VIDEO: The Terrifying Technology Inside Drone Cameras

New Mind posted the video below on drone cameras stating,

UAVs operate in the world of tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance or ISR, generally providing immediate support for military operations often with constantly evolving mission objects. Traditionally, airborne ISR imaging systems were designed around one of two objectives, either looking at a large area without the ability to provide detailed resolution of a particular object or providing a high resolution view of specific targets, with a greatly diminished capability to see the larger context. Up until the 1990s, wet film systems were used on both the U2 and SR-71. Employing a roll of film 12.7 cm or 5″ wide and almost 3.2 km or 2 miles long, this system would capture one frame every 6.8 seconds, with a limit of around 1,6000 frame captures per roll.

New Mind goes on to report,


The first digital imaging system to be used for reconnaissance was the optical component of the Advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar System or ASARS. Installed on the U-2 reconnaissance aircraft in the late 1970s, ASARS used a large, phased-array antenna to create high-resolution images of the ground below using radar. Complementing the radar, was an imaging system that used a Charge-coupled device or CCD camera to capture visible light images of the terrain being surveyed. This CCD camera operated in synchronization with the radar system and had a resolution of around 1 meter or 3.3 feet per pixel.

A CCD sensor consists of an array of tiny, light-sensitive cells arranged in an array. When combined with the limitation of computing hardware of the time, their designs were generally limited to less than a megapixel, with resolutions as low as 100,000 pixels being found in some systems.


By the early 1990s, a new class of imagining sensor called active-pixel sensors, primarily based on the CMOS fabrication process began to permeate the commercial market. Active-pixel sensors employ several transistors at each photo site to both amplify and move the charge using a traditional signal path, making the sensor far more flexible for different applications due to this pixel independence. CMOS sensors also use more conventional, and less costly manufacturing techniques already established for semiconductor fabrication production lines.


Wide Area Motion Imagery takes a completely different approach to traditional ISR technologies by making use of panoramic optics paired with an extremely dense imaging sensor. The first iteration of Constant Hawk’s optical sensor was created by combining 6 – 11 megapixel CMOS image sensors that captured only visible and some infrared light intensity with no color information.

At an altitude of 20,000 feet, the “Constant Hawk” was designed to survey a circular area on the ground with a radius of approximately 96 kilometers or 60 miles, covering a total area of over 28,500 square kilometers or about 11,000 square miles. Once an event on the ground triggers a subsequent change in the imagery of that region, the system would store a timeline of the imagery captured from that region. This now made it possible to access any event at any time that occurred within the system’s range and the mission’s flight duration. The real time investigation of a chain of events over a large area was now possible in an ISR mission.

In 2006 Constant Hawk became the first Wide Area Motion Imagery platform to be deployed as part of the Army’s Quick Reaction Capability to help combat enemy ambushes and improvised explosive devices in Iraq. In 2009, BAE System would add night vision capabilities and increase the sensor density to 96 megapixels. In 2013, full color imagery processing capability would be added.

The system was so successful that the Marine Corps would adopt elements of the program to create its own system called Angel Fire and a derivative system called Kestrel.


As Constant Hawk was seeing its first deployment, several other similar systems were being developed that targeted more niche ISR roles, however one system in particular would create a new class of aerial surveillance, previously thought to be impossible. Called the ARGUS-IS, this DARPA project, contracted to BAE Systems aimed to image an area at such high detail and frame rate that it could collect “pattern-of-life” data that specifically tracks individuals within the sensor field. The system generates almost 21 TB of color imagery every second. Because ARGUS-IV is specifically designed for tracking, a processing system derived from the Constant Hawk project called Persistics was developed. Because this tracking can even be done backwards in time, the system now becomes a powerful tool for forensic investigators and intelligence analysis of patterned human behavior.


©New Mind. All rights reserved.

FBI Informant Was Embedded In Jan. 6 Defense Team, Lawyers Allege

At least one Proud Boys member on trial over the Jan. 6 storming of the U.S. Capitol had a previously-concealed FBI informant set to appear as a witness in their case, a defense attorney said Wednesday.

Former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio and members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola are all on federal trial after being accused in a June 2022 indictment of conspiring “to oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force.” The government revealed Wednesday that a witness scheduled to appear in the defense case Thursday had been an FBI confidential human source from April 2021 to at least January 2023, Rehl’s lawyer Carmen Hernandez said in a court filing obtained by American Greatness’ Julie Kelly.

The source had been in electronic contact with one or more of the defense’s counsel and at least one defendant over that period, participated in prayer meetings with one or more defendant’s family members, and talked with one of the defendant’s family members about replacing one of the defense counsel, the filing alleges. Rehl and his fellow defendants subsequently started preparing a motion to dismiss their indictment or hold an evidentiary hearing.

The FBI did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.



Legal reporter.


DOJ Tries To Stonewall Records Request On FBI Informant Embedded In Jan. 6 Defense Team

Attorney General Had ‘No Legitimate Basis’ To Order FBI On Parents At School Board Meetings, House Republicans Find


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Supreme Court Vacates Ruling that Minors Have Constitutional ‘Right’ to Abortion; One Justice Dissents

The U.S. Supreme Court has vacated a lower court’s opinion asserting that underage girls possess a constitutional right to have an abortion without notifying their parents. Only one justice, Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented that her colleagues effectively erased the pro-abortion decision from the books, preventing lawyers from citing it as a binding legal precedent in future cases.

Justices on Monday wiped out an appeals court’s decision in the Chapman v. Doe case. In 2018, a 17-year-old referred to as “Jane Doe” sought a Missouri court ruling to bypass the state’s law requiring that she obtain parental consent before undergoing an abortion. But a Randolph County court clerk named Michelle Chapman told the minor that the judge said her parents must be notified before the court hearing. Doe traveled to Illinois, where she received a judge’s permission and underwent an abortion.

She then contracted the ACLU to sue Chapman for placing an “undue burden” on her unalienable “right” to abortion, violating the terms of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 1992 opinion in Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Hearing Doe’s case, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals contended last April that the right of a minor to bypass parental input or knowledge is an established part of U.S. citizenship. Jane “Doe’s constitutional right to apply for a judicial bypass without notifying her parents is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent,” said the appeals court. “Chapman’s refusal to allow her to apply for a judicial bypass without parental notification violated her Fourteenth Amendment rights.”

Two months later, the Supreme Court issued its Dobbs decision, which ruled that “procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right because such a right has no basis in the Constitution’s text or in our [n]ation’s history.” Chapman and Dobbs agreed the decision made their case moot — but Chapman then appealed to have the lower court ruling thrown out.

In Chapman’s legal filing, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) noted, since Roe v. Wade had not established a minor’s right to obtain an abortion without her parents’ involvement, the lower court’s ruling “carries legal significance on parental notification requirements that this Court has not” established. Bailey requested the justices issue a vacated judgment, known as a “Munsingwear vacatur,” which Bailey noted, “prevents the decision from spawning legal consequences for similarly situated persons.”

Justices on Monday remanded the case to the Eighth Circuit with instructions to vacate and dismiss it as moot. That halts others from citing the Eighth Circuit’s pro-abortion ruling as precedent in future cases.

“We are still seeing the trickle-down effects of the Dobbs decision — both saving unborn children’s lives and now protecting the right of states to protect parental notification laws,” Mary Szoch, director of the Center for Human Dignity at Family Research Council, told The Washington Stand. “When a minor is considering a decision as tragic, terrible, and dangerous as allowing an abortionist to kill her unborn child, her parents should be there to help their daughter choose life and to speak up in defense of their grandchild’s life.”

President Joe Biden’s only Supreme Court appointee to date, Associate Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, issued the lone dissent. “[O]ur common-law system assumes that judicial decisions are valuable and should not be cast aside lightly, especially because judicial precedents ‘are not merely the property of private litigants,’ but also belong to the public and ‘legal community as a whole,’” she wrote. She argued, since Chapman agreed the case was moot due to Dobbs, Dobbs did not play the definitive role in making the ruling moot.

Jackson represented NARAL Pro-Choice America, the League of Women Voters, and the Abortion Access Project of Massachusetts during the time she belonged to Boston’s Goodwin Procter law firm.

Jackson also generated headlines during her confirmation hearings, when she said she felt incapable of defining the word “woman,” because she is “not a biologist.”

The issue of parental notification and consent for their young daughter’s abortion continues to play a part of the national debate over parental rights, which has expanded to public school curriculum, school library book choices, and gender transitions.

The high court remains largely sympathetic to parental rights. Last June, Chief Justice John Roberts allowed Indiana to begin enforcing its parental notification law as the case made its way through the court system.

Yet lower courts remain mixed. A Montana judge permanently enjoined that state’s parental consent law as “unconstitutional and unenforceable” last month but said a trial must determine the fate of its 2012 Notification Act. Lewis and Clark County District Court Judge Chris Abbott was appointed to the bench by former Governor Steve Bullock, a Democrat.

The debate has also engulfed potential judicial appointees. Democrats have signaled concern over Biden’s appointment of Michael Delaney, nominated for the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, because he once signed a petition for a parental notification case. As deputy attorney general of New Hampshire in 2005, Delaney signed a brief in Ayotte vs. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, which required parents to be notified before minor daughters had an abortion.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, since he sees abortion as “a fundamental, core issue … I’d want to know why he put his name on the brief.” Another, unnamed Democratic senator also told the Associated Press of their hesitancy because of Delaney signing the brief, and the National Council of Jewish Women opposes Delaney’s nomination, saying his role in the 2006 Supreme Court ruling proves he lacks “fairness, independence, fidelity to constitutional values, and respect” for plaintiffs.

A total of 36 states require parental notification of one or both parents before an unemancipated minor can have an abortion, including 21 states that demand at least one parent’s consent, but 35 of those states provide for a judicial bypass, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.

“We should give thanks for the Dobbs decision that continues to positively impact other Supreme Court decisions and allows states to do whatever possible to protect the unborn,” said Szoch.


Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Bowman Defends TikTok Amid Calls to Ban the Chinese Spy App

Radical New York Democrat Rep. Jamaal Bowman, who has called moves by both parties to ban the China-controlled social media platform TikTok “fearmongering,” reportedly will host a press conference on Wednesday on Capitol Hill that will feature “dozens of TikTok content creators to make the case for protecting the app in the U.S.”

“This is a space where these creators have found a platform to share their ideas, their inspirations, their thoughts, their voices with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. And why do we want to take that away?” Bowman told NBC News. “Why do we need to ban a platform that 150 million Americans now use?”

Maybe because it’s a Chinese spy program that is also rotting the brains of millions of American teens?

“There are many apps on our phones right now that are Chinese apps. And so the idea that, ‘Oh, TikTok is the boogeyman’ — it’s just part of a political fearmongering that’s happening,” added Bowman. “I haven’t seen any hard evidence that TikTok is committing some form of espionage,” he added. “What I’ve heard is speculation. And what I’ve heard is innuendo.”

Bowman addressed statements made by Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), chair of the Intelligence Committee, who told reporters on Monday that TikTok can be used for propaganda and manipulation by China. Bowman felt the same scrutiny should be applied to Facebook: “When we look at American companies like Facebook looking the other way in 2016 when Russia colluded to impact our election — Facebook is a national security risk. We’re not talking about a ban on Facebook.”

Maybe we should be, even though Russian election collusion has been proven to be a Democrat lie. Facebook is a far-Left tool for censorship and election influence.

“I think the more we learn, the more you’ll see people stand up and defend TikTok,” Bowman concluded. “Let me say this: If information comes out that clearly shows TikTok as a problem, I will say I was wrong. I have no problem saying that. I just haven’t seen that information as of yet.”

Oh, the proof is there, all right — Bowman just doesn’t want to rock the boat with China, which owns the Biden administration and the Democrat Party.

Jamaal Bowman

66 Known Connections

Equating Capitalism with Slavery

In December 2020, Bowman said in an interview with The Root “I believe our current system of capitalism is slavery by another name. We’ve moved from physical chattel enslavement and physical racial segregation to a plantation economic system. One that keeps the majority of Americans unemployed, or underemployed and struggling just to survive, while the power elite continues to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few, and allow large corporations to pretty much run the world as multinational corporations. The pandemic has revealed it. With almost 300,000 dead from the pandemic, disproportionately black and brown, and Jeff Bezos is the first $200 billionaire. In the next six years, he might become the first trillionaire. That’s slavery by another name. It’s a system that’s not working, so we need a new system.”

To learn more about Jamaal Bowman, click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Dems Fear TikTok Ban Could Makes The Kids Mad

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

J.K. Rowling: ‘There is something dangerous’ about transgender movement ‘and it must be challenged’

Despite vicious woke attacks against acclaimed Harry Potter author J.K Rowling, she refuses to back down from her warranted criticism of the trans movement, which has gone out of control.

It shouldn’t be a movement to begin with. Some obvious examples of how the trans movement has become so “dangerous,” as Rowling says: the rape of women by men identifying as women; the trans takeover of female sports; the potential physical harm to females in prisons and to youngsters in schools; the sexualization of small children during what should be innocent reading and learning time, not drag shows; vulgar exhibitionism at pools in full view of young girls; and increasing incidents of outright weirdness that threaten women to an extent never previously thought possible, such as the male who identifies as a woman with a birthing fetish, who has now been arrested for fraud and sex assaults.

No limits is what makes this movement scary and so dangerous, as the rights and safety of others are trampled. Too many weak politicians have surrendered to special interest groups.

J.K. Rowling: ‘There’s Something Dangerous’ About the Transgender Movement

by Paul Bois, Breitbart, March 17, 2023:

Author J.K. Rowling continued to prove she will not back down in her criticism of transgender radicalism in a recent podcast episode in which she called the movement “dangerous.”

Speaking on the Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling podcast, the acclaimed Harry Potter author said she tried listening to transgender activists to better understand their views but ultimately concluded that something “dangerous” lurked within.

“I can only say that I’ve thought about it deeply and hard and long. And I’ve listened, I promise, to the other side,” Rowling said. “And I believe, absolutely, that there is something dangerous about this movement, and it must be challenged.”

The British author addressed the trolls who say she somehow “betrayed” the values espoused in her books.

“I’m constantly told that I have betrayed my own books, but my position is that I’m absolutely upholding the positions that I took in ‘Potter,’” Rowling said. “My position is that this activist movement in the form that it’s currently taking, echoes the very thing that I was warning against in ‘Harry Potter.’”

“I am fighting what I see as a powerful, insidious misogynistic movement that I think has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society. I do not see this particular movement as either benign or powerless,” she continued.

In the summer of 2020, J.K. Rowling said that transgender ideology could lead to the erasure of womanhood as we know it by denying the basic biological functions that differentiate women from men.

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth,” she tweeted….

Read more.



House Republicans Probe Preferred Pronoun Role Play At West Point

Kentucky Legislature Affirms Parents’ Rights, Bans Gender Transition Procedures for Minors

Mortality Rates for U.S. Children and Teens are Rising for the First Time in 50 years

Missouri AG Moves to Curtail Gender Transition Procedures for Minors


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

ZOA Accuses Biden’s Handlers of Planning to Train, Equip and Deploy Palestinian Terrorists in Judea and Samaria

The Biden administration is either dangerously naïve or worse. It is presenting this plan under the pretext of helping to curb terrorism in Judea and Samaria, yet ZOA says this “unconscionable and illegal plan” would aid Palestinian jihadists. Meanwhile, another report has exposed the U.S. State Department’s funding of an anti-Netanyahu Leftist group that is behind the chaotic protests in Israel. What exactly is the motivation of the Biden administration?

A news article by Tablet Magazine stated of America’s most recent plan:

Incredibly, the U.S. is now proposing to take advantage of its ally’s political weakness by standing up a potential 5,000-man Palestinian terror army that would ostensibly fight terrorism in the West Bank in place of the IDF.

Washington, D.C.’s latest bout of Mideast pyromania began with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s visit to Ramallah at the end of January, right after a Palestinian terrorist shot dead seven Israelis outside a synagogue in Neve Yaakov.

The key words are “ostensibly fight terrorism in the West Bank in place of the IDF,” which puts a different spin on America’s possible intent from that of the ZOA below. But what would make the Biden administration actually think its plan could possibly work to bring Palestinians to “fight terrorism”? Given the administration’s consistent anti-Israel stance, does it really believe that arming, training and deploying Palestinians could be a trusted strategy to “fight terrorism,” rather than help perpetuate it?

In reality, such a plan would greatly empower the Palestinian “resistance.” History bears out the fact that the Palestinians do now want and never wanted peace. They aim to obliterate Israel from the River to the Sea, as is stated in the founding Charters of all the major Palestinian organizations, and they’re watching closely as America further positions itself as their ally rather than the ally of Israel.

Surely America should know that Israel cannot allow such a plan. The IDF, in fact, beefed up troops in Samaria last month in response to the escalating violence.

ZOA: Stop Biden/Blinken/Amr Unconscionable Plan to Establish Army of 5,000 Palestinian-Arab Terrorists plus U.S./Foreign Forces

Zionist Organization of America, March 17, 2023:

The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) denounces, in the strongest possible terms, the Biden Administration’s unconscionable, illegal plan to provide commando training in Jordan to 5,000 Palestinian-Arab army of terrorists or future terrorists; and to then equip and deploy this Palestinian-Arab commando army in Judea/Samaria, along with foreign and U.S. forces.

The administration’s horrific, frightening, dangerous plan also requires Israel “to sharply curtail IDF counterterror operations.” U.S. security coordinator Lieutenant General (LTG) Michael Fenzel, who is currently responsible for training Palestinian Authority (PA) police in Judea and Samaria, proposed training the new 5,000-strong commando army, and deploying foreign forces, including U.S. military forces, on the ground.

Thus, under the Biden administration’s plan, Israel would be restricted from defending innocent Israelis from terrorists; and much of Judea/Samaria would become a “safe haven” for terrorists to retreat to and be celebrated after perpetrating murderous terror attacks in Israel, with no consequences.

Moreover, American and other foreign forces on the ground would become sitting ducks, subject to Palestinian-Arab terror attacks. American and foreign soldiers would also become human shields, who block Israel from going after the terrorists, lest foreign forces be caught in the crossfire. Further, the PA will want foreign forces to include Iranians, thereby introducing even more terror into the region…..

Read more.


RELATED VIDEO: Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff Video: Islam’s Assault on Human Rights.


DC News Now tells you ‘everything you need to know’ about Ramadan, except what you need to know

Israeli Finance Minister says ‘There is no such thing as a Palestinian people,’ U.S. says ‘we utterly object’

German Tourists Get a Taste of Palestinian Hospitality

Palestinian Islamic Jihad meets with Hizballah head to ‘strengthen the rebellion against the Zionist enemy’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Elon Musk Tweets Stanford University Law Students’ Protest Represents ‘Soviet Levels of Indoctrination’

With 15,750 administrators for 16, 973 students Stanford has devolved into a public works program for well-paid charlatans supervising intellectual hooligans whose long journey up the Everest of comprehension is now supervised by the spawn of the spawn of the 1960s Marxist professoriate. Parents should demand a refund and all federal funding should be withdrawn.

Read on:

What Happened to Stanford?

The list of serial embarrassments at Stanford reads like the suicides of Greek tragedy, where divine nemesis follows hubris.

Stanford was once one of the world’s great universities. It birthed Silicon Valley in its prime. And along with its nearby twin and rival, UC Berkeley, its brilliant researchers, and teachers helped fuel the mid-20th-century California miracle.

That was then. But like the descent of California, now something has gone terribly wrong with the university.

Students at Stanford Law School recently shouted down visiting Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Kyle Duncan. He had been invited to give a lecture by the school’s Federalist Society.

The judge never even got the chance. The law school students drowned him out. They flashed obscene placards. They screamed that he was “scum.” One yelled he hoped the judge’s own daughters would be raped.

Others bellowed, “You’re not welcome here, we hate you!” “Leave and never come back!” “We hate FedSoc [Federal Society] students, f–k them, they don’t belong here either!” and “We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!”

When the judge tried to reply, they drowned him out with “liar” and “scumbag.” Then, mission accomplished, they smugly stomped out.

Note these were ostensibly not teenaged undergraduates. Instead, they were wannabe adult professionals, in law school to learn jurisprudence and to enter the elite American legal system that is supposed to have protocols separating it from the mobocracies prevailing abroad

One of those foundational principles is to honor the Constitution’s protection of free speech and expression—not to mention the ancient idea of respecting an invited guest, or the custom to treat with deference a federal judge, to say nothing of the duty to honor the codes and laws of the institution that they have chosen to join which prohibit disruption of lectures and any effort to drive out public speakers.

When an exasperated Justice Duncan called out for a university administrator to restore calm, his podium was instead hijacked by Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Tirien Steinbach. She then gave her own preplanned, scripted lecture that sided with the disruptive protesters! Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

The diversity dean then turned on the speaker. She asked the startled judge whether it was even worth supporting his free speech rights, given he and his views were deemed abhorrent to the new absolutist Stanford.

Note well: DEI Deans normally do not attend law school lectures. She showed up because she apparently knew in advance that the law students would violate their own university’s codes of conduct and disrupt a speaker.

So she had planned, again in advance, to do nothing to stop them. Instead, she would prepare a performance-art speech for such a certainty, to chastise the speaker and defend the disrupters. She assumed correctly that none of the other administrators, who also strangely attended, would admonish her or the students for violating the laws of their own university. She apparently assumed, once more rightly, that her own leftist fides on campus would be enhanced.

So far neither the diversity dean nor the students have been disciplined by the university. When the dean of the law school, Jenny Martinez, offered an apology (but did not punish the students), most of her own class walked out on her. And dozens of Stanford’s law school students lined the corridor in attempts to intimidate her as if she was some sort of toxic pariah.

In a Soviet-style finale, the Acting Associate Dean of Students Jeanne Merino advised the Federalist Society students who were targeted by fellow law students that there were “resources that you can use right now to support your safety and mental health.” Then Merino directed them, inter alia, to none other than Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Dean Tirien Steinbach herself, the very dean who had taken over the podium to lecture Judge Duncan!

The debacle revealed four disturbing characteristics about the Stanford law students: One, they acted as if they were bullies and cowards. Videos of the mess showed how they turned mob-like in their chanting, flashing creepy placards, and, like Maoists, walking out on cue. Yet, when the judge fired back at their rudeness, like wounded fawns they took offense and pouted. And later, when there was mention that the names or photos of the protestors might be published, tit-for-tat, in the manner they themselves had put up posters of the Federalist Society members, they screamed that such exposure was unfair.

Two, they seem incompetent. To the degree there were any questions and answers, few knew how or even attempted to engage the judge on matters of the law and judicial theory. In other words, any grammar-school students could have matched their performance since it required no knowledge of the law, just an ability to chant and—in groupthink style—cry, scream, and mimic the majority.

Three, they were arrogant. One protestor blurted out that Justice Duncan probably could not have gotten into Stanford, as if their own puerile performance was proof of the school’s high standards of admission. That was obnoxious in addition to the fact that, as of recently, it may have become not so true. In July 2022, Stanford Law School announced that an uncharacteristic 14 percent of its graduates had flunked the California bar exam on their first attempt, a radical increase from past years. Four other California law schools—UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Irvine, and USC—had a higher bar pass rate.

After watching the sad performance, one wonders who taught such rude and unimpressive people.

Ethics complaints were lodged last year against Stanford Law Professor Michele Dauber for tweeting a series of gross attacks on Camille Vasquez (“some Pick Me Girl lawyer”), the widely regarded attorney of Johnny Depp. Law professor Dauber also tweeted sick fantasies about Depp’s death—and imagined the actor’s corpse would “end up in a trash can eaten by rats.” Was she the sort of model that the law students had emulated?

Then there was Professor Pamela Karla’s 2019 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the impeachment of President Trump. Off-topic and gratuitously, Karla weirdly attacked the name of the president’s youngest son, Barron Trump: “While the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.” Was that the sort of puerility that the law students sought to embrace?

In 2021, a graduating Stanford law student sent the law school student body a bogus call to violence as if it was authored by the school’s small conservative Federalist Society. The fake call to arms read in part: “The Stanford Federalist Society presents: The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection . . . Riot information will be emailed the morning of the event . . . ” Was that the sort of smear that the law students learned?

Sam Bankman-Fried, the architect of the $26 billion FTX cryptocurrency meltdown that destroyed the livelihoods of thousands, is the son of two other Stanford Law School professors. Somehow they were involved in the Bankman-Fried family’s acquisition of a $16.4 million vacation home gifted to them from FTX shortly before it imploded.

According to the New York Times, both parent professors were intimately involved in their son’s multibillion-dollar business, either directly or through gifts to one parent’s political donor network:

He [Professor Bankman] and his wife, the Stanford Law professor Barbara Fried, were more than just supportive parents backing their child’s business. Mr. Bankman was a paid FTX employee who traveled frequently to the Bahamas, where the exchange was based. Ms. Fried did not work for the company, but her son was among the donors in a political advocacy network that she orchestrated.

Were these the ethical models that had influenced the law students?

Bankman-Fried is currently out on a $250 million bond and living under bond on the Stanford campus. He is out, in part, because two Stanfordites, former law school dean Larry Kramer and Andreas Paepcke, a Stanford senior research scientist, put up a $500,000 guarantee. Former Stanford student Caroline Ellison, a partner with Sam Bankman-Fried in his various financial collapses, has pled guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit commodities fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, and is now working with prosecutors.

Perhaps the law school should not be singled out since it simply reflects what appears to be symptomatic of a once-great university’s freefall.

A former Stanford student Elizabeth Holmes was recently sentenced to a long prison term for defrauding investors in connection with her company Theranos. She had fraudulently claimed to have invented a “revolutionary” miniaturized blood testing device. Many of her corporation’s oversight board members were drawn from the Stanford community.

The Wall Street Journal recently ridiculed a Stanford university group’s publication of a taboo vocabulary list (“Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative”). “Harmful” words supposedly unwelcome at Stanford included inflammatory expressions such as “American” and “immigrant.”

The Journal also noted that perhaps the cause of such Orwellianism was too many idle administrators chasing too few students: “For 16,937 students, Stanford lists 2,288 faculty and 15,750 administrative staff.”

More disturbing was the revelation of a “snitch list.” The harmful language initiative apparently is tangential to another new idea of rewarding Stanford snitches who feel offended by hurtful expression. Or, as the so-called “The Protected Identity Harm (PIH) Reporting” system put it, software will monitor campus speech and even offer “financial rewards for finding/reporting” any who supposedly violate approved language usage.

Was this the sort of campus experience that the parents of Stanford students pay for at about $90,000 per year?

Stanford was also plagued by a recent admissions scandal when a former head sailing coach accepted donations to his Stanford sailing program in exchange for trying to help two students’ admission applications.

Then there were campus attacks on a pair of eminent Stanford public health experts, Drs. Scott Atlas and Jay Bhattacharya. Both were pilloried mercilessly by some of the Stanford faculty and administration for daring to doubt the efficacy of what has proved to be disastrous government-enforced COVID quarantines and school shutdowns.

Yet the arguments of Atlas and Bhattacharya—the science does not support the mandatory use of masks to halt the pandemic, natural immunity was as efficacious as or superior to vaccine-induced immunity, the vaccinations would not offer lasting protection against either being infected or infecting someone else, and the quarantine lockdowns would cause more damage and death (familial abuse, suicides, substance abuse, mental depression, uneducated children, economic catastrophe, millions of missed surgeries, screenings, tests, and doctor’s appointments) than the virus itself—were all eventually substantiated.

Neither doctor received apologies from the administrators, faculty, or students who attacked them.

Currently Stanford’s long-serving president Marc Tessier-Lavigne—an accomplished neuroscientist—has been attacked serially by the Stanford Daily campus newspaper, which has called for his resignation. It alleges the president was culpable of scholarly misconduct concerning the publication of a joint research paper decades ago. The charges are not proven and remain under investigation. But they make it difficult for a president to weigh in on the above controversies when some faculty and the student newspaper are serially calling for him to step down for ethics violations

In July 2020, a Stanford visiting neurology researcher, Chen Song, was arrested for not disclosing that she had apparently been an agent of China’s People’s Liberation Army. Stanford had also been investigated by the Department of Education for some $64 million in alleged Chinese-affiliated donations over a decade, all from previously unnamed, unidentified, and anonymous Chinese donors, most of them believed to be government associated.

The list of serial embarrassments reads like the suicides of Greek tragedy, where divine nemesis follows hubris. In this case, overweening intolerant ideology has sabotaged disinterested inquiry and meritocracy. Arrogance and sanctimoniousness lead Stanford to continue down this spiral—rather than pause, reflect, and redirect—and thereby only compound the public ridicule.

Stanford’s once-justified reputation for civility, transparency, tolerance, and professional ethics has been shredded before a global audience.

Given its hallowed history, and the university’s vital global role in cutting-edge research, medicine, and professional training, something has to change—before it is too late.

The university requires an array of compulsory workshops that faculty and many students must undergo. But given these recent debacles, perhaps two additional new training sessions are needed: required ethics instruction and a mandatory anger-management seminar.

Read more.



RELATED ARTICLE: LA Public Schools Go on Strike Abandoning 400,000 Students, Teachers Dance In The Streets

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s DoJ Plans to Arrest 1,000 More Citizens on J6 ‘Charges’

They have no limits. They will do anything. And where is the GOP? MIA.

Intentional Provocations – Tucker Carlson Outlines the Latest Expectations on the Trump Arrest and 1,000+ Pending Indictments Against J6 Protesters

By: Sundance, Conservative Treehouse, March 22, 2023

At a certain point you have to wonder if the scale of the “dual justice” visibility is not intended to provoke a political crisis. If this is the motive, we are heading to a very dark place.

During his opening monologue last night, Tucker Carlson outlines the latest expectations in the arrest of President Trump and the pending criminal indictments of more than a thousand people related to the events of January 6, 2021.




Soros DA Alvin Bragg POSTPONES Today’s Noon Trump Indictment Hearing Again

Bragg Refuses to Cooperate with Congressional Investigation

Paul: Bragg Indictment of Trump a ‘Disgusting Abuse of Power’

Schiff Whines That Rep. McCarthy Wants Trump to Get a Pass

Jones: D.A. Bragg Should Wait for Georgia to Indict Trump First

Washington Post: The Jan. 6 Investigation is the biggest in U.S. history

Manhattan DA was paid ‘EXCESS OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS’ by George Soros

RELATED VIDEO: Trump Arrest Would Undermine Our Republic!

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Trump Arrest Would Undermine Our Republic!

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton joins Jenna Ellis on “Jenna Ellis in the Morning” (American Family Radio) to discuss the potential criminal charges against President Trump.


RELATED VIDEO: UN-AMERICAN: NY Democratic Politicians Aim to Make Trump a Political Prisoner!


EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Country Where Economic Freedom Has Grown the Most Over the Last Two Decades

Vietnam is on the path to becoming one of the world’s most vibrant economies. No country of comparable size has gained as much economic freedom since 1995.

Vietnam continues to gain economic freedom, as confirmed by the latest edition of the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom ranking.

The Index ranks a total of 176 countries based on how economically free or unfree they are. The comprehensive rating is based on twelve categories of freedoms. The Index divides countries into five groups, the best of which is “free” (and includes Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and Taiwan); the worst is “repressed” (with countries like Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea).

Vietnam’s economic freedom score is 61.8, making its economy the 72nd freest in the 2023 Index. Its score is 1.2 points better than last year. Vietnam ranks 14th out of 39 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is above the world and regional averages.

What is most important, however, is not just the most recent score, but the change in the ranking over time: no country of comparable size in the whole world has gained as much economic freedom as Vietnam since 1995. Back in 1995, when the Index was first compiled, Vietnam scored a meager 41.7 points. In the intervening years, Vietnam has gained 20 points. By comparison, China had 52 points in 1995 and has gone on to lose almost four points since then. With a score of 48.3 points, China is now only 154th out of 176, a full 82 places behind Vietnam.

The US only just scrapes into the second-best of the five categories (“mostly free”, rank 25). There are now 16 countries in Europe alone that are economically freer than the US. If the United States were to lose just one more point in next year’s ranking, it would find itself in the “moderately free” category. The US has progressively dropped down the rankings in recent years.

The Heritage Foundation writes about Vietnam: “Capitalizing on its gradual integration into the global trade and investment system, the economy is becoming more market-oriented. Reforms have included partial privatization of state-owned enterprises, liberalization of the trade regime, and increasing recognition of private property rights.”

Vietnam secures strong ratings in the areas of “Fiscal Health” and “Government Spending,” and moderate ratings for “Business Freedom” and “Monetary Freedom.” Vietnam rates poorly for “Government Integrity,” “Judicial Effectiveness,” “Property Rights” and “Investment Freedom.”

If Vietnam continues on the path it embarked on in 1986 with the Doi Moi reforms, it has a good chance of becoming one of the world’s economically strongest countries. Before the economic reforms began, every bad harvest led to hunger, and Vietnam relied on support from the UN’s World Food Program and financial assistance from the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries. As late as 1993, 79.7 percent of the Vietnamese population was living in poverty. By 2006, the rate had fallen to 50.6 percent. In 2020, it was only five percent.

Vietnam is now one of the world’s most dynamic countries, with a vibrant economy that creates great opportunities for hardworking people and entrepreneurs. From a country that, before the market reforms began, was unable to produce enough rice to feed its own population, it has become one of the world’s largest rice exporters—and a major electronics exporter.

If it is to become one of the economically strongest countries in the world, Vietnam needs to make sure that its people do not forget why it has been so successful: increasing recognition of private property rights, more economic freedom, and greater integration into the global trading system.

Many countries today are doing the exact opposite and restricting economic freedom; Vietnam should aspire to gain ever more economic freedom.


Dr Rainer Zitelmann

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann is a historian and sociologist. He is also a world-renowned author, successful businessman, and real estate investor.

Zitelmann has written more than 20 books. His books are successful all around the world, especially in China, India, and South Korea. His most recent books are The Rich in Public Opinion which was published in May 2020, and The Power of Capitalism which was published in 2019.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

A Walking Miracle

Recently I met a man who is a “walking miracle.” A survivor of a horrible accident, 55-year-old Danny Yamashiro, a pastor’s son and native of Hawaii, is grateful for every day of life.

Danny’s website tells what happened: “At 18, he survived a deadly 400 foot fall from the famed Pali ridge in Hawaii. Rescuing his girlfriend from a 20 foot fall, Danny slipped and fell head first 300 feet and later another 100 feet. He suffered traumatic brain injuries (skull fractures, torn scalp), a shattered ankle, smashed organs, extensive lacerations, and being comatose. A spiritual awakening impacted his recovery.”

Danny’s story is highlighted in an article in about 10 people that survived precipitous falls from great heights: “Despite being severely injured, Yamashiro clung to life while rescue workers attempted to retrieve him. As the rescuers moved down the mountain, Yamashiro shifted his weight on the ledge causing him to fall another 30 meters (100 ft.).”

They add, “While he did survive both falls and go on to make a full recovery (as well as a successful career in televangelism), the ordeal didn’t leave him unscathed. Yamashiro sustained an array of life-threatening injuries.”

How could someone survive such an accident?

I got to interview Danny on the radio recently. We pick up right after he was rescued in 1985 from the fall: “The doctors told my parents, ‘It doesn’t look good. If he makes it through the night, surely he will be in a vegetative state for the rest of his life.’ And that was my turning point where the Lord intervened. I needed to learn to walk, talk, eat right. I couldn’t even breathe on my own at the time.”

I asked him to walk me through his eventual healing. “The recovery took a long time. I went through a deep period of several years of dark depression. I had major swings in my emotions. The Lord took me through that. It was a real breaking time—breaking emotionally, psychologically.

“But Biola University in Southern California played a very big role in my healing process, and at the same time grounding me in the Word. I was a biblical studies theology major.”

However, there were certainly times of doubt. Danny told me, “During my college years, there were times when I would actually ask the Lord, ‘Why did you save me? Why did you not just take me?’ It was so painful. And I was so confused. And I remember the Lord whispering to me, ‘Danny, one day I’m going to release you.’ And what I got by that was a sense of hope.”

Danny remembered the Scripture verse that says, “He who began a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.”  And that and other Scriptures (such as Isaiah 43:18-19) greatly encouraged him.

He says, “We talk about going to school and getting educated. But the brokenness was a different kind of education that has allowed me in a very unusual way to connect with people. I don’t even have to say things, and people get a sense where I know what they’re going through. It’s like my brokenness, my suffering allows me to relate with others where they are in their deepest, darkest times.”

He adds, “I think about our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘the Man of Sorrows, acquainted with grief,’ and I think, ‘Wow, there’s some profound thoughts that go along and the relatability when we go through that kind of suffering.’”

Since his complete recovery, Danny has been involved in preaching the Gospel in Hawaii, in Africa, in Asia, the Middle East, and in Latin America. He has earned a Ph.D. at Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. About 10 years ago, he went on to advanced studies at Harvard, where he received a standing ovation when he spoke upon graduation.

Today, he serves as an evangelical chaplain at M.I.T., where he is the co-chairperson of the Cambridge Roundtable on Science and Religion.  They engage in dialogue with the faculty on science and religion. This includes participants from M.I.T. and Harvard.

He views these dialogues as “gateways to share the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Danny also hosts a regular Christian radio program based in the Boston area.

Any student of early American history knows that there were many examples of God’s Providence shining on this nation. George Washington said that Americans in particular should be grateful for the way God miraculously helped become a nation.

Dr. Danny Yamashiro, a walking miracle, experienced new life out of near death. I happened to meet him during Lent, which may be viewed as a season of miracles. After all, at this time, we celebrate the crowning event of all time, the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the grave.

©Dr. Jerry Newcombe, D. Minn. All rights reserved.

Ben Stein is Right [Sort of]: Black Americans Have ‘Never Had it So Good’

Recently, actor-cum-commentator Ben Stein was condemned in media for touting the “progress” the U.S. has made and saying that black Americans “never had it so good.” One website called his remarks a “racist rant” even though he was, in keeping with his personality, just calmly expressing his opinion. The worst thing about this story, though, isn’t that Stein may become a cancel-culture casualty.

In fact, the matter reminds me of philosopher G.K. Chesterton’s observation that the worst aspect of duels wasn’t that someone might die, but that they settled nothing about who was right or wrong. For as is always the case with these matters, Stein is criticized only for making a politically incorrect assertion involving race — and could suffer reputational and career death because of it — when the real issue is this:

Was he correct or not?

He surely was, too — for the most part.

Only, the pseudo-elites don’t want this issue settled and that known, lest their BLM narrative be debunked.

First off, broader perspective is necessary. As even left-wing Think Progress admitted in 2013, the standard of living worldwide was that year the highest it had ever been in history. America is among the world’s lifestyle leaders, too, which means that, at least materially, we’re generally living a relative life of Riley.

Note here that man’s historical default has been grinding poverty. People lived without our luxuries, including those we consider necessities, and sometimes with a lack of many necessities themselves. They had no plumbing, indoor or otherwise; toilets; refrigeration; modern transportation; effective medical care; insurance policies; or safety net of any kind. They might’ve had to toil sunrise till sunset to try to eke out a subsistence living.

Privation was the order of the day, with Spartan boys in their military camps, for example, living off blood soup and being perpetually hungry. Lives were often hard, brutal and short; I’ve read that the average lifespan in the Roman Empire was 22 and in ancient Greece 35, and while these numbers likely aren’t dead-on accurate, our average of 76.4 was surely unheard of.

And even in today’s relatively wealthy world, the U.S. is, again, among the best places to be. The poorest 10 percent of Americans live better than approximately 70 percent of the world’s people; moreover, were the poorest 20 percent of us their own nation, they’d be among the richest countries on Earth. This isn’t surprising when considering how many people worldwide still live on less than a dollar a day.

To the point here, much the same can be said of black Americans. As economist Walter E. Williams informed in 2020, if “one totaled up the earnings and spending of Black Americans and considered us as a separate nation with our own gross domestic product, we would rank well within the top 20 richest nations.” Williams also added that “as a group, Black Americans have made the greatest gains…in a shorter span of time than any other racial group in history.”

So, now, here’s a question for those condemning Stein, one which, if it cannot be answered, will reveal that their criticism reflects nothing but prejudice:

If he’s wrong and American blacks have had it better, when and where would this have been? (Note for the world’s Ras Barakas: Wakanda and Kailasa aren’t options.)

Would it be/have been in Africa today or 50, 100 or 1,000 years ago? Would it be some point in history in Europe, South America, Asia or at an earlier time somewhere in North America? What’s the answer?

The reality is that there’s a reason why, after being asked his impressions of Africa following his “Rumble in the Jungle” fight in 1974, boxing great Muhammad Ali replied, “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat!” To wit:

Blacks are much, much better off in the U.S. — just as everyone else is. This also brings us to a staggering but often unwelcome truth. Far from the claim that slavery has hurt the black community, black Americans should, as Ali might have been, be at least grudgingly thankful for slavery since it delivered them from the grinding poverty typifying much of Africa. (Of course, the deeper issue is that virtually none of them would even have existed without slavery because their great-great-grandparents or great-grandparents, etc. would never have met. So the whole discussion is silly.)

The point is that as with how Rome’s colonizing of other European lands brought superior civilization to them, benefits are often by-products of misdeeds.

All this said, it’s untenable claiming that black Americans “never had it so good” in every dimension. For example, in “three-fourths of 19th-century slave families, all the children had the same mother and father,” Dr. Williams also related in 2020. “In New York City, in 1925, 85% of Black households were two-parent.” “In fact, ‘five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents,’” the professor continued, quoting another researcher. Williams further tells us that in 1938, only 11 percent of black children were born to unwed mothers.

Today, 73 percent are.

Of course, this broken-home status and rampant fatherlessness breed a host of social ills, such as rampant crime and violence, including frequent black-on-black homicide; drug use; poor educational and occupational outcomes; and general irresponsible behavior. All these ills were, do note, far less common in the black community a century ago.

What’s more, even unemployment was once lower among blacks — even than it was among whites. Just consider that until “about 1960, black male labor force participation in every age group was equal to or greater than that of whites,” wrote Williams in 2013.

Today, it’s notably lower.

In fact, in “some cities, unemployment for black working-age males is more than 50 percent,” Williams lamented at the time.

Of course, these realities contradict the claim that black Americans suffer today because of the “legacy of slavery” — for vis-à-vis these character- and morality-related measures, they were faring far better at a time much closer to antebellum days.

Note, too, that remedying these largely moral issues would go far toward closing the black-white performance gap (such a disparity, mind you, also exists between whites and Asians). But moral appeals aren’t the racial-grievance mongers’ business — because they’re shallow people, often with ulterior motives. Moreover, the black community’s woes are caused by the very left-wing policies and social norms the racialists themselves support.

At this point they may say, though, and have said, “Well, what does that matter? Things can be better!” But life could always be better, for everyone; perfection isn’t a thing of this world. Scoring America because even though she gave you a lot, you have some perceived deficits within the context of the fit-for-a-king lifestyle she has provided, is a bit like condemning God for your headache — after He gave you your head.

So, once again, leftists, what’s your answer? If Stein is wrong, when and where did blacks have it better?

Don’t be surprised if you now hear crickets. When liberals call someone a “racist,” it usually means they’re out of arguments.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to

©Selwyn Duke. All rights reserved.

But, What If…?

All my life I have considered myself to be a ‘problem-solver’. I have always enjoyed finding something, especially a power tool or other useful object, that is broken or has stopped working and is in need of repair. It really gets my juices flowing and my mental faculties focused on finding a solution to said problem, and if a real solution can be found, it is extremely fulfilling. I’m not bragging, but my track record of success in finding and implementing those solutions is pretty good.

I start by considering the problem, looking at it from every angle to see if the ‘fix’ is something so simple it would make one laugh. Sometimes the fix really IS simple, but usually, that ‘simple fix’ is non-existent and further troubleshooting is needed to come up with something that really works.

One critical part of that troubleshooting is to ask the question: “What if……”? and then carefully look at the broken and be willing to examine it from every angle to find the quickest, cheapest and possibly longest-lasting ‘fix’. That ‘fix’ could be as simple as “ ‘what if’ I took this apart and bent this flange this way so that this spring would……? “

You get the drift. The troubleshooting starts with the obvious fix and proceeds on to more difficult fare until the problem is resolved or….. until complete frustration sets in. The longer it takes to troubleshoot and actually find a solution, the more likely that frustration wins out and the tool is left unrepaired in the garage.

Even though my problems are sometimes left unresolved, in spite of my troubleshooting processes, it is still fun and enlightening to use the ‘what if’ means of looking  at those problems from different perspectives.

Maintaining an optimistic attitude regarding the ‘solving of problems’ is a must if one expects to actually be successful, but eventually, one must confront the thought that there IS no solution to some of those pesky problems and since the problems are NOT life threatening, one can simply say, ‘So what’ instead of ‘What if’.

If Only It Were That Easy

All my life I was taught to respect our leaders and be obedient to them since they respected “the people” and were placed in their leadership positions for our benefit; I truly believe that was at least partially true when I was first taught it. But, what if it is no longer true? What if those in  leadership positions no longer respect us and have no concern for our welfare or our future? A scary thought, right? Extremely so since the effects of the decisions they make are much more critical that not being able to repair a malfunctioning power tool.

A close and objective view of the leadership of the USA for the past 40+ years is enough to convince me that our leaders have actually created more problems than they have ever solved, and we are all living with the devastation those problems have wrought. How wonderful it would be to just shrug our shoulders and say, “so what?” when we realize the problems created by politicians will NOT just go away.

Now, The REAL Problems

Unless you live in a bubble, completely insulated from all outside influences, you must be aware of just how messed up is this world in which we now live. Every sector of human existence is rife with problems. Wars are waging on several continents with no end in sight. Supply line disruptions have made availability of food and other necessary commodities a real threat to our continued existence. Our once great healthcare system is only a shadow of what it once was, with dwindling trust for our healthcare providers.

The world financial system is nearing a total collapse, with no one nation seemingly having a currency that will buy what it did even a short time ago. Since few, if any, currencies are now backed with “real money”, (think gold and silver), it is nearly impossible to determine what value any nation’s currency has. Now, the central banks of the world have determined that, in the near future, the ONLY money they will issue and recognize is what is being called a CBDC, or a Central Bank Digital Currency, a currency consisting of nothing more than ones and zeros in a computer; in other words, the CBDC is, like nearly ALL fiat currencies, backed by absolutely nothing that a person can hold in his hand. In such a system, no one will have final say over HIS ‘money’, with no option to go to a bank and withdraw a bagful of ones and zeros to take to a store to purchase necessities.

So, an optimist will read this and say, “There must be an answer to all these problems; after all, our government leaders would not allow our world, our way of life, to be destroyed simply because of a few pesky problems, right?

Those who adopt this optimistic view do so based on the premise that those same ‘leaders’ actually care about our lives, but what if your premise is wrong? What if they do NOT care? What if their intent is to destroy our way of life? You must then examine all your premises to see which of them is wrong and in need of changing.

International agencies that are run by ‘non-elected bureaucrats’ now seem to be in control of nearly every critical aspect of human life, from food availability, healthcare availability, jobs availability and financial INstability etc. Even though they spout off about ‘finding solutions’ to ALL our problems, they seldom actually implement any of them (Could it be that they really do NOT have any solutions?).

We are faced with so-called pandemics that, according to the unelected bureaucrats, require that we give up most of our freedoms in order to ‘stay safe’. We are told that the only way we can survive is to accept that human actions, driving CLIMATE CHANGE, are to blame for all the problems in the world, and those actions MUST be changed or we are all doomed.

In other words, the real problems definitely ARE life-threatening and seemingly insurmountable. The entire world is reeling from the effects of these overwhelming issues and is constantly looking for answers that will make their lives ‘easy’ and comfortable again.

Politicians especially love to spout off about their ability to provide answers to OUR problems, but what if THEY ARE the creators of the problems rather the ‘finders’ of the solutions?

We recently lived through a four year period of relative ‘quiet’, a time of relative prosperity and peace here in the US with plentiful energy, plentiful job opportunities and a somewhat optimistic outlook for our future. In fact, many in the US were discussing the prospects of that continued prosperity and peace, “Making America Great Again”. Now however, we are facing the most dire issues of our short 246 year history. The prospect of making our nation as great as it was even a few decades ago is a dim one indeed.

Facing The ‘What If’ Question Honestly – Crossing the Red Line

From Wikipedia: “The Red line, or “to cross the red line”, is a phrase used worldwide to mean a figurative point of no return or line in the sand, or “the fastest, farthest, or highest point or degree considered safe.” In most cases when the phrase is used, it is meant to establish a limit or figurative barrier dictating  the furthest bounds of what is tolerable, allowable, or forgivable. Historically, red lines have been drawn that indicate a point beyond which one party will not allow another party to cross without having serious harm inflicted upon him. It is generally considered a warning that consequences will be suffered by those who cross the red line.

Depending upon the power and authority held by one or another party, that serious harm may, or may not happen, when the red line is crossed.

Does God establish His red lines and issue His warnings to those who think to cross them? The Bible has abundant instances recorded when God has done just that.

I know that many Christians are fervently praying for God to make all these insurmountable, unsolvable problems go away so that we can all go back to our normal, comfortable and easy lives. They are obviously operating under the premise that God will hear those prayers and MAGA.

But, what if that premise is wrong? Could it be possible that God WILL NOT hear those prayers and send someone who will MAGA? Is not the earth, and the fulness thereof the property of the Lord?

But, say many, God will NEVER forsake this nation; He has always protected us and kept us from being harmed by our enemies. But, what if God has NOT forsaken this nation, but instead, this nation has forsaken  Him?

What if this nation has crossed a red line established by God Almighty? Is there anyone who can require that God repent and forgive the unforgiveable?

The United States is NOT the apple of God’s eye; that marvelous privilege belongs to the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Jewish people. Throughout history, God made covenants with them and ALWAYS honored those covenants. Many times, the Jewish people dishonored the covenants and the God Who made them, but God did not destroy them even though their disobedience made them a target of His righteous discipline and punishment many times. Some of those times when they crossed God’s ‘red line’ their punishment was very harsh but God always promised them that He would uphold them and bring them back to Him.

The United States does NOT have such a covenant with God and based on the parallels found between Israel and the US in the Book of Jeremiah (chapter 7 and 14 especially) when the US crosses His red line (or have we already?), what will the US look like when His righteous judgment is directed at this nation?

President Thomas Jefferson once stated, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever”.


The question I have used in my troubleshooting process many times, “What if?” , is often merely rhetorical and not meant to be  answered or even taken seriously, only because the problems for which I seek solutions are NOT life-threatening. But What if from God’s perspective, the US HAS crossed His red line and is now merely awaiting the awakening of God’s justice? Then, one must consider that to be a life-threatening problem, especially for those who have no promise of protection from God’s wrath and destruction. If that be the case, then waiting for someone to MAGA is the least of America’s problems. Survival as a nation becomes a real possibility. It has been said that, if God does not judge America for her sins, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.

This formerly great nation has received abundant warnings from God since her founding, and especially in the last 45 years, but what if we have seen the last of those warnings and are now facing His judgment?

It is indeed a frightening prospect, But,What If we are now just waiting for God to act, not in His mercy nor His compassion, but in judgment? Selah……


©Bud Hancock. All rights reserved.

Why is Ron DeSantis blatantly violating Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment?

Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican. — Ronald Reagan

“Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime.” — Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin’s Комитет государственной безопасности (KGB).

It now appears that Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is violating President Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment.

This month DeSantis has begun piling on the MAGA/Drain The Swamp movements at the vey same time that Biden, Democrats, the DOJ, FBI, the Manhattan DA, social media and the legacy media are all doing the very same thing.

Is DeSantis now joined at the hip with the Democrats in destroying much of the GOP’s base?

There’s a political purge going on and it seems DeSantis wants in on it! Watch:

Since January 6th, 2021 the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation and other federal government agencies have relentlessly been on a quest to purge all those who are part of the MAGA/Drain The Swamp movement.

Hundreds of citizens have been arrested and many imprisoned. These actions have open the flood gates to what is rapidly becoming a Soviet style political purge before the 2024 presidential election.

DeSantis hasn’t declared he is even running for president in 2024 as we write this column. Yet DeSantis appears to have joined with the Dem J6ers in dissing MAGA movement.


It’s one thing to attack your political opponent in a presidential primary, we understand and expect that. But going after the base of the Republican Party is another thing. Going after the MAGA/Drain The Swamp patriots is not welcome and not embraced by the GOP base.

DeSantis is adding fuel to the fire and the Democrats are lapping it up.

One Floridian has caught on to what DeSantis is doing and is exposing it.


We believe that Governor Ron DeSantis, who has done many good things for the people of Florida has made a massive political mistake.

As the primaries heat up we shall see if DeSantis sees the light or moves into the darkness.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


You won’t believe how George Soros plans to throw Donald Trump in jail

Ron DeSantis rips Trump’s character, chaotic leadership style

New York DA Office Responds To Demands For Information About Trump Arrest


Biden’s First Veto Mandates Environment, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing Of Our Retirement Savings

Biden vetoed a bill that would have stopped your retirement savings being used to fund political woke activism. We are being forced to fund our own destruction.

By what right does the government command our retirement money to fund their lunacy?

Biden issues first veto of his presidency over influence from ‘MAGA Republicans’

By Anders Hagstrom | Fox News

President Joe Biden vetoed a bill for the first time in his presidency on Monday, arguing that the legislation was overly influenced by “MAGA Republicans.”

The Republican-led legislation prevented Biden’s administration from taking environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) issues into account when making investment decisions. GOP lawmakers argue ESG is a measure of a corporation’s loyalty to “woke” cultural movements and should not be taken into account.

“I just vetoed my first bill. This bill would risk your retirement savings by making it illegal to consider risk factors MAGA House Republicans don’t like. Your plan manager should be able to protect your hard-earned savings — whether Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene likes it or not,” Biden announced in a Monday tweet.

The bill specifically ended enforcement of a new Labor Department rule that urged private retirement plan fiduciaries to consider ESG in their investment decisions.

Read more.



SVB Meltdown Targets the Dollar—the Last Element of American Unity

Did The Government Start A Global Financial Crisis In An Attempt To Destroy Crypto?

Biden shredded after issuing first veto of his presidency to protect ESG: ‘Such a liar’

Biden LIES, Denies Huge Family Payoffs From China, Here Are The Receipts


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.