. Maybe not all republicans that are in office are corrupt, but these guys have done a number to the party.

How are you related to lisa? You know, it is ok to admit you were wrong.

February 21, 2008 - 12:51pm | geefour907

Dont look much

You mention a shady deal she did and pulled out of after public uproar. She also is the willing recipient/participant in the worst case of nepotism in the history of the USA. Besides that I agree, she is as clean as can be.

February 21, 2008 - 12:07pm | paperman

We all would take the deal...that is the point

That is exactly the point. Anyone in their right mind would have bought prime real estate on the Kenai River for below appraised value. BUT the only person given the opportunity was (and still is) in a position to inappropriately benefit the person making the offer to sell.
That is the problem. While I agree that our most ethical federal representative is Sen. Murkowski, she disappointed me with this decision to take this sweethart deal. Remember how Hillary got raked over the coals for investing in cattle futures? There was no inside information or anything inappropriate...other than being offered a deal that wasn't available to you or me.
We need to get rid of the 'culture' of corruption. This means our elected representatives need to think about how their behavior 'LOOKS' to us ordinary citizens rather than being more concerned what is a grey area of the law or other regulations. Just because you followed the letter of the law doesn't mean that you are following the INTENT of the law and won't be subject to the judgement of the citizenry of what is ETHICAL vs what is LEGAL
By the way...does anyone know of below market priced land on the kenai or cattle futures for sale :)

February 22, 2008 - 12:37pm | AlitakKid

I Concur

I couldn't agree more. "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it must be one."

And since the comment was removed from this blog yesterday, I'll say it again: Rumor is that when Ben Steven's legislative aide went to China a few years ago, Ocean Beauty paid for her trip.

ADN: Is there a specific reason why such a comment would be removed?

February 21, 2008 - 12:18pm | Diogenes_lamp

Yes and...

Even a skunk seems cute until you get a close enough look!

12 February 21, 2008 - 9:49am | Ralph_Knik

I can't wait

I can't wait until arrogant uncle Stevens, little Ben, aunt Murkowski, arrogant oil Murkowski, pig roast Young, Cowdery, CIRI and numerous others are indicted. This is but the tip of the corruption that is the standard SOP in the "government." They all claim to be innocent - you bet. It is amazing that the FBI is actually still actively working on this, but I will wait with baited breath as the FBI is investigating the great white sharks and not the minnows that have been convicted.

11 February 21, 2008 - 9:15am | northwestclam

You're my hero

fsmith - indeed, you are a righteous man

10 February 21, 2008 - 9:04am | fsmith

Here's your explanation...

The career professionals who brought all these cases and who continue to do so are from the FBI's Office of Public Integrity. They are doggedly determined and seem to be incorruptible. They are protected by civil service and whistleblower rules.

This investigation began at least as long ago as 2004 when Frank Prewitt began ratting on his friends. John Ashcroft was still in office then. As ideologically driven as he was, we must remember that he refused for reasons of integrity, when he might have been on his deathbed, to go along with spying on Americans in violation of the Constitution and FISA. When he resigned, in early 2005, the investigation must have been well underway.

Alberto Gonzales got rid of nine U.S. Attorneys around the country, all Republican political appointees, but he couldn't get rid of all of them who were unwilling to compromise their principles and professionalism.

February 21, 2008 - 9:08pm | darkdakota

Don't Forget our own Patriot Act US Attorney Nelson Cohen

Though he doesn't like to admit it, he eventually came clean once I got him on the phone that he is indeed a Patriot Act US Attorney. If you read his appointment press release (Corporate Crime Reporter has a PDF copy posted) the Bush Administration went to some length to obscure that fact. Even giving a lame explaination as to why Deborah Smith couldn't stay in the job. She could have but they put Cohen in instead.

Remember those crocadile tears Uncle Ted gave about not wanting Cohen? Where was the whining when the Democrats corrected the Patriot Act and Chief Judge John Sedwick kept him in last October as Still Patriot Act US Attorney until Bush nominates him and the US Senate confirms him? Sedwick's clerk refused to answer if he had nominated Cohen but Cohen's secretary finally admitted he was appointed by Sedwick. Amazingly Nelson Cohen's office forgot to issue a press release on that fact. Funny, he releases one for everything else.

According to Thomas Locator and the US Senate Democrat Judiciary Committee Bush is dragging his feet on nominating the Patriot Act US Attorney's despite promises before Congress by both Alberto Gonzales and Mukasey to get confirmed US Attorney's in place as soon as possible. By some accounts there are fourteen.

9 February 21, 2008 - 8:55am | fsmith

Cowdery's comeuppance?

Having watched Cowdery falsely testify in committee to please corporate bagmen, I can't wait until he's sitting in the dock.

Writer #2 "expects" Democrats to be corrupt. In all these investigations and trials, only two Democrats were involved. One was effectively exonerated when he refused the offered bribe. The other, not an elected official, is the only one of all those who pled guilty or were convicted who seemed truly contrite. This is a near-100% Republican scandal. If anything, it points to the gullibility of Republican voters who keep reelecting these clowns to office. Those "Christians" who returned Kohring to Juneau are the absolute worst.

February 21, 2008 - 11:13am | aklarro

"The preoccupation of our society to seek the Ultra Righteous Rd

remains alive and well.

The Democrats are followers, not "risk-takers" is why they have not been caught YET..which plays out in their ineffectiveness in the Legislature.

Sort of like the "pointman" in the military on a mission...he is the one knocked off first by the enemy. The followers, hidden in the shadows behind him are protected by the pointman's exposure and are able to escape although "all" were on the same mission.

February 21, 2008 - 12:24pm | Diogenes_lamp

I get it now...

Adam was a democrat and Eve was a republican. She took the risk, he didn't. And republicans have been biting the forbidden fruit ever since.
Oooops, shouldn't keep eating those apples! Republicans must be listening to too many snakes...

8 February 21, 2008 - 8:51am | ricknro

G to G

Message to the bible quoting "Glory to God" poster:

I know it's fun to live in an imaginary world where you interpret every bible quote as vindication of your politcal views. I hate to puncture the floating cloud that you're riding on but, Jesus was, still is and always will be a flaming liberal.

February 21, 2008 - 9:56am | rainorshine

Thank you!

Too many christians are just waiting for any excuse to start preaching. They may as well quote from something that makes more sense and is written well. Like maybe "The Adventures of Pippi Longstocking"

February 21, 2008 - 9:41am | este

Jesus was, still is, and always will be!

Glory be to God, our Savior, that is the truth, and from the mouth of a babe. The "flaming liberal" part doesn't make any sense, since He never imposed any taxes on anyone. But you captured the essential truth: He was, still is, and always will be!

February 21, 2008 - 4:03pm | schneidler

jesus, taxes, and liberalism

He was the friend of tax collectors (Matthew, Zaccheus, others) and while he encouraged them to repay those they had overtaxed, his teaching was that a fair tax was ok. Remember him saying "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?" The coins had Caesar's face on them. It seems he didn't have a big problem with taxes. He did have a problem with the practice, common at that time, of skimming off the top that the tax collectors did with the help of roman centurion muscle. Which is why Zaccheus offered to repay those he had cheated by paying back 4 times the amount, as well as giving half of his posessions to the poor. My my, what about personal responsibility? Those poor people must have done something to deserve their station in life and don't deserve our charity do they? Even the old testament echoes God's value for caring for the poor: "to care for the widow and orphan, true religion is this..."

He also taught the jews to love the samaritans, a race they hated, people they considered half-breeds and false believers. The "love your neighbor as yourself" parable's main character is a wounded samaritan. Folks, that is a liberal message.

What else is there? His reputation was that of a man who hung out with notorious sinners including multiple prostitutes, in addition to tax collectors and a whole band of largely illiterate followers from the working class. Being homeless himself during his ministry, he obviously had sympathy for that group, which is very much a liberal characteristic. He had no patience for poor leadership and the abuse of power, frequently rebuking the leaders of the church (the political power at that time) for their hypocrisy and lack of love and leadership. He obviously grew increasingly unwelcome in the presence of church leadership, and was seen as a dangerous rebel and rabble rouser (sound like a conservative to you?) to the point they had him arrested at night and crucified at the Roman's hands (cowards!).

Now as a Christian, I think Jesus would obviously not support some hot-button issues like abortion, so its not like he would fall on the left of every issue. But he was not born in the manger wrapped in the american flag next to the GOP elephant! Especially not Alaska's Republican party in its current & former sad state of affairs. Bottom line, Jesus is way, way, way above politics people. When you try and quote scripture or God's name to support your political agenda, I think you are on very very thin ice and you will have to answer for it. Jesus came to "seek and save the lost," and it is interesting that he chose to do this by appealing to our hearts, not through passing legislation that would bind people to certain behavior. I think that whatever your political persuasion, if you're a Christian (trying to follow Christ), you would do well to model that behavior. Hearts are not won through compulsion, but through love. Forgive me if I've said anything I shouldn't have here, I just had to respond. I've been repulsed by many postings I've seen here that quote scripture and they seem to be politically motivated and show none of the character of Christ.

February 21, 2008 - 10:07pm | Glory_to_God

Your statement has so many hole in it that I don't know where to

start.

1. Jesus never said that fair tax was okay. He was only saying to obey the laws of the land. Tithes and offering are required by God and apparently man just copied that concept.

2. Where do you come up with the fact that socialist give more to the poor then capitalist.

3. You make it sound like capitalist can't love their neighbor as themselves. And that only the government can do that for you?

4. The Jews accepted full responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus, so you can't blame the Romans.

5. There are just to many holes here to mention them all.

February 22, 2008 - 4:06am | richardhoneman

Discussion

Schneidler, I think I love you! Barbara Honeman

February 21, 2008 - 10:48pm | schneidler

discussion

Are you really interested in dialogue in the pursuit of truth? You are so critical of what I wrote. If you want to have a sincere conversation, you can email me at Schneidler@yahoo.com or we can go back and forth here.

I'll try and answer your points.

#1 - Obviously there are multiple ways to interpret his statement about rendering to Caesar what is Caesars. He certainly was saying to obey the law of the land, you're right. He didn't say specifically "taxes are good" or "taxes are bad." I guess this is an example of people interpreting what they want. The pharisees wanted to trap him because they (and the people) were against the tax and against Caesar, so if he said they should pay the tax he loses face, but if he said to not pay the tax he gets arrested by the Romans. He asked whose likeness was on the coin and then said it. I love how Jesus was always turning the tables on those guys, making them look about as smart as Schwartz on Hogan's Heroes...

#2 - I don't believe I said anything about socialists. I'm confused. Liberals tend to favor policies that favor the poor more, things like raising the minimum wage, universal health care, more support for welfare, higher taxes on the rich and lower on the poor, etc. Conservatives argue that tax breaks for the rich help the poor indirectly because they allow the rich to invest more wealth which creates more jobs which results in less poor people. I can't actually see my statement while replying, only yours, so its a little confusing. But I'm darn sure I didn't mention socialism. Although did you know the early church held all of their money and possessions in common and bought land and food from the community purse? Sorry, off topic.

#3 - If I made it sound like that I should not have. Can you tell me which part made it sound that way? I live in a capitalist society, like it or not I'm a capitalist. Yet I still try and love my neighbor as myself, a monumental task. No, I don't think the government can love neighbors for me, that would be a silly idea. Interesting how the conversation is bending toward capitalism and socialism, two words I don't think I mentioned.

4. Did I blame the Romans? When I said cowards I was referring to the Jewish priests, particularly Caiaphas (spelling?) who had Jesus turned over to Pontius Pilate (Roman) and then Herod when Pilate wouldn't do anything, and then back to Pilate again. I called them cowards because they wanted Jesus' blood on someone else's hands because of his popularity with the people. I think you misunderstood me, or I wrote it wrong. I wasn't trying to blame the Romans.

5. You've mentioned 4 things, the last 3 of which I think were misunderstandings or something. If you read this and have the time and desire, what were the other "holes?"

February 22, 2008 - 4:31pm | Glory_to_God

My definitions may be different then yours.

My definitions:

A conservative is a religious capitalist.
A conservative liberal is a religious socialist.
A moderate changes positions and leans towards the majority.
A liberal conservative is a secular capitalist.
And a liberal is a secular socialist.

Myself, I like the politicians that lean toward the religious side. Even in God's eyes, the pharisee are of more value then those that make themselves equal to God.

Now that you know my political definitions, are you still interested in hearing about the other holes in your first statement.

February 23, 2008 - 4:53pm | schneidler

another response

Well, its probably just the two of us reading this now (or maybe just me). I am indeed still interested in further dialogue about the other holes in my first statement or anything else you want to talk about. As I said before you can email me at schneidler@yahoo.com if you want, or keep it going here.

I'm participating in this discussion because I believe you are doing much more harm than good with your posts. People read your posts, and mostly they just get angry or react with disgust--surely you've noticed this. People form opinions about God and the church based on the actions of individuals (which they shouldn't - we follow God alone, but they do it anyway). So it makes me wonder if there have been people who might have been open to God but because of reading stuff you've written have closed their hearts to Him, thinking they want nothing to do with it if it will make them think like you. I know that sounds harsh. I'm not saying it to score points with the crowd because noone else is reading this thread anymore. I honestly am only saying it because I think you need to hear it and it would be in your best interests and everyone else's to either stop posting or to post with a tone of humility and love as well as trying to speak truth. Jesus did indeed speak truth that angered others, but mostly to hypocrites in positions of power, not to the weak and poor and lowly. Those he mostly lifted up with encouragement ("has noone judged you? Then neither do I judge you. Go and sin no more.") To the powerful he delivered scathing criticism for things like legalism, greed, oppressing the poor, and having no love in their hearts, for being "whitewashed tombs," pretty on the outside but full of decay and death on the inside.

I hope I haven't made you too defensive to read with an open mind and heart. Regarding your most recent statement, you said: "Even in God's eyes, the pharisee are of more value then those that make themselves equal to God." Don't you believe that all human life is of equal value in God's eyes? If not, you might want to talk to your pastor or some other teacher you respect, because I think you're getting some wrong ideas.

Like you, I want to vote for the candidate most like Jesus. But just because someone says they're a Christian, or goes to church, or is a conservative republican that doesn't mean they're a Christian at all. I guess you have to really know someone well to make that judgement, to see the personal strengths and weaknesses, to see the "fruit" and to really know their heart. Ultimately, only God and that person can say for sure.

Finally, regarding your definitions. That does clear up why you thought I was talking about socialists and capitalists. I don't share your definitions at all, so that was the cause of some of the initial confusion. For example, I'm technically a religious capitalist, although I hate the word "religious" which sounds like I'm into the rules, traditions, and trappings of faith (external stuff) and not the heart of it (loving Jesus). And I have misgivings about capitalism because it seems founded on greed, but I certainly am one. I buy things at the store, I earn a paycheck, etc. But anyway, an objective person looking at my life would say I'm a religious capitalist. But how does that make me a conservative? I could still favor higher taxes and all kinds of stuff which go against the normal conservative platform.

Your 2nd and 4th definitions, conservative liberal and liberal conservative mean totally different things even though the 2 words are just reversed. I think you should go on wikipedia or something and learn some more about how others define those terms. Because its only going to lead to more confusion when you're always engaging people about these political issues.

I sincerely hope you can consider what I've said, especially about the whole issue of how we represent Christ to the world, and we have to think about what character are we showing? Humility or pride? Anger or peace? All those fruits of the spirit. Jesus has transformed my life and frees me from the power and curse of sin, and walking with him, worshiping him, is the greatest thing there is. That is my message to the world. That is the Gospel, that the God of the universe loves you and wants to be with you. So how can it be our job to quote scripture supporting our particular political view on a newspaper online forum? I believe it only pushes people further from the kingdom. Thanks for listening, I hope you have "ears to hear" it. I'm not mister perfect, I've got tons of sin in my own life and I still wrestle with every minute. I have to repent and give it to Jesus and try to move on, and I encourage you to do the same.

February 28, 2008 - 8:20am | mike28

Well said

Well said, schneidler. But I still don't think that glory_to_god understands.

February 25, 2008 - 10:06am | Glory_to_God

My comprehensive opinion.

With all due respect your comments from your first statement are cynical and consequently full of holes. (ie. wrapped in an American flag, GOP Elephant, and Alaska Republican party, just to name a few).

In my opinion Jesus was a conservative liberal or a religious socialist (ie. He was obviously religious and apparently a socialist. He had all of his followers share with one another when there was a need).

The following are my thoughts of your qoutes.

Your quote: "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?"
My answer: Obey the laws of the land.

"to care for the widow and orphan, true religion is this..."
It should be to visit them in their afflictions. They just need friendship.

"love your neighbor as yourself"
Your neighbor is someone that is in need not someone that is in want.

"seek and save the lost,"
Who are the lost? This one might be to complicated for you.

"has noone judged you? Then neither do I judge you. Go and sin no more."
Good one.

"whitewashed tombs,"
Do what they say, just don't do what they do. Because they say and do not.

Don't you believe that all human life is of equal value in God's eyes?
No, God says in His Word that secularist will be judged more severly.

"fruit"
Sorry, if what is in my heart doesn't appear to be fruit.

"ears to hear"
Not only a hearer of the Word, but also a doer.

February 21, 2008 - 9:04am | dlcarter

*lol*

"A Flaming Liberal" *LOL* .. I literally heard Glory to God gasp from reading that one in so total disbelief! haha

7 February 21, 2008 - 8:45am | rainguy

Somebody explain

how the Bush administration allowed this to happen. Didn't they protect way smaller fish down south by removing prosecutors? How could George W. allow an investigation to move towards Ted and Don and his buds in Big Oil?

6 February 21, 2008 - 8:40am | onemanfromalaska

Time is Essential

With Teds best friend "Uncle Chuck", running around buying up the fisheries, through council corruption, we must bring these thugs to justice soon. This means Bill Wolf(NO WHERE TO HIDE), Trevor McCabe, Brad Gilman, and of course Ben. The sales of crab shares should be stalled, considering the law shouldn;t allow this to happen. We don't care what the story these thugs have. We have enough evidence to put these guys in jail for good. Why the wait. Is this an order from the higher ups, to not embarrass Ted or Don. Our state has been sold out by these thugs, and we are all just suppose to stand by and lose every thing our fore fathers worked for. What happen to the guy that bribed Ben and Trevor to increase the value of his vessel and his shares he got. Oh, I forgot he is an advisor on the fisheries to Stevens. He paid 90000 bucks, these other guys went to jail for 600 bucks. The longer we wait the more these thugs clean our clock.

5 February 21, 2008 - 8:05am | rmaloy

CIRI

Hmmm...Let's see. From the AIC trial where it was found that CIRI shareholders were defrauded by Carl Marr's friend John Ellsworth. And, if I were an investigator I would explore why there were so many flights to Michigan. Especially, when CIRI had no business interests in Michigan. But....those kind of questions weren't addressed at the trial because of why???

4 February 21, 2008 - 7:48am | este

Don't worry about the clock

You can bet those who are running this investigation are well aware of what they are doing, and when. I only wish they would get on with taking down our congressman and senior senator so we can have a proper election this time. These old guys are too preoccupied with their own defense to represent us, and need to be removed from office. They're an embarrassment.

3 February 21, 2008 - 7:41am | huntfish

On statute of limitations, good point - I

wonder if a case already under investigation might not be subject to the same limitation. That would seem reasonable.

2 February 21, 2008 - 7:27am | Glory_to_God

When will the statute of limitations expire?

In my opinion it is a sin for the Republicans to be corrupt, but it is expected of Democrats. It must have something to do with God's laws versus man's laws. Reference: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Genesis 6:12)

February 21, 2008 - 7:29pm | AlitakKid

So the Rumor is True!

Republicans actually DO think they are better than everyone else. And here I thought it was just the money going to their heads.

So what happens when you can't find a Bible verse to deal with a situation?

February 21, 2008 - 12:08pm | Diogenes_lamp

you are...

really amazing...a perfect example of why there needs to be separation of church and state. When one party is deemed holier than thou, then we have set ourselves up for the fall.
God doesn't choose political affiliations. Jesus was not a conservative and you G2G are a nutcase.