Blog

Son of Alaska’s ‘Decoy’ Dan Sullivan works for Dem Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez

The son of an Alaska Senate candidate accused of trying to draw votes away from Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan works for Democratic Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington, who previously served alongside Mary Peltola in the leadership of the Blue Dog Coalition.

Noah Casey Sullivan, the son of retired Petersburg teacher Dan J. Sullivan, serves as a field representative for Gluesenkamp Perez, whose district covers southwestern Washington. Congressional salary records list Noah Sullivan working in that position during 2025 and 2026.

Gluesenkamp Perez and Peltola served together as Blue Dog Coalition co-chairs during the 118th Congress.

The employment connection comes amid broader scrutiny of whether Democratic operatives helped put a second Sullivan on Alaska’s ballot to confuse voters and benefit Democratic challenger Peltola.

Dan J. Sullivan entered the race as a Republican in May, challenging the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan. Republicans questioned his party affiliation, previous contributions to Democrats, and campaign materials they alleged resembled the senator’s branding. Donation records cited in a National Republican Senatorial Committee letter identified $650 in contributions to Democratic candidates between 2010 and 2025.

The challenger also received assistance launching his campaign from political consultant Amber Lee, who has supported Peltola and worked with Democratic candidates. The Petersburg Pilot reported that Lee helped prepare his announcement and website. Sullivan said he found her business through an online search.

Sen. Sullivan has accused the challenger of deliberately exploiting their shared name.

“His whole purpose of running is to confuse Alaskans, to make them think – Alaskan voters – that somehow he’s me, so they could rig the vote in favor of Mary Peltola,” he said in an interview with CNN.

“This is just corruption. They’re trying to cheat. I mean, there’s no plausible explanation.”

The Petersburg candidate has defended his candidacy, telling the Anchorage Daily News: “I have done nothing that should prevent me from running in this race. I filed correctly. I paid my fees. I’m not quite sure what the stink is, but I guess I’ll find out.”

Alaska election officials initially removed him from the ballot after determining that his candidacy was not filed in good faith. The Alaska Supreme Court upheld his eligibility in June, ruling that officials could not impose additional qualifications beyond those established by the US Constitution.

The dispute escalated this week after a New York Times investigation reported that Peltola campaign aides and Democratic operatives participated in efforts to recruit a candidate sharing the incumbent’s name. NBC News reported that federal investigators issued at least three dozen new subpoenas and document preservation requests, including to the Peltola and Dan J. Sullivan campaigns. Gov. Mike Dunleavy also ordered a state investigation.

Roughly 58,000 Alaskans had already voted when the recruitment report emerged, according to Fox News.

Peltola initially dismissed the reporting as “just another distraction” intended to “sell newspapers.”

Peltola denied knowing about the recruitment effort at a campaign event Thursday. Dan J. Sullivan has also denied running at Democrats’ direction or having contact with her campaign.

Keep reading

US Attorney in Arizona Investigating Three Leftwing Groups for Registering Non-Citizens After Muckraker Report on Pro-Katie Hobbs Groups – Matter Referred to the FBI

The US Attorney for the District of Arizona has opened an investigation into three leftwing nonprofits in Arizona for “registering non-citizens to vote in Arizona.”

The three groups under investigation are Stand Indivisible Arizona and Worker Power, two nonprofit groups backing Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs and other Democratic candidates, and When We Count, the Democratic National Committee’s own national voter registration program.

“The United States Attorney’s Office has already referred the matter to the FBI for a thorough federal investigation,” US Attorney Timothy Courchaine’s office announced in a press release.

This comes after Muckraker released a report, featuring volunteers from the three organizations attempting to register undercover journalists posing as non-citizens and felons.

When Katie Hobbs was asked about the groups’ attempts to cheat, she ran away from questions.

In letters to Democratic Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Republican Maricopa County Recorder Justin Heap, US Attorney Timothy Courchaine writes, “Based on written and video reports, personnel acting on behalf of the following organizations either intentionally disregarded or were recklessly ignorant of Arizona’s law prohibiting the registration of non-citizens in elections.”

“Based on a cursory review, it appears these organizations and their volunteers or employees may have violated A.R.S. § 16-182 by knowingly causing or procuring another person to be registered while knowing that person is not entitled to register to vote,” he continues, requesting a review of voter registrations submitted by the three groups.

Keep reading

True ‘Health Freedom’ Means Having Access to More Than One Kind of Medical System

I’ve emerged from three conferences on consecutive weekends with my mind buzzing over what it might take to turn the helm of a Titanic-like medical system before it reaches the iceberg now plainly ahead.

What follows is my personal perspective. It is deliberately direct because I believe the risks are too serious for polite euphemisms. I also recognize the brilliance of modern medicine in acute, emergency and surgical care. My concern is that the same system is failing to stem the chronic disease burden that now threatens to overwhelm it.

Eight signs of a collision course

1. The chronic disease trajectory is still heading the wrong way.

If modern, technology-based medicine had the innate capacity to avert the spiralling burden of chronic, degenerative, autoimmune and mental health conditions, we would have seen substantial evidence of success by now.

Instead, the Global Burden of Disease 2021 study documents an enormous burden of disability, while projections to 2050 forecast a continuing shift toward non-communicable diseases. On that front, there is little to shout about.

2. Health systems are being asked to carry more than they can bear.

The King’s Fund describes a growing population living with multiple long-term conditions and argues that better coordination is essential to the future of the National Health Service (NHS).

The Health Foundation warns that, without comprehensive action to prevent ill health, pressures on services and public spending will continue to rise. An ageing population is not the problem in itself. Ageing with declining healthspan is.

3. Tomorrow’s adults are not arriving in robust health.

In the U.K., work-limiting health conditions among 16- to 34-year-olds doubled in a decade, driven particularly by rising mental ill health.

Separate NHS data reported by the Health Foundation indicate that 1 in 5 people ages 8-25 in England has a probable mental disorder. If younger generations were entering adulthood with greater physiological, metabolic and psychological resilience, future burdens might fall. The opposite trend is now visible.

4. Families and communities are fraying when they are needed most.

Strong social networks cannot replace skilled health and social care, but they can reduce isolation, support recovery and help people live independently for longer.

Yet the World Health Organization’s Commission on Social Connection estimates that 1 in 6 people worldwide experiences loneliness and regards social disconnection as a serious, under-recognized public health challenge.

5. Prevention is still not a priority for healthcare systems or governments.

Governments repeatedly promise a shift from sickness care to prevention. Yet the Health Foundation reports that the share of NHS spending directed to prevention, primary care and community services was squeezed before the pandemic.

Funding, incentives and professional structures still flow predominantly downstream, after disease has taken hold.

6. Truthful health information is too often constrained.

In the U.S., ANH-USA is now asking a federal court to overturn the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s suppression of 114 nutrient-disease risk-reduction claims derived from statements made by federal health agencies themselves.

In the European Union and U.K., restrictive health claims regimes similarly limit the communication of science-backed information. Consumers cannot exercise meaningful agency if regulators decide which truthful information they may see.

7. Self-healing remains a medical blind spot.

Recovery from illness or injury depends on repair, adaptation and coordination across psychological, neurological, metabolic, immune and endocrine systems. Yet care is still organized largely through specialist silos and single-disease pathways — even as multimorbidity makes that model increasingly untenable.

Enhancing the body’s capacity to restore function should be a central therapeutic objective, not an eccentric add-on.

8. We have engineered ourselves out of relationship with Nature.

Whole foods from healthy, biologically active soils; regular movement; clean air and water; daylight; darkness at night; microbial exposure; temperature variation; family and community support — these are not lifestyle decorations.

They are signals human biology has long expected. The evidence around evolutionary mismatch and the signals removed by modern life supports the contention that a sizeable share of chronic ill health arises from our failure to adapt to the built environments and cultures of the Anthropocene.

This is not an argument for returning to caves. It is an argument for designing modern life around biological reality.

The question troubling me is this: how do we fix it? How do we stop the Titanic from hitting the iceberg? And should we even try to save the ship in its present form?

When one approach is not enough

I have come to the view that we can no longer wait for a single, unified vision of future healthcare. We need plural systems — but genuine pluralism, not a dominant system that allows integrative, complementary and alternative approaches to survive only at the margins.

Pluralism doesn’t mean “anything goes.” Every approach should be transparent, ethical and accountable to forms of evidence appropriate to the intervention and the individual. But the present biomedical model cannot remain the sole gatekeeper of what counts as evidence, healing or legitimate care.

Artificial intelligence (AI) will undoubtedly play an increasing part in healthcare.

If its training, governance and outputs remain transparent and sufficiently free from commercial and political manipulation — none of which can be guaranteed — it could accelerate the adoption of strategies that minimise disease risk, reveal patterns across previously separated systems and help personalise care.

That does not require healthcare to become divorced from nature, human relationships or social context. Nor does it mean ignoring the influence of factors as fundamental as light and water, a subject so masterfully handled by our previous medical director, Dr. Damien Downing, in his new book “Coherent Health: The Power of Light and Water.”

At the same time, I cannot imagine the technocrats willingly abandoning the technology-driven model.

Too much rests on a business model we have described previously: pay lip service to prevention; fund interventions that qualify for reimbursement or health authority approval; favor patented products that manage symptoms more often than they reverse underlying causes; and encourage long-term dependence on those interventions.

None of this means rejecting drugs, surgery, diagnostics or medical technology. It means putting them inside a much larger toolkit and judging the system by outcomes that count: fewer years lived with disability, longer healthspan, greater resilience and more personal agency.

Keep reading

Report: Marriage License Application Reveals Ilhan Omar Appeared Unsure of Her Name

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) appeared confused about what name to use when applying for a license for her marriage to her alleged brother Ahmed Elmi in 2009, the New York Post reported Friday along with what appears to be a photo of the document.

An apparently certified copy from the Hennepin County, Minnesota, government shows that the congresswoman’s surname was initially written as Omar, but then was crossed out and replaced with Elmi before a final edit reverted it to Omar, the conservative New York tabloid reported.

The document will no doubt come into play in a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into whether the outspoken Somali-born Minnesota congresswoman committed fraud gaining her U.S. citizenship in 2000 by allegedly failing to use her accurate legal name and birthdate.

Another eye-opening revelation in the ongoing news reports on the controversy is that the man she applied to marry with the document describes himself as gay.

Omar’s legal name is a key element in the probe as the DOJ in its court filing last week named her as “Congresswoman Ilhan Nur Said Elmi, a/k/a Ilhan Abdullahi Omar.”

A source familiar with the investigation had told the news outlet that Omar is a fictitious name and that she was born with the last name of Elmi, the same as her alleged brother she purportedly married.

The marriage certificate application, dated February 12, 2009, has other entries that could be relevant in the probe. It asks whether the bride and groom are related to each other by blood or adoption. The couple checked the “no” box.

Omar’s office did not respond to the Post for comment on the marriage license application.

Meanwhile, the Post also reported, “It’s unclear who filled out the application, but it appears to have been written with just one person’s handwriting.”

Also, unlike the Justice Department’s recent reference to Omar’s alleged true name, the initial revision was written as “Ilhan Omar Elmi,” the document shows.

Omar has denied the allegations of fraud and called the investigation and questions about her marriage a racist conspiracy theory and a politically motivated smear by Republicans and President Donald Trump.

However, when MS NOW anchor Chris Hayes recently asked her if she was related to Elmi, she answered, “Not to my knowledge,” an odd response that also made headlines.

According to the Post, “An image of the marriage application has circulated online for years and appears to have been first published in August 2016 by the Minnesota outlet Alpha News. It has until now largely gone untouched by major news outlets.”

Scott W. Johnson, a retired Minneapolis attorney, who has been investigating the “curious case” of Omar and allegations of fraud for nearly a decade, told the Post “the whole thing is a red flag.”

“Questions should be asked,” he said. “She’s never answered them.”

Keep reading

The Democrats’ ‘All Trick, No Treat’ Strategy

The gloaming deepened on a Halloween in the early 1970s. A restless gaggle of youths just turned teens pondered making a final stab at trick-or-treating. The problem? They had no costumes, having earlier laughed at how such garb was for little kids, not for them. But now, uncool or not, those costumed kids were getting free candy. They were not.

Amid the enveloping darkness, Jack-o’-lanterns flickered and costumed children tittered and flitted from door to door. Time was expiring. What to do?

One youth, his face etched with angst, hesitantly floated a trial balloon in the gloaming. “Let’s just knock doors like this.”

The gaggle eyed one another’s black T-shirts, jeans, and boots. The bald suggestion hung in the air until –

Shrugs. Swiftly, pillowcases were pilfered from their unwitting parents and the gaggle’s quest for treats sans costumes commenced.

It didn’t go well. The adults who actually answered their doors to the gaggle were less than impressed by these youths’ brazen attempt to get candy. Their glares and questions were always the same. “Where are your costumes?”

The youths’ response, too, was constant: “We’re late 20th-century teenagers.” Almost invariably, it went over like a lead balloon (or, given it was the late 1970s, more like a Led Zeppelin). Needless to say, no free treat was forthcoming.

There was, however, a singular exception to the rule. One elderly man, upon opening his door, did let out a low whistle at the restless gaggle’s “gumption.” But this backhanded compliment was all he tendered before he yanked his candy bucket back behind his less-than-politely closed door.

The lesson of this Halloween horror story? Sometimes you need to wear a costume to get what you want.

Today, this lesson forms the basis of the Democrats’ general election strategy.

In their primaries, many successful Democrat candidates won by appealing to their party’s extreme, America-loathing, socialist wing. It was an authentic approach, for they were making a legitimate appeal to like-minded left-wing extremists. Being and articulating exactly who they are, these radical candidates received what they sought from their fellow travelers – the Democrat Party’s nomination.

Yet, while a necessary step, the nomination was not the ultimate destination. Thus, on the cusp of the general election, these far-left, extremist Democrats in competitive seats resembled the gaggle of restless youths from that Halloween back in the 1970s.

Were these Democrats to wage general election campaigns by remaining true to their radical selves, some citizens may well begrudgingly admire their gumption for admitting they are “21st-century Bolsheviks” and, in some socialist circles, reward them with a vote or two. But the bulk of voters would find these radical Democrats unpalatable. As a result, these extremists would not get the treat they sought – namely, enough votes to win the general election.

Their cynical solution? The Democrats’ “all trick, no treat” political strategy.

Armed with millions in billionaires’ chump change (and heaven knows what other funding sources), these Democrat extremists conveniently doff their hidebound socialist ideology, wrap themselves in the American flag, and tuck their hammer and sickle beneath it. Ta-da! These hardcore leftists are now the costumed “moderates” knocking on your door begging for your vote.

But before you reward them for temporarily cloaking their radicalism, recall the recent past when they tricked enough citizens into treating them with their vote.

How quickly these alleged moderates ripped off their masks and revealed themselves in word and deed.

These radical Democrats passed trillions of dollars in spending bills that enriched their political cronies and spurred rampant inflation; opened wide the border for millions of illegal entries; imposed the illiberal, inherently divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion identitarian ideology; weaponized the police powers and intelligence agencies of the state against those who dissented from their radical policies, including concerned parents and devout Catholics, among others; and waged their postmodernist war against objective truth, particularly Judeo-Christian principles and Western civilization generally.

It’s all a trick. And there is no treat – well, at least not for you.

Ironically, like the restless gaggle of youth who have no other option, it is the GOP whose nominees are trick-or-treating sans costume. They are who and what they claim to be: protectors and promoters of the permanent things of faith, family, community, and country.

No wonder the other part of the Democrats’ “all trick, no treat” campaign strategy is their deceitful ads trying to garb these GOP candidates in threadbare falsehoods equally as outrageous as the “moderate” costumes they cloak themselves in.

In fact, ironically reverting to the garb of the 1970s gaggle of youths, these far-left Democrats wear costumes of black T-shirts, jeans, boots, and sundry other “blue-collar” garb to court working voters, of whom they have, at best, an abstract understanding. All the while they calumniate their Republican opponents and ignore how their own party’s failures have caused the very problems they decry.

As for answers, however, they do have them. But you won’t hear them until they have tricked their way back into office and treated themselves to the levers of power over your life.

Only then will these radical Democrats once more rip off their “moderate” Captain America masks and reveal that their radical plans were already put forward during their primaries, when they were being themselves and talking to their fellow Democrat extremists.

Keep reading

A Culture of Death

“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” — Voltaire (1694-1778)

A government that claims the authority to kill persons after they have been subdued, disarmed, tried, convicted and confined in prison has made a startling claim about the nature of political power. It claims not merely the authority to protect the innocent from violence, but the authority to inflict violence when no immediate threat exists.

It claims that the taking of human life, which it rightly condemns when committed by private individuals, somehow becomes morally permissible when committed by government agents. This is the fundamental contradiction of the death penalty: Government killing the helpless protects the living.

The Declaration of Independence offers a radically different understanding of government. All human beings possess natural rights, and governments are instituted to protect those rights. Government’s just powers derive solely from the consent of the governed. Government is not the owner of our lives. It is our creature, established to protect rights that precede its existence. Its authority is limited, and it cannot legitimately claim powers that the people whom it governs do not themselves possess.

Individuals possess a natural right to defend themselves against an unlawful attack. They may use necessary and proportionate force to repel an aggressor. Because the people possess that right, they can delegate it to the government, including to a military for defensive purposes. Government’s legitimate authority to wage defensive war is a moral and legal derivation of the people’s preexisting right of self-preservation.

But what right does an individual possess to kill a defeated enemy who has surrendered, is disarmed and locked in a jail cell? What right does a private person possess to execute a prisoner who no longer presents an immediate threat? None. The right of self-defense does not include the right to kill a helpless captive as retribution for a past offense.

And if the people do not possess that right, how can they delegate it to government? The principle is straightforward: Government cannot legitimately acquire, through the consent of the governed, a power that the governed themselves do not possess.

Confinement protects society. Execution reveals the state’s claim to omnipotence.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s plans to have a convicted defendant executed publicly and livestream the killing represent a particularly repulsive vision of state power. If implemented, such a spectacle would not demonstrate the strength of American civilization. It would advertise its moral depravity. It would turn the deliberate destruction of a human being into political entertainment, with the machinery of government serving as producer and promoter.

There is something profoundly disturbing about officials who would turn a human death into a public performance. What lesson would such a livestream teach? That the state is entitled to kill, that its violence deserves an audience, and that adults and children should watch with approval as the life of a powerless, wheelchair-bound prisoner is extinguished by military sharpshooters? That the proper response to wrongdoing is not the restraint of power but the celebration of its most lethal expression?

This is a cruel and unusual descent into barbarism, a glorification of government killing and an invitation to cultivate a culture of fear and death. Civilization advances when it restrains violence, even in response to terrible crimes. Barbarism advances when violence becomes an instrument of public spectacle and collective gratification.

Keep reading

“Very Intentional”: Steve Eisman Thinks Anthropic Is Hiding Something

Steve Eisman, the investor made famous by The Big Short for recognizing the subprime mortgage disaster before much of Wall Street, is now accusing Anthropic of deliberately withholding its latest quarterly financial statements from investors ahead of its potentially $2 trillion IPO.

Speaking Wednesday on Prof G Markets, Eisman questioned why Anthropic’s October 26 prospectus contained financial statements only through June, despite more recent information suggesting the company’s explosive growth may already be losing momentum, according to the podcast and Yahoo.

Asked whether he believed the omission was deliberate, Eisman answered: “Only very intentional.”

That’s a pretty serious allegation, particularly coming from somebody whose reputation was built on recognizing financial absurdities that the rest of Wall Street was perfectly content to ignore. And it dovetails almost perfectly with what I’ve been arguing about the AI bubble for months.

On September 29, I published It’s Official: The AI Emperor Has No Clothes, examining Anthropic’s extraordinary losses, its enormous infrastructure commitments, and the growing disconnect between the enthusiasm in AI equities and the warnings emerging from credit markets.

My argument then was that investors were beginning to get their first meaningful look at the financial machinery behind the AI boom, and what they were discovering wasn’t particularly encouraging.

Now Eisman is suggesting that even this picture may be considerably rosier than the company’s latest numbers would indicate.

According to Reuters figures discussed by Eisman, Anthropic’s quarterly revenue growth decelerated from 144% in the second quarter to 45% in the third. That’s still spectacular growth by ordinary standards, but for a company seeking a valuation approaching $2 trillion, a slowdown of that magnitude deserves considerably more scrutiny than it’s getting.

More concerning is the apparent deterioration in the economics of generating that revenue. Eisman says Anthropic produced $2.08 in revenue for every dollar spent on computing and infrastructure during the second quarter. In the third quarter, that figure dropped to $1.70, a decline of approximately 18%.

In other words, compute spending went from consuming roughly 48 cents of every revenue dollar to nearly 59 cents in just three months.

That’s not exactly the direction you’d hope to see from a company about to IPO, whose valuation depends on the assumption that scaling its technology will eventually produce extraordinary profitability.

Eisman believes part of the explanation is the fading of what he calls “tokenmaxing,” a period when businesses encouraged employees to consume enormous quantities of AI computing resources without worrying much about the bill.

Keep reading

Is There Any Way To Save Social Security, Or Is It Doomed?

The young do not think about getting old, and this is to the greatest benefit of governments which spend and inflate younger generations out of any future subsidies they might one day come to rely on. For most people in Gen Z, though, there is at least a tacit acknowledgment that they are paying into a system that might not be there for them when they retire. However, their only point of reference is usually the rantings of their socialist college professors or a mob of crazed activists on TikTok.

So, naturally, the only solution they can come up with is MORE power for government, more taxation, more communism and more redistribution of wealth. In other words, give more control and more cash over to the state which already misspent their money.

The idea of pillaging the wealth of others as a shortcut to security for a single generation is not new. This plan is doomed to fail, as it has failed in nearly every socialist system with a population larger than around 10 million people.

Even in “market-capitalist welfare states” that are often cited as “successful” like Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland, the ability to continue retirement funding at a rate which provides a livable wage is only possible if the retiring population is much smaller than the working population.

Across the west at present, the larger Baby Boomer generation is aging completely out of the labor pool and these systems are being depleted rapidly. The demographic squeeze is tightening and in the US, those special Treasury securities are now being redeemed – Social Security is set to decline starting in 2034.

Current SS reserves are at $2.56 trillion. These reserve funds are being depleted every year by a spending deficit. The deficit is not fixed and fluctuates wildly, but the overall trend shows it is clearly growing. In 2025 the shortfall was $160 billion (that’s the amount of extra money the government has to tax or borrow in order to fully cover the costs of Social Security beyond normal revenues). That deficit is projected to rise to $393 billion by 2033.

As these reserves disappear due to deficits, eventually social security payments will be reduced as a consequence.

By the time I am old enough to collect, Social Security payments will be cut by 22% (accounting for steady inflation). By the time Gen Z is old enough to collect, their SS payments will shrink by 35% with inflation included. The fund does not necessarily implode but the benefits will becomes more and more useless over time.

At bottom, the fund will be dead because it will no longer be able to adapt to inflation. Costs will continue to rise and SS will shrink exponentially. Relying on the system for retirement would be impossible. This is also assuming there is not an economic crisis event in the future which completely derails government funding for SS much sooner.

This brings up a lot of questions…

Keep reading

Burma’s Junta Bombs Civilian Targets While Inviting Rebels to Peace Talks

Burma’s new defense minister, Lieutenant General Yar Pyae, claimed at an October event that the air force’s bombing campaign serves peace. At the same event, the junta renewed its invitation to ethnic armed groups to join peace talks and called on the People’s Defense Force (PDF), the armed wing of the opposition National Unity Government, to lay down its weapons.

Yar Pyae, who also chairs the junta’s National Solidarity and Peacemaking Negotiation Committee, spoke three weeks after a military airstrike on a market in Kyauktaw, Rakhine State, killed 50 people, according to aid workers and the Arakan Army (AA). During the weekend of the event, junta airstrikes killed at least 27 civilians across five states and regions.

The invitation followed an earlier peace initiative accompanied by continued bloodshed. After Min Aung Hlaing took the title of president in April 2026, the junta announced a “100-Day Peace Initiative,” running from April 21 to July 31, and invited ethnic armed groups to Naypyitaw for talks. The UN Special Rapporteur’s latest report found that about 753 civilians were killed nationwide during that period, with the military and allied militias responsible for 89 percent of those deaths.

Airstrikes allow the military to attack territory its ground troops cannot hold. In Rakhine, where the junta has lost 14 of 17 townships, the UN Human Rights Office found that the military relied primarily on air power to prevent the AA from advancing on Sittwe and Kyaukphyu. The AA has also overrun a major regional military headquarters since launching its offensive in November 2023, according to Agenzia Nova. ACLED senior analyst Su Mon said the junta’s September offensive to retake territory in Rakhine had produced no battlefield gains.

The UN Human Rights Office’s annual report to the Human Rights Council, covering June 2025 through May 2026, identified airstrikes as the leading cause of civilian deaths in Burma. Open sources recorded at least 2,592 air attacks during that period, a 17 percent increase over the previous year. Aerial attacks accounted for 845 of the 1,241 civilian deaths the office recorded.

The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP), a Burmese rights monitor cited by the UN office, counted at least 8,075 civilians killed by the military between the February 2021 coup and May 31, 2026, including 1,074 children. The office said military restrictions prevented verification of thousands more deaths.

Keep reading

‘Full spectrum intelligence’ will unify all signals to detect people, objects: WEF inaugural Annual Meeting of Global Future Leaders

With full spectrum intelligence, nothing will remain hidden; everyone and everything will be detectable anywhere: perspective

“Full spectrum intelligence” will one day unify all signals like WiFi, ultrasound, sonar, and X-rays and will be able to detect any person or object anywhere, according to a presentation at the World Economic Forum (WEF) inaugural Annual Meeting of Global Future Leaders in Dubai, UAE.

Giving a presentation at the WEF meeting on Wednesday called, “Sensing The Invisible,” the person who pioneered the technology that uses WiFi to see through walls, MIT Signal Kinetics Research Lab founding director and Cartesian Systems co-founder Dr. Fadel Adib explained how all signals will eventually come under one umbrella called “Full Spectrum Intelligence.”

With full spectrum intelligence, nothing will remain hidden. Everyone and everything will be detectable anywhere, from the deepest depths of the ocean to the far reaches of outerspace, and everywhere in between, including the biological signals beneath our skin.

“We think of WiFi as different than ultrasound. We think of sonar as different from cellular communication. But what research has shown over the past 15 years is that there’s a unifying theme under all of them, and it’s almost like a playbook that you could extract information from,” said Dr. Adib.

“So what is now happening is that the electromagnetic spectrum, which is like the wireless spectrum, is being populated […] What we’re going to start seeing is ‘full spectrum intelligence;’ intelligence that is able to extract meaning from all the signals that exist around you and be able to use them to deliver new capabilities.”

The applications for full spectrum intelligence are vast.

Wireless sensing can already aid in personalized healthcare by diving deep beneath the skin; it can help retail stores and warehouses find missing products; and it is being deployed to build “an internet of things to observe the underwater world” with the help of the “world’s first battery-free underwater camera.”

For law enforcement, full spectrum intelligence would be a godsend, especially when it’d come to vehicle searches and search warrants on private property.

Border patrols, port authorities, and customs and immigration agencies would love this.

And for the military, full spectrum intelligence would leave no person or installation, including what’s buried deep inside a facility, undetectable.

Going back 15 years, Dr. Adib’s research has been pivotal in making all of this possible.

Keep reading