Tuesday, August 12, 2025
Home Blog Page 614

Pentagon struggles to fill military requests for Ukraine, as funding goes to diversity critical race theory

By CASEY HARPER

The Pentagon is increasingly struggling to fill the weapons and equipment requests for the war in Ukraine. At the same time, taxpayer funds are going to pay for ongoing Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts in the military, most recently one controversial Pentagon official pushing anti-police and pro-critical race theory books at schools for the children of military families.

The New York Times recently highlighted the Pentagon’s manufacturing problem with a story headlined: “From Rockets to Ball Bearings: Pentagon Struggles to Feed War Machine.”

The Pentagon would reportedly struggle to manufacture enough precision missiles if conflict with China broke out after sending over a decades worth of Stinger missiles to Ukraine as soon as the war broke out, one of multiple concerning manufacturing issues that have been exposed by the demands of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“I’ve been sounding an alarm for months about shortcomings [and] shrinkages in our defense production capacity,” U.S> Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in response to the story. “Mergers [and] supply chain issues are only part of the problem. America is neglecting our biggest resource – people. And our key challenge – workforce training.”

Those difficulties come as the Pentagon increasingly focuses its attention, and funds, on equity initiatives.

Critics say the Pentagon has become distracted. U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, commissioned a report that laid out a series of examples of racial and gender ideology permeating military training, policies and leadership, all at taxpayer expense, as The Center Square previously reported.

In one of those examples, the report points to official training materials in which West Point cadets are lectured on white privilege. The report points to another case where a slide presentation for the Air Force Academy is titled, “Diversity & Inclusion: What it is, why we care, & what we can do,” which warns cadets to avoid gendered language, such as terms like “mom” and “dad.”

The recent Department of Defense’s comptroller’s budget report points to millions of dollars in equity funding as well.

“Ensuring accountable leadership by adding nearly $500 million in FY 2023 to implement the recommendations of the Independent Review Commission (IRC) on Sexual Assault in the Military, enhancing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) programs, and addressing extremism in the ranks,” the comptroller report said.

“The Department will lead with our values – building diversity, equity, and inclusion into everything we do,” the report added.

The report points to $86.5 million for “dedicated diversity and inclusion activities.” 

“Additionally, to facilitate, inform, and advance agency progress on issues relating to DEIA, DoD established the DoD Equity Team (DET) in 2021,” the report said. “The DET addressed a broad range of DEIA issues, including the need for increased diversity within the talent pipeline; challenges pertaining to DEIA data collection, analysis, and management; and integration of D&I curriculum into leadership development training.”

Major Charlie Dietz, a DOD spokesman in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, pushed back against the GOP report after its release.

“Diversity, inclusion, and equality at its core is about leveraging the strengths of all our people, advancing opportunity, addressing potential barriers or discrepancies, and – fundamentally – ensuring people are treated with dignity and respect,” he told The Center Square at the time of the report’s release. “We always talk about weapons systems, yet every one of us will agree that our greatest weapons system are our people. So that’s why our policies to better leverage our people and increase unit cohesion are important here.”

The Pentagon’s Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion has come under increased scrutiny after one of its employees was caught tweeting anti-white comments online.

Open the Books, a government spending accountability group, helped uncover Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) chief, Kelisa Wing, who published a string of racist tweets and has a history of promoting her own critical race theory-themed books.

Open The Books said discovered Wing pushed “radical ideologies premised on Marxist and Critical Race Theory frames; questionable ethics; substantial conflicts of interest; and even side businesses.”

In her tweets, Wing said she was “exhausted by white folx” and blasted “caudacity,” a slang term for boldness among white people.

“[T]his lady actually had the CAUdacity to say that black people can be racist too…” she tweeted. “I had to stop the session and give Karen the BUSINESS… [W]e are not the majority, we don’t have power.”

Lawmakers raised questions about Wing during a hearing last week. U.S. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., peppered Gilbert Cisneros, the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, with questions during the hearing, but he had few answers.

“Have you read Kelisa Wing’s books, titled ‘What is White Privilege?,’ ‘What Does it Mean to Defund the Police?,’ and ‘What is the Black Lives Matter Movement?’” Stefanik asked. “Are you aware that these books are in DoDEA’s K-12 schools throughout the country?”

Cisneros said no to both questions. He did say the DOD does not condone Wing’s tweet.

Wing has been removed from her involvement with military schools but was not fired.

“I will take it as a result that we delivered,” Stefanik said. “She should have been fired completely, but she was at least moved somewhere else, not dealing with our kids’ educational systems.”

Critics said Wing’s scandal and removal is just the beginning. For now, it highlights an ongoing battle over the role of federal funding for controversial equity initiatives, especially when federal agencies are struggling with their primary responsibilities.

It took multiple investigations from us and multiple hearings from Congress to finally get some answers and some action from the Department of Defense,” Adam Andrzejewski, Open The Books CEO, said. “Unfortunately, there are still outstanding questions for the Pentagon, including whether they plan to eliminate the role or find a replacement for Wing. The DoD also should account for how much public money is being spent on DEI material and trainings all across the Defense Department.”

Casey Harper is a Senior Reporter for the Washington, D.C. Bureau. He previously worked for The Daily Caller, The Hill, and Sinclair Broadcast Group. A graduate of Hillsdale College, Casey’s work has also appeared in Fox News, Fox Business, and USA Today.

Michael Tavoliero: How a governor proves himself a leader

By MICHAEL TAVOLIERO

I’ve heard it said that Alaska’s Constitution provides for the strongest governor of any state in the nation. While I don’t know if this is true or not, I will say Article III, Section 23, does give the governor an opportunity to shape the organization of state government. From Alaska’s first governor to its most recent, executive orders play a significant role in the shaping of Alaska’s public policy.

The first sentence of Article III, Section 23 reads: “The governor may make changes in the organization of the executive branch or in the assignment of functions among its units which he considers necessary for efficient administration.”

The governor has two constitutionally promulgated powers. First, the governor may alter the way the executive branch of government is structured. Second, the governor may change the way its various units are assigned functions or responsibilities. 

The caveat to these two powers is that the governor considers these changes to be “necessary for efficient administration”.

The purpose of these changes would be to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the administration of the government. Essentially, the governor has the authority to reorganize the executive branch in a way that he believes will better serve the needs of the state. 

The second sentence reads: “Where these changes require the force of law, they shall be set forth in executive orders.”

An executive order is an order issued under the authority of Article III, Sec. 23, Constitution of the State of Alaska.

Our state history of executive orders started with Gov. Bill Egan’s EO on Aug. 5, 1959, when the governor assigned the functions relating to public health, which prior to May 1, 1959, were performed by the then-Department of Agriculture, to the Department of Natural Resources effective Sept. 1, 1959.

A more recent EO occurred in 2022 when Gov. Mike Dunleavy’s Executive Order 121 divided the State’s largest department in two. The reorganization of the Department of Health and Social Services created two separate departments, the Department of Health and the Department of Family and Community Services. 

These are two examples of many in which the governor amended state statutes under the non-objection of the Alaska State Legislature.

Another example, Executive Order No. 104, was under the Murkowski administration. Here, the governor found that amending Alaska Statutes 39, Public Officers and Employees, to transfer the function of administering the equal employment opportunity program from the Office of the Governor to the division of personnel in the Department of Administration would be in the best interests of efficient administration.

Lastly, another recent example: Executive Order No. 120, under the Dunleavy Administration, repealed and replaced an Alaska statute.

The history of executive orders in Alaska demonstrates that Alaska law may be amended, replaced and repealed when the governor considers it is “necessary for efficient administration”.

The last sentence in Article II, Section 23, reads: “The legislature shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration, to disapprove these executive orders. Unless disapproved by resolution concurred in by a majority of the members in joint session, these orders become effective at a date thereafter to be designated by the governor.”

This means if the Alaska Legislature doesn’t like the executive order, they can disapprove it with a majority vote of both houses. This is a 31 legislative member vote. It does not specifically mandate the timeframe for disapproving by resolution only that the legislature “shall have sixty days of a regular session, or a full session if of shorter duration, to disapprove”.  

Constitutional convention delegate Maynard D. Londborg, saw this timeframe as the governor “sets forth an executive order but it does not become effective until it slips through the next session of the legislature without being voted out by the legislature. I suppose you could call it reverse legislation. The governor makes a new law and if the legislature does not want it done away with, well, then they can let it go through, but I think it runs in line with the strong executive we have where he can set forth his changes and the legislature by being silent on it, in that way they approve of the order.”

In 2016, then-Gov. Bill Walker vetoed the full Permanent Fund dividend payment to eligible Alaskans. This was the first time in the history of the Alaska Permanent Fund dividend program anything like this had been done. Up until then, Alaskans always had faith in the original process of payments. 

The PFD had never before been politically weaponized.

Then shortly after that, in 2018, the Alaska State Legislature adopted AS 37.13.140, which established the method of determining the amount of the dividend through a term called “the percentage of market value.” To many Alaskans, this conflicted with the established law which operated how the dividend was distributed to the eligible Alaskans.

Since that time the failure to pay the dividend according to the original statute has created political chaos. This made the Permanent Fund dividend the political football of every legislature since. Both Republicans and Democrats ran with every opportunity to throw, hand off and run this ball down field with never a score.

Every legislative session since Walker has seen political fighting over the PFD. As many have noted, without a fix to the dividend fight, Alaska cannot adopt a sensible fiscal plan.

The time to act on the dividend formula is immediate. Alaska deserves better. We are now going into almost a decade where not one legislative session has corrected the situation.

We have seen many legislators work to resolve the issue, but the political will is just not there. It seems the legislature as a body enjoys the confusion and the chaos it creates.

Yet, like Dorothy’s ruby slippers, there has always been a solution.

Our governor has the power to fix this. It is time for an executive order which repeals the POMV and re-establishes the state’s tried and true methodology for determining and distributing the PFD.

Regardless of the hyperbole, we as the public continue to see every legislative session stymied by this crisis. The Alaska governor has the power under Article II, Section 23, to make the changes necessary by executive order.  The Walker, Giessel, and Edgmon debacle of our PFD program has permeated chaos and will continue until an adult steps into the room. 

It is now time for the change as “necessary for efficient administration.”

Michael Tavoliero is a realtor in Eagle River, is active in the Alaska Republican Party and chaired Eaglexit.

Michael Tavoliero: Murkowski, queen of lies, promised to repeal Obamacare, then pulled a fast one on voters

Art Chance: Helter Skelter coming to a city near you

By ART CHANCE

Helter: Undo haste and confusion.

Skelter: To move about hurriedly.

Neither word means much itself, but the phrase “helter skelter” means “chaos” and has been in the English lexicon since the 1500s. In our time, it is best known as the title of a Beatles’ song from their cocktail-party-revolutionary phase in the late 1960s. Those with a more political bent will recognize it as a phrase from leftist politics to describe a state of a breakdown of governmental control or even a race war which could be used as a predicate to bring on their fervently desired revolution.

The goal of the Manson Family killings, Aug. 8–10, 1969, was to provoke “helter skelter.”  In Manson’s febrile imagination the killings would provoke a race war in which the blacks and whites would neutralize each other and an inspirational leader such as Charlie Manson would take charge. Suffice it to say that leftist thinking in the United States about bringing on a revolution has been delusional for the last 50 years or so.

Communist philosophers in Europe, notably Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, posited that the proletarian revolution stemming from the working class could not be organized in the West because of Western affluence and opportunity. That has proven to be true in the United States, where black Americans have not been reliable allies for the left. The connected black politician in Atlanta isn’t really interested in becoming the politburo member; he wants to live in a nice house on West Paces Ferry Road in Buckhead, with a Bentley out front.

Now the Left is stuck with the pink-haired and pussy-hatted crowd and the soy boys who wear black t-shirts and live in mom’s basement.   Those aren’t really a good revolutionary guard, however. The Left is trying to stiffen the ranks by importing a new population of illegal immigrants. The Romans thought they could control the Goths, too. We’ll see.

Somebody in today’s Left has revisited Gramsci’s idea that you brought about the revolution in the West through the institutions. The Left made the long march through media and communications and the universities by the 1950s. Leftists pretty much conquered K-12 education by the late 1960s and early 1970s.

Now the Left’s new front is the government itself and, specifically, law enforcement.

First we had the “defund the police” attacks on frontline law enforcement. Then we had the George Soros and other communists funding candidates for attorneys general, district attorneys, and secretaries of state. These are the administrators of law enforcement. Now, in the big, Blue places of the country, the Left gives the orders to law enforcement, and fundamentally, they have ordered them not to enforce the law.

In the Soros-governed cities, it’s open season on the rest of society by the criminal class, which can rob, assault, rape, and even kill with little fear of consequence. This is the new route to helter skelter.

Right now, the reaction of the sane people in the blue places is simply to first isolate themselves. Then they move. That has been the dynamic of “white flight” since the 1950s. Back then, Detroit was the richest city in the World, one of the richest the world had ever known; look what 20 years of communist, excuse me, Democrat control did to it.

I’m a refugee from Atlanta, the City Too Busy to Hate in the 1960s and 1970s. I ran a business in Atlanta’s downtown entertainment district back then. I’d rather have made the two-block walk from my business to my bank without pants than without a .38 in my belt and a Colt .25 at my ankle.

I did what most income- and job-producing people have done; I packed up and left Atlanta. The downtown district that I knew in the early 1970s doesn’t exist any more. In the 1990s, the Atlanta Braves won 10 or 11 successive division championships and went to a couple of World Series. The Atlanta fans were derided because the old Atlanta Stadium and even in the later years the new Turner Field were never sold out even for World Series games. It wasn’t that the Atlanta fans were blasé; they just didn’t think it was worth dying to go to a Braves game. 

Funny thing: the Braves abandoned the nearly new Turner Field and moved out to Marietta in the northwest suburbs. The games are sold out, and they won the World Series last year.

So, what do we do with these cities that Soros has conquered, and how do we keep him from conquering others.  And, if you haven’t noticed, Anchorage is teetering on the brink of conquest. It’s not quite being governed by the communists, but they have made it essentially ungovernable. I’m not packing boxes, but I’m thinking.

In car-crazy America of the 1950s and early-1960s, people knew of Woodward Avenue in Detroit before they knew of the car culture of The Beach Boys and Jan and Dean in Southern California. Detroit was a very affluent, fashionable city and Woodward Ave. was the heart of its cruising and street-racing scene. If your dad was an executive at one of the Big Three automakers, you could cruise Woodward with the cream of US auto production.

The people who lived in Detroit personified mid-century modern. It was a world of landscaped lots and tri-level homes with two car garages, one bay for Mom’s station wagon and the other for Dad’s company sedan. The mansions built by those who built Detroit a generation before are still there and still well-maintained, but the “For Rent” and “For Sale” signs were beginning to be apparent by the late 1950s as the working population began to drift toward the suburbs and racial tensions simmered and sometimes boiled over.

In the “pay any price, bear any burden” days of The New Frontier and The Great Society, money poured into solidly Democrat Detroit. As has been the case ever since, federal ideas, federal programs, federal administrators, and federal money just made it worse and Detroit became a powderkeg that exploded in July of 1967. The city was essentially destroyed. By the mid-1970s, three-quarters of the white students had left Detroit schools. Those once lovely manicured suburbs were wastelands and the house and lot, or what was left of it couldn’t be sold for even a dollar.

So where did the people who left go? Most initially went to the subdivisions built around the new plants built by the automakers in the late 1940s and early 1950s. That move 25 or 30 miles from central Detroit was a transitory thing, as by the 1970s those plants were closing or moving again.   

A dad who had risen from a foreman or some sort of assistant to an executive office and who had built the first suburban house and made the move to the outer suburbs with the new plant, is now retired or maybe gone. Mom isn’t willing or able to take care of that house anymore so she’s headed for “The Villages” in Florida. The kids may still have decent jobs in the local area, but are just as likely to have moved to one coast or the other. The house is unlikely to sell for a good price and is likely to be scooped up by an investor who will turn it into a rental; there goes the neighborhood.

This scenario is a specter hanging over Anchorage. There is a lot of pipeline-era housing in Anchorage. Some of it is nice, some of it is a little long in the tooth. Some of it is in neighborhoods that have simply gone to hell. The ones in bad neighborhoods are already on the way to becoming rentals or worse. The federal government has a program to buy up single family houses, replace them with multi-family housing, and make them Section 8. You don’t really want to own the house next door to one of those places.

The Municipality of Anchorage and the real estate industry have kept up a brave face and seemingly have maintained the prices of Anchorage real estate somewhat stable. One crack, one chink in that armor and the price paradigm collapses.   

I remember the days in the 1980s, when the standing joke in Anchorage was that the difference between an Anchorage condo and gonorrhea was that you could get rid of gonorrhea. Price collapse has happened before in Anchorage, in recent memory. It could happen again.

If your life’s work and life’s savings are a house in Anchorage, what do you do? We aren’t yet to the place where the housing commissar of the Anchorage Oblast can come to your house and tell you how many other families you’re going to share it with, but they can certainly tax you out of it or destroy its value and they can and will do that with impunity.    

There is a significant portion of Alaska’s self-anointed elite who think Alaska really doesn’t need most of us anymore. You might have noticed that there are not a lot of private or locally owned businesses in Anchorage anymore. Last I was in Fairbanks, it seemed the same, and Juneau has only the most minimal private business sector outside of seasonal tourism.

I lived in Juneau for many years and if you’re “in with the in crowd” it is a nice place to live. Get a job that has travel to Anchorage and Seattle about monthly so you can shop. These days you don’t even need that because online is so much more convenient. Get an account with Alaska Marine Lines so you can use “break bulk” shipping, get the free shipping to Seattle, and only pay shipping from Seattle to Juneau. I can’t remember the last time I was in a store in Juneau other than Fred Meyer or Costco for groceries.

A lot of Anchorage residents are similarly habituated: They take a couple of their daily meals for their family from the Holiday gas station.   I did a little stint at Cabela’s in Anchorage when it first opened, working with a few retirees my age and a lot of twenty-somethings. I don’t know why most of them worked other than pride or family pressure; they’d have been a whole lot better off sitting home, playing video games, and collecting welfare.

In the brave new Alaska we live off the Permanent Fund. We have a world of welfare recipients, public employees, and a ruling elite of elected and appointed officials who oversee it all. There are some restaurants and trendy stores owned by well-connected people. The corporate business lives in its own world. We don’t really need any local retail but we can sell tourist junk between May and September.

Just as in Juneau, there is some service industry to fix your car or maybe your lawnmower, but you are probably just better off buying another lawnmower. Much of the Bush economy has long been the same; if it breaks, it goes out with the ice; it isn’t worth it to fix it.

We can have an affluent elite, a pretty well-off bourgeoisie, and a proletariat that lives off government stipends. We don’t need any nasty oil wells or mines. We just check our bank statement every month. It’s a brave new world.

Art Chance is a retired Director of Labor Relations for the State of Alaska, formerly of Juneau and now living in Anchorage. He is the author of the book, “Red on Blue, Establishing a Republican Governance,” available at Amazon.

Art Chance: Palin is finishing what she started, as every Democrat’s favorite Republican

Art Chance: The barbarians have been inside the gates before in Alaska, and they’re back

Art Chance: The 1609 Project and the indentured servitude of immigrants

March 27, 1964: The Great Alaska Earthquake

The community theater group was preparing for its performance of Thornton Wilder’s “Our Town,” at Alaska Methodist University when the Great Alaska Earthquake occurred on at 5:36 pm on March 27, 1964.

It was a mega-thrust earthquake with a magnitude of 9.2, making it the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in North America and the second most powerful earthquake ever recorded worldwide.

The quake lasted approximately four and a half minutes, causing widespread destruction. The epicenter located about 75 miles east of Anchorage, but it was felt as far away as California.

The tsunamis generated by the earthquake caused devastation, particularly in the coastal towns such as Valdez, Seward, and Kodiak. Waves as high as 100 feet were reported in some areas, and entire villages were destroyed.

People in Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, 480 miles from the epicenter, could feel the quake, and in Seattle, Washington, more than 1,200 miles to the southeast of the fault rupture, the Space Needle swayed. The earthquake caused rivers, lakes, and other waterways to slosh even as far as the coasts of Texas and Louisiana.

Water-level recording instruments in 47 states — every state but Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island — registered the earthquake, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

Land in some areas was thrust up as high as 82 feet, particularly on a line from Kodiak through Prince William Sound. Other lands sank as much as eight feet.

“It was so large that it caused the entire Earth to ring like a bell: vibrations that were among the first of their kind ever recorded by modern instruments. The Great Alaska Earthquake spawned thousands of lesser aftershocks and hundreds of damaging landslides, submarine slumps, and other ground failures,” the USGS reported.

Fire breaks out at the Whittier fuel tanks on March 27, 1964 after the Good Friday Earthquake. USGS photo.

The earthquake caused 131 deaths, mostly due to the tsunamis, and many more were injured. 115 of the deaths were Alaskans. Another 40-50 Alaskans were hospitalized for care of severe injuries. Of the 115 who died, 110 of the death certificates mentioned drowning or boating-related. Seventy-five percent of those who died were men, 25% were women.

Most of those who died were working-age, between 25 to 34 years (18.2%). There were 19 deaths among children ages 0-4 (16.5%).

67% of deaths were white individuals, while 32% were Alaska Native people. One death was of an indeterminate race. The village of Chenega lost 23 people of the 83 who lived there. Two-thirds of the deaths were in the Valdez-Cordova Census Area, and Kodiak Borough had the second-highest deaths.

The damage caused by the earthquake was estimated to be around $311 million in 1964, which is equivalent to over $2.5 billion today.

Government Hill School after the Good Friday Earthquake. USGS photo.
The Million Dollar Bridge, knocked off its pilings over the Copper River during the earthquake.

Army: Cost of renaming nine Confederate-named military bases has nearly doubled

Confederate generals’ names on nine military bases were ordered to be scrubbed by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin last October, after a two-year study recommended the change, and Austin accepted the recommendation.

But on Thursday, Lt. Gen. Kevin Vereen, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for installations, told a House committee the renaming of the nine bases would cost $39 million, according to Army Times.

Last year, the naming commission estimated the cost to be $21 million.

Military bases were named for Confederate officers primarily because of their historical significance in the American Civil War and their contributions to the development of the U.S. military. Following the Civil War, the military established a number of forts and military installations throughout the southern United States. Some of these bases were named after Confederate military officers as a way of recognizing their service and sacrifice, and as a way of promoting national unity and reconciliation. In recent years, some have likened it to supporting white supremacy.

Then came the choking death by police of felon George Floyd in Minneapolis in 2020.

“All this changed in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. Many people protested systemic racism and pointed to Confederate statues and bases as part of that system. Congress established the commission in the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal 2021. Then-President Donald J. Trump vetoed the legislation because of the presence of the commission, and huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress overrode his veto,” the Defense Department said.

In January, the Department of Defense began implementing the name changes, which will include not jus the names of bases, but posts, ships, streets and more named after Confederate soldiers.

The services and other Defense agencies have until the end of the year to complete the process.

Retired Navy Adm. Michelle Howard chaired the congressionally mandated Naming Commission. The commission’s mission was to provide removal and renaming recommendations for all DOD items “that commemorate the Confederate States of America or any person who served voluntarily with the Confederate States of America,”  the Defense Department wrote.

Additionally, any installations that have street names or buildings named after Confederates will be changed. The Navy will rename the cruiser USS Chancellorsville, which commemorates a Confederate victory, and the USNS Maury — named after a U.S. Navy officer who resigned his commission to fight for the Confederate Navy — will also be renamed. Battle streamers commemorating Confederate service will no longer be authorized, the Defense Department said.

The bases to be renamed are:

  • Fort Benning, Georgia will become Fort Moore, after Army Lt. Gen. Hal Moore and his wife, Julia Compton Moore. Hal Moore received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in the Vietnam War. Julia Moore advocated for military families and is credited for the personal notification of death procedures now practiced.
  • Fort Bragg, North Carolina will become Fort Liberty.
  • Fort Gordon, Georgia will become Fort Eisenhower, after President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a five-star Army general and served as Supreme Allied Commander of forces in Europe during World War II.
  • Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia will be known as Fort Walker after Dr. Mary Edwards Walker, the first female surgeon in the Civil War, and the only woman awarded the Medal of Honor.
  • Fort Hood, Texas will be Fort Cavazos, named for Army Gen. Richard E. Cavazos, who received the Distinguished Service Cross for heroism in the Vietnam War.
  • Fort Lee, Virginia will be named Fort Gregg-Adams, after Lt. Gen. Arthur Gregg and Lt. Col. Charity Adams. Gregg was a key figure in the integration of black soldiers into the Army. Adams was the highest-ranking African-American female soldier in World War II.
  • Fort Pickett, Virginia will be Fort Barfoot, in honor of Army Tech Sgt. Van T. Barfoot, who received the Medal of Honor for his actions with the 45th Infantry Division during World War II in Italy in 1944. Barfoot was Choctaw.
  • Fort Polk, Louisiana becomes Fort Johnson, after Army Sgt. William Henry Johnson, who received the Medal of Honor posthumously for action in the Argonne Forest of France in World War I.
  • Fort Rucker, Alabama will be Fort Novosel, after Army Chief Warrant Officer 4 Michael J. Novosel, an helicopter pilot who received the Medal of Honor for a medevac mission under fire in Vietnam when he saved 29 soldiers.

‘Hell of a trade-off’: Why Biden bucked environmental lobby on Willow Project

President Joe Biden didn’t approve the ConocoPhillips Willow Project for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska due to the pressure from Alaska’s delegation. It wasn’t the persuasive pressure from Sen. Lisa Murkowski or Rep. Mary Peltola. In remarks in Canada on Friday, he mentioned nothing about Alaska Natives going to Washington to lobby for or against the project, or the fact that the entire Alaska House of Representatives, which agrees on almost nothing, signed a resolution of support for the project.

Instead, he was advised by his lawyers that his administration would lose the subsequent lawsuit, if he denied the permit.

“My strong inclination was to disapprove of it across the board but the advice I got from counsel was that if that were the case, I may very well lose … that case in court to the oil company and then not be able to do what I really want to do beyond that,” Biden told reporters Friday during a news conference alongside Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who is a foe of the petroleum energy sector and free enterprise in general.

Biden then described his Willow decision as a “hell of a trade off” for the millions of acres of land that had been set aside generations ago for oil production in Alaska that he will now block.

In the approval of the Willow master development plan, ConocoPhillips will be allowed to construct up to three drill sites of the five it proposed. It will also be allowed to build the associated processing and support facilities, including gravel roads and pipelines to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System.

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland is so opposed to the project that she would not sign the record of decision, but passed it along to Deputy Secretary Tommy Beaudreau for the official signature.

Biden told reporters on Friday he’s taking millions of acres of the Beaufort Sea, closing off oil and gas drilling and blocking off the federal Arctic Ocean waters. It’s what one Biden official called a “firewall” to prevent any more leases in Alaska’s North Slope region, and it will be promulgated with new rules that affects half of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska — some 13 million acres in all that will be taken by the federal government to prevent oil from being developed in the 23.5-million-acre petroleum reserve.

Biden has been trying to mend fences with the furious environmental lobby, which is one of his biggest supporters. Among actions he took subsequent to the Willow decision was the announcement about the millions that would be regulated into non production. Also, shortly after the Willow announcement, Secretary of Interior Deb Haaland also took back land the department had traded to a Native corporation in Alaska so that a road could be constructed between King Cove and Cold Bay’s all-weather airport.

“I am banking on, we’ll find out, that the oil company is going to say, not that’s not going to be challenged, and they’re going to go with with three sites. And the energy that’s going to be produced they’re estimated to account to 1% — 1% of the total production of oil in the world,” Biden told reporters, trying to downplay the importance of the decision.

“And so I thought it was a good — the better gamble and a hell of a trade-off to have the Arctic Ocean and the Bering Sea and so many other places, off limits forever now,” he said.

Report: Alaska’s teachers are outnumbered by other staff

The Alaska Policy Forum has published a report showing that for every four teachers in Alaska, there are five other staff members performing various other duties. Districts across the state average three teachers for every four other staff members.

The school districts with the highest number of teachers as a ratio to other staff include the Mat-Su Borough School District, which has about a 1:1 teacher-staff ratio. Teachers represent 49% of all district staff in the valley. Anchorage also was about 1:1.

The Tanana City School District has the lowest ratio of teachers to other staff, .35:1. For every teacher — and there are four of them — the district employees nearly three other staff members. The student-teacher ratio in Tanana is 8:1.

In only seven of Alaska’s 53 school districts do teachers represent 50% or more of the district’s staff: Alaska Gateway (69%), Aleutian Region (62%), Craig City (51%), Kenai Peninsula Borough (52%), Nome Public Schools (55%), Sitka (54%), and Yakutat (50%), the Alaska Policy Forum says.

By “other staff” the organization means administrators, principals, guidance counselors, librarians, instructional aides, and more. Alaska currently has about 129,000 students enrolled and over 7,200 teachers (full time equivalents), with a pupil-teacher ratio of about 18:1.

The report comes at a time when nationally, the employment in the nation’s schools has reached an all-time high, even as school enrollment lags in nearly every state.

On a per-student basis, schools employ more teachers and other staff than they’ve ever had.

For example, in 2018-19, the last full year before the Covid-19 pandemic hit, Virginia public schools employed just under 87,000 teachers. By 2020-21, the schools had employed about 75 more staff, about 0.1%, while school enrollment had declined by 2.9%. By 2022, Virginia schools had added even more staff, as student enrollment continued to dwindle, according to Chad Aldeman, policy director of the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University.

Aldeman writes in The 74, an education blog, that school staffing is hitting an all-time high and at least 48 states and the District of Columbia were reviewed, and three-quarters had added staff the first full year of the pandemic, while only two states, North Dakota and South Dakota, and D.C. enrolled more students.

“As a result, schools in 46 out of 49 states effectively lowered their teacher-student ratios during the height of the pandemic,” Aldeman reports. The national student-teacher ratio is about 17:1.

This woman won 34 medals, tells Supreme Court she’s retiring from cyclocross due to transgenders taking over

An American woman athlete who has won 35 titles in cyclocross competitions says she is retiring due to biological men being allowed to compete in the women’s division.

Hannah Arensman shared her decision to retire in an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court last week. The brief was on behalf of 67 women athletes, coaches, and parents from sports such as volleyball, disc golf, cycling, track, and more, relating to a case involving the state of West Virginia. The Mountain State is being sued by a transgender over the Save Women’s Sports Act that disallows a transgender’s participation in female athletic competitions.

Arensman decided to retire after finishing fourth place in a grueling December meet, in between a third-place transgender and a fifth-place transgender. The person who took third place was Austin Killips, who has also been accused by witnesses of roughing up Arensman three times during the December race. He has denied doing so, but others say he got physical as he tried to push Arensman off the course.

Cyclocross is a non-Olympic racing format that consists of many laps of a short course that may include pavement, trails, mud, grass, hills, gullies, and obstacles that require the rider to dismount and pack the bike to get around various obstructions.

Arensman said it had “become increasingly discouraging” to train as hard as she does only to lose to someone with an “unfair advantage,”

“I have decided to end my cycling career. At my last race at the recent UCI Cyclocross National Championships in the elite women’s category in December 2022, I came in 4th place, flanked on either side by male riders awarded 3rd and 5th places. My sister and family sobbed as they watched a man finish in front of me, having witnessed several physical interactions with him throughout the race,” she said.

“I feel for young girls learning to compete and who are growing up in a day when they no longer have a fair chance at being the new record holders and champions in cycling,” Arensman wrote in the filing. “I have felt deeply angered, disappointed, overlooked, and humiliated that the rule makers of women’s sports do not feel it is necessary to protect women’s sports to ensure fair competition for women anymore.”

The amicus brief argues that females are uniquely and adversely affected when they are forced to compete against males in sports, and that the psychological, tangible, and long-term harm suffered by females forced to compete against males is irreversible.

“Females are suffering real harm that threatens their right to basic equality and equal opportunity,” the women argue.

But the ACLU and the plaintiff, whose name is protected because he is a minor, say the boy is covered by Title IX, the 1972 law that people like the late Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska fought for in order to end discrimination against girls and women scholastic athletes. The federal government has been, through regulation, changing the definition of Title IX to include prohibition against gender identity and the Biden Administration intends to publish new rules in May that will protect transgender athletes at the expense of females.

According to the lawsuit filed by the transgender, girls are allowed to play on boys’ teams, but boys are not allowed to play on girls teams, which is not fair.

“So echoing language from Title IX’s implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 106.41(b), the Sports Act reiterated that women’s and girls’ sports teams based on ‘competitive skill’ or ‘involv[ing] a contact sport’ should not be open to males, W. VA. CODE § 18-2-25d(c)(2). Instead, male students remain free to play on male or co-ed teams, while female students can play on all teams. Id. § 18-2-25d(c)(3). The Sports Act then drew an administrable line, defining ‘male’ and ‘female’ by looking to the student’s “reproductive biology and genetics at birth.” Id. § 18-2-25d(b),” the lawsuit says.

Defining male and female by biology violates the Equal Protection Clause and Title IX, argues B.P.J. and the ACLU. The district court granted B.P.J.’s request for a preliminary injunction.

In the amicus brief filed by women athletes last week, women runners in Alaska are mentioned as part of the documentation of how females are being bested by biological males in the female divisions:

“Roughly two years ago, the West Virginia Legislature passed H.B. 3293—the Sports Act—to ensure equal opportunities and fair play for all student athletes. In recent years biological males identifying as female have increasingly competed against and beaten biological females in women’s sports events across the country. High-school-girl sprinters in Connecticut, young women swimming in the Ivy League, teen volleyball players in Hawaii, young female runners in Alaska, and student athletes everywhere in between have found themselves falling behind or pushed aside for biologically male athletes,” the women say in support of the Save Women’s Sports Act.

Other groups have filed amicus briefs in this case.

One is from the Women’s Liberation Front (“WoLF”), a non-profit radical feminist organization dedicated to the liberation of women by ending male violence, protecting reproductive sovereignty, preserving woman-only spaces, and abolishing gender and sex discrimination.

“WoLF’s interest in this case stems from its interest in empowering and protecting the safety and privacy of women and girls and preserving women’s sex-based civil rights. Those rights are threatened when court decisions and agency policies embrace the vague concept of ‘gender identity’ in a manner that overrides statutory and Constitutional protections that are based explicitly on ‘sex.’ If, as a matter of law, ‘sex’ is no longer understood to be an immutable characteristic, but instead merely a subjective self-declared and mutable ‘identity’ – then the ability to protect women and girls from sex-based discrimination is greatly diminished,” the feminist group wrote.

The Alliance Defending Freedom’s amicus brief can be read at this link.

“For the first time, the Supreme Court has an opportunity to protect fairness in women’s sports from today’s threats. It’s time for the Court to follow biological reality and ensure equal opportunities for female athletes, Alliance Defending Freedom said.

Tiffany Thomas’ Instagram post after winning the Randall’s Island Crit.

The increase in transgenders taking over women’s competitions was evidenced again last week, when transgender cyclist Tiffany Thomas, 47, won the Randall’s Island Crit (New York City) women’s division. Thomas started bike racing in 2018, when she was already in her 40s. Since then, Thomas has had at least 20 first-place finishes in women’s cycling divisions.

Track and field’s global governing body bans transgenders from women’s athletic competitions

The international governing body for track and field sport says that biological males will not be allowed to compete against female athletes in the women’s division. World Athletics announced on Thursday that it will bar any competitor who had already gone through male puberty from the female competition categories.

The organization is breaking with high schools and colleges around the United States that are increasingly allowing boys and men to compete in the girls’ and women’s divisions.

The new ban against biological males in female competitions applies to all running distances and throwing events (javelin, discus), as a way to protect women’s sports. No such bans on women competing in men’s categories seem to be of concern at this time.

World Athletics president Sebastian Coe said, “the World Athletics Council has today taken the decisive action to protect the female category in our sport, and to do so by restricting the participation of transgender and DSD athletes.” DSD stands for differences of sex development, an extremely rare condition. Those DSD athletes will have to show a testosterone level below a certain threshold for a specified period of time.

In regard to transgender athletes, the governing body has agreed to exclude male-to-female transgender athletes who have been through male puberty from female World Rankings competition starting on March 31.

“World Athletics conducted a consultation period with various stakeholders in the first two months of this year, including Member Federations, the Global Athletics Coaches Academy and Athletes’ Commission, the IOC as well as representative transgender and human rights groups,” the statement from the group said.

“It became apparent that there was little support within the sport for the option that was first presented to stakeholders, which required transgender athletes to maintain their testosterone levels below 2.5nmol/L for 24 months to be eligible to compete internationally in the female category,” the organization said.

Last year, the international swimming governing body voted to restrict the participation of transgender athletes in women’s events.

FINA members voted 71.5% in favor of a policy that requires transgender swimmers to have completed their transition by age 12 to be able to compete. The vote was taken after collegiate swimmer Lia Thomas won an NCAA championship in the women’s division.

In Alaska, boys who are identifying as females have been allowed to compete in track and field competitions in the girls’ category. In Haines, a boy in 2016 placed third in the small schools’ girls’ 200-meter sprint, and fifth in the girls’ 100-meter race.

In 2022, a biological male student who identifies as a female enrolled in the girls track and field competition at a local Anchorage middle school.

In Washington State, boys who simply state that they are transgender now can compete against girls. In 2022, a sophomore runner who competed as a male in 2021 won first place in 2022 at a Puget Sound-area school cross country meet in the girls’ division.

Reporter Dori Monson reached out to the school district: “They say they are simply following the rules set forth by the Washington Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) – the governing body for high school athletics and activities in this state. Boys can complete as girls if boys say they are girls. It’s that simple.”

But there has been a significant amount of resistance among high school parents to allowing the trend to continue.

Even former Alaska Rep. Adam Wool, a hardline Democrat and progressive on almost every issue, says admits just science that boys run faster than girls: “My daughter is the fastest runner on her girls high school XC track team. If she were on the boys team she’d be in the middle of the pack. Boys run faster than girls, that’s a scientific fact,” the progressive Fairbanksan wrote on Twitter.

He also pointed out, “The sprinter Allyson Felix won the most world championship medals in history. Her lifetime best in the 400 meters was 49.26 seconds; in 2018, 275 high school boys ran faster.”

Senate Bill 140, the Even Playing Field Act, was sponsored by Sen. Shelley Hughes and co-sponsored by Sen. Mike Shower and Lora Reinbold, to protect the girls’ division from the boys’ unfair advantage. The bill died in committee in the Alaska Senate in the Education Committee, chaired by now-former Sen. Roger Holland.

The Alaska State Board of Education this year passed a resolution to protect girls in sports but the resolution does not have the force of law. It simply asks school districts to pass rules prohibiting the discrimination of girls in sports.