Thursday, July 30, 2026
Home Blog Page 290

Is the government coming clean about drone swarms over East Coast cities?

Suzanne Downing
-
44
Is the government coming clean about drone swarms over East Coast cities?

It happened over Alaska in 2023, when the U.S. military shot down a drone, believed to have come from China, over the hard ice of Prudhoe Bay, but never told the public anything further about what it had destroyed in the dead of winter. According to official statements, there was no recovery of the object or blown-apart pieces.

Top Gun: Pentagon Pat reveals details about UFO shot down over Alaska

Now, the Biden Administration is not telling the public what it knows about the swarms of apparent drones that are spooking people by coming off the ocean and over neighborhoods in New Jersey, New York, and apparently elsewhere in the country.

Apparently, the government doesn’t know much and is not particularly concerned.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a joint statement about the drones that have lit up the sky — and social media — on Thursday:

“We have no evidence at this time that the reported drone sightings pose a national security or public safety threat or have a foreign nexus. The FBI, DHS and our federal partners, in close coordination with the New Jersey State Police, continue to deploy personnel and technology to investigate this situation and confirm whether the reported drone flights are actually drones or are instead manned aircraft or otherwise inaccurate sightings,” the statement said.

“Historically, we have experienced cases of mistaken identity, where reported drones are, in fact, manned aircraft or facilities. We are supporting local law enforcement in New Jersey with numerous detection methods but have not corroborated any of the reported visual sightings with electronic detection. To the contrary, upon review of available imagery, it appears that many of the reported sightings are actually manned aircraft, operating lawfully. There are no reported or confirmed drone sightings in any restricted air space,” the agencies said.

“We take seriously the threat that can be posed by unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), which is why law enforcement and other agencies continue to support New Jersey and investigate the reports. To be clear, they have uncovered no such malicious activity or intent at this stage. While there is no known malicious activity occurring in New Jersey, the reported sightings there do, however, highlight the insufficiency of current authorities,” the agencies said.

On Sunday a swarm of a dozen drones reportedly tailed a 47-foot U.S. Coast Guard vessel and 50 other drones were sighted flying into New Jersey from the ocean. 

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy also said he doesn’t know if the drones pose a threat to the public.

Congressman Mark Green, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, said the drone activity must be taken seriously.

The committee’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence and Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security held a joint hearing Tuesday to examine the full scope of the homeland security threats posed by unauthorized, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), or drones.

Keith Jones, deputy executive assistant commissioner of Customs and Border Protection’s Air and Marine Operations; Robert W. Wheeler Jr., assistant director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Critical Incident Response Group; and Brad Wiegmann, deputy assistant attorney general for national security at the Department of Justice all provided testimony.

“In the hearing, the DOJ and FBI witnesses left Congress and the American people with few answers on the mysterious sightings over New Jersey. However, it is clear that in the wrong hands, drone technology has the potential to negatively impact the essential mission of law enforcement agencies, disrupt our critical infrastructure or mass-spectator events such as NFL games, and even surveil sensitive U.S. military sites. This is especially true in the event that state and local law enforcement do not have the authorities needed to swiftly mitigate the threat. Earlier this year, the House Homeland Security, House Transportation and Infrastructure, and House Judiciary Committees introduced the bipartisan Counter-UAS Authority Security, Safety, and Reauthorization Act of 2024, Congress’ strongest effort, to date, to build a counter-drone framework that will empower federal, state, and covered local law enforcement agencies to swiftly detect, track, and mitigate hostile drone use,” the subcommittee reported. Read more about that hearing here.

Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey today said the Biden Administration is not coming clean.

“The Biden Administration continues to be dismissive of New Jersey residents who have witnessed these drones in swarms, including coming from the ocean, following a Coast Guard lifeboat, and flying over extremely sensitive military bases like Naval Weapons Station Earle in my congressional district. Some press reports—including one from the Daily Mail—cite intelligence experts who suggest Russia could be responsible,” Smith said.

“The American people and our trained local law enforcement officials have rightfully asked for real answers—not doublespeak from top Biden officials who still admit they do not know the origin or intent behind this unidentified drone activity. The Biden Administration has an obligation to the American people to figure out and tell us what is going on immediately. Their lack of decisive action and empty reassurances will only cause increased speculation and continue to escalate the valid concerns that so many people have,” Smith said.

Bill King: What does the House report on Covid origins and official response tell us?

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
19
Bill King: What does the House report on Covid origins and official response tell us?

By BILL KING

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic recently issued its final After Action Review of the COVID-19 Pandemic. It is an exhaustive 557-page document covering almost every aspect of the pandemic. I could not find any record of the official vote of the subcommittee on the issuance of the report, but based on public comments by the members, it was likely approved along party lines. The report, unfortunately, was written from a distinctly partisan viewpoint, which will undermine its value. However, once you set aside the gratuitous partisan grandstanding, the report has a great deal of important information.

Here are some of the key takeaways.

Origin of Covid: Almost since Covid first appeared, a debate has raged about whether the virus’s emergence was zoonotic (transferred from an animal to a human) or whether it was the result of a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The subcommittee concluded that “the weight of the evidence increasingly supports the lab leak hypothesis.” If anything, I would say that is an understatement.

The Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market, where the zoonotic emergence supposedly occurred, is about seven miles from the WIV. For a coronavirus to have naturally evolved within seven miles of a lab working on gain-of-function research on coronaviruses would be one of the most remarkable coincidences of all time.

The subcommittee also amassed an impressive body of evidence that some officials and researchers attempted to discredit the lab leak theory out of fear of political blowback on the federal government’s involvement in funding GOF research. The report describes how the World Health Organization downplayed the possibility of lab leaks because of international political considerations, highlighting a structural shortcoming that affects that agency’s efficacy.

The report also highlights the difficulty in regulating this extremely hazardous type of research. Both the Trump and Biden administrations tightened rules on GOF research, but it is very difficult for laypeople to know whether enough has been done. One clear conclusion from this episode is that we cannot rely on the research community to regulate itself.

Suppression Tactics: The report argues that most of the non-medical suppression efforts, principally masks, social distancing, and lockdowns, had, at best, a limited impact on the spread of the virus and probably did more harm than good. It also suggests that public health officials had little scientific data to back up their guidance concerning their non-medical suppression efforts.

I mostly agree with the report’s conclusions in this area. However, the report suggests there was a sinister aspect to these recommendations, or that they were, at least, the result of bureaucratic hubris. I disagree with that take. I think public health officials were overwhelmed with the potential magnitude of the pandemic, and at the time, they were still uncertain about the virus’s lethality. However, I agree that the public health establishment and other groups, especially the teachers’ unions, clung to these strategies long after it was clear that their efficacy was minimal.

Vaccines: The subcommittee lauded the Trump administration’s Operation Warp Speed for the unprecedented speed in spurring Covid vaccine development. However, it pushed back against vaccine mandates, citing that the data never showed the vaccines would suppress transmission. It noted the toll the mandates took on the military and healthcare workforces at a critical time.

Vaccine mandates are a complicated and nuanced issue. Some vaccines are referred to as sterilizing vaccines, which completely block transmission. The two most notable are the polio and measles vaccines. There is a strong case for mandates of sterilizing vaccines because they protect society at large.

But it was clear early on that the Covid vaccines were not blocking transmission and there was little indication in the trials that they would. Therefore, the case for mandating the vaccines was always thin. (Healthcare workers seemed to me to be a special case because of their unique exposure to the virus and proximity to patients, many of whom were particularly vulnerable to it.)

The report throws a bone to those who have argued that the Covid vaccines had widespread adverse effects by noting the large number of reports to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and calling for those to be more thoroughly investigated. However, the report also points out the difficulty in discerning correlation from causation with regard to adverse effects. Reading that section, I got the impression the authors were struggling to mollify many in the Republican base who believe the vaccines were/are dangerous.

Oversight of Financial Aid: I suspect few will be surprised that the subcommittee found evidence of widespread fraud in the use of the various aid programs the federal government rolled out to dampen the financial impact of Covid. Something I had not heard before was that there was a significant transnational, organized crime component to the fraudulent use of the aid. I recently talked to an FBI agent who told me his office was overwhelmed with Covid aid fraud referrals.

Discounting Natural Immunity: The report discussed that the public health establishment largely discounted natural immunity to Covid. I agree with that observation. I think the motivation was to encourage people not to rely on natural immunity and to get the vaccine.

Loss of Institutional Credibility: The downplaying of natural immunity was one of several examples of the public health establishment being less than candid with the American people. I believe those who engaged in this dissembling did so with good intentions. They believed, I think correctly, that the more Americans who were vaccinated, the lower the ultimate death toll would be. Therefore, they believed they were justified in minimizing the importance of natural immunity to encourage people not to rely on it.

But the public health establishment’s dissembling did tremendous damage to its credibility and turbocharged anti-vax sentiment. More damage was done as it clung to suppression efforts when it was increasingly obvious to the public that they were not effective and were causing significant hardships for the American people. This loss of credibility by the public health establishment may have repercussions that reverberate long after the effects of the pandemic are gone and may make our ability to respond to the next one even more challenging.

This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Linda Boyle: Happy birthday, Big Pharma

Linda Boyle: Happy birthday, Big Pharma

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
34
Linda Boyle: Happy birthday, Big Pharma

By LINDA BOYLE

This week marked the four-year anniversary of the federal government’s Emergency Use Authorization for Pfizer’s Covid shot series. 

Then- President Donald Trump touted how “Operation Warp Speed” took less than a year to get approved, when most vaccines require ten years or more of research before approval.  

President Joe Biden crowed that his administration got the jab into people’s arms and said he had a plan when Trump didn’t have one.  

Biden basically implemented the plan Trump developed.  

The one common actor present in both administrations was the “wonderful” Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose work won him a place as one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in 2020. People spoke about Fauci as though he was a saint.  

Today, according to POLITICO, Biden is contemplating an overarching pardon for Dr. Fauci, even though he currently is not under investigation for any criminal activity.

In 2020, Pfizer published data on the first Covid shots it produced. Pfizer stated the “vaccines” were 95% effective for preventing infection and there were no “serious safety concerns.” 

These same data were used to approve the Emergency Use Authorization on  Dec. 11, 2020.  

Linda Boyle: The tale of two states’ approaches to Covid shots and treatment this year

Of interest, a team of researchers have recently evaluated Pfizer’s initial clinical trial data and found discrepancies. There was one death that occurred after a participant’s second shot. It is alleged that Pfizer delayed reporting this information for 37 days, which was “a violation of Pfizer’s own clinical trial protocols, which mandate immediate reporting of serious adverse events.”  

More importantly, this death was allegedly not disclosed during the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee meeting on Dec. 10, 2020, when the Food and Drug Administration evaluated Pfizer’s data for the original EUA approval.

In an address to the American people in the winter of 2021, Biden told us we were looking at a “winter of severe illness and death” for the unvaccinated and if you got all your shots and boosters, you’d be “protected from severe illness and death.”  

That was using “fear” as the ultimate weapon against American citizens.

Four years later, the unvaxxed are still walking amongst us. And sadly, some folks who were “vaccinated” and boosted have died from Covid or suffered severe side effects.

FDA approves new Covid vaccines for Pfizer, Moderna

Remember in the beginning you were told to get your shot, so you didn’t get Covid.  

Then it was,  “Yes you could still get Covid after the shot, but the illness would be less severe.”. Then it was, “you need to take a booster every year to prevent getting Covid that could still kill you.”  The government pushed this misinformation even though the effectiveness of the jab continued to decrease as the nasty little virus mutated.  

Judicial Watch is one of the organizations attempting to get to the truth about Covid jabs. It’s been a long, hard process despite multiple Freedom of Information requests.  Here’s what Judicial Watch found: 

  1. Information obtained that Moderna did studies in rats where they injected mice with Covid-19 vaccine. Those injected had babies born with skeletal abnormalities whereas non-injected rats had healthy rat pups. This information was known to FDA prior to giving Emergency Use Authorization to Moderna.
  2. Communications obtained among senior US government scientists showed vaccine safety officers were under pressure to approve these jabs despite seeing information concerning myocarditis in young people and other health risks. 
  3. Information was obtained that demonstrated the massive public relations campaign being levied against the American people to get the jab.  Government strategy included using social media influencers, professional sports, celebrities, etc. to encourage people to take the jab and to shame those who refused to do so.  
  4. Information obtained that in 2021 roll out of Pfizer booster, the “robust” scientific study included only 23 subjects prior to roll out.
  5. Injuries and death occurred from these jabs despite the safe and effective mantra of Big Pharma and our federal government.  
  6. Facebook coordinated heavily with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “control” the Covid narrative, and suppress opinions of other well-known doctors who did not support the government narrative,  
  7. Social media provided the government $3.5 million in free advertising for the accepted government narrative.   
  8. Further information obtained by Judicial Watch showed “these emails confirm Facebook censored Americans at the direction of the Biden White House and Biden’s Surgeon General’s political operation.”  
  9. Emails received showed in the Pfizer records that “many of the tests the drug development experts felt should have been done on the Covid ‘vaccines’  were, in fact, not done.”  

By now, none of this should be a surprise to anyone. Sadly, it only reinforces lack of trust in our federal government, the medical community, mainstream media and all others who forced a one size fits all in response to a pandemic.  And the same group of “professionals” silenced any voice that did not support the predetermined agenda.  

I am angry that we shut our country down, closed our schools to the terrible detriment of our children, and let loved ones die alone. I am angry that more people suffered losses because of the draconian response that was full of winners and losers. 

And this just in:  The Biden administration “has quietly extended a controversial ”emergency declaration” under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act until December 31, 2029.”   

Health and Social Services Secretary Xavier Beccera said, “ the extension is needed because Covid 19 poses a ‘credible risk’ to public health now and in the future.”

COVID Vaccine Makers Get Another Free Pass as Biden Administration Extends Liability Shield Through 2029

What does this all mean?  It means immunity from liability save willful misconduct for any claim for Big Pharma. And it’s meant to last through the Trump Administration. More protection for Big Pharma, none for American citizens.  

The more I learn, the more I know someone needs to be held accountable. 

The government told you in the first round of jabs that you would have immunity.  That was a lie.  

The only immunity I see anyone got from this debacle was Big Pharma and the elitists who made money off people’s misery.  

President-elect Trump needs to write an executive order retracting President Biden’s protection for Big Pharma. It’s the right thing to do for the American people. 

Linda Boyle, RN, MSN, DM, was formerly the chief nurse for the 3rd Medical Group, JBER, and was the interim director of the Alaska VA. Most recently, she served as Director for Central Alabama VA Healthcare System. She is the director of the Alaska Covid Alliance/Alaskans 4 Personal Freedom.  

Linda Boyle: Covid-19 ‘vaccines’ won’t be given by this Idaho county public health agency
Linda Boyle: Alaska Covid Alliance has new name & expanded mission for fighting fear and censorship

Sen. Shower: Alaska’s dark money fight is every state’s fight

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
28
Sen. Shower: Alaska’s dark money fight is every state’s fight

By SEN. MIKE SHOWER

“A canary in a coal mine?” 

I spent 24 years wearing our nation’s uniform as a fighter pilot in the US Air Force. I hold tightly to the belief the United States and the principles behind its creation are one of the greatest achievements in human history. Many Americans, myself included, are concerned about the direction our nation is headed.

If this election taught us anything, it’s that a majority of Americans still love this nation and want a return to normalcy. There is nothing wrong with loving your country. The winning candidate was brashly America first and won by a wide margin. Proof enough.  

As a state senator in Alaska for 8 years, and a resident for most of my adult life, I have witnessed a host of special interest constantly push left wing ballot initiatives here. Why? We are a vast state by landmass, but small in population with around 730,000 citizens. Leftist can “buy” laws in Alaska on the cheap and out of sight, let me explain. 

This last election cycle there was a citizen grass roots ballot initiative to repeal ranked-choice voting. The left-wing groups who spent millions to install RCV in Alaska in 2020, spent almost $15 million dollars to defend ranked-choice voting in 2024. According to the Alaska Public Offices Commission data, roughly $10,000 of that $15 million was generated from inside Alaska, the rest was “dark money” from those left-wing organizations from outside Alaska.  

The Alaska citizens who rallied to repeal RCV raised about $155,000, with virtually all of it coming from inside our state. Do the math. We were outspent 100 to 1 by out of state billionaires and left-wing front groups like Arabella Advisors and the 1630 fund. Those are incredibly tough numbers to compete with. We don’t have the resources in our tiny state to defend ourselves against such an onslaught. 

To put it another way, to buy a law in California based on the population size it would have costs them roughly $800 MILLION to run a similar ballot initiative compared to the “chump change” it costs in Alaska. They spent $93 dollars – PER VOTE – to save RCV. Alaskans for repealing it had only $.93 cents – PER VOTE. It then becomes clear why they pick on Alaska to run such initiatives. For much less money, the law gets passed, then they use Alaska as a springboard to other states to push the initiative pointing out how great it works up north where no one is paying attention. Alaska isn’t exactly on the national news with regularity. 

For our part this year, even being vastly outspent, the effort to repeal RCV was defeated by just a few hundred votes out of about 350,000 votes cast. Imagine if Alaskans had even a few million to spend to counter the influence of dark money? Considering polling consistently showed a 60% or greater unfavorable view of RCV its clear the repeal would have easily won.  

The pro RCV groups lied, used lawfare, had spies in the repeal campaign and inundated Alaskans with propaganda for a year! If it sounds like desperation on their part, it was. The reason is clear upon reflection. If they can install RCV across the nation then they can more quickly achieve their ultimate goal, a one-party system where the left has complete control of the political landscape and, therefore, the country.  

But if Alaska repeals RCV it throws cold water on the RCV narrative. If it’s so great, why did Alaska repeal it? Hence, it’s an all-out, spare no expense, tell any lie, desperate campaign they must win for their long game to be successful.  

For those who aren’t aware, RCV is a left wing created voting scheme designed to turn a red state blue. It’s touted to give voters more “choice” but in reality, has numerous faults. It is well documented that it is complicated, confusing and disenfranchises the elderly, minorities, English language learners and those with less than a high school graduation. It will, over time, actually suppress the voter turnout.  

As reference, RCV allowed the first democrat to be elected to Alaska’s only US congressional seat for the first time in 50 years. That happened even though there are twice as many republicans in Alaska as democrats. RCV did that. Sen Murkowski was censored by the Alaska republican party in 2022 and would not have survived the primary, but the “jungle” primary with RCV in Alaska allowed her to stay on the ballot and defeat the more conservative challenger. RCV did that too.  

Without spending an entire article on RCV, suffice it to say, after 4 years and 2 election cycles of it in Alaska, we are ready to “cancel” it for good.  

However, fear not! Even though we lost this round, barely, Alaskans are tough. We’re sick and tired of being influenced by lower 48 special interests. We aren’t about to give up. The effort to repeal RCV has already begun anew for the next election cycle. We will gather our forces, build our war chest, and take the left head on. We will win, it’s just a matter of time.  

For the rest of the nation? Let Alaska be your canary in the coal mine. Don’t be fooled into thinking ranked voting is good. It’s not. In fact, fight it with all your might. I can attest personally the future of our nation depends on it.  

Sen. Mike Shower represents Wasilla in the Alaska Legislature, where he serves as Republican minority leader in the Senate. This column was published first at Patriot Post.

Day 14 of Alaska ballot counting, and suddenly the repeal of ranked-choice voting is losing

Michael Tavoliero: Who’s ready to join the greatest economic boom in history?

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
16
Michael Tavoliero: Who’s ready to join the greatest economic boom in history?

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

For several decades, Alaskans have been told that the state faces a fiscal crisis requiring a long-term solution. Time and again, we hear claims that Alaska has “kicked the can down the road” to a dead end, and that action is urgently needed. Despite this recurring narrative, voters continue to elect representatives who neither demonstrate an understanding of sound fiscal policy nor practice fiscal discipline.

It is time for an Alaskan Department of Governmental Efficiency (ADOGE)!

Since the oil boom—a blessing and a curse—we have seen countless examples of poor decisions in capital projects, many of which have resulted in billions of dollars in losses. Meanwhile, Alaska has witnessed one of the largest expansions of bureaucracy since the era of FDR, unsurprising given that majority members of our constitutional convention were FDR Democrats.

Alaskans have been inundated with warnings about collapsing oil revenues, budget cuts, and deficits. Yet, when state government crafts an action plan, the solution invariably involves expanding government’s role, perpetuating the notion that “bigger government” is the answer to every problem. Politicians insist that addressing Alaska’s fiscal challenges will require painful measures—but the “painful solutions” often translate to increasing revenues through new taxes, the easiest option available to government and not the even simpler action of cutting costs.

Consider Alaska’s history: In 1986, with oil priced under $10 per barrel, state government employed almost 19,900 people to serve a population of under 550,000, with an operating budget of $2.7 billion.

Fast forward to 2024, with oil priced at over $60 per barrel, state employment has risen to 23,800, the population exceeds 730,000, and the operating budget has ballooned to $12.2 billion. While the population grew by 33%, state employment increased by nearly 20% fueled by a 350% surge in operating budget.

Sixty-one politicians — a governor and 60 members of our state Legislature — are responsible for driving Alaska’s costs to this level. Their decisions, guided increasingly by progressive fiscal policies and special interests, will soon push the state’s financial burdens even higher. Proposed solutions aligned with a progressive playbook: higher taxes, expanded government spending, and never kept promises of fiscal reform. These plans include spending the Permanent Fund, reducing dividends, increasing oil taxes, introducing a broad-based income and/or sales tax, and ironically imposing budget discipline, yet Alaska’s government continues to grow.

The question Alaskans must ask is whether the state will follow the new federal path of deregulation and cost-cutting, as the Trump administration returns in 2025. This is a crucial issue for the future of Alaska, a state with the greatest untapped natural resources in the nation. (As a side note, Alaska has an abundance of rare earth elements which will be desperately needed by our nation very soon, yet no plans for processing or refining these resources.)

Unfortunately, the current political landscape suggests that Alaska’s fiscal challenges will persist. Republican lawmakers such as Reps. Chuck Kopp, Louise Stutes, and Sens. Kelly Merrick, Gary Stevens, Bert Stedman, and Jesse Bjorkman are aligned with Democrats. What will this cost the state and the voters who elected them? 

Their continued support for Democratic priorities may perpetuate the cycle of higher taxes, greater spending, and diminished opportunities for Alaska’s private sector.

Alaskans must demand real answers and leadership to break free from this dead end of fiscal irresponsibility and chart the right path forward.

When fiscal policy prioritizes government spending over the private sector, this shift leads to a troubling scenario. If government spending is not restrained, it crowds out private sector activity. This creates the worst possible outcome, particularly for Alaska, where the development of underutilized natural resources is stifled by the illusion of prosperity driven by unchecked government growth.

The United States stands on the brink of a transformative era of prosperity and functionality, driven by unprecedented innovation. Five emerging technological platforms—robotics, energy storage, artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and multi-omic sequencing—are advancing from early adoption to mainstream application. As these platforms mature and converge, they will unlock opportunities that today are unimaginable, consistently driving productivity growth into the 4% to 5% range.

Why should Alaskans—and our progressive state legislature—pay attention? The answer is straightforward: these innovations will fuel nationwide economic growth, creating a rising tide that could benefit all Americans, including Alaskans. However, there is a critical caveat tied to Alaska’s dependence on oil revenues.

Under President Trump’s first term, U.S. crude oil production surged from 8.5 million barrels per day to 13 million barrels per day, driving energy prices down and spurring deflationary economic growth. If this trend resumes and accelerates, production could reach 16 million barrels per day by 2028.

While this will lower energy costs and enhance U.S. competitiveness globally, it also spells challenges for Alaska. Oil prices, adjusted for inflation, could plummet to $30 per barrel—posing a significant fiscal risk for a state heavily reliant on oil revenue.

Meanwhile, global economic dynamics suggest further challenges for Europe and China, which are likely to face prolonged recessionary pressures. This imbalance could lead to increased capital investment in the United States, amplifying deflationary forces domestically through cheaper energy and technological advancements. For Alaska, these deflationary trends will compound the economic impact of falling oil prices yet offer the potential of tremendous natural resource development and support to the lower 48.

Alaska’s policymakers must recognize that a new era of economic transformation is unfolding. While the nation will benefit from reduced energy costs and technological breakthroughs, Alaska faces a unique challenge: adapting to a world where oil revenue is no longer a reliable pillar of the state’s economy.

Can Alaska seek to diversify its economy? 

Alaska must recognize the regulatory and investment needs in industries tied to emerging technologies, including technology convergence, digital infrastructure, and precision medicine. The state should work proactively with the Trump Administration to leverage its natural resources effectively, prioritizing the development of untapped resources in ways that align with global market trends and technological advancements.

Fiscal reform is also essential. If the federal government, through initiatives like the Department of Governmental Efficiency, can justify trimming $2 to $3 trillion from the federal budget to bolster the national economy and our future, Alaska—where 56% of the operating budget comes from federal funds—should similarly address its own bureaucratic inefficiencies and shortcomings.

Reducing dependence on oil revenues requires fostering private sector growth and implementing reasoned budgetary practices. By embracing these changes and aligning with national and global innovation trends, Alaska can position itself for long-term prosperity, even amidst economic and technological shifts.

Michael Tavoliero is a senior contibutor at Must Read Alaska

Michael Tavoliero: Reject Murkowski’s path to colonialism

Biden’s parting shot: Taking sides in lawsuit to force oil companies to pay for global warming

Suzanne Downing
-
26
Biden’s parting shot: Taking sides in lawsuit to force oil companies to pay for global warming

The Biden Administration has 38 days left, but is not done with its war on oil companies.

This week, the Department of Justice joined in a case brought by the city of Honolulu against oil companies ConocoPhillips, Marathon Petroleum, Aloha Petroleum, ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, Sunoco, and others, in an effort to make some oil companies pay billions of dollars in damages for the global warming caused by their legally sanctioned and government regulated and permitted businesses.

In a separate case, the Justice Department filed a brief opposing Alabama and 18 other Republican-led states, including Alaska, that are trying to block the litigation against oil companies by Democrat-led states such as California, Connecticut, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The Biden Justice Department has asked the Supreme Court to rule in favor of Honolulu and against Alabama in the two cases.

“The briefs are just the latest instance of the Biden-Harris administration aligning itself with climate activists’ punitive approach towards oil and gas companies. They also represent a blow to the fossil fuel industry as it continues to battle more than a dozen cities and states nationwide that—in addition to blaming oil companies for global warming—accuse the industry of covering up the impact of their products on the environment for decades,” wrote Thomas Catenacci in the Washington Free Beacon.

“Honolulu initiated its lawsuit in March 2020, listing oil majors BP, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Sunoco, among others, as defendants. Last year, defendants were handed two significant losses—first, the Supreme Court said the case could remain in the jurisdiction of state courts, and second, the Hawaii supreme court rejected a motion to dismiss the case altogether,” he wrote. Read his report at this Washington Free Beacon link.

More background on this can be found here:

War between the states over climate change laws? 19 GOP attorneys general file complaint with Supreme Court against five anti-oil states

Democrats seek to take away nuclear weapons from Trump before he is sworn in

Suzanne Downing
-
88
Democrats seek to take away nuclear weapons from Trump before he is sworn in

Democrats had no trouble with President Joe Biden having the power to use nuclear weapons, even though he has showed signs of dementia since before taking over as president.

But some Democrats are trying to take the power from the presidency before Donald Trump is sworn into office on Jan. 20. And they’re asking Biden to work the magic through policy.

Massachusetts Democrat Sen. Ed Markey, and California Democrat Rep. Ted Lieu sent a letter to Biden asking him to change the policy now in place and force the next president to consult with Congress before using nuclear weapons in a first-strike scenario.

In the letter, the lawmakers write, “Current U.S. policy, which gives the president sole authority to launch nuclear weapons without any input from Congress, is dangerous. As Donald Trump prepares to return to the Oval Office, it is more important than ever to take the power to start a nuclear war out of the hands of a single individual and ensure that Congress’s constitutional role is respected and fulfilled.”

Markey and Leiu specifically said Trump is unstable.

“Mr. President, with just weeks left in office, you can safeguard the system against Donald Trump or any future unstable president, and make it constitutional. We urge you to announce that henceforth it will be the policy of the United States that it will not initiate a nuclear first strike without express authorization from Congress. In a situation where the United States has already been attacked with nuclear weapons, the president would retain the option to respond unilaterally. President Biden, as an important part of your legacy, you must put guardrails on presidential authority to start nuclear war. We must never again entrust the fate of the world to just one fallible human.”

Markey’s and Lieu introduced in 2015 the Restricting First Use of Nuclear Weapons Act, which would prohibit the President of the United States from launching a nuclear first strike without a declaration of war by Congress.

Record setting: Biden grants pardons and clemency to 1,539 and says there are more to come
Biden double-cross: Oil leases offer minimum required and put most of ANWR 1002 Area off limits
Federal budget deficit sets new record as Biden awards billions of U.S. dollars to Angola
Presidential middle finger to justice: Biden pardons his son Hunter

Alaska modest revenue prediction released, along with governor’s back-to-basics budget

Suzanne Downing
-
30
Alaska modest revenue prediction released, along with governor’s back-to-basics budget

The Alaska Department of Revenue predicts that during the coming fiscal year, the price of Alaska oil will be in the $70 a barrel range, down from the $73.86 per barrel predicted for the current fiscal year (ends June 30, 2025). The Unrestricted General Fund revenue forecast has decreased by $220 million for FY 2025 and $232 million for FY 2026.

In response to softer prices and modestly stable production, Gov. Mike Dunleavy proposes a stick-to-the-basics budget that has no frills and keeps to his pattern of tamping down the urge among legislators and lobbyists to grow government. For the seventh budget since taking office, his proposed spending is kept at about a 1% increase, far below the rate of inflation.

Dunleavy’s focus is on public safety, education, constitutional requirements, bringing new investment to Alaska, and affordability.

Through the supplemental process, he is proposing a $50 million transfer to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to help with the “Front End Engineering Design” or FEED to get the Alaska LNG gas pipeline off the ground. He is also proposing to put funds into the state’s disaster fund, which has been drained due to numerous natural disasters around the state in the past year. This would require a transfer from the Constitutional Budget Reserve.

The governor’s budget website is at this link.

Dunleavy proposes the full statutorily set educational funding with the Base Student Allocation (BSA) formula, but has not added any additional funds for education. The Legislature has added to that in the past, and the governor has, in the past, met lawmakers halfway by allowing one-time increase for education.

As he has in past years, Dunleavy will be proposing a bill that ties education funding to performance accountability. Currently, there is no accountability in Alaska’s school districts. The Democrats in the Legislature are not likely to be friendly to that legislation.

The governor is proposing to reopen the Alaska State Trooper post in Talkeetna and to purchase a plane for the Department of Public Safety.

When the Legislature gets the budget, both the Democrat-controlled bodies will be working to insert a new expense — the return of defined benefits for some state workers. The state converted to a more standard retirement program for workers in 2006 but still owes the former workers in the now-defunct defined benefits program over $6 billion.

Revenue deeper dive

Unrestricted General Fund revenue, before accounting for the operating transfer from the Permanent Fund Earnings Reserve, is forecast to be $2.6 billion for fiscal year 2025 and $2.4 billion for FY 2026, respectively. That is a reduction of about $200 million for next year’s fiscal year.

The Permanent Fund is set to transfer $3.7 billion to the General Fund for FY 2025 and $3.8 billion for FY 2026, respectively. These amounts include funds available for general government spending and annual payment of dividends to Alaskan residents.

The Permanent Fund transfer once again is a large source of funding to the General Fund, contributing 59% of Unrestricted General Fund for FY 2025. Based on the Fall 2024 Revenue Forecast, the operating transfer is projected to range from 61% to 64%, for each of the next 10 years.

In FY 2024, the Alaska North Slope oil prices averaged $85.24 per barrel. The Fall Revenue Forecast incorporates the most current indicators from the financial markets and is based on an annual average ANS oil price. The oil price for FY 2025 is projected at $73.86 per barrel and $70 for FY 2026, respectively.

The Department of Revenue forecast assumes that annual average prices will be within a range of $68.00 to $73.00 per barrel (nominal) for the remainder of the forecast period.

In FY 2024, ANS oil production averaged 461,000 barrels per day. ANS oil production is expected to edge up to 466,600 barrels per day for Fiscal Year 2025 and 469,500 for Fiscal Year 2026, respectively, before peaking to 656,900 barrels per day in 2034.

In comparison to the DOR’s Spring 2024 Revenue Forecast, which was released in March 2024, the ANS oil price forecast decreased by $4.14 per barrel for FY 2025 and $4.00 per barrel for FY 2026.

The oil production forecast decreased by 10,200 barrels per day for FY 2025 and 12,600 barrels per day for FY 2026. Driven by the revised outlook of oil price and production, the Unrestricted General Fund revenue forecast decreased by $220 million for FY 2025 and $232 million for FY 2026.

The Fall Revenue Sources Book is published every year to give predictive information about state revenues, as well as a forecast of state revenues over the next 10 years. The revenue forecast is available on DOR’s website at www.tax.alaska.gov.

FBI had sources on ground, but no actual agents embedded in Jan. 6 crowd at Capitol: Report

SENIOR CONTRIBUTOR
-
25
FBI had sources on ground, but no actual agents embedded in Jan. 6 crowd at Capitol: Report

By BRETT ROWLAND | THE CENTER SQUARE

The FBI had 26 confidential sources at the Jan. 6, 2021, surge at the U.S. Capitol, but no undercover FBI agents were on the National Mall that day, contradicting theories about the event.

“We found no evidence in the materials we reviewed or the testimony we received showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6,” according to an 88-page report from the Department of Justice’s Office of the Inspector General.

The FBI did have 26 confidential sources on the ground during the protests. Some of those sources fed information back to the bureau during the attack on the U.S. Capitol, according to the report. Three of those 26 went to D.C. with the approval of the Washington Field Office to report on possible domestic terrorism subjects who were possibly attending the event.

“Our review concluded that none of these three FBI [confidential human sources] were authorized to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any [confidential human source] directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6,” according to the report.

None of the FBI’s confidential sources were allowed to enter the Capitol or a restricted area, but four entered the Capitol, and another 13 entered the restricted area around the Capitol. Nine confidential sources “neither entered a restricted area nor entered the Capitol or otherwise engaged in illegal activity,” according to the report.

“None of the [confidential human sources] who entered the Capitol or a restricted area has been prosecuted to date,” according to the report. “The OIG determined that many of these 26 [confidential human sources] had provided information relevant to the January 6 Electoral Certification before the event and that a few CHSs also provided information about the riot as it occurred.”

The report faulted the bureau for not asking field offices to collect information from informants ahead of the rally.

“Despite playing only a supporting role, the FBI recognized the potential for violence and took significant and appropriate steps to prepare for this supporting role, including attempting to identify known domestic terrorism subjects who planned to travel to DC for the January 6 Electoral Certification,” according to the report.

The report said what the FBI did was effective in part of its role that day.

“Indeed, after the Capitol was breached by rioters on January 6, the FBI was in a position to deploy tactical assets to help clear the Capitol of protesters and to help USCP secure the perimeter around the Capitol Complex,” according to the report. “The FBI told Congress that its posture for January 6 preparations was ‘extraordinary,’ and we found that the FBI effectively carried out its tactical support function on January 6.”

The FBI disputed some of the findings in the report, but agreed with the recommendations. 

“Although the FBI continues to disagree with certain of the factual assertions in the Report regarding the manner of specific steps, and the scope of the canvass undertaken by the FBI in advance of January 6, 2021, a time period during which the Report recognizes as including multiple field offices providing information in response to direction from Washington Field Office and FBI Headquarters, the FBI nonetheless accepts the OIG’s recommendation regarding potential process improvements for future events,” an agency official wrote in a letter to the OIG responding to the report.

FBI on Jan 6 reportDownload

1...289290291...1,805Page 290 of 1,805

About us

Must Read Alaska is news of people, politics, policy, culture, and happenings in Alaska.

Contact
4021 West Hill Road,
Homer, AK 99603

Op-Ed/Article:
[email protected]

Subscription: [email protected]

The latest

Alaskans Pursuing Law Degree Now Have New Hybrid Option through UAS-Mitchell Hamline Partnership

Education 0
The University of Alaska Southeast and Mitchell Hamline School...

Opinion: Alaska Governor’s Race— Attacks and Analysis

AK Voices 0

By Shelley Hughes, 2026 Candidate for Governor Seventeen names, one ballot, and a governor’s seat with no incumbent in the race. If you feel like you are watching a herd rather than an election, you are not wrong. That is the best way I know to describe what is happening in this primary and understanding it is the key to voting well on August 18.  […]

Spaceport Complex in Kodiak, AK Picked for Significant Role in U.S. Space Force Program to Execute 12 Rocket Launches

The 907 0
On July 27, 2026, Rocket Lab Corporation, a global...

© Must Read Alaska