According to Legistorm, a website that tracks all kinds of data on the U.S. House and Senate, Alaska’s Rep. Mary Peltola has the fifth-highest turnover of staff among all 435 members.
It’s a rocky start for the freshman from the 49th state who has been in office since September of 2022. Peltola won election after the death of Congressman Don Young in March of 2022.
Most of Congressman Young’s staff stayed for years, and some for decades. Alex Ortiz, for example, Young’s most recent chief of staff, stayed with Young for over 10 years. Young’s state directors stayed for decades at a time.
Ortiz was immediately hired by Peltola to be her chief of staff, but he left after just a couple of months. She’s also gone through at least four state directors.
In fact, Peltola has gone through more state directors in one year than Young went through in 40 years.
Part of it may be that Peltola said she was bipartisan and hired a few Republican staff to prove it, but she has quickly dumped all of her Republicans staffers.
Part of it may be the screaming: Peltola has a reputation for taking staff members behind closed doors and dressing them down so loudly that others in the office can hear every detail.
“Offices with the most staff turnover might also include some of the worst bosses,” says the Legistorm website. “Some members of Congress get a reputation for being hard to work for, whether due to anger management, shady ethics, poor pay, demanding too much or creating a toxic work environment.”
The top for turnover is Jonathan Jackson of Illinois, followed by Victoria Sports of Indiana, Brandon Williams of New York, and Jim Baird of Indiana. Peltola comes in next at #5.
Office dysfunction can cause members of Congress to be less effective, less responsive to constituents, and that can lead to constituents leaning more on lobbyists for help, says Legistorm.
Treg Taylor, Alaska’s Attorney General, on Thursday issued a directive to public librarians across the state regarding the pornographic and arguably obscene content being increasingly pushed on to minors in libraries. This move follows growing public concern over books with graphic sexual content accessible to children and teenagers in both school and public libraries.
In a detailed letter, Taylor outlined the legal implications of providing such material to minors, highlighting three key areas: state criminal laws, municipal ordinances, and state and federal education laws. He emphasized the responsibility of librarians and educators in ensuring their collections do not violate these laws.
Key Legal Provisions Cited:
Distribution of Indecent Materials to Minors (AS 11.61.128): This statute criminalizes the distribution of sexually explicit material to children under 16. The law requires proving the distributor’s age, intention, and knowledge of the material’s nature. Violations can be classified as a Class C felony.
Enticement of a Minor (AS 11.41.452): This Class B felony involves communication with minors to engage in sexual acts. It stresses that actual engagement in these acts isn’t necessary for a violation; mere enticement or encouragement is sufficient.
Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor (AS 11.51.130): This law applies to those aiding minors under 18 in breaking state laws.
Municipal Ordinances and Education Laws: The letter also references municipal ordinances, such as Anchorage’s, which make disseminating indecent material to minors a misdemeanor. In terms of education laws, while no direct statutes govern library materials, librarians in schools are required to provide library records of minors to parents or guardians.
The Attorney General urged librarians and school districts to review their policies and conduct to ensure compliance with these laws. He highlighted the importance of protecting minors and reminded public employees of the protections offered under Alaska’s Whistleblower Act for reporting violations.
Taylor said he hopes the letter will assist librarians in navigating and complying with the law, ensuring a safe and lawful environment for minors accessing library materials.
One of the big takeaways from the Alaska Public Offices Commission hearing on conservative activist Kelly Tshibaka’s free speech case came down to simple math when the commission met on Thursday.
Commission staff member Tom Lucas had evidently miscalculated the amount of fine the staff recommended against Tshibaka, and in the middle of the meeting said that instead of $16,400, he was recommending $23,700 as a fine for a couple of instances of what he and APOC staff says was illegal speech. APOC governs campaign finance matters for the State of Alaska, and enforces laws and regulations pertaining to financial disclosures and now, evidently, what people can say during public and private meetings.
Tshibaka, who lost to Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022’s senatorial election, founded a group called Preserve Democracy last December, and was a public speaker around the state and nation on the topic of transparent elections and the problems with ranked choice voting.
Election lawyer Scott Kendall, who is the architect of Alaska’s ranked choice voting system, filed numerous complaints on behalf of Alaskans for Better Elections, the group that advanced Ballot Measure 2 in 2020, against Tshibaka for speaking out against his election creation. All of the complaints were dismissed but one.
That one was heard on Thursday by the commission itself. The staff told the commission that Tshibaka and Preserve Democracy were acting as an independent expenditure group, since there was a petition being advanced by another group to repeal Ballot Measure 2.
The matter got tangled up as a couple of Democrat commissioners kept intermingling the dismissed complaint topics with the remaining complaint.
Tshibaka, through her lawyer Matt Singer, explained that she was being penalized because she opposes ranked choice voting and because she spoke out against it at events. Tshibaka said no such case would have been brought against her about the website had she not spoken against Ranked Choice Voting at events the Commission already has approved.
Singer emphasized that Tshibaka is willing to make a First Amendment case out of any adverse ruling against her, something that could end up going to the U.S. Supreme Court and could become costly for the state commission.
The commission is likely to rule on the matter before its January meeting.
A much more lively hearing was held to weigh the merits of Alaskans for Better Elections and its efforts to overturn Ballot Measure 2. That case was also brought by Alaskans for Better Elections against a group founded by Art Matthias, called Alaskans for Honest Elections. In the case, the lawyers for Alaskans for Better Elections accuse Matthias and his group of breaking various campaign laws and for using a church to funnel funds through to the Alaskans for Honest Elections group.
Alaskans for Better Elections is asking for a maximum fine for Alaskans for Honest Elections, which would be between $46,000 and $312,000, according to the group.
Fifty years ago this week, legislation authorizing construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline passed both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Richard Nixon.
The whole process took all of five days.
Not only was the timeline unprecedented, but so was the fact that the act specifically halted all legal challenges against the planned pipeline. Furthermore, it prohibited federal and state agencies from regulating the construction of the project.
The legislation led to a flurry of construction, and since the first oil flowed through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline in June, 1977, more than 18 billion barrels have been delivered to its Valdez terminus from Alaska’s North Slope. The benefits to our state are clear: more than one-sixth of all Alaskan private-sector jobs are tied to oil and gas development throughout the state, and Alaska’s economy is driven by oil revenues and investment decisions made via Alaska’s Permanent Fund, which increases each via oil and gas royalties.
Half a century ago, a bipartisan congressional coalition and President Nixon knew then what President Joe Biden seems to be oblivious to now: National oil and gas production – and the infrastructure and projects that create energy independence – drives America’s superpower status. Without it, we’re susceptible to geopolitical events and foreign countries’ attempts to undermine the free market, a hard lesson the Europeans have learned since Russia launched its war against Ukraine.
Today, we’re seeing continuous attacks on resource development projects that would create American jobs, help Americans live better lives, and enhance American energy independence. Veiled in the cause to save the planet from the ‘existential threat’ of a ‘climate crisis’, the activists leading the opposition are weakening America’s global standing; making us dependent on others for raw materials and finished goods we are more than capable of creating domestically.
The Keystone XL pipeline’s demise is well-known. With a stroke of Biden’s pen, hundreds of union jobs vanished from payrolls across the Midwest, and the potential of 510,000 barrels of oil a day hitting refineries did as well. The Mountain Valley Pipeline only exists today because Congress stepped in and approved its completion as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, but unlike the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, the underlying act didn’t prohibit legal challenges from continuing. And make no mistake, there are challenges across the country.
In New York, eco-driven politicians have cancelled four natural gas pipeline projects in the last five years. Governor Kathy Hochul is taking her fight against fossil fuels one step further, banning natural gas stoves by 2026, cancelling permits for natural gas-fired power plants and embracing other climate edicts that experts predict will harm the Empire State’s economy.
On the other side of the country, California Governor Gavin Newsom is taking an even more aggressive stance against traditional energy. He’s banned combustion-engine vehicles from being sold in the state beginning in 2035 and prohibited fracking in the state beginning in 2024. Even more frightening to Golden State residents should be his chumminess with Chinese President Xi Jinping. With the two leaders collaborating on climate impacts and increasing government-to-government partnerships, one must wonder what CCP-inspired ideas will be released on Californians next?
Returning to my home state of Alaska, and faced with expected shortages of natural gas by the end of this decade, a proposed LNG pipeline that would nearly mirror the route of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline has been in the works for decades. It has the backing of the federal government in the way of loan guarantees, and – aside from providing Alaska’s Railbelt with decades of capacity – exporting some of Alaska’s gas reserves would help provide other Pacific Rim nations with cleaner alternatives to energy than coal-fired power plants.
Yet, the eco-zealots pushing back against every possible traditional energy project denigrate the proposed pipeline a “carbon bomb” and have used every tactic available to stymie its progress. They ignore the lack of reliability and high costs of from alternative sources of energy. With Alaska’s weather and cold, dark winters, having reliable power is not only a creature comfort, but a matter of life-and-death.
Fifty years ago, an overwhelming number of legislative and executive-branch leaders came together and did what was right for our nation. The Trans-Alaska pipeline helped the U.S. hold off OPEC aggression in the 1970s, and lead the way in ushering in American energy security. Today, extremism holds many of America’s energy projects hostage, denying the country a chance to build domestic supply chains, enhance our way of life, provide generational jobs and secure our energy and national security in the process.
Without bold leadership and facts-over-fear action, the future of many of these projects dim daily. It doesn’t have to be that way. For the sake of future generations, let’s change course while we still can.
Rick Whitbeck is Alaska state director for Power The Future, a national nonprofit organization that advocates American energy jobs. Email him at [email protected], and follow him on X @PTFAlaska.
The 2010 legislative session was among the most forward-looking sessions from an energy standpoint in decades. There was legislation on renewables, nuclear energy, natural gas and hydroelectric generation. The two most important from a renewables standpoint were SB 220, which set up the renewable energy fund, and HB 306 which set non-binding efficiency and renewable generation goals for Alaska.
The most important of these are the legislative goals in HB 306. Think of them as the crack cocaine or fentanyl of the renewable energy world and you have a small idea how toxic to our pocketbooks these goals are.
The goals adopted in 2010 are a 15% increase in energy efficiency per capita between 2010 – 2020 and 50% of electric generation from renewable and alternative energy sources by 2025. We are not close to achieving either goal, with the Railbelt sitting at 20% renewable generation as of 2020.
The renewable energy goals specified 13 years ago in HB 306 were wildly popular, mostly because they were completely toothless, allowing all the Usual Suspects and enablers to virtue signal in support of their personal definitions of a cleaner environment. Like most renewable energy goals, the actual goal was pulled out of thin air, is a nice round number at 50%, and promulgated without a single word about costs before, during and after migration. There was (and still is) no discussion of instability introduced into the electric grid by adoption of the 50% renewable goal.
We are in the next big push to renewables, led by the Biden Administration, among others, for 80% of all electrical generation nationwide by 2040.
NREL responded with five increasingly fanciful solutions, all of which assumed storage, which is never included in any renewable proposal. Among other assumptions, NREL assumed wind and solar based on already installed generation. They assumed 25 megawatts of in-stream hydro in central Alaska, 75 megawatts of tidal in Cook Inlet, 50 megawatts of geothermal at Mount Spurr, 50 megawatts of biomass — all operational by 2040. They all considered at least three battery (storage) options ranging 46 – 70 megawatts at Golden Valley Electric Association, Homer, and Central (Anchorage). Watana hydro was considered in Scenario 1. Nuclear was never considered nor mentioned.
One of the advantages we here in Alaska have in this move to the Brave New World of complete reliance on renewable energy is watching the experience of other states and nations who were early adopters. We’ve seen spiking energy prices, rolling blackouts, and out-and-out grid failure in California and Texas. We’ve watched spiking electricity prices and deindustrialization in most of western Europe.
One of the more interesting responses came from Sweden in July, which ditched its 100% renewable energy goalin favor of 100% fossil free. They determined that 100% renewable would require magical thinking, “Unobtanium.” A fossil-fuel-free future in Sweden means they will pursue their goals via nuclear and hydro generation. Perhaps we ought to pay attention to them.
If we want to go carbon free, for whatever reason, great. There are affordable ways to get from here to there, ways that ensure the lights stay on, and the grid remains stable. Renewables are not on that path. Whatever we do, costs and storage must be considered rather than believing the vague claims we regularly get from all the usual rent-seeking suspects in the renewables advocacy industry, legislative democrats, and even the governor’s office itself.
In many ways, renewables and the various portfolio goals are word thinking, magic words and incantations, all promising a painless journey to our sparkling, environmentally friendly future. As usual, the road to very hot places are paved with good intentions, something we will hear a lot about in the upcoming legislative session.
Alex Gimarc lives in Anchorage since retiring from the military in 1997. His interests include science and technology, environment, energy, economics, military affairs, fishing and disabilities policies. His weekly column “Interesting Items” is a summary of news stories with substantive Alaska-themed topics. He was a small business owner and Information Technology professional.
In the political lexicon, “The Swamp” connotes the murky world of self-serving bureaucrats and conflicts of interest that abound in Washington, D.C. Swamp creatures are the slick operators who work the Foggy Bottom system from the White House to the Potomac River.
A textbook case of this is found in the Biden Administration, particularly surrounding the massive Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and its nontransparent web of activities.
David Hayes, a former senior climate official for the first two years of the Biden Administration, exemplifies the Swamp revolving door phenomenon, as he goes from President Joe Biden’s policy architect of a $27 billion fund to a becoming a grant applicant now on the short list to receive some of that taxpayer money.
After playing a pivotal role in crafting the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, Hayes stepped down, ostensibly to take a “breather.”
Yet, his next steps show The Swamp in action. Hayes, who had also served in the Clinton and Obama White Houses, joined the board of the Coalition for Green Capital, a prime candidate for receiving substantial funds from the National Clean Investment Fund grants, under the umbrella of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Inflation Reduction Act, a $750 billion behemoth targeting “energy security and climate change,” represents a lucrative pool of resources that invites waste, fraud, and abuse. The president himself has said that the Inflation Reduction Act has nothing to do with inflation but is, in fact, a climate change “investment.”
During his tenure with the Biden Administration, Hayes’ portfolio spanned the climate-change scam. It included promoting offshore wind energy, reducing methane emissions, and spearheading a “whole of government” approach to climate resilience. This means the neo-religion of climate change is infused into every particle of the federal government.
Hayes was instrumental in the development and implementation of climate-related provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Now, Hayes’ involvement with Coalition for Green Capital and his role as a Senior Fellow at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which partners with CGC, raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns.
The NRDC’s assurance of not accepting government funding does little to alleviate worries about Hayes’ dual roles in government policy creation and as a grant applicant.
After all, as revealed in the New York Times, the the Natural Resources Defense Council has itself shifted away from its work on toxic chemicals, radioactive contamination, and wildlife protection in order to focus on climate change. So is the Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and the Environmental Working Group, all of which have been working on issues that are suddenly no longer fashionable and are switching up their missions. Why? Follow the money. The massive federal funding has shifted to climate change and it’s the “whole of government” strategy.
“As currently envisioned in the Waxman/Markey Bill the Green Bank is established as the Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA). The CEDA/Green Bank would ensure that electricity rates remain flat for consumers in all 50 states while financing the U.S. transition from ‘carbon to clean’ energy,” the group wrote in its self-description.
But today the coalition is now marketing itself as a public-private partnership: “Through strategic partnerships and innovative financing, we can expand the reach of state and local green banks, CDFIs, and other finance institutions, to equitably drive accessibility to clean energy financing and empower communities to embrace a greener future. We accelerate investments in the clean economy to reduce emissions and improve the quality of life for all Americans. By leveraging both public and private partnerships and the power of responsive financing, our network works to remove barriers to clean technology and increase energy abundance by, for, and with communities.”
In other words, the coalition is moving with the money.
This greasy-palmed scenario is not isolated to the Coalition for Green Capital. Across the swamp, groups reposition their missions to vie for the billions of dollars in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and other similar buckets of big, endlessly supplied taxpayer bucks. These groups are run by a revolving door of eco-activists with ties to the Democratic Party or past Democratic administrations. It’s a tax-revenue skimming industry that produces nothing.
The “greenhouse graft” is what our tax dollars are paying for.
It’s especially obnoxious knowing that the Inflation Reduction Act also requires corporations to pay a 15 percent minimum tax on their profits by enacting a 1 percent excise tax on stock buybacks and redemptions. The money is going to groups like the CGC, whose principals are no doubt kicking back some of their proceeds to the reelection account of The Big Guy.
Suzanne Downing is founder of Must Read Alaska and serves as its managing editor.
The Haines Borough Assembly voted unanimously to not renew an agreement for services with the community’s property tax assessor.
The Assembly’s action was in response to months of public outcry and a citizens’ petition requesting the contract cancellation. The petition quickly gained bipartisan support and signatures from residents throughout the borough’s communities.
Haines Borough Mayor Tom Morphet issued a formal apologyto the public during the Nov. 14 Assembly meeting for the 2023 property tax assessment situation that occurred in Haines.
In the apology, the newly elected mayor acknowledged process failings: “We are sorry for the upset this has caused for not fully anticipating the problems that arose this year and for the time it took the government to fully understand and appreciate the concern of taxpayers. We are working as fast as we can to fix the property tax assessment system and make it right for both the Haines Borough and property tax payers.”
Previously employed by the City and Borough of Juneau, contract assessor Michael Dahle arrived in Haines a year ago to implement the first phase of a new mass-appraisal methodology for the Borough’s 2023 property tax assessments.
Research into Dahle’s credentials resulted in the discovery that the contract assessor holds neither an assessor’s certification with Alaska Association of Assessing Officers nor is he licensed as an appraiser. The lack of professional credentials was the basis of the petition to not renew Dahle’s contract when it expires on Dec. 31.
Haines resident Paul Rogers submitted a Citizen’s Agenda Request for Assembly Actionrequesting the cancellation of Dahle’s contract for assessment services. Roger’s request was supported with nearly 600 signatures on a petition in a borough with a population of 2,000 residents. The petition acknowledged the fact that currently there are no requirements for a contract assessor to maintain credentials but encouraged the Haines Borough to follow the examples of other municipalities in the State of Alaska that require a minimum of a level three certification with Alaska Association of Assessing Officers and hold an Alaska appraiser license.
Assembly member Craig Loomis made a motion to not renew Dahle’s contract upon its expiration in December stating “Almost 600 people signed…Let’s move on and hand the public what they want.”
Assembly member Natalie Dawson supported the motion, arguing that “Sometimes you got to cut your losses when it comes to whether you have any public trust left in a process…I feel like this petition illustrates a large number of people that are telling us they don’t feel comfortable with moving forward under the current process and status quo.”
During discussion on the motion to terminate the contract, Assembly member Kevin Forster addressed his concerns about community frustration and anger due to a lack of effective communication with the public.
“It felt like we were adversaries. It occurs to me that whoever is in that role, in any of these roles, has to be beholden to policy that protects us from this and it can’t be personalities are allowed to come in and create this type of turmoil. Which makes me feel like this is a way bigger issue than a single person,” Forster said.
The local government voted unanimously in support of Paul Roger’s request for assembly action.
“The Haines Borough Assembly heard its citizens call for reform and action to fix a failed property tax assessment system. A few citizens worked tirelessly to convince the assembly to establish an ad hoc committee to review and recommend changes to the assessment process. They also convinced the assembly to end the contract with an unlicensed, uncertified out-of-control assessor,” Rogers commented after passage of the motion.
Haines appellant Kim Rosado was pleased with the response of the Assembly: “I am, for the first time in six months, feeling relieved. The Property Tax Assessment Ad Hoc Committee needs to make sure this never happens again, and hopefully they can start with a rollback to undo the wrong,”
Gratitude for the Assembly’s action and need for codified protections was a consistent message from those that worked to bring awareness of process failures and punitive actions from the assessor’s office.
“We’re pleased with the outcome, but the culture of inept government that allowed this to occur in the first place still exists. It’s like a tumor has been removed but it will return unless we get the ‘whole body’ well, holistically,” said Dr. Mark Smith.
Juneau experienced similar turmoil during Dahle’s tenure with CBJ’s Assessor’s Office. Juneau commercial properties in 2021 received assessment increases of 150% across the board, regardless of the area they were in and without respect to how Covid-19 shutdowns affected different segments of the economy.
The issues the Juneau property owners faced mirrored the issues Haines experienced with the use of a mass appraisal methodology that uses an “exotic hybrid cost approach” with some market data that ignores actual market sales conditions, resulting in inflated assessment values in excess of full and true value. Juneau appellants also expressed frustration with the assessor’s adversarial approach toward property owners.
Upon hearing the developments from Haines Borough’s positive steps to regain public trust in the assessment process, Juneau resident Dave Hanna applauded the action of the local government “for showing courage and character to do the right thing and admit that mistakes were made, and corrections are needed. A rare occurrence in today’s world.”
Juneau property owner Greg Adler also provided encouragement to the Haines community stating “Plaudits to Haines for protecting their city! Juneau did not organize as well as Haines, but the damage to public confidence from Dahle’s rigged mass appraisal technique, not pegged to fair market value, was just as palpable. It is time for Juneau to right the wrongs and make a Decline in Value process available.”
The property tax assessment that occurred in Haines this year was due to inherent flaws that were exploited in Alaska’s property tax assessment process as detailed in Must Read Alaska earlier this season in Haines, there ought to be a law. Statewide policies and statutes must be written to guide and protect the public process for property tax assessment public process.
Haines resident Brenda Josephson is licensed by the State of Alaska for real estate sales. She also is a federally licensed tax professional authorized by the US Department of Treasury to practice as an Enrolled Agent before the Internal Revenue Service.
Anchorage mayoral candidate Chris Tuck decided Mayor Dave Bronson’s street needed plowing, so he did it himself, and videotaped his effort, in what may be the lowest-budget, highest-impact campaign ad of all time.
He posted his effort to YouTube, where it started gaining traction and is being passed around on social media. There’s no music, no introduction, nothing but Tuck operating a snowplow while the windshield wipers whack back and forth, somewhat annoyingly.
Tuck, a moderate Democrat, is running in a four-way race against first-term Bronson, leftist Suzanne LaFrance, and moderate leftist Bill Popp.
Anchorage has had record snowfall over the past two weeks, with both state and city plowing operations unable to keep up, which has led to plenty of complaining among the residents of Alaska’s largest city. It appears Tuck figured out what matters to Anchorage right now, and got his point across with his own blade, saying it is important that Bronson be able to get to work so the rest of the city can get cleared of the snow.
Former U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka has a big day on Thursday. She has already presented a robust defense before the Alaska Public Offices Commission against a host of allegations levied by Alaskans for Better Elections, a pro-ranked choice voting group. The commission staff dismissed all but one allegation, which it will take up on Thursday at 10:45 am by the quasi-judicial commission.
Meeting materials for the Alaska Public Offices Commission meeting are at this link.
The allegation focuses on the activities of Preserve Democracy, an organization led by Tshibaka.
The crux of the remaining allegation centers on language used on Preserve Democracy’s website, which was deemed a “prohibited expenditure” by the commission staff.
The website’s message advocated for election systems to be “easy to understand and accessible to everyone” and opposed the spread of ranked choice voting. This led to a recommended fine of $16,450.
Tshibaka, however, contends that the website’s content falls under constitutionally protected free speech, arguing that APOC’s regulatory authority is limited to expenditures related to direct voting advocacy on ballot measures or candidates.
Tshibaka’s defense highlights a recent case where APOC’s attorneys supported a similar stance before the Alaska Supreme Court, questioning APOC’s jurisdiction in this matter and asserting the violation of constitutional rights.
In a determined tone, Tshibaka expressed her readiness to escalate the issue to the Alaska US Supreme Court if APOC’s decision is unfavorable, emphasizing the duty of citizens to safeguard free speech from governmental overreach. This stance aligns with her broader political ethos, advocating for government accountability and citizen-led governance.
Also on Thursday, Tshibaka, together with her husband Niki Tshibaka, will launch a new podcast show titled “STAND.” Positioned as a platform where “courage becomes contagious,” the show aims to feature interviews with a variety of guests including national and local leaders, celebrities, authors, and entrepreneurs. The objective of STAND is to motivate and empower the audience to stand firm for freedom, truth, and a citizen-led government.
STAND is set for a weekly broadcast across multiple media platforms, including television, radio, and as a podcast on the internet. The inaugural episode features former acting Director of National Intelligence Ric Grenell, with subsequent episodes including interviews with prominent figures like Dr. Ben Carson and social media influencer Alex Bruesewitz. It can be downloaded from all the widely used podcast providers.
