AI that reads brain scans shows promise for finding Alzheimer’s genes

From Nature.com (Nov. 1, 2023):

Washington DC

Researchers have sifted through genomes from thousands of individuals in an effort to identify genes linked to Alzheimer's disease. But these scientists have faced a serious obstacle: it's hard to know for certain which of those people have Alzheimer's. There's no foolproof blood test for the disease, and dementia, a key symptom of Alzheimer's, is also caused by other disorders. Early-stage Alzheimer's might cause no symptoms at all.

Now, researchers have developed artificial intelligence (AI)-based approaches that could help. One algorithm efficiently sorts through large numbers of brain images and picks out those that include characteristics of Alzheimer's. A second machine-learning method identifies important structural features of the brain - an effort that could eventually help scientists to spot new signs of Alzheimer's in brain scans.

The goal is to use people's brain images as visual 'biomarkers' of Alzheimer's. Applying the method to large databases that also include medical information and genetic data, such as the UK Biobank, could allow scientists to pinpoint genes that contribute to the disease. In turn, this work could aid the creation of treatments and of models that predict who's at risk of developing the disease.

Combining genomics, brain imaging and AI is allowing researchers to "find brain measures that are tightly linked to a genomic driver", says Paul Thompson, a neuroscientist at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who is spearheading efforts to develop these algorithms.

Thompson and others described the new AI techniques on 4 November at the annual conference of the American Society of Human Genetics in Washington DC.

Overwhelmed with data

Thousands of people have had both their genomes sequenced and their brains scanned in the past two decades as part of efforts to build massive research databases. But the rate at which this torrent of information is being produced is outpacing researchers' ability to analyze and interpret it.

"We're very data-rich these days compared with how things were 5-10 years ago, and that's where AI [and machine learning] approaches can excel," says Alison Goate, a geneticist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. In 2020, Thompson launched AI4AD, a consortium of researchers across the United States that aims to develop AI tools to analyze and integrate genetic, imaging and cognitive data relating to Alzheimer's disease. As part of this project, researchers created an AI model trained on tens of thousands of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scans. These images had previously been reviewed by physicians, who picked out scans that showed evidence of Alzheimer's. From the images, the AI tool learned what the brains of people with and without Alzheimer's look like.

Self-taught algorithm

In one trial, reported in a preprint that has not yet been peer reviewed, the AI classifier detected Alzheimer's in brain scans with an accuracy of more than 90%. The consortium has also used a similar approach to create a classier that can accurately sort scans into separate categories according to specific pathological changes in the brain that are associated with cognitive decline and dementia.

Degui Zhi, a data scientist at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, and his colleagues have taken a different approach. Whereas Thompson and his team focused the AI model on areas of the brain that are known to be linked to Alzheimer's, Zhi wanted the tool to learn for itself the structural features of the brain that can help to diagnose the disease.

The researchers' AI tool reviewed thousands of brain scans and chose the features that most reliably differentiated one person's brain from another's. Zhi says that this minimizes the likelihood of human bias influencing the algorithm. Now, Zhi's team is using the algorithm to identify the traits that best distinguish between brain scans of people with and without Alzheimer's.

Thompson and Zhi acknowledge that the AI models are only as good as the data on which they're trained. There is a lack of racial and geographical diversity in individuals who have had their brains scanned and genomes sequenced, especially in databases such as the UK Biobank, so the findings from this AI-guided research might not be applicable to everyone. Furthermore, Goate says it will be crucial to show that the AI models' performance can be replicated in other databases, and that they show consistent results.

Rudolph Tanzi, a neurogeneticist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, says that these biomarkers could one day become part of a set of risk scores for the disease that also integrate blood-based biomarkers and genetics. When all of these bits of data are combined, risk scores can become "exponentially more sensitive", which will hopefully allow people to seek early treatment before the disease progresses, he adds.

Alzheimer's is just the beginning, Thompson says. If this approach works, it could also be applied to other diseases that have a physical presentation on brain imaging, he says. [source]

Nice.

Another article on Alzheimer’s and AI: AI tool detects Alzheimer’s disease with 95% accuracy

Capitol Police commander who ordered evacuations of Senate and House: 'J6 was not an insurrection'

From The Post Millennial.com (Dec. 14, 2023):

In an X post on Thursday, former US Capitol Police Lieutenant Tarik Johnson said that he has been stating publicly that "J6 was not an insurrection, but not many people would listen," reflecting on Vivek Ramaswamy’s comments during a CNN townhall event in Iowa on Wednesday evening.

"Vivek Ramaswamy got a lot right in this interview," Johnson began. "I’ve been saying publicly for a year that J6 was not an insurrection but not many people would listen."

"Ironically so, no one would benefit more than I if J6 was an insurrection as I (Tarik Johnson) was the Commander that ordered and led the evacuations of the Senate and the House during the J6 breach after begging former Assistant Chief Yogananda Pittman for permission to do so as she sat comfortably in the Commander Center watching the events unfold on CCTV while Chief Steven A Sund was obtaining National Guard approval and getting assistance from local law enforcement agencies."

Johnson said that Pittman "flat out ignored me," forcing him to go ahead with the evacuations without her approval. Three days later, he decided to call Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy on Pittman’s conduct, and around half an hour later, he received word from the USCP internal affairs section that he was suspended.

"The suspension lasted for 17 months and I was under a USCP gag order not to speak about the events of January 6, 2021 to the media until I separated from the Department," Johnson wrote, adding that he was required to remain at his home Mondays through Fridays between 8 am and 4 pm and was "unable to step off my property without notifying the USCP for fear of being disciplined up to and including termination during those 17 months."

"These are SOME of many facts USCP Chief J Thomas Manger (who is arguably the most corrupt politician in the country) was brought in to cover-up."

Johnson concluded, "If presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy would like more FACTS to disrupt the insurrection narrative, I will inbox his designated representative my personal phone number. God bless our country now and in 2024."

During Wednesday evening’s townhall event, Ramaswamy said that three years ago, at the time of January 6, "If you had told me that January 6 was in any way an inside job the subject of government entrapment, I would have told you that was crazy talk, fringe conspiracy theory nonsense."

"I can tell you now having gone somewhat deep in this: it's not. I mean, the reality is this: we do have a government — first of all, we have to acknowledge that has lied to us systematically over the last several years about the origin of COVID-19. About the Hunter Biden laptop that we were told was false by 51 CIA experts and otherwise before we now know that it was true. You can go straight down the list of Trump-Russia, disinformation, collusion, hoax, all of it. Now we come to January 6. The reality is we know that there were federal law enforcement agents in that field. We don't know how many I think it's shameful," he said, before host Abby Phillip cut him off, saying there was no evidence of this.

Ramaswamy interjected, holding the floor, "I know that the establishment doesn't approve of this message," and the crowd applauded.

"So why before Congress, when pressed on what the number was, they [FBI] didn't say there were none they just couldn't say how many there were?" Ramaswamy countered.

"We've seen multiple informants suggesting that there were," Ramaswamy said, "we know people were FBI informants."

"I'm gonna give you hard facts. And if I may, I know this can be a little uncomfortable," Ramaswamy said, asking why Congress suppressed footage from J6, releasing only 12 hours of hundreds of hours in existence, including footage showing police firing rubber bullets into the crowd and shooting tear gas. [source]

Of course, it wasn't an insurrection. It was a setup.

More Jan. 6 articles:

• Federal Prosecutors Start Dropping Jan. 6 Obstruction Charges After Supreme Court Ruling
• Pelosi's top security aides got warning about Capitol breach night before Jan. 6 riot, memos show

Patel fired 'corrupt' FBI agents in anti-Trump Arctic Frost inquiry who 'weaponized' law enforcement

From Just the News.com (Jan. 12):

FBI Director Kash Patel revealed Monday that he had fired the “corrupt” FBI agents involved in the bureau’s anti-Trump Arctic Frost investigation who had “weaponized” the law enforcement agency after President Donald Trump on Monday shared new revelations unearthed by Just the News.

An FBI supervisor who openly opposed Trump on social media played a crucial role in igniting the controversial Arctic Frost probe in 2022 related to January 6, with the bureau special agent pressing to add the former president as a formal subject of the investigation and circulating articles from liberal activists and leftwing news sources to make his case, according to evidence recently turned over to Congress and published by Just the News over the weekend.

“These FBI Agents are total Scum, in their own way no better than the insurrectionists in Portland, Minnesota, Los Angeles, etc. Kash better get them out, NOW!” Trump said in a Monday post on his Truth Social account. “Radical Left Lunatics put in by the ‘Auto Pen’ [Biden] and Obama!”

Patel quickly responded with a Truth Social post of his own.

“Thank you Mr. President. Under your leadership, this FBI found the corrupt actors and terminated their employment last year,” the FBI director said. “America voted for the end of weaponized law enforcement, and that’s what we are delivering.”

FBI Special Agent Timothy Thibault, who left his role as the assistant agent in charge of its Washington field office in August 2022 after his anti-Trump social posts became public, organized the initial electronic communication that authorized the start of the Arctic Frost probe.

He also circulated articles and podcasts by email from such anti-Trump outlets as Just Security, NPR, the Daily Beast, and The Washington Post, pushing for a criminal probe of Trump related to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, the memos published by Just the News show.

When Thibault's colleagues originally drafted the investigation's launch document to focus on the Trump campaign and affiliated and still unknown subjects, "Add DJT" was scribbled onto the draft memo. Emails indicate Thibault was pushing to add Trump to the investigative launch document.

Revelations include emails from 2022 where Thibault shared articles and podcasts critical of Trump, including a prosecution-style memo authored by a former Obama DOJ official.

Thibault also sought to promote media coverage from outlets with left-leaning perspectives, such as NPR, as well as podcasts produced by The Daily Beast. The focus of these articles were Trump’s alleged crimes and efforts to overturn the election.

An unearthed email from April 2022 showed Thibault approving the opening of Arctic Frost.

These revelations continue to put the spotlight on Thibault, whom Republicans argue showed extreme anti-Trump bias, demonstrated a willingness to target Trump early in his first term, attempted to slow walk or block the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden, and in April 2022 helped spark the Arctic Frost investigation — later carried on by special counsel Jack Smith — which led to criminal charges against Trump related to the Capitol riot. [source]

Good.  Glad to see some accountability.

Rogue Judge Says Trump Admin Has To Give Panties And Makeup To Male Inmates

From The Federalist.com (June 3, 2025):

In the latest act of judicial overreach, a rogue lower court judge ordered the Trump administration to restore federal prisoners’ access to transgender-related “treatments” and accommodations on Tuesday.

Writing for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Judge Royce Lamberth, a Reagan appointee, granted petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction on the Trump administration’s policy ensuring that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) expends “no Federal funds … for any medical procedure, treatment, or drug for the purpose of conforming an inmate’s appearance to that of the opposite sex.” The left-wing Associated Press once described Lamberth as “among the toughest judges” when it came to sentencing defendants charged over the Jan. 6, 2021, demonstrations at the U.S. Capitol.

The suit was brought by three trans-identifying inmates “who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria by BOP medical staff,” according to Tuesday’s ruling.

In his decision, Lamberth ruled that, throughout the course of the trial, the BOP is “required to restore and maintain access to those treatment modalities for those who previously received them pursuant to a prescription rendered by BOP staff.” He further declared that “if BOP medical personnel subsequently determine that an existing or future class member is in need of either or both of those treatment modalities, the BOP may not take those treatment options off the table while this dispute is pending.”

“The import of the Opinion is essentially this: Under the [Administrative Procedure Act], the BOP may not arbitrarily deprive inmates of medications or other lifestyle accommodations that its own medical staff have deemed to be medically appropriate without considering the implications of that decision,” Lamberth wrote. “Even if the BOP did support such a decision with the consideration, study, and reasoning that the APA requires of it, its freedom of action may nevertheless be constrained by the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, but that is a matter better left for another day — whether that be a later stage of litigation, or another case entirely.”

As The Federalist’s Margot Cleveland previously reported, universal injunctions issued under the APA constitute “the majority of nationwide injunctions entered against the Trump Administration since the president returned to Washington.”

Tuesday’s order is the latest in a string of overreaching injunctions pursued by left-wing activists seeking to stymie President Trump’s agenda via a judicial coup. On Monday, the administration was all but forced to appeal a district court order attempting to block the president from firing federal employees. [source]

Just stupid. ☹️ First of all, these con artists shouldn't be in women's prisons. They pretend to be female so they can rape the women in prison. They're playing the system as criminals do and these crazy rogue judges are enabling their con.

Don’t Say ‘They’: Why Pronouns Matter

From Breakpoint.org (June 6, 2022):

A couple weeks ago, a Title IX investigation was opened for three middle school boys from Wisconsin who used the pronoun she for a biologically female student who wished to go by they. Under the Biden administration, refusing to use misaligned pronouns is considered sex discrimination. Even style guides today encourage the use of they if it is the chosen pronoun of an individual.

One rationale given is that someone really is whatever gender he or she claims, and to not recognize that with pronouns is to contribute to that person’s psychological distress. This is the case even if, as Abigail Shrier describes as being increasingly common, a person’s gender dysphoria is socially conditioned. So, according to our own government, we are now in a zero-sum game: Either use individuals’ chosen pronouns or be blamed for their suicides.

Thankfully, many are beginning to recognize that even using the pronoun they for an individual is deeply problematic, much less fully imbibing all that the new transgender orthodoxy commands. Recently, the Manhattan Institute’s Leor Sapir wrote an editorial entitled “Don’t Say ‘They.’” In it, Sapir argues that using they and them to refer to an individual is far from harmless and amounts to buying into an ideology that “gender is an oppressive social system.” In other words, using nonbinary plural pronouns and also opposite-sex pronouns says something that is not true about God’s design, the created reality of men and women.

So, what are we to do? Shall we use words that align with reality or shall we refuse to risk the psychological distress of a transgender person?

Two guiding principles can help us here. First, as Aleksander Solzhenitsyn advised, we must “live not by lies.” Second, as Paul advised, “so far as it depends on (us), live peaceably with all.” Living like Christians today requires both, together.

Words matter. Not only do our words reflect reality, and thus misusing words can distort reality, but Scripture is plain that God’s words make up reality. To use words incorrectly is to not only embrace something not true, it is to mislead others away from God. This is not true, nor is it loving. Thus, God says that He hates a “lying tongue.” 

Honoring the second principle, to do our best to “live peaceably with all,” is particularly difficult when the choice is to tell a lie or to be responsible for psychological distress. Philosophy professor Nick Meriwether had a creative response when he found himself between this rock and hard place. When a male student requested that Dr. Meriweather refer to him as a female, using feminine titles and pronouns, he offered to only “refer to this student by a first or last name.”

In response, Shawnee State University in Portsmouth, Ohio, charged Dr. Meriweather with creating “a hostile environment,” placed a warning in his employee file, and threatened future punitive action if he refused to comply. So, Dr. Meriwether filed suit, claiming his free speech had been violated. He won. Shawnee State was forced to award him $400,000 and remove the disciplinary statement.

Dr. Meriweather’s story demonstrates that people of conscience ought to not prematurely surrender their convictions, or believe that cultural defeat is inevitable. Even more, it offers a way forward when it comes to pronouns, telling the truth and living at peace.

In English, names do not indicate gender. Pronouns do. Offering to call individuals by their chosen names is a way of respecting them as people without saying something that is not true about them. In a conversation with an individual, the pronoun you is acceptable, since in English it refers to both plural and singular, and to both male and female. In no way, does you deny that biological sex is binary.

On the other hand, speaking in the third person—he, she, or they—when speaking about others is trickier. Some people point out that we use the word they all the time to refer to individuals. However, whenever we say something like, “Somebody left their book,” we don’t know who it is. It’s different if we do know who it is. For example, it would be inaccurate (and strange) to say, “Abigail left their book.”

In other words, there are ways to not say something that is not true. We can avoid using nonbinary or opposite-sex pronouns, and instead use names. And, we can use plural pronouns to talk about a group rather than an individual. Still, as Dr. Meriweather’s situation illustrates, these alternatives will not satisfy everyone. And, when there is no choice but to use third person pronouns, the only way to tell the truth is to use the pronouns that align with biology, not ideology.

To be clear, there is one situation where using someone’s chosen name violates the first principle of telling the truth: If you’ve known a person all of his or her life, and if that name was given for specific purposes. So, for example, to ask moms to use a chosen name over a given name for the child they’ve raised and loved is just cruel.

Some argue that because language changes over time, accepting pronoun changes is just changing with language. This argument assumes that language doesn’t actually refer to reality, but only to other words. But there is a real world, and sexual distinction is part of that real world. To change the language of pronouns severs a link to reality, denies that reality, and disconnects people from what is actually true about their created bodies.

Pronouns may not seem like a fight worth having, but as Chesterton said, “The Church and the heresies always used to fight about words, because they are the only thing worth fighting about.” [source]

Amen. Good principles to live by.

The Press

Turning again to Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel and their book, The Elements of Journalism, they make the point this way: "A stronger, more unified, and more transparent method of verifying the news would . . . be the single most important step that those who practice journalism could take to address and, if necessary, correct the rising perception that the work of journalists is marred by bias. . . . What would this journalism of objective method—rather than aim—look like? What should citizens expect from the press as a reasonable discipline of reporting?"

Kovach and Rosenstiel provide five "intellectual principles of a science of reporting":

1. Never add anything that was not there.
2. Never deceive the audience.
3. Be as transparent as possible about your methods and motives.
4. Rely on your own original reporting.
5. Exercise humility.

However, it is quite clear that this interpretation of objectivity, while seemingly alluring, has proved impossible for most newsrooms and journalists. The reason is that most partisans are unable or unwilling to put aside their personal ideological and political perspectives or, even worse, they consider them essential to moving and improving society through activism. This is the fundamental nature of the modern media. For the most part, the objectivity of methods has become the partisanship of ideological and political results.

…….

As recently as February 20, 2019, current Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger (Ochs's great-great grandson), responding to President Trump referring to the newspaper as "the enemy of the people"-as the president was frustrated with yet another "news" story, this time an "investigative report" filled with allegations and innuendos about him and his administration from anonymous sources-publicly lectured the president and the nation about the importance of a free press. He wrote:

America's founders believed that a free press was essential to democracy because it is the foundation of an informed, engaged citizenry. That conviction, enshrined in the First Amendment, has been embraced by nearly every American president. Thomas Jefferson declared, "The only security of all is in a free press." John F. Kennedy warned about the risks to "free society without a very, very active press." Ronald Reagan said, "There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong and independent press to our continued success."

All these presidents had complaints about their coverage and at times took advantage of the freedom every American has to criticize journalists. But in demonizing the free press as the enemy, simply for performing its role of asking difficult questions and bringing uncomfortable information to light, President Trump is retreating from a distinctly American principle. It's a principle that previous occupants of the Oval Office fiercely defended regardless of their politics, party affiliation, or complaints about how they were covered.

The phrase "enemy of the people" is not just false, it's dangerous. It has an ugly history of being wielded by dictators and tyrants who sought to control public information. And it is particularly reckless coming from someone whose office gives him broad powers to fight or imprison the nation's enemies. As I have repeatedly told President Trump face to face, there are mounting signs that this incendiary rhetoric is encouraging threats and violence against journalists at home and abroad.

Through 33 presidential administrations, across 167 years, The New York Times has worked to serve the public by fulfilling the fundamental role of the free press. To help people, regardless of their backgrounds or politics, understand their country and the world. To report independently, fairly and accurately. To ask hard questions. To pursue the truth wherever it leads. That will not change.

Source: Unfreedom of the Press (2019) by Mark R. Levin.

It’s sad the drive-by-media can’t just report the news instead of spinning a narrative.

Let’s Stop Saying That Progressives are ‘Out of Touch’

From Jeff Charles on Red State.com (June 9, 2022):

One of the most oft-repeated talking points on the right is that over the past couple of years, with their lurch further to the left, Democrats have shown they are out of touch with the American public. It’s a popular maxim, one that I have also repeated. But I have come to realize this isn’t as true as we think. In fact, the reality is even more disturbing.

We’re old enough to remember all the fuss over Florida’s Parental Rights in Education bill, right? Democrats and their close friends and allies in the activist media made an enormous stink in response to the notion that teachers would not be allowed to instruct children seven-years-old and younger on gender identity and sexuality. They even deceptively called it the “Don’t Say Gay bill.”

But polling showed that the American public wasn’t buying it. Indeed, at least one survey revealed that 52 percent of Florida Democratic primary voters supported the measure. Other studies showed people overwhelmingly favor the law. Nevertheless, the progressive left persisted, with the help of Disney, who received a black eye in the messaging battle over the matter.

Leftists exploited the murder of George Floyd to push for silly initiatives like “Defund the Police” under the guise that it would help to safeguard black lives. They bullied major cities across the country into slashing police budgets in a way that resulted in fewer police officers patrolling the streets. Even further, woke district attorneys like San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin were hard at work protecting criminals engaging in violent acts. Needless to say, these approaches made people far less safe and were at least partly responsible for the skyrocketing crime rates that followed. San Francisco’s voters were so fed up they voted to give Boudin the boot in California’s primary elections earlier this week.

What’s even more egregious about this is that rising crime rates, combined with fewer police officers, disproportionately harmed black communities. African Americans represented the lion’s share of victims of violent crimes, including homicide. But progressives still insisted on attacking police even when polling showed the majority (81 percent) of black Americans wished to see the same level of police activity in their neighborhoods or more.

Last but certainly not least, President Joe Biden and progressives are still pushing for a shift to green energy amid sky-high gas prices instead of drilling for oil in the U.S. Former President Donald Trump sought to make America as energy independent as possible, but Biden reversed course immediately after taking office. Now, everyday Americans are paying almost double at the pump and taxing their wallets just to get groceries because of massive inflation. Nevertheless, Biden and his merry band of Democrats in Congress refuse to allow more drilling and oil production in the United States.

The progressive approach to solving the energy crisis is in direct opposition to what most Americans want. A Heartland/Rasmussen poll conducted last month revealed that 82 percent of likely voters are “very” or “somewhat concerned” about rising energy and gas prices under this administration. Additionally, 60 percent of respondents said they would favor legislation that would “dramatically increase American energy production.”

As it turns out, most Americans can’t just go out and buy a Tesla as Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and other leftists have suggested.

These, and a mile-long list of examples, would lead any reasonable person to conclude that progressives just don’t understand average, everyday citizens. They don’t bother having conversations with regular folks to understand what they believe about the problems they are facing.

But I’ve come to realize that this assumption is both naive, inaccurate, and even dangerous.

These people are not out of touch with the American public. They are not unaware of what the people want. They are not oblivious to the viewpoints of us normal folks.

They know what we think. They just don’t care.

They don’t give a rodent’s derriere how we feel about the direction of the country.

They know better, which means we should just shut up and go along with their program. Progressives will continue pushing their insane ideas on race, gender, and sexuality in public K-12 schools. Even further, they will keep trying to limit educational alternatives by opposing school choice. Your kids and grandkids belong to the state, not to their parents, so to them, it is totally justified to encourage youths to transition to other genders without informing their parents.

Democrats have backed off of the ridiculous “defund the police” movement. But this does not mean they have given up. Woke district attorneys are still making sure criminals are given lenient treatment. They are still enacting soft-on-crime policies, even against gun violence, while trying to limit gun ownership for responsible Americans.

When it comes to gas prices, it’s the same story. If you want some relief at the pump, you better figure out how to get a Tesla, or you will be S.O.L. The elites don’t have to worry either way because these inflated prices are not harming the elites as they are for plebes like you and I.

Progressives are not out of touch. They are not ignorant. They are elitist would-be tyrants seeking to obtain more power. These people believe they know what is best for the unwashed masses. Leftists think they know what we need more than we do. This is what we are facing.

I’ll note that this does not apply to moderate liberals or even many average people with progressive views. But it is certainly applicable to the Marxist intelligentsia and their minions in the activist media. So, let’s stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. They deserve neither our understanding nor our good-faith conversations. We cannot reason with them. Our objective should be to defeat them. [source]

The author completely understands the Left.

A ‘brain organoid’ biochip displayed serious voice recognition and math skills

From PopSci.com (Dec. 12, 2023):

Your biological center for thought, comprehension, and learning bears some striking similarities to a data center housing rows upon rows of highly advanced processing units. But unlike those neural network data centers, the human brain runs an electrical energy budget. On average, the organ functions on roughly 12 watts of power, compared with a desktop computer’s 175 watts. For today’s advanced artificial intelligence systems, that wattage figure can easily increase into the millions.

Knowing this, researchers believe the development of cyborg “biocomputers” could eventually usher in a new era of high-powered intelligent systems for a comparative fraction of the energy costs. And they’re already making some huge strides towards engineering such a future.

As detailed in a new study published in Nature Electronics, a team at Indiana University has successfully grown their own nanoscale “brain organoid” in a Petri dish using human stem cells. After connecting the organoid to a silicon chip, the new biocomputer (dubbed “Brainoware”) was quickly trained to accurately recognize speech patterns, as well as perform certain complex math predictions.

As New Atlas explains, researchers treated their Brainoware as what’s known as an “adaptive living reservoir” capable of responding to electrical inputs in a “nonlinear fashion,” while also ensuring it possessed at least some memory. Simply put, the lab-grown brain cells within the silicon-organic chip function as an information transmitter capable of both receiving and transmitting electrical signals. While these feats in no way imply any kind of awareness or consciousness on Brainoware’s part, they do provide enough computational power for some interesting results.

To test out Brainoware’s capabilities, the team converted 240 audio clips of adult male Japanese speakers into electrical signals, and then sent them to the organoid chip. Within two days, the neural network system partially powered by Brainoware could accurately differentiate between the 8 speakers 78 percent of the time using just a single vowel sound.

Next, researchers experimented with their creation’s mathematical knowledge. After a relatively short training time, Brainoware could predict a Hénon map. While one of the most studied examples of dynamical systems exhibiting chaotic behavior, Hénon maps are a lot more complicated than simple arithmetic, to say the least.

In the end, Brainoware’s designers believe such human brain organoid chips can underpin neural network technology, and possibly do so faster, cheaper, and less energy intensive than existing options. There are still a number of hurdles—both logistical and ethical—to clear, but although general biocomputing systems may be years down the line, researchers think such advances are “likely to generate foundational insights into the mechanisms of learning, neural development and the cognitive implications of neurodegenerative diseases.”

But for now, let’s see how Brainoware can do in a game of Pong. [source]

Interesting and weird. If the biochip can be developed further it could possibly be used for voice authentication for security.

More biochip articles:

• Dystopia: World's first 'biological computer' uses human brain cells that are 'raised in a simulation'
• Lab-grown human brain tissue used to control robot
• Brace yourself: Making computers from human brains is the new environmentalism
• Scientists grow mini human brains to power computers
• Computer run on human brain cells learned to play ‘Doom’
• Scientists seek to create 'biocomputers' using lab-grown, human pseudo brains

Thousands of Dead People Got Student Aid, Trump Admin Finds

From Newsweek.com (June 2, 2025):

The U.S. Department of Education revealed that over $30 million in federal student aid had been distributed to thousands of deceased individuals during the past three years.

The disclosure followed an internal cross-check of student aid records against federal grant logs and the Social Security Death Index.

Why It Matters

The discovery of erroneous payments totaling over $30 million to deceased individuals raises significant concerns about the integrity of federal financial aid programs, which are funded by U.S. taxpayers.

President Donald Trump's administration has been emphasizing the amount of money the government is wasting and has been trying to eliminate unnecessary expenses.

What To Know

The Department of Education's review found that, over the previous three years, more than $30 million in federal student aid was paid out to thousands of recipients who were already deceased. These payments included both loan disbursements and grant funds.

Officials identified the problem by cross-referencing student aid records with the Social Security Death Index. They stated that the lack of real-time data sharing contributed to erroneous payments, as outdated records failed to flag recipients who had died, allowing automatic disbursements to proceed.

To address the issue, the Education Department reported it is strengthening its real-time data-sharing agreement with the Social Security Administration (SSA) and enhancing administrative processes to detect eligibility changes more quickly.

These steps aim to close loopholes that permitted deceased individuals to remain listed as eligible for aid.

The department also announced the resumption of automated post-screening for student aid records, a process that was paused during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated that these checks are crucial for ensuring that all recipients meet the eligibility criteria before additional aid is released.

The $30 million misallocated to deceased recipients was part of a larger total: nearly $90 million was distributed to ineligible recipients during the same period, according to the Department of Education.

Despite the large number, experts say the level of fraud is still relatively low.

"As we know, in any system, public or private, mistakes and fraud can occur," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "This $90 million figure represents less than 0.10 percent of the total average government outlay of $87 billion for student loans."

He added: "The attention this is getting is purely a result of the scale, and it actually highlights how well the system has performed." [read more]

Terrible. This is why gov't agencies have to get rid of their fraud, waste, and abuse.

Trump Must Avoid These 3 ‘Civilization Killers’ When Tackling the National Debt

From Daily Signal.com (May 26, 2025):

Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. I’d like to talk about debt, debt, debt.

All during the last few days, we’ve heard some startling news. Moody’s, the bond evaluator, for the first time in its history, since 1917, has lowered the credit rating of the United States government from Aaa to Aa1.

It didn’t do that during the 2008 meltdown. It didn’t do that during the Great Depression. It didn’t do that during 9/11. It didn’t do that during the Biden years when we borrowed $7 trillion. But it did it now.

At the same time, Jerome Powell, the head of the Fed, will not lower interest rates even though there’s been a good jobs report, a good inflation report, a good corporate profits report. Gross domestic product is gonna be evaluated, apparently, upward and there’s been low energy cost. That mortgage is still 4.25% Fed rate to 4.5%. And that means mortgages are still 6.5%, 7%. And that housing market is slowing as a result.

And this has got President Donald Trump very angry, that they’re doing this, given the prior administration borrowed $7 trillion and helped run up from $29 trillion in national debt to $37 trillion, and left Trump with a $3 billion-a-day interest payment. So, he’s jawboning all this and trying to get down. So, what is Trump trying to do? And is it working?

Well, he’s the first president since Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, the speaker of the House at that time, who’s talking about reducing a $2 trillion budget deficit, a $1.2 trillion trade deficit, and addressing a $37 trillion national debt. But is he actually doing it?

On the plus side of the ledger, you’ve got the Department of Government Efficiency. And DOGE in the first 100 days has identified about $160 billion in cuts. That’s encouraging if two things are following: if they can keep up that rate of identifying cuts and get up to the $500 billion or even $700 billion and maybe make 25% or 30% reduction in the $2 trillion deficit. And if the Trump administration exercises fiscal discipline.

The problem is twofold: that while he’s addressing verbally, rhetorically the debt and the deficit, you look at the big, beautiful bill under consideration and it’s going to have to pass or the Trump administration will be completely humiliated.

They need to get it through reconciliation but there are sizable increases in the defense budget from everything that’s justifiable, from salaries, from an Iron Dome-like missile defense—you name it. More drones—good. But it’s more money. And there’s more subsidies to farmers. And there’s not a lot of cuts—at least when balanced with the increases.

So, the budget deficit, for all the talk of DOGE and for all the talk of fiscal sobriety, might not actually go down. And if it doesn’t go down, the Fed may not lower rates. And if it doesn’t lower rates, then you still are stuck with a trillion dollars a year in interest payments. That’s killing us.

So, you’ve got to get that down. And the way Trump has to do it is just two ways: Either cut the budget or raise taxes—which will strangle the economy—or continue the tax cuts. And hope two things: that the tax cuts—the extension—will prime the economy, along with cheap interest rates.

And the question that we all have now: Is cutting taxes on tips, is cutting taxes on Social Security, is cutting taxes on first responder, etc.—all of which Trump has mentioned—is that really stimulus as opposed to, say, accelerated depreciation investment for businesses?

I don’t know the answer. But I do know, as a historian, that if you do not cut the deficit and the national debt and you have bond raters like Moody’s or the Fed that will not lower interest rates, you’re going to be in a crisis.

And in the antiquity—from Greece and Rome, through the Middle Ages, to the Renaissance—there were three ways of dealing with unsustainable debt and are not good. They’re all civilizational killers.

No. 1: As the Weimar Republic did in Germany, you pay back what you owe in cheap dollars. They inflated the marks. And bankrupt really helped cause the depression. You can do that, pay back the $37 trillion in inflated dollars. It’s not a good option.

No. 2: You can confiscate private wealth. People do that all the time throughout history. That destroys the legitimacy of the government. And it makes private investors hide their money.

When I say confiscate wealth, you can already see articles in financial left-wing journals that say, well, maybe the trillionaire, billionaire, whatever term they use, oligarchical class will get credit, some Social Security or get some kind of credit for us taking some of their 401(k) money. Something like that. That never works. It never worked in Athens. It never worked in Rome. It never worked in Renaissance Italy.

The third is the most drastic and it’s a killer too and we’ve seen countries in South America try it. And that’s to renounce the debt. Just say: You know what? All you bondholders, you guys have U.S. savings bonds—40% of them abroad, you know, here in America—you have so much money anyway. We’re just not gonna pay you back—the government. We’re gonna renounce it and start from zero.

Who would ever buy a bond again if we were to do that?

So, bottom line is incumbent upon the Trump administration to make real cuts and show progress that you’re reducing the annual budget deficit and more importantly, you have mechanisms to grow the economy.

Final note. We have a lot of confidence—this administration—that tariffs will give revenue and maybe also help reduce the budget deficit. I’m not sure that’s happening. Only 1% or 2%, maybe 3% of the $5 trillion in federal revenue today is made up by tariff income. Even with these huge new tariffs, if they’re actually reified, you might get a trillion dollars. You might get a trillion dollars over 10 years. That’s $100 billion out of $5 trillion in revenue. So, I’m not sure we can count on tariff income at all.

What we should count on is cut, cut, cut. Seek a balanced budget and grow the economy with tax cuts that encourage investment and economic expansion. [source]

Yea, those three tactics are very bad. America doesn't want to be Weimar Republic or even Zimbabwe for that matter. Hyperinflation will economically kill a nation. Another good analysis by VDH.

Forgiveness Is Not an Act of Weakness

From Breakpoint.org (June 15, 2022):

Earlier this year, a very secular publication came to an unexpected conclusion. Vox ran a series of articles under the title “America’s Struggle for Forgiveness,.” In it, they wrote, “Grace might be the holiest, most precious concept of all in this conversation about right and wrong, penance and reform—but it’s the one that almost never gets discussed.”

Even in the most morally exhausted cultural moments, like ours, there are signs of life. Made in God’s image, with eternity in our hearts, we’re desperate for answers to our deepest questions and for purpose to help us make sense of our lives. We search elsewhere but, ultimately, only the Gospel offers what we need.

At the same time, at least when it comes to forgiveness, Christians are struggling as well. In any context, because it always involves fallen human beings, forgiveness isn’t easy. In this cultural moment, so deeply divided at such fundamental levels and with so much at stake in the issues, it can seem impossible. How can we reconcile the idea of forgiveness in a world overrun by evil? How can we be examples of forgiveness, both forgiving and seeking forgiveness, to a world that so desperately needs to see it?

First, we need to be clear on what forgiveness is and isn’t. The way Jesus’ command to “love your enemies” is often used in order to silence Christians who hold unpopular views completely misses the point. Too often, we get the impression that we need to apologize not merely for failing to live out Christian ethics, but for holding Christian ethics in the first place, as if Christian witness is compromised by Christian morality.

Second, Christians must embrace the idea of forgiveness. There’s a fear in many corners of the Church, particularly those engaged in standing for righteousness in this cultural moment, that concepts like “forgiveness,” “gentleness,” or “compassion” are signs of weakness. Certainly, many Christians have been gutted of courage at the exact moment Christian courage is so badly needed. But asking for or offering forgiveness is not necessarily a sign of weakness. In fact, in a culture devoid of it, Christians have something essential to offer people, families, institutions, and cultures.

Plus, we don’t have a choice. For Christians, a gracious posture is not an option. In Romans 12, Paul instructs Christians to “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them.” He also commands us to “Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good.” Holding to truth and righteousness and being gracious to others are not mutually exclusive options. Both are required for Christ followers.

We must not pretend people are somehow “doing good” when they are not, or that evil ideologies that hurt the innocent are somehow anything less than evil. In Jesus’ words, we will be “exclude[d]” and “revile[d],” and have our names “spurn[ed]” as “evil” for His sake, not because we’ve done anything wrong but because we’ve followed Him. As Jesus’ teaching about church discipline and instructions to the disciples to “shake the dust of unbelieving towns off their feet” suggests, the goal of Christian witness can only be faithfulness. Whether or not we are liked is of little importance.

Which means, as Steve Cornell with The Gospel Coalition recently wrote, forgiveness is different than “reconciliation.” We can and must extend forgiveness, and we ought to be agents of reconciliation. However, because reconciliation always involves someone else, it isn’t merely up to us. Not only does it take two to reconcile, but when people actively pursue evil, boundaries are necessary.

The real battlefield of forgiveness is not just in external behavior. It involves the heart, which God sees with piercing clarity. It may involve asking for forgiveness, even from ideological opponents who are on the wrong side of a given issue. It will mean forgoing vengeance, even while seeking justice and extending love to those extending hate.

In God’s economy, this is not weakness. It is the strength rooted in Christ whom Himself proclaimed, “Father, forgive them.”

A wonderful example is Barronelle Stutzman, a co-recipient of this year’s Wilberforce Award. For years, she’s been the target of the state of Washington, misrepresented in the press, slandered, and sued for refusing to custom design flowers for a same-sex wedding. Only last November, after nearly a decade, was her legal case finally settled.

Through the whole, exhausting process, Barronelle extended nothing but kindness, even to the person behind her legal nightmare, longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll. “I did not turn down Rob,” she wrote in 2016. “I turned down an event. And if Rob walked into my store today, I would hug him and I would serve him for another 10 years.”

That same gracious attitude only became more evident in the years since. Through it all, she steadfastly refused to betray her faith while still showing gentle kindness toward those who oppose her. Anyone who knows Barronelle Stutzman would never confuse that posture with weakness.

Rather, she’s a living, breathing example that Christians can have both unrelenting conviction and a tender heart of forgiveness. We need not choose between them. [source]

Amen.

Trump’s Way of War

From AM Greatness.com (March 3):

War is the use of arms to settle differences—tribal, political, religious, cultural, and material—between organized groups. It is unchanging. The general laws of armed conflict stays immutable, given the constancy of human nature.

However, the manner in which war is conducted remains fluid. New weapons, tactics, and strategies elicit counterresponses in an endless cycle of tensions between defensive and offensive superiority.

That said, has President Trump introduced a novel way of waging Western war against America’s foreign enemies?

We saw glimpses of it during his first term, when he eliminated Iranian general and terrorist kingpin Qassem Soleimani and ISIS terrorist grandee Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In the former case, he preferred hitting the cause rather than the effects of Iranian terrorism in Syria and Iraq, while making it clear that he had no intention of striking the Iranian mainland and entering into a tit-for-tat “forever war.”

In large part, he was successful. Iran never quite replaced the venomous Soleimani. And despite tired threats, its performative art responses did not kill any Americans, and they were seen by Trump as venting and not worth a counterresponse.

In the case of the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Trump likewise went after the catalyst of ISIS terrorism. But he also bombed ISIS into near nonexistence in Iraq, since, unlike Iran, it lacked the financial and material resources of a state sponsor of terror, and it had no independent ability to make weapons or finance its terrorism.

In 2018, Trump probably killed more Russian ground troops (more than 200?) than America had during the entire Cold War, with his furious response to the Wagner Group assault on a U.S. Special Operations base near Khasham, Syria. Yet the defeat of Russian mercenaries also led to no wider conflict.

In these three cases, Trump successfully portrayed his antagonists as the unprovoked aggressors, employed overwhelming force to eliminate them, and declared them one-off occurrences with no need to punish the ultimate source or sponsor of the aggression with further force, and he was largely successful in limiting subsequent attacks on American installations.

In Trump’s second term, he widened his doctrine of “preventative deterrence” with operations to remove Venezuelan communist strongman Nicolás Maduro, along with two separate bombing campaigns against Iran.

While the second Iran operation is now in progress, it may resemble the earlier two in a number of facets.

Trump again portrayed Venezuela and Iran as unpunished past and present psychopathic aggressors. He went after Maduro, whom Biden had largely ignored, for his past of exporting gang-bangers and criminals across the Biden-era open border and for using Venezuela’s cartel connections to profit from American deaths.

As for attacking Iran, Trump cited the theocracy’s past terrorist attacks on Americans and U.S. allies, its effort to assassinate Westerners, and its unwillingness to abandon plans to create a nuclear weapon.

What, then, are Trump’s new ways of conducting war?

1. Geostrategy. Always behind these seemingly unconnected events—and other nonkinetic moves like warning Panama about Chinese intrusions—strategic concerns loom. The common denominator is usually isolating China from strategic spaces, allies, and oil—and Russia in a lesser sense.

Loud and terrorist, but ultimately impotent, proxies of strategic enemies—Cuba, Iran, Venezuela—are preferable targets. They are not just easily identified enemies given their past anti-American violence; they are also targeted because their demise offers a global display of the weakness of their distant patrons and underwriters.

2. Wars of Reckoning. Trump always frames his interventionism as reactive and long overdue. It is a sort of “reckoning war” for previously overlooked crimes that his predecessors had ignored but are often seared in the American mind. “Preemptive” or “preventative” wars, these strikes may be. But Trump himself avoids the baggage that those adjectives of aggression convey in the collective American memory.

3. War among Negotiations. Trump’s way of warmaking is usually an extension of ongoing negotiations (e.g., over Iran’s nuclear weapons or Maduro’s subsidies to terrorists and drug trafficking). So, during discussions, he offers various exit ramps to his adversaries and publicly laments the possibility of violence.

Meanwhile, American naval and expeditionary assets show up and amass to ramp up the pressure. Trump does not wait for negotiations to fail, but usually offers a deadline to his adversaries. And then he simply informs his advisors of the point at which the enemy has no intention of seeking a peaceful settlement. A strike follows. [read more]

Another great analysis by VDH. He gets the POTUS.

The rest of the ways of war:

1. The Culpable Apparat. Trump prefers top-down war. That is, he starts his attacks by targeting the enemy apparat, not its lesser henchman. The aim is both to disrupt its command and control and to separate an enemy leader from a population deemed not necessarily culpable.
2. No to Nation-Building.
3. No Boots on the Ground.
4. Exit Strategy? There is an exit strategy of sorts, partly rhetorical and partly real—but usually arbitrarily declared by Trump himself. He alone starts the shooting and stops it according to his own definition of when the war begins and ends. The enemy has a vote, of course, but Trump frames the conflict in ways that lessen his say.
5. No to Internationalism.
6. Deterrent Displays. Trump uses his strikes as global reminders of American prowess. He showcases the USS Gerald R. Ford mammoth carrier, the largest warship in the history of conflict.
7. American Self-Interest.

How America’s Recycling Program Failed—and Scarred the Environment

From FEE.org (May 31, 2022):

In March 2019, The New York Times ran a shocking story exploring why many prominent US cities were abandoning their recycling programs.

“Philadelphia is now burning about half of its 1.5 million residents’ recycling material in an incinerator that converts waste to energy,” Times business writer Michael Corkery reported. “In Memphis, the international airport still has recycling bins around the terminals, but every collected can, bottle and newspaper is sent to a landfill.”

Philadelphia and Memphis were not outliers. They, along with Deltona, Florida, which had suspended its recycling program the previous month, were just a few examples of hundreds of cities across the country that had scrapped recycling programs or scaled back operations.

Since that time, cities across the country have continued to scrap recycling programs, citing high costs.

“The cost of recycling was going to double, and the town wasn’t going to be able to absorb that cost,” said Dencia Raish, the town clerk administrator for Akron, Colorado, which ended its program in 2021 and now sends “recyclables” to a landfill.

While many Americans likely are distraught about America’s failed recycling experiment, a new video produced by Kite & Key Media reveals that abandoning recycling—at least in its current form—is likely to benefit both Americans and the environment.

A Brief History of Recycling

Like many problems in American history, recycling began as a moral panic.

The frenzy began in the spring of 1987 when a massive barge carrying more than 3,000 tons of garbage—the Mobro 4000—was turned away from a North Carolina port because rumor had it the barge was carrying toxic waste. (It wasn’t.)

“Thus began one of the biggest garbage sagas in modern history,” Vice News reported in a feature published a quarter-century later, “a picaresque journey of a small boat overflowing with stuff no one wanted, a flotilla of waste, a trashier version of the Flying Dutchman, that ghost ship doomed to never make port.”

The Mobro was simply seeking a landfill to dumb the garbage, but everywhere the barge went it was turned away. After North Carolina, the captain tried Louisiana. Nope. Then the Mobro tried Belize, then Mexico, then the Bahamas. No dice.

“The Mobro ended up spending six months at sea trying to find a place that would take its trash,” Kite & Key Media notes.

America became obsessed with the story. In 1987 there was no Netflix, smartphones, or Twitter, so apparently everyone just decided to watch this barge carrying tons of trash for entertainment. The Mobro became, in the words of Vice, “the most watched load of garbage in the memory of man.”

The Mobro also became perhaps the most consequential load of garbage in history.

“The Mobro had two big and related effects,” Kite & Key Media explains. “First, the media reporting around it convinced Americans that we were running out of landfill space to dispose of our trash. Second, it convinced them the solution was recycling.”

Neither claim, however, was true.

The idea that the US was running out of landfill space is a myth. The urban legend likely stems from the consolidation of landfills in the 1980s, which saw many waste depots retired because they were small and inefficient, not because of a national shortage. In fact, researchers estimate that if you take just the land the US uses for grazing in the Great Plains region, and use one-tenth of one percent of it, you’d have enough space for America’s garbage for the next thousand years. (This is not to say that regional problems do not exist, Slate points out..

Mandated recycling efforts, meanwhile, have proven fraught. [read more]

Chinese Spy Balloon Used US Internet to Communicate as it Soared Over Nuclear Silos

From The Gateway Pundit.com (Dec. 29, 2023):

Last January the Biden administration knew about the Chinese spy balloon traversing across the continental United States, from Alaska to the Carolinas, but sought to conceal this from the American public.

A newspaper photographer first spotted the balloon over Montana.

The Chinese spy balloon first entered US airspace over Alaska in late January.

The balloon soared over nuclear silos and military installations across the US with Joe Biden’s full approval.

The balloon was shot down over the Atlantic just off the coast of the Carolinas.

According to the Pentagon, the spy balloon carried explosives to self-detonate, was 200 feet tall, and weighed thousands of pounds.

Earlier this week it was reported General Milley also knew the spy balloon was collecting data as it flew over the continental US but kept this from the American public.

Now this…

According to CNN, the Chinese spy balloon used US internet to communicate as is soared over the United States and gathered information.

CNN reported:

US intelligence agencies found that the Chinese surveillance balloon that transited the United States in early 2023 used an American internet service provider to send short, periodic transmissions of data related to navigation and location back to China, according to a US official.

This connection was one of the ways that the US was able to track its location and gather information on the balloon as it transited the United States, the source said.

CNN was not able to identify the internet service provider. CNN has previously reported that officials said the balloon was capable of communicating with Beijing as it traveled across the US.

NBC News first reported that the balloon used a US network to communicate with Beijing.

The network connection was not used to transmit intelligence back to China, according to the official. The balloon stored that information for later, including imagery and other data, which the US has since been able to study after shooting it down in February.

[source]

Of course it did. The Chi-Coms made a mockery of Briben.

Trump Says Russia Stole Hypersonic Rockets

From Newsmax.com (May 24, 2025):

President Donald Trump on Saturday complained about hypersonic rockets "stolen" by Russia, reports Newsweek.

"Eight cadets here today took on the challenge of designing their own hypersonic rocket," Trump said during a West Point commencement address in New York.

"Oh, we can use you building them right now. You know, we had ours stolen. We are the designer of it. We had it stolen during the Obama administration. They saw — you know who stole it? The Russians stole it. Something bad happened.

"But we're now, we're the designer of it," he added.

"We're now building them, and lots of them, and earlier this year, they launched it into space, setting a world record for amateur rocketry. Can't get you in there fast enough."

Wearing a red "Make America Great Again" hat, Trump also told the 1,002 members of the class of 2025 at the U.S. Military Academy that the United States is the "hottest country in the world" and underscored an "America First" ethos for the military.

He said the cadets were graduating at a "defining moment" in Army history as he accused political leaders in the past of sending soldiers into "nation-building crusades to nations that wanted nothing to do with us." He said he was clearing the military of transgender ideas, "critical race theory," and types of training he called divisive and political. [source]

Probably. China is known to steal America's technological patents, so, why not Russia and other rogue nations?

Kim Jong-un Confiscates Pet Dogs During North Korea’s Food Shortage

From Breitbart.com (Aug. 18, 2020):

“Authorities have identified households with pet dogs and are forcing them to give them up or forcefully confiscating them and putting them down,” a North Korean source told the South Korean newspaper Chosun Ilbo on August 12.

“The dogs are also being sent to zoos or sold to restaurants where dog meat is eaten,” the source added. In addition to North Korea, dog meat is eaten by humans in some parts of China and South Korea.

Kim Jong-un issued a ban on pet ownership in July, denouncing the practice as “a ‘tainted’ trend by bourgeois ideology,” the source said. The Communist North Korean regime touted the pet ban as Kim’s way of protecting the country against capitalist “decadence,” according to Chosun Ilbo.

“Ordinary people raise pigs and livestock on their porches, but high-ranking officials and the wealthy own pet dogs, which stoked some resentment,” the source said.

According to the report, the Communist regime enforced the pet ban and confiscation amid a worsening nationwide food shortage and economic crisis. World powers have imposed various economic sanctions on North Korea for years in an effort to denuclearize the hostile nation. The struggling country further isolated itself by shutting its borders earlier this year in an effort to control its Chinese coronavirus outbreak.

The North Korean regime officially denies the existence of any coronavirus cases in the country, but has taken several drastic countermeasures to prevent the spread of the virus, suggesting that it has been battling a massive outbreak for several months. In January, North Korea closed its borders and schools and began placing thousands of people in quarantine. In late June, North Korean officials locked down the nation’s third-largest city, Chongjin, after a serious coronavirus outbreak was detected there, according to reports. The government also recently said it would extend its border closures through 2021.

In June, the U.N. warned that food insecurity in North Korea had worsened during the coronavirus pandemic due to the country’s closed borders, reporting that some people were “starving” as a result. Over 40 percent of people in North Korea were considered “food insecure” prior to the pandemic, with many people in the country suffering from malnutrition. [source]

Welcome to Communism! No wonder the citizens are trying to illegally enter China. It’s that bad.

Promise to America’s Parents

From Breakpoint.org (July 7, 2022):

Last year, a coalition of organizations, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Family Policy Alliance, Colson Center, and the Heritage Foundation, teamed up to issue a Promise to America’s Children, a commitment to protect their minds, their bodies, and their most important relationships amid this hypersexualized culture.

Today, we join again, this time to issue a Promise to America’s Parents. Why? As the website puts it,

“Local, state, and federal government policies are imposing ideologies that divide children by race and promote the falsehood that a boy can become a girl or vice-versa. Some schools are treating children as if they are the opposite sex without the permission of parents. Medical professionals are performing harmful experiments on children who are emotionally distressed about their bodies. To protect children, parents need laws that protect their rights.”

Simply put, no government entity should usurp the place of parents. In too many classrooms, progressive ideas are forced on children, targeting their hearts, minds, and identities. A reigning ideology in education is critical theory which, in its various forms, denies that every single person is made in the image of God. Thus, kids are taught to see other people in simplistic categories of oppressed or oppressor, to see Christianity as an oppressive and destructive historical force, and to see themselves primarily in terms of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Promise to America’s Parents galvanizes parents to “A.C.T.”—an acronym referring to accountability, choice, and transparency—on behalf of their children. According to the Promise,

“Children belong first and foremost to their families. In the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, they are not “mere creatures of the state.” The unique and intimate relationship between a parent and a child creates a duty and a corresponding natural right. Parental rights are fundamental rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, courts have not consistently protected parental rights against government interference and invasion as they should. “

In the “A.C.T.” acronym, accountability means that “Every mother or father may hold the government accountable for infringing on their rights to care for their child.” Choice means that “Every mother or father has the responsibility and right to choose the education and medical treatment that they deem best for their child.” Thus, neither schools, nor healthcare providers, nor schools acting like healthcare providers should push a child toward an alternative gender without the parents’ permission. Schools also must not restrict a child’s speech by creating vague anti-racist policies that would prohibit differing viewpoints being stated.

Transparency means that “Every mother or father has the right to know about what their child is learning, their child’s health, and any harms to them.” Parents have the right to know the content within the curriculum, from textbooks to other materials. Parents have the right to know the content of their children’s files. Specifically, no separate files should be kept to maintain secretive use of counseling, gender pronouns, or treatments.

Please read the whole Promise to America’s Parents at promisetoAmericasparents.org. There’s also a free downloadable toolkit, explaining parental rights at schools and in doctors’ offices. It also provides practical advice on how to proceed if a child describes their school day, and warning lights start flashing in your head. For example, the toolkit explains what you can and cannot ask for in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, how to access the school’s curriculum, securing opt-out policies for classroom instruction that conflicts with religious or moral beliefs, and how to help children report statements or actions that treat students differently because of their race, religion, or moral views.

There are also plenty of stories on the Promise website about parents who took a stand. Two parents whose stories are told are plaintiffs in cases represented by ADF. Melissa Riley says of her son, who is biracial, “He is changing . . . . If things don’t go his way or things seem unfair, he will now claim it’s racism. He never did that before.” Another parent, Carlos Ibenez is a plaintiff because his daughter was told in middle school that as a Latina, she wouldn’t succeed because the system was set up to privilege people with white skin.

Parents can protect their children from indoctrination that targets the mind and the heart. Parents can protect their children from being co-opted by the state. Please, visit promisetoAmericasparents.org. [source]

Amen. The Left believes children belong to the State on not the family. So, they can make them into new people that worships the State.

Abuse of Power Part 2: Investigation Interference & Illegal Spying

Roosevelt helped a loyal Texas congressman by the name of Lyndon Johnson. "Johnson himself became an IRS target for failing to properly report income from his campaigns," explains Folsom. "On January 13, 1944, just as six IRS agents were winding up their 18-month investigation of Johnson, President Roosevelt had an emergency meeting with Johnson. That day, the president contacted . . . Irey and began the process of halting the investigation of Johnson. . . . Johnson was not harmed at all. He had proven himself too valuable to the president to lose.

……….

President Kennedy even had installed a secret recording system in the Oval Office and Cabinet Room as well. He personally ordered Secret Service agent Robert Bouck to undertake the task. In his book The Tunnels, author Greg Mitchell wrote: "Three previous presidents had installed listening devices, but they had used them sparingly. Franklin Roosevelt made a few recordings in 1940; Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower left behind less than a dozen hours of tapes each. Kennedy's plan would give him far more opportunity than that. JFK aimed to document face-to-face conversations with aides and visitors, for his own use and/or the historical record. Without telling anyone why . . . At Kennedy's direction, he installed the Oval Office microphones under the President's desk and in a coffee table. Kennedy could activate them with the discreet push of a button on his desk. The microphones in the Cabinet Room were hidden behind drapes and could be turned on and off by a button at the head of the table where Kennedy sat."

………

Like several of his predecessors, but even more so, Johnson used the IRS and the FBI, as well as the CIA, for unconstitutional and unlawful purposes. For example, the Heritage Foundation's Lee Edwards, who had served as director of information for the 1964 Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, tells how Johnson used the CIA and FBI to spy on the Goldwater campaign.

"Former intelligence officer E. Howard Hunt, best known for his role as an orchestrator of the Watergate bugging," wrote Edwards, "told a Senate committee in 1973 that his CIA superior ordered him to infiltrate the Goldwater campaign. Hunt claimed to have questioned the order, only to be told that it had been a personal request of President Johnson and that the information he received would be delivered to a White House aide. CIA Director William Colby confirmed the White House's role in the illegal surveillance while addressing a congressional hearing in 1975. That the CIA is prohibited by law from operating within the U.S. didn't matter to the Johnson campaign. The Goldwater people never suspected that one of them was a spy for the Democrats."

Source: Unfreedom of the Press (2019) by Mark R. Levin.

The Senate Is Considering An AI Bill That Could Radically Alter The Future Of The Internet

From Daily Caller.com (Dec. 10, 2023):

The Senate could soon take up a bipartisan bill defining the liability protections enjoyed by artificial intelligence-generated content, which could lead to considerable impacts on online speech and the development of AI technology.

Republican Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley and Democratic Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal in June introduced the No Section 230 Immunity for AI Act, which would clarify that liability protections under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act do not apply to text and visual content created by artificial intelligence.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states that internet companies cannot be held liable for third-party speech posted on their platforms. The question of whether these same protections apply to content created by artificial intelligence could have a dramatic impact on online speech, especially as artificial intelligence technology such as ChatGPT come to play a large role online, as major tech companies could face a deluge of lawsuits for AI-generated content.

The bill would enable Americans to file lawsuits against AI firms whose advanced technology enables the production of damaging content. The bill would target AI-generated content such as deepfakes, which are false but realistic-looking visual imitations, often of a real person. Deepfakes are becoming much more widespread, leading lawmakers to raise concerns that they could enable financial fraud and intellectual property theft.

The legislation defines generative AI as “an artificial intelligence system that is capable of generating novel text, video, images, audio, and other media based on prompts or other forms of data provided by a person.’’

Democratic Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, one of the authors of Section 230, said it should not apply to AI in comments to The Washington Post in March.

“AI tools like ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion and others being rapidly integrated into popular digital services should not be protected by Section 230,” he told the Post. “And it isn’t a particularly close call … Section 230 is about protecting users and sites for hosting and organizing users’ speech” and it “has nothing to do with protecting companies from the consequences of their own actions and products.”

“The reality is Section 230 was not written with artificial intelligence in mind, or the idea that artificial intelligence creating content is the same thing as user-generated content,” Jon Schweppe, director of policy for American Principles Project told the DCNF. “And so, obviously, we need to consider what we want to do with AI before we just grant immunity from civil liabilities to all these firms.” [read more]

CIA Yanks 19 Docs ‘Compromised’ By Leftist Activism, Including Threat Assessment Targeting ‘Traditional Motherhood’

From The Federalist.com (Feb. 20):

Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe ordered the retraction of 19 intelligence products following an independent review that found the documents failed to meet regulatory standards of tradecraft and quality, the agency announced Friday.

Redacted versions of three documents obtained by The Federalist showed that the analyses promoted left-wing ideology, took sides on domestic political disagreements in foreign countries, fell outside of the CIA’s official role, and were sourced to left-wing media, nongovernmental organizations, and nonprofit groups. This commitment to advancing leftist activism appears to span at least three presidential administrations beginning in 2015.

“There is absolutely no room for bias in our work and when we identify instances where analytic rigor has been compromised, we have a responsibility to correct the record,” Ratcliffe said in a statement. “These actions underscore our commitment to transparency, accountability, and objective intelligence analysis.”

In one 15-page intelligence assessment published in October 2021, the CIA dubs organizations that have historically “lauded motherhood and homemaking as women’s most important responsibility” as suspect, especially because those groups reportedly “recorded an increased number of female recruits.”

Another document — a World Intelligence Review (WIRes), bulletins that are often distributed to “several hundred senior Executive and legislative branch policymakers” on a daily basis — raised concerns that too many children would be born in countries such as Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan if Covid disrupted the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives. That particular review relied on data provided by abortion giants and activist groups such as International Planned Parenthood Federation, Guttmacher Institute, and Marie Stopes International to draw such conclusions.

A third document, published in January 2015, advocated the launch of LGBT academic programs in North African and Middle Eastern universities. The WIRe also asserted that Middle Eastern and North African governments’ “tough stance” on LGBT people and issues is “driven by conservative public opinion and domestic political competition from Islamists, and is hindering US initiatives in support of LGBT rights.”

The decision to remove 17 intelligence documents and substantially revise two more comes after the nonpartisan President’s Intelligence Advisory Board (PIAB) audited 300 analyses spanning the last decade to ensure they met the agency’s standards. It is unclear how the 300 documents were selected for the audit. Intelligence Directive 203 requires the CIA to produce intelligence products that are accurate, objective, impartial, and “independent of political consideration.” The CIA declined to answer whether the individuals who created and distributed the flawed documents faced any disciplinary action.

The intelligence assessment about female involvement in “white racially and ethnically motivated violent extremist” (REMVE) groups defined its targets as women who “may not openly advocate violence” but “amplify” narratives regarding perceptions of racial hierarchy. Admitting its assessment was limited by “minimal reporting” and reliant on “open-source reporting,” it listed “traditional motherhood” as a “white REMVE goal” and said females were emerging as “key players” to advance that goal.

The assessment also suggests that “white REMVE-sympathetic women” use “blogs, videos, or other online content under the guise of cooking tutorials” to facilitate conversations or promote content the CIA deems alarming. These videos, the document claims, “feature discussions about the importance of organic food alongside subtle narratives about racial purity and the defense of white European heritage.”

The file titled “Women Advancing White Racially and Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist (REMVE) Radicalization and Recruitment” does not list evidence of any violence attributed to the women considered by the CIA to be “perceived threats.”

The CIA relied on reporting from The Atlantic, owned by Laurene Powell Jobs, a major Democrat donor, and encouraged others to use similar “strategic messaging campaigns” that focused on “limits to [female] authority” in targeted groups. A senior CIA official said the assessment was a prime example of how analysts should not spend their time.

“The intelligence products we released to the American people today — produced before my tenure as DCIA — fall short of the high standards of impartiality that CIA must uphold and do not reflect the expertise for which our analysts are renowned,” stated Director Ratcliffe. [source]

Good.  Glad the CIA is doing this. Other agencies should follow suit and remove the Marxist virus.