Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Home Blog Page 2

Shroud Season

By Bob Bird

Well, it’s what we lecturers call “Shroud Season” again. There are men and women, amateurs like myself, professional touring caravans, authors and Biblical scholars with PhDs, giving talks throughout the U.S. and the world, on the greatest and most important relic in human history. They are interviewed on Tucker Carlson, podcasts of various formats and professional documentaries. They are not all Catholics, which is a fact of utmost importance. They are increasingly evangelicals, mainline Protestant scholars and even Mormons. They possess their own life-sized replicas. Wherever we go, audiences are floored. Speechless. Amazed. Grateful. Renewed.

Even before a power point and accompanying talk, people want to take pictures and stare at it. Many cannot make out the features until they get a little help, and then, like one of those “Seeing-Eye” paintings, the brain unscrambles the visual noise, and a succession of gasps are heard in the venue.

Last week I brought along a trusted companion and for five days we went from Whittier, to Valdez, then Glennallen, Palmer and finally to Anchorage. In all, about 250 people of all denominations saw and heard about the Shroud and its increasingly famous companion cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo. I’m not done, either. I will be at a Baptist venue in Kenai on Monday and St. Benedict’s parish in Anchorage on Thursday. You can call my radio show between 3-5 pm any weekday and ask questions and give comments, 907-283-5811.

This vastly important relic is taking the American culture by storm, and I would suggest that a YouTube search with the key words “Dr. Jeremiah Johnston Shroud” will conjure for you any number of his fine interviews. He is a Biblical researcher of highest reputation and impeccable credentials. Above all, he is a rollicking, humorous and joyous man, cracking playful jokes, especially when discussing his former days as a dedicated Shroud skeptic.

And speaking of skeptics, they have retreated into the intellectual attic, or like Johnston, are making a 180 degree confession of their ignorance and former blindness. The Carbon-14 dating of 1988, seemingly the “final word” of the Shroud being a medieval fraud, is now viewed as one of the greatest and most embarrassing mistakes in scientific history, matching the Piltdown Man hoax as something to be hopefully ignored or forgotten. 

The discipline of history alone shoots down the C-14 error. There is art history, numismatic (coins) history and various extant letters that prove the Shroud is much older than the 1390-1260 result, widely published and easily found online.

New dating techniques, unheard of even a decade ago, also posit the Shroud as 2,000 years old. Check out WAXS: Wide Angle X-Ray Scattering. They used a controlled sample of an unmistakenly authentic Masada cloth, reliably dated to 70 AD. With a tiny thread from the Shroud, the WAXS placed it as 2,000 years old as well.

And it is science, not theologians or Church apologists, who tell us that the mysterious body image of the Shroud cannot be replicated. The best explanations from earlier efforts are long gone. It certainly is not a painting, and not a hypothetical “vapor graph”, of which there is no known example in science. Nor is it a scorch, manufactured by heating a life-sized brass statue. 

The best explanation now is that it was some sort of nano-second flash of thermonuclear energy, largely outside of today’s known laws of physics. Among the sophisticated physicists from around the world, whose lectures I attended last summer in St. Louis, there is some disagreement, but only in minor details. Plasma? Lightning? Radioactivity? A nano-second or 1/40th of a nano-second? No matter. 

Bob Rucker, a nuclear physicist, said it best: scientists necessarily work inside the boundaries of the known laws of nature. When they encounter the supernatural, they are necessarily speechless, and that is where hubris might come into play. Acknowledging the phenomenon called a “miracle” would require humility. Their great knowledge and pride in what they have accomplished inside of their discipline, often gets in the way.

But not always. I saw this in St. Louis. Many of these incredibly learned men have come to the position of a child once again, trusting a loving God of overwhelming and incomprehensible power.

And for those who don’t need the Shroud? Well, Dr. Johnston has quite a Zinger. OK, you don’t need the Shroud. But John did, when he wrote in chapter 20 of his Gospel, upon arriving at the tomb on Easter Morning, when “He saw and believed.”

Make your own Shroud pilgrimage through the miracle of science on the internet. Be humble, and then — think for yourself. For in the end, that is how we all come to Faith.

Bob Bird is former chair of the Alaskan Independence Party and the host of a talk show on KSRM radio, Kenai.

Senate Grants Unorganized Borough Representation in Local Boundary Commission

0

On April 1, 2026, the Alaska State Senate unanimously passed SB 63, a bill which adds a sixth member to the Commission to represent the Unorganized Borough and extends the term limit to six years.

The Local Boundary Commission will now consist of one member from each judicial district, one member from the Unorganized Borough, and one state-appointed member. SB 63 also adds language to existing statute to ensure that “members from each judicial district maintain a principal place of abode and be registered to vote in a precinct in that district. The member from the Unorganized Borough must also reside principally and be registered to vote in a precinct in the Unorganized Borough.

The bill also allows the Commission to choose its Chair from among its members. Previously, the law mandated the Chair be the state-appointed member.

SB 63 is sponsored by Senator Mike Cronk (R-Tok/ Northway) and co-sponsored by Jesse Kiehl (D-Juneau) and George Rauscher (R-Sutton).

According to Senator Cronk, “This bill is rooted in the core principle that government should be built from the people up and not imposed from the State down.”

In a press release, the Senate Republicans stated that SB 63’s updates to the Local Boundary Commission’s rules and regulations “empower local communities and amplify Alaskan voices.”

Reflection: Canceled Debt 

Debt is the norm in America. Nearly every American household carries some kind of debt. As of December 2025, the average total debt (including credit card debt, car loans, student loans, mortgages, and other household debt) per household is $178,102. The sum total owed in the U.S. by consumers is a whopping $18.78 trillion.  

Adding to the weight of personal debt is the enormous national debt, which has risen to approximately $39 trillion. America’s federal debts grew $88,000 every second over the past year. 

We spend many hours of our lives stressing over our personal finances. Many of us spend time discussing the national debt, expressing our frustrations with its enormity, and seeking solutions. But this weekend is a time to put aside earthly concerns and instead think about a different kind of debt: our spiritual debt. 

In Luke 7:36-50, a woman pours out her love for Jesus by washing his feet with her tears and anointing them with expensive perfume. In response to a Pharisees’ judgement of the woman, Jesus asked, “A creditor had two debtors. One owed 500 denarii, and the other 50. Since they could not pay it back, he graciously forgave them both. So, which of them will love him more?” 

Simon, the Pharisee, answered that the one with the greater debt would love the creditor more. Jesus then said, “Therefore I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; that’s why she loved much. But the one who is forgiven little, loves little.” 

When we sin against God, we incur a debt that we can never pay. However, God sent His Son to die on a cross as payment for our sins and rise from the grave to grant eternal life to all who trust in Him. 

God’s loving forgiveness should prompt us to forgive those who sin against us. Thus, we pray, “Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.” 

In Matthew 18:21-35, Jesus tells a parable about a man whose debts are cancelled, but who then demands payment from a man who owes him. The man “owed him millions of dollars,” and because he could not pay, “his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt.” The man begged for patience in paying his debt and the master “was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.” 

However, the man whose millions of dollars of debt had been forgiven then went to a man who owed him a couple of thousands of dollars and demanded immediate payment. 

When the king heard about this, he had the man brought before him and said, “‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?”  

Then the king rescinded his forgiveness and sent the man to prison until he could pay his debt in full. According to Jesus, “That’s what my heavenly Father will do to you if you refuse to forgive your brothers and sisters from your heart.”  

Jesus speaks clearly: God is merciful, He is forgiving, but He is also just. God forgives our enormous debt, our spiritual debt that we could never repay even if we spent all eternity trying. But if we harden our hearts against others and refuse to forgive them, God will treat us how we treat our brethren. 

Our debt was not simply erased, but it was paid for with the precious blood of God’s own Son when He died on the cross, although He was perfect and blameless. 

Not only does God forgive our sins, but He invites us to become heirs to His Kingdom, to be adopted as sons and daughters.  

Good Friday reconciled the account. Easter restored the relationship. Because Christ died, our sins are forgiven when we call on His name. Because Christ rose from the grave, our orphaned hearts find home. 

Senate Passes SJR 2, Bill to Limit Governor’s Veto Power

Yesterday, March 31, 2026, the Alaska State Senate passed SJR 2, which lowers the veto override vote requirement from 3/4th of the Legislature to 2/3rd, specifically to override a governor’s veto of “bills to raise revenue and appropriation bills or items.”

The bill’s sponsor is Senator Matt Claman (D-Anchorage) who argues that the bill matches Alaska’s legislative power with that of the rest of the nation. Alaska has the highest voting requirement for overriding a veto on revenue or appropriations matters. Most states require a 2/3 vote from both legislative chambers to override a gubernatorial veto. A handful of states have even lower requirements.

The Senate Republicans, on the other hand, see the bill as an “attempt to tip the balance of power.”

Senate Minority Leader Mike Cronk (R – Tok / Northway) states: “The framers of our
Constitution saw the wisdom in giving the governor considerable power to reduce state spending. The fiscal override threshold is high for a reason.”

According to a press release from the Senate Republicans, “SJR 2 is a short-sighted and retaliatory push from the Democrat-lead Majority Caucus and is a transparent statement of their will to power.”

SJR 2 will now be considered in the House. If it passes the House, then voters will get the final decision this November.

HB 157 Analysis: Pro-Family Bill Protects Sibling Relationships in Adoption Cases 

1

Chances are you have not heard of House Bill 157. Although unfortunately underreported by Alaska’s news sources, HB 157 is a pro-family bill worthy of attention. 

HB 157 provides legal protection for sibling relationships when a child is being adopted out of the foster care system. The bill does two things: 1) it mandates adoption courts to consider whether post-adoption visitation with a sibling is in the best interest of the child being adopted and 2) amends existing adoption law to maintain a legal bond between siblings that can no longer be broken by adoption. 

Right now, when a child is adopted, the legal bonds between that child and his or her biological relatives are terminated. According to AS 25.23.130(a): “…the adopted person thereafter is a stranger to the former relatives for all purposes, including inheritance…” Current law applies this clause to “all legal relationships between the adopted person and the natural parents and other relatives of the adopted person.” HB 157 adds the phrase, “who are not siblings of the adopted person.” 

Because current law severs legal bonds between biological siblings when a child is adopted, adoptive parents may choose to deny their adopted child any connection with their biological siblings. However, HB 157 would require courts to consider whether post-adoption visitation rights are in the best interest of the child being adopted out of the foster care system. This would allow more children to maintain connection with their siblings.  

The bill’s Legislative Findings and Intent gives three reasons why HB 157 is important for adopted Alaskans who are adopted out of foster care: “The legislature finds that (1) the importance of a child’s relationship with the child’s siblings is well recognized in law and science; (2) the bonds between siblings are often irreplaceable; (3) a foster child typically has some degree of contact or visitation with the child’s siblings, even when the child and the child’s siblings do not reside together.” 

This both protects the child’s sibling bonds when beneficial for the child and also allows for situations when it would be better to sever those bonds. Each adoption case is unique. Each child is unique. HB 157 ensures an adopted child can stay connected to his or her siblings when it is in the child’s best interest. 

Arguments against HB 157 include concerns about parental rights and the bill’s definition of “sibling.” Some argue that adoptive parents should have full rights to decide who their adopted child associates with. Although some may argue that the provision of visitation rights with siblings encroaches on parental rights, the argument places adults’ desire for full control above children’s best interests. This bill protects the child by providing a legal right to maintain their relationships with their siblings when such relationships are not deemed harmful. These relationships are worth protecting with legal force, not simply left to the decision of the adoptive parents. The questions that need to be considered are: “What harm is done if a child gets visitation rights with his or her sibling?” and “What harm is done if an adoptive parent decides to sever the child’s sibling relationships?” The latter has a greater potential for harm.  

The second objection to the bill is its definition of “sibling.” HB 157 defines sibling as “a person who (1) is related to an individual by blood, adoption, or marriage as a child of one or both parents; or (2) was raised together with an individual for a period of time in the same household and in the same manner that children who are related by blood, adoption, or marriage might be.” The second part of the definition is perhaps problematic. It allows for a legal bond between a child and another individual who is not related by blood to the child but has been raised with that child in the same household. This expansive definition raises concerns for some. 

Proponents argue that this ensures children being adopted out of the foster care system can maintain bonds with their foster-care “siblings.” Many children in foster homes develop close bonds with the other children in the home and often consider those children as siblings. The bill reflects this reality. 

HB 157 was introduced by Representative Andrew Gray (D-Anchorage) and is co-sponsored by Representatives Robyn Niayuq Frier (D-Utqiagvik) and Mia Costello (R-Anchorage).  

Whether a Democrat or Republican introduced the bill matters little, if at all, to the children HB 157 will impact. Sibling relationships are hugely important, life-long blessings for many individuals. HB 157 is a win for Alaskans with pro-family values. 

Anchorage Vote Centers Open Now!

0

Calling all Anchorage residents! It is time to get out and do your civic duty. Election day for the Anchorage Assembly and School Board is in one week! Anchorage Vote Centers are now open for in-person voting, lost or damaged ballot replacement, mailed ballot drop-off, and voter assistance services.

There are three voting centers available: at Anchorage City Hall, Loussac Library, and Eagle River Town Center. Voting centers are open 9am-6pm weekdays, 12pm-4pm on Saturday, and 7am-8pm on Election Day, April 7.

Pick a time, pick a location, and go vote!

Not sure who to vote for yet? Check out these articles:

Opinion: Three Ways to Lower Alaska’s Alarmingly High Healthcare Costs

1

By Zack Gottshall

Healthcare costs are soaring across the United States and they are especially punishing in Alaska. Healthcare services in Alaska’s largest cities cost roughly 50% more than in other major U.S. metros, and our state ranks second nationally in per-capita health spending, despite ranking far lower in per-capita income. That mismatch helps explain why more than a quarter of Alaskans say they are worried about affording care in the coming year.

Prescription drugs are a major part of that burden, particularly for rural Alaskans who already face limited pharmacy access, higher transportation costs, and fewer alternatives when prices rise.

Fortunately, Congress has several opportunities in 2026 to reduce drug costs for Alaskans, but only if lawmakers focus on reforms that lower
prices without undermining access or innovation.

One clear place to start is the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which Congress created more than three decades ago to help low-income and rural hospitals stretch scarce resources. Lawmakers originally expected the program to be small, serving a limited number of safety-net providers that would use drug discounts to expand charity care.

But Congress never required hospitals to pass those discounts on to patients, nor did it establish strong guardrails around eligibility.
Over time, large and financially strong hospital systems have entered the program and exploited those gaps. Today, more than 2,600 hospitals participate, and many routinely purchase deeply discounted drugs through 340B only to resell them to insured patients at full price, sometimes marking them up several times over.

The scale of the problem is enormous. According to the Congressional Budget Office, spending through the 340B program grew nearly 20% per year between 2010 and 2021, rising from $6.6 billion to $43.9 billion. That growth has only accelerated. In 2024 alone, hospitals and other covered entities purchased more than $81 billion in drugs through the program.

For Alaskans, this misuse of 340B translates directly into higher insurance premiums and higher out-of-pocket costs, even when drugs are acquired at steep discounts. Congress could deliver immediate relief by tightening eligibility rules, increasing transparency, and ensuring that 340B discounts actually reach patients, rather than being absorbed by hospital systems.

Another major driver of high drug prices is the growing power of pharmacy benefit managers, the middlemen that manage prescription drug benefits on behalf of insurers. Today, the top three PBMs control more than 80% of the market, giving them enormous influence over which drugs are covered and what patients pay.

PBMs often profit when prices are high, since their compensation is frequently tied to rebates and fees based on a drug’s list price. That
creates incentives to steer patients toward more expensive medicines, even when cheaper, equally effective alternatives exist. The result is
higher copays, higher premiums, and fewer real choices for patients, particularly in states like Alaska where pharmacy competition is
limited.

Congress has taken initial steps toward transparency, but lawmakers could go further by delinking PBM compensation from drug prices, removing the incentive to favor higher-cost drugs and allowing market competition to work in patients’ favor.

At the same time, Congress must be careful not to pursue policies that would ultimately make the problem worse, especially proposals that
import foreign price controls into U.S. law.

The United States develops most of the world’s new medicines, while many foreign governments use price controls to force manufacturers to sell those drugs at artificially low prices. The cost of that innovation is then shifted onto American patients, including Alaskans, who pay more to subsidize patients in other wealthy countries.

President Trump has made ending this imbalance a priority by pressing trading partners to pay more market-based prices for medicines. When other countries contribute more fairly, drugmakers gain flexibility to reduce prices in the U.S. without cutting back on research, development, or access. That matters enormously for Alaska, where reduced investment or fewer drug launches would hit rural and remote communities first.

Congress should support those efforts, not undermine them by tying U.S. drug prices to the lowest prices set by foreign governments. Doing so would hand pricing authority to foreign bureaucrats who know nothing about Alaska’s geography, healthcare challenges, or patient needs. It would also weaken the United States’ ability to push other countries to pay their fair share, locking Alaskans into a system that discourages innovation and risks limiting access.

Alaskans are right to be concerned about healthcare affordability. Congress can deliver real relief by cracking down on hospital and middleman practices that inflate drug prices and by rejecting foreign price controls that would shift costs and risks onto American patients.

If lawmakers stay focused on patient-centered reforms that reflect Alaska’s unique realities, families across the state can see meaningful progress in 2026. And Alaskans should urge their federal delegation to pursue solutions that lower costs without sacrificing access, innovation, or local control.

Zack Gottshall is a retired U.S. Army Intelligence Officer, a Commissioner on the Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, Vice President of the Taku/Campbell Community Council, and a small business owner in Anchorage.

Opinion: CSSB 64 Makes It Easy to Vote, Hard to Cheat

4

By State Representative Sarah Vance

For nearly a decade, election policy in Alaska has been defined more by debate than results. Over the past ten years, the Legislature has introduced 164 election-related bills and more than 40 resolutions, yet only three measures became law, and none significantly changed how Alaska conducts elections.

For Alaskans, that record has meant years of arguments without meaningful progress. Meanwhile, voters across the political spectrum want something simple: elections that are secure, transparent, and worthy of their trust. That is why the Legislature should pass the bipartisan committee substitute for Senate Bill 64.

For the past eight years, I have been directly involved in election policy discussions in the Legislature. I have introduced and supported efforts to strengthen voter confidence and improve transparency. In the 33rd Legislature, my bill to clean voter rolls and increase election data security passed the House but stalled due to partisan gridlock. That experience showed that while people may disagree on details, Alaskans widely support practical steps to improve election integrity.

CSSB 64 continues that work. It builds on efforts by former Senator Mike Shower and former Representative Chris Tuck, and more recently, Senator Bill Wielechowski and I have worked together to find common ground. While we often approach issues from different perspectives, we recognized that Alaska needed progress more than another stalemate.

Instead of more competing proposals, we focused on areas of agreement. The result is a practical bill built around a principle most Alaskans support: elections should be easy to vote and hard to cheat.

1. Accurate and Secure Voter Rolls
Accurate voter rolls are fundamental to election integrity. Alaska’s rolls may currently be overinflated by as much as 118 percent, meaning registered voters far exceed eligible residents. CSSB 64 strengthens procedures to remove voters who have moved or are no longer eligible, cross-references multiple databases, and conducts an annual independent audit.

2. Strong Data Security and Election Integrity
Elections depend on protecting sensitive information. In 2020, 113,000 Alaskans, roughly 18 percent of registered voters, had their personal data breached. CSSB 64 addresses these risks with stronger cybersecurity protections, secure information sharing, and expanded types of election crimes. The bill also requires timely notification of breaches, giving voters confidence that their data is secure and helping ensure election systems remain resistant to tampering.

3. Ballot Tracking and Ballot Curing
Many Alaskans vote absentee, particularly in rural areas or while traveling. CSSB 64 establishes a secure online ballot-tracking system with multi-factor authentication, allowing voters to see when their ballot is sent, received, and counted.

The ballot curing provision is narrowly focused: only minor envelope issues, such as a missing signature or incomplete information, can be corrected. The ballot itself cannot be changed, ensuring the process is fair and secure and protecting every vote. Voters are promptly notified of any envelope issues and can correct them so legitimate ballots are counted.

4. Improving Rural Voting Access
Alaska’s geography makes elections uniquely challenging. Past elections in rural areas have faced issues such as polling places not opening on Election Day, incorrect ballots being sent, and delayed results. CSSB 64 establishes a state-employed rural community liaison to coordinate with tribes and municipalities, ensure polling places are staffed, and expand early absentee voting. It also recognizes federally recognized tribal ID as valid voter identification, helping eligible voters participate.

5. Timely and Transparent Election Results
CSSB 64 requires daily publication of unofficial totals and clear reporting of precincts and ballot types counted. Transparency strengthens public confidence and helps voters understand the tabulation process.

6. Fair and Accurate Presidential Write-In Voting
This bill also enhances ballot clarity by providing space for official presidential write-in candidates, filling a gap where qualified candidates might otherwise be left off the ballot. This guarantees voters a clear and consistent method to cast write-in votes for President and Vice President, boosting both accuracy and voter confidence in the process.

Together, these reforms strengthen how Alaska conducts elections while preserving the accessibility Alaskans value. At a time when public trust in elections has become a national challenge, Alaska can show that thoughtful, bipartisan improvements are possible. CSSB 64 demonstrates that lawmakers with different perspectives can address real concerns and strengthen confidence in elections.

After years of debate and dozens of proposals that never became law, the Legislature now has the opportunity to make meaningful progress. Passing CSSB 64 will improve election integrity, protect voter data, enhance transparency, and ensure every eligible voter can participate with confidence. Most importantly, it will help keep Alaska’s elections what they should always be: easy to vote and hard to cheat.

Opinion: Who to Believe, Donald Trump or Joe Kent?

By Greg Sarber


On March 17, Joe Kent resigned his position as the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), saying, “Iran posed no imminent threat to our country, and that it was clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel”. He disagreed with President Trump, who said that Iran was close to having a nuclear weapon and could pose a threat to our country and our allies in the Middle East. From the outside, it is difficult to know who to believe. They both have access to information we do not, but there is enough public information available to shed light on this issue, so let’s examine the facts that we can verify.

One of the things that complicates this subject is understanding Uranium enrichment, so first, a bit of science. Although Uranium is a fairly common element found in nature, in its natural form, Uranium consists mostly of an isotope called U-238, which has no value as a nuclear fuel or weapon. Over 99.2% of naturally occurring uranium is U-238. The valuable component of naturally occurring Uranium is the isotope U-235, which is a very small percentage of naturally occurring Uranium at only 0.71% concentration. There is very little of it, and it is extremely challenging to separate these two isotopes, which requires a significant amount of time and expensive precision equipment.

To make fuel for nuclear power plants, Uranium is normally enriched to the point that it contains between 3%-5% U-235. For a nuclear weapon, it takes at least 60% enrichment as a minimum level to make a low-yield nuclear weapon, although most militaries strive to achieve 90% enrichment for a more reliable and powerful detonation.

In a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released last September, the IAEA determined that Iran had 440.9 Kg of uranium enriched to 60% at that time, with the ability to produce an additional 9.0 kg per month. This is a far higher enrichment level than is needed for any civilian purpose. The only use for uranium that has been enriched to this level is to construct nuclear weapons.

This information, provided by the IAEA, was confirmed by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi just before the war broke out. He confirmed that Iran had 440 KG of 60% uranium, which was enough to make 10 bombs. Minister Araghchi indicated that in discussions with the US, Iran was willing to negotiate giving it up or diluting it to lower enrichment levels in return for concessions from the United States.

So, the first conclusion we can draw from this information is that President Trump was correct. Iran did possess a significant quantity of Uranium enriched to at least the minimum level to build nuclear weapons, and it knew that it could build multiple bombs with it, but were they about to do so?

When he resigned, Joe Kent said that Iran didn’t intend to weaponize the Uranium it had to make a bomb. He repeated that statement the next day on Tucker Carlson’s show and stated the following: “I mean, the Iranians have had a religious ruling, a fatwa, against actually developing a nuclear weapon since 2004. That’s been in place since 2004. That’s available in the public sphere, but then also we had no intelligence to indicate that that fatwa was being disobeyed, or it was on the cusp of being lifted.”

So, if we believe Mr. Kent, the Iranians spent a considerable time and money enriching uranium to a level useful for making a bomb, they possessed the ability to continue making more of it, and they kept doing so, but because of an old religious edict, they were just going to just make it, but not use it. That is a pretty difficult story to believe.

Joe Kent is asking us to trust the Iranians. These are the same Iranians who said before the war that their missiles were limited to a 2,000 Km range, and yet on March 20th, they attacked the Diego Garcia air base with a missile that flew 4,000 Km, proving that the Iranians don’t always tell us the truth.

We could debate back and forth about whether Joe Kent or President Trump is correct when it comes to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but we don’t have to. A report was released yesterday that sheds more light on the matter. According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, Executive Director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, on February 28th, he received information that a meeting had been scheduled in the Iranian Supreme Leader’s office to discuss giving final approval to Iranian General Hossein Jabal Amelian to activate containerized mobile centrifuge equipment to begin the enrichment of Iran’s Uranium to 93% and to transfer the enriched U-235 to bomb cores. This meeting, which was held on the day the war started, was intended to begin the weaponization process for Iran’s Uranium.

Fortunately, the United States had an agent in Tehran who provided advanced warning of this meeting and what the subject of discussion was. It was this meeting that prompted the timing of the attack on Iran. The first target of our attack was the Supreme Leader’s office, where this gathering of experts was meeting.

Critics will dismiss this as a convenient cover story, planted by the government, intended to justify the war. Which it could be. None of us is on the inside, so we don’t know for sure, but it sounds plausible. Given the choice of who to believe, while Joe Kent seems to be a sincere, nice guy, I trust President Trump. If the Timmerman story is right, then the president was justified in attacking the Iranians. I would rather believe in President Trump than believe the fairy tale that a bunch of religious fanatics would build a nuclear weapon and not use it.

President Trump is doing what is necessary to keep the country safe, and if I have to pump expensive gas into my vehicle for a little while, why he does so, I am ok with it. Consider the alternative.

Citations:

https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2033897242986209689

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-02/news/iran-accelerates-highly-enriched-uranium-production

https://armscontrolcenter.org/irans-stockpile-of-highly-enriched-uranium-worth-bargaining-for/

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-steve-witkoff-iran-enriched-uranium-11-nuclear-bombs/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/03/trump_was_right_about_iran_s_bomb.html

This story was reprinted with permission from the author. It was originally published 3/26/26 on “Seward’s Folly” the author’s Substack.

Greg Sarber is a lifelong Alaskan. He is a petroleum engineer who spent his career working on Alaska’s North Slope. Now retired, he lives with his family in Homer, Alaska. Greg is a former board member of Alaska Gold Communications, Inc., the publisher of Must Read Alaska.