This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A federal judge has agreed to ban the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services from enforcing its private-investigator licensing requirement against anti-spam entrepreneur Jay Fink forever.

The decision comes from U.S. District Judge Rita Lin after a fight brought by the Institute for Justice on behalf of Fink.

Eventually, the state agreed with the institute's arguments and jointly petitioned the court for a ruling to that effect.

The institute said an order from the state had intended to force Fink to get a license to run his business, but the court decided the requirement was so irrational it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

"I'm thankful that I won't have to worry about losing my livelihood anymore," said Fink. "But the state never should have shut me down in the first place."

His work involves California's anti-spam act, which lets consumers sue spammers – if they compile evidence of the spam they have to handle.

"To do that, recipients often have to wade through thousands of emails. For more than a decade, Jay has offered a solution: he and his team will scour a client's junk folder and catalog the messages that likely violate the law," the IJ said.

"But last year the state announced that it was demanding he get a license as an investigator.

"A regulator told Jay he needed a license to read through emails that might be used as evidence in a lawsuit. And because Jay didn't have a private investigator license, the state shut him down," the institute said.

The cost of that license was huge. "Aside from paying fees and passing a test, he would have had to spend 6,000 hours training in fields completely unrelated to identifying spam, like arson investigation or investigative journalism," the report said.

That all made the demand from the state unconstitutional, the report said.

After the judge said Fink likely would win his case, the state "agreed to jointly petition the court for an order that forever prohibits it from enforcing its licensure law against Jay. That means he's immediately free to get back to work."

A lawyer for the IJ earlier explained that Fink "reads and writes at his desk," specifically what the First Amendment protects.

Dylan Moore, a litigation counsel for IJ, said, "It doesn't take 6,000 hours of training to learn how to identify spam messages and put them into a PDF. Anyone who has an internet connection and email address probably already knows how to do this, and the state isn't cracking down on them. Jay just takes the hassle and frustration out of the process. Just like reporters or authors who compile information for a living, Jay is protected by the First Amendment."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

One of the most famous scenes in cinematic history is being resurrected with a new face attached, that of former President Donald Trump in the wake of his attempted assassination on July 13.

The movie is 1999's classic science-fiction thriller "The Matrix," and the scene reimagined using artificial intelligence is where Neo, the hero of the story originally portrayed by Keanu Reeves, is able to stop bullets fired at him in mid-air as he realizes he is "The One."

Now in the new version, it's Donald Trump appearing as the Chosen One, able to stop bullets fired by evil "agents" made to look like Joe Biden, Barack Obama and even Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.

The video shows Trump then proceeding to effortlessly fight and defeat Joe Biden, who eventually explodes into smithereens.

Elon Musk calls the new version: "Best AI video to date!"

Benny Johnson, a well-known video maker online, says: "This is the greatest video on the internet right now now. Holy smokes."

The real Mark Zuckerberg actually had some moving personal comments about the attempt on Trump's life, as he said: "Seeing Donald Trump get up after getting shot in the face and pump his fist in the air with the American flag its one of the most badass things I've ever seen in my life."

Watch the original clip from "The Matrix" where Neo stops bullets.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Was there more than one shooter involved in the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump on July 13 in Butler, Pennsylvania?

That question is being openly discussed on national television by a top-ranking U.S. senator.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Mich., a member of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, was asked by Fox News anchor Maria Bartiromo on "Sunday Morning Futures":

"So are you questioning whether or not there was a second shooter? Is that what you're questioning, or if the shooter had a different gun?"

Johnson responded:

"You know, I saw extremely convincing video online, I know it's all over the place. There were three distinct shots early on followed by another five more staccato, more rapidly fired, and then the final one which we believe took the shooter out.

"How to you explain that? I don't know, I'm not an expert. But the individual putting that video out says it clearly shows there were at least three different weapons fired that day.

"Again, I don't know, but we can't trust the FBI and the Secret Service to do an honest and open, transparent investigation, that's just a very sad fact. We've got to rely on other sources, independent, to really find out what the truth of the matter was on Saturday, July 13th.

The video to which Johnson alluded can be seen here:

Bartiromo also asked: "But I gotta get to this, after the shooter was taken down by Secret Service, the local law enforcement – and I know this from some of your preliminary comments, your preliminary findings – started taking pictures of the dead body, right? Can you tell us what happened then?"

Johnson said: "That sniper team that was in the AGR building, they were the first ones in that went up on the roof, they were the first to encounter the dead assassin at that point in time. Later on other people joined them and, you know, somebody told them to send the pictures they had taken to an ATF agent, which I think is very strange. And we called up that ATF agent, that individual and said that he was with ATF, and now he's gone dark.

"We've also reached out to the Secret Service agents in charge on the ground. All we're getting there is the runaround. We are getting information from local law enforcement, and we appreciate that. But, unfortunately, federal law enforcement agents, they're just saying, well, go through your congressional liaison.

"Again, that's gonna be unacceptable. I wish I could rely and have faith in the FBI and Secret Service to do a truthful accounting of this, but that's not been my experience with the Russian collusion hoax and for years dealing with federal law enforcement. We need completely separate and independent investigations, and it has to start now."

Johnson is urging transcribed interviews be done "now while memories are still fresh."

"It is so important that people who saw things that they preserve it."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A prominent legal team has announced that further litigation will not be needed now that a Wisconsin school district has agreed to end its racist component of a scholarship program.

It is the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty that said it was notified by the School District of Beloit that it will make changes in its "Grow Your Own Multicultural Teacher Scholarship Program."

It previously had a "racial eligibility criterion."

But the district said it now is holding off on accepting new applications until the program "has been accordingly revised and published."

Cara Tolliver, lawyer for the organization, said, "We will continue to seek out and litigate discriminatory programs that undermine human dignity and violate the Constitution. The district made the right decision in repealing the racial eligibility requirement for its GYO program — which was based on nothing more than a constitutionally-forbidden desire to match and balance students and staff according to their skin pigmentation."

She said, "We hope to see the district's new GYO program open soon and serving as many students and staff as possible."

The district's practice had been to award race-based scholarships of up to $20,000 to some minority students and staff who wanted to be teachers.

"According to numerous documents and materials available on the district's website, the district also solicited funding from its employees and board members through direct payroll deductions and other available options and offered incentives for paid-time-off to staff members who donate to the GYO fund," WILL reported.

But such race-based schemes have been rejected by the Supreme Court.

The legal team earlier had brought the problem to the school district's attention, explaining that it needed to halt "all discriminatory programs."

Based on complaints about the district's agenda, WILL had warned that it could not meet constitutional minimums for fairness should it continue to deselect people based on their race.

In fact, the legal team warned the school's program violated the U.S. Constitution as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Tolliver said when the warning was issued that residents of the district should demand better from their school leaders.

District officials had set it up with their goal in mind of having teachers who look like students.

But given special privileges were "Black/African American," "Native American/Alaskan," "Asian," and "Hispanic/Latinx" program participants.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

In 2020, Samuel Sell successfully fulfilled the requirements of Wright State University's Reserve Officers' Training Corps program in Ohio to become a commissioned officer in the U.S. Air Force. Shortly after, he was selected to participate in an experimental pilot training group at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas. But the prestigious opportunity would soon be pulled from under his feet, and he would be detained, handcuffed and facing court-martial – because of his Christian beliefs.

What happened? When Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin's now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 military vaccine mandate began to roll out, the young lieutenant refused to consent to any unapproved product with only an Emergency Use Authorization, while also requesting a religious accommodation as a Christian. Only EUA products were being offered, and nearly all requests for religious accommodation were being denied across all branches of military service.

Even before the mandate, Sell shared his views with classmates that the vaccine wasn't necessary for those who had acquired natural immunity after recovering from COVID-19 – "natural immunity" being one of the most fundamental and universally recognized realities of Immunology.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A ruling from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has pulled "qualified immunity" protections from officials in a school district in Massachusetts who threatened a reporter for his decision to openly film his questions in the superintendent's office.

The journalist, Inge Berge, went to the office, camera publicly visible and filming, to ask officials about their decision to limit attendance at a play involving Berge's child over COVID-19 when the state limits already had been lifted.

He filmed his questioning openly, and when he later posted the session online, the school threatened him with legal action for violating a statute that limits "secret" recordings.

The court's opinion said, "Among the many issues before us, the headline-grabbing one is this: On a motion to dismiss a case … does qualified immunity protect public officials who baselessly threatened a citizen-journalist with legal action if he did not remove a video on a matter of public concern that he made and posted on Facebook without breaking any law? We answer no."

"Yesterday's ruling is based on the same principle as IJ's victory at the Supreme Court earlier this year in Gonzalez v. Trevino, which made clear that government officials can't use state laws as cover for retaliation against free speech," explained Institute for Justice lawyer Jaba Tsitsuashvili. "Government retaliation against speech is unconstitutional, and the court of appeals made clear that qualified immunity won't shield officials who happen to retaliate in novel ways."

The appeals court overturned a lower ruling that granted school officials that qualified immunity – essentially protection from any liability for their actions.

Officials had threatened Berge with legal action.

According to the IJ, "In March 2022, Inge Berge wanted to buy tickets to attend his daughter's middle school play, but he missed out on the tickets because the school was limiting capacity due to COVID-19. Upset that he might miss his daughter's play, he went to the superintendent's office—which was open to the public—to complain about the policy and try to secure a ticket. Berge openly and recorded his visit to the superintendent's office and his discussion with the officials.

"He remained calm as he spoke with the officials, two of whom refused to talk while being recorded, and a third who said he would look into the situation. But later that day, after Berge posted the interaction on Facebook, the superintendent's office sent him a letter demanding he remove the video or face legal repercussions. This blatant effort to suppress Berge's speech was based on a statute that only prohibits 'secret' recordings—but the letter itself made clear that there was nothing secret about what Berge did," the IJ said.

Berge followed with a First Amendment lawsuit, and the school eventually rescinded its demand that the video be removed.

But the lower court applied "qualified immunity" to the school officials to protect them from Berge's claims.

The lower court's ruling dismissed "Berge's retaliation claims against the school administration. The court ruled that the officials were shielded by qualified immunity—a judicial doctrine that shields government officials from civil liability unless the unconstitutionality of their conduct was 'established'—because the facts of this case did not exactly match those of any prior case."

But the IJ explained in its friend-of-the-court brief in the case, "That is not how the qualified immunity doctrine works, even in the face of its unjustified expansions. Well-established First Amendment principles put all public officials on notice that retaliation for speech is unconstitutional. As IJ argued and as the court of appeals held, the novel circumstances of this case made the violation of those principles no less obvious."

"The school officials argued that previous case law regarding the right to publish recordings of government officials only dealt with the right to record police officers, so the unconstitutionality of other officials' retaliatory conduct was not established. But the court saw through that argument, saying: 'If the First Amendment means anything in a situation like this, it is that public officials cannot—as they did here—threaten a person with legal action under an inapt statute simply because he published speech they did not like."

Those principles protect speakers of all stripes from being retaliated against for lawfully voicing their displeasure with government action.

It was the school's human resources official, Roberta Eason, who wrote the letter to Berge, accusing him of violating the state's wiretap law. She demanded the removal of the recording.

"Turns out she was way off base in relying on the wiretap act. And that is because this law pertinently bans 'secret' recordings, which Berge's most certainly was not," the court said.

He responded with a lawsuit charging school officials with retaliating against him for his free speech.

The case now has been sent back to the lower court for further proceedings, with a note that Berge "shall recover his costs on appeal."

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

A new report at the Gateway Pundit charges that the security for President Donald Trump's rally in Pennsylvania last weekend, in which a sniper tried to kill him, was a "setup," since most of the security officers there were replacements and not even Secret Service members.

The report noted Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has written to Alejandro Mayorkas, Joe Biden's homeland security secretary, demanding answers about the situation.

Hawley confirmed whistleblowers had notified him "that a majority of the security officials working the rally last weekend were not even Secret Service personnel but were with the Homeland Security Investigations team…"

Other reports revealed that the Secret Service was shorthanded that weekend because of commitments to provide security to Joe Biden and Jill Biden, who were at separate events.

The senator explained to Mayorkas, "I write to raise concerns brought to me by whistleblowers about your department's stunning failure to protect former President Trump on July 13, 2024. As Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS), you are ultimately responsible for your agency and its components, including the U.S. Secret Service."

He said, "Whistleblowers who have direct knowledge of the event have approached my office. According to the allegations, the July 13 rally was considered to be a 'loose' security event. For example, detection canines were not used to monitor entry and detect threats in the usual manner. Individuals without proper designations were able to gain access to backstage areas. Department personnel did not appropriately police the security buffer around the podium and were also not stationed at regular intervals around the event's security perimeter."

He further charged insiders confirmed the agents there were not Secret Service but from Home Security.

"This is especially concerning given that HIS agents were unfamiliar with standard protocols typically used at these types of events…"

Hawley wants to know how did DHS determine its staffing for the rally, what percentage of the agents were Secret Service, or not, were those agents properly trained and were there gaps in the security perimeter.

The gunman took a ladder, gun and ammunition, climbed atop a building only about 100 yards away from the podium with a line of sight to Trump, and fired, hitting Trump's ear but missing his head by a fraction of an inch.

The letter also was sent to Secret Service chief Kimberly Cheatle, who has refused multiple calls for her to resign because of the security failures that day.

The Gateway Pundit commented, "It was a setup!"

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Imagine for a moment that you knew everything about everyone. I'm not so sure that I would like to be omniscient if I could be. I would hate to know what people think of me sometimes. But if you knew what the future would be – and if you were a betting person – I'm sure you would bet on a winner, not a loser.

God, being omniscient, chose us. Before our parents were born before their parents were born, and before our first parents ever were on planet Earth, God Almighty, in the councils of eternity, chose us to be his children.

But why? What merit or quality did God see in us that caused him to choose us?

I hope the answer doesn't disappoint you. God's choice is not based on anything that you or I did. You don't deserve it. I don't deserve it. And I think the reason God chose us is the same reason he chose the nation Israel.

He said to the Israelites, "The Lord did not set his heart on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other nations, for you were the smallest of all nations! Rather, it was simply that the Lord loves you, and he was keeping the oath he had sworn to your ancestors" (Deuteronomy 7:7–8 NLT).

Why did God choose us? Because he loves us. That's mind-bending when you stop and think about the fact that God knows all things.

So, do we have any influence as to who gets chosen?

The greatest theological minds have debated this for centuries, and there are good people on both sides of this theological conversation. But I'm not going to worry about who the so-called elect are. Rather, I'm going to preach the Gospel. And I believe the ones whom God has chosen will believe.

If you want to know whether you're one of the chosen ones, then believe in Jesus Christ, and you will confirm it.

The Bible tells us, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Romans 10:13 NLT), and "Let anyone who hears this say, 'Come.' Let anyone thirsty come. Let anyone who desires drink freely from the water of life" (Revelation 22:17 NLT).

The apostle Paul spoke of how much he cared about his fellow Jews and his desire for them would believe in Jesus. He wrote, "My heart is filled with bitter sorrow and unending grief for my people, my Jewish brothers and sisters. I would be willing to be forever cursed – cut off from Christ! – if that would save them" (Romans 9:2–3 NLT).

Paul was effectively saying that he'd be willing to go to Hell if they could go to Heaven. I'm so glad that we don't have to trade our salvation for the salvation of someone else. Salvation already has been purchased for everyone who asks Jesus Christ to forgive their sins and come into their lives.

No matter who they are, everyone needs to hear the Gospel. Of course, people think that down-and-outers need Jesus, and they do. Thank God that we are never so down or so out that he won't reach out and save us. But the up-and-outers need Jesus, too.

What's more, religious people need the Gospel as much as nonbelievers do. Some people think that because they were raised in a Christian home, they're Christians by default. No, they simply were raised in a Christian home. Some of the worst sinners are raised in Christian homes. That's because they rebel against it. On the other hand, some of the greatest saints come from Christian homes as well. It depends on the person.

We love to blame our parents for what's wrong in our lives. But we do have a say-so about the course we take in life, regardless of how we were raised or not raised. We need to have our faith. We can't live off the faith of our parents or the faith of anyone else. We need our relationship with Jesus Christ.

One of the easiest places to get a heart that is hardened toward the Gospel is in church. The same sun that softens the wax hardens the clay. And as we hear the truth of the Gospel, we decide whether we will be responsive or resistant to it.

Every time we hear the Gospel and don't respond to it, our hearts can get a little harder. In a sense, we can develop an immunity to the Gospel. Don't let that happen, because everything you're looking for is available to you in a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.

It's the missing piece that people are searching for in life.

Addressing believers, the writer of Hebrews said, "Be careful then, dear brothers and sisters. Make sure that your hearts are not evil and unbelieving, turning you away from the living God. You must warn each other every day, while it is still 'today,' so that none of you will be deceived by sin and hardened against God" (Hebrews 3:12–13 NLT).

That's why every generation needs to hear the Gospel. I think the challenges and pressures young people face today are, in many ways, unprecedented. And I think a lot of that has to do with social media.

I was an early adopter of smartphones, but I believe that in many ways, they are ruining our lives and having a detrimental effect on young people. We've never been more connected yet disconnected at the same time.

Experts have described Generation Z, those born from the late 1990s to the early 2000s, as the loneliest generation. They communicate through texting more than through face-to-face conversations. Perhaps that's one reason anxiety and depression are so high among members of that generation.

The psalmist David wrote, "Let each generation tell its children of your mighty acts; let them proclaim your power" (Psalm 145:4 NLT).

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The answer is Jesus – for every generation.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

JERUSALEM – Loud explosions were heard in downtown Tel Aviv – not far from the U.S. consulate – at 3:12 a.m. local time Friday, as an explosive-laden UAV infiltrated Israeli airspace undetected and impacted an apartment building.

Emergency services immediately swarmed the area, and one man in his fifties was found dead with shrapnel wounds over his body in a separate apartment building close to the explosion's locus. Israeli media reported up to 10 other people with minor wounds were treated in emergency rooms.

Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility for the attack, although an initial Israel Air Force (IAF) investigation has not determined the exact source of the projectile. While it has been assessed the UAV was likely launched from the south – which means Yemen could have been its point of origin – it has not ruled out other sites such as Iraq or Syria. The IDF revealed it tracked the UAV's flight, but human error was responsible for the failure to trigger a warning. Meanwhile, the IAF increased its patrols over the area for fear subsequent attacks could be imminent.

Tel Aviv's long-serving Mayor Ron Huldai posted on X: "The Municipality of Tel Aviv-Yafo is on heightened alert in light of the severe UAV incident tonight, in which one person was killed and others were injured. The war is still here, and it is hard and painful. The municipal forces arrived at the spot quickly and dealt with the incident, and we are prepared for developments, if any. I call on the public to obey gov't instructions."

The Yemeni Army declared the "occupied Yafa area [Tel Aviv] an unsafe zone," and that it would be a "primary target within our weapons range."

This event is concerning on several levels. Although it is unknown if the U.S. consulate in Tel Aviv was the intended target, the drone impacted very near to the building. Is this a sign the Houthis are challenging both Israeli and U.S. power, sensing a certain weakness and fragility, which each of the governments may have projected?

From a deterrence point of view, the fact Israel's vaunted aerial defense system did not alert Tel Aviv's residents to the incoming projectile would have been seen and noted by Iran's other proxies in the region – in particular Hezbollah. There are already deep concerns in the country that if the Shi'ite group based in Lebanon were to release thousands of missiles, it would overwhelm Israel's air defenses and lead to the loss of life of potentially tens of thousands of people. Serious analysts and commentators have frequently warned – and for some time – that a war with Hezbollah will be hugely costly in terms of damage to the civilian and military infrastructure – and human lives.

On Thursday, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) acknowledged the downing of both missiles and UAVs fired from Houth-controlled areas of Yemen, which "presented an imminent threat to U.S., coalition forces, and merchant vessels in the region." The IAF said it had downed another drone overnight – outside of Israeli airspace – reportedly fired from an "eastern direction" thought to be Iraq.

This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

While U.S. car manufacturers routinely announce major recalls to ensure the safety of drivers who operate their vehicles, North Korea uses the recall of citizens living abroad to ensure the safety of the family dynasty continuing to control the country. Like computerized vehicles occasionally in need of reprogramming, so too are Pyongyang's citizens exposed to the outside world, lest they pose a serious threat to North Korea's existence. This threat is better understood by knowing how the governments of the two Koreas evolved.

Japan had ruled the Korean peninsula from 1910-1945. After Japan's defeat in World War II, the peninsula stood divided between two opposing interests: the north, occupied by the Soviet Union, and the south, under U.S. occupation. Both sought to recreate their respective regions into their image: the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), known as North Korea, and the Republic of Korea (ROK), known as South Korea. In the former, the Soviet Union sought to establish a communist satellite state headed by a compliant dictator; in the latter, the U.S. sought to establish an independent and free nation. Each claimed legitimacy as the government for all of Korea.

The Soviets had a much easier time establishing North Korea in its image than did the United States in South Korea.

The Soviets falsely promoted to the North Korean people the image of Kim Il-sung as a courageous guerrilla fighter against the Japanese whose status entitled him to lead the North. In reality, he was a Soviet proxy. But so indoctrinated into the mindset of North Koreans and so effective was Kim in creating a brutal police state that he effectively ruled for almost half a century, until his 1994 death.

Years before his death, Kim prepared the country to embrace something no other communist state had successfully done before – a family dynasty – by promoting his son, Kim Jong-il, as "crown prince." The success of this mindset was reflected 17 years later in 2011 when Kim Jong-il passed with the reins of power falling into the hands of his son, Kim Jong-un, 27. Thus, North Korea has been ruled for over three-quarters of a century by the Kim family dynasty.

Despite U.S. efforts to promote freedom and democracy in South Korea, it proved difficult to shake its leaders' lust for power over the personal freedoms of their people. This was most adamantly reflected by its third president, Park Chung Hee, who effectively served as a dictator for 18 years before becoming, in 1979, the first Korean leader to be assassinated in over 600 years. Ironically, Park was a victim of his own CIA, which he had used to ensure he retained power. While the U.S. had introduced a constitutional democracy in the South in 1948, it would take nearly two more decades for true democracy to be embraced, with the country's first opposition party candidate not elected until 1997.

While the South spent the later decades of the 20th century achieving true democracy, the North devoted those same decades to reinforcing its dictatorial foundation. Each generation of the North's Kim leaders was immortalized. Their promotion as god-like so enamored them to the North Korean people they were easily accepted as eternal rulers of the country.

An outrageous but hilarious example of how the North Korean media sought to promote the Kims as superhumans appeared in a 1994 story about Kim Jong-il, an avid golfer. In a country with but one golf course, the tale was told that Kim shot 38 under, including 11 holes-in-one. (Fittingly, he died at age 69 – a number considered under par on every regulation golf course in the world!)

No heir apparent to current North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, 40, has officially been announced. While known to have at least one child – a daughter – rumors of his possible illness began circulating the name of a possible heir. He may be grooming his country for its first female president, as suggested by the high-profile responsibilities given to his 37-year old sister, Kim Yo-jong. Her persona reveals a brutish mindset as well, with a book published in 2023 dubbing her as "The Most Dangerous Woman in the World."

Recently, Kim Jong-un sent out a "recall" notice for all North Korean students abroad to return home for "political indoctrination." This suggests he recognizes these students are susceptible to a deadly threat (from Pyongyang's perspective) endangering the government – one triggered by independent thinking bringing into question the unchallenged continuing Kim family leadership role.

The recall seeks to re-indoctrinate students by reinforcing their allegiance to their dictator. "Sanctuary of learning" sessions regularly held in the massive Grand People's Study House in Pyongyang before the 2020 pandemic are now being restarted. Their one-sidedness is evidenced as all books used are of North Korean origin, with a few published outside the country requiring special permits to access.

While it is estimated there are only 1,100 students involved in the recall, Pyongyang recognizes the danger a single independent-thinking student poses to its control. Such thinking in the past has manifested itself in numerous defections, with pressure taken against defectors' families to gain their return.

Some recalled students may harbor concerns they have been reported to North Korean authorities for questionable behavior. This could include something as innocent as dating a foreigner. The Pyongyang government may well believe some students have been "tainted" and, therefore, may not be allowed to continue their education abroad. It would be interesting to know how many of the students are concerned enough about this that they choose not to return or how many who do return home, fail to return abroad.

While it took time to do so, South Korea has demonstrated the superiority of man's free thinking and free spirit in ridding himself of the yoke of human bondage. It is reflected in its robust economy and success on the world stage, particularly compared to the North. Nonetheless, the Kim family will seek to continue its brutal reign, embarking upon a reeducation recall to nip in the bud the serious threat to its existence it perceives.