Were Nazis the Environmentalists of Their Day?

Welcome to the Wonderful World of Stu. Always remember: It’s polite and important to begin conversations with questions that aren’t controversial.

Luckily, I’m both polite and important. So, were Nazi’s environmentalists?

Nazis were a lot of things. Sure, they were most famous for their murderous tendencies, but in many ways, they were also the environmentalists of the day. Now, that does not mean today’s environmentalists are racist, want to kill all the Jews or want to bring back the mustache that only Hitler and Michael Jordan could pull off. (And if you’re one of the eight people who needed to hear that disclaimer, screw you for wasting our last 15 seconds.)

The overpopulation scare of the 1960s and 70s shared a large part of its concern with Hitler. Both movements were obsessed with the idea that they could not produce enough food to feed the increasing numbers of people.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” as environmental legend / "crazy person" Paul Ehrlich put it.

Of course, it’s not as plausible to find new space to grow food when you’re talking about the whole planet. Hitler only cared about Germans, and could solve this problem by gaining living space to the east. The book, Hitler: Ascent quotes Mein Kampf’s first volume, noting Hitler’s belief that “The new Reich would have to . . . conquer with the German sword the soil that the German plough would till in order to provide our people with their daily bread.”

Hitler’s desire for living space was specifically “to secure adequate food supplies for the German people.” How important was living space? “Hitler’s two most important goals: the destruction of “Jewish Bolshevism” and the conquest of “living space in the east.”

Despite all the tactical flexibility and political maneuverability he was to show later in his career, Hitler always insisted on these two goals with dogmatic rigidity.” The BBC wrote about the movement that influenced Hitler, including the “growing concern about the allegedly negative effects of industrialisation and urbanisation. There was also a belief in the virtues of agrarian society” and the panic over “Germany’s limited resources of food and raw materials.”

The only thing keeping those quotes off of a Prius bumper sticker is that they’re too long. The environmentalists of the day certainly noticed the Nazis' green efforts. German conservationist Wilhelm Lienenkamper wrote that the Nazis “refuse all kinds of compromise and demand strict, literal fulfillment. . . . Those refusing the call of sacrifice are under attack, and rightly so.”

Sounds like something you’d hear about those evil climate deniers today.

The book, The Green and the Brown by environmental professor Frank Ukoetter, dives into the debate as to why environmentalists were so enthralled with Nazis --- much of it was an ability to overlook the nastiness of the regime to get their desired outcomes. But, the similarities to modern day environmentalism are unmistakeable as Ukoetter sums up nicely --- the “lion’s share of conservationist publications between 1933 and 1945 could be printed again today without raising eyebrows.”

The Nazi policy of Dauerwald, or “Eternal Forest” was a nationwide, top down, sustainable forestry program that was a passion project of one Hermann Goring. Long before he sampled the sweet taste of cyanide, he said quote: “Only by the complete subjection of the individual to the service of the whole can the perpetuity of the community be assured. Eternal forest and eternal nation are ideas that are indissolubly linked.”

Does that sound right-wing to you?

For many of today's environmentalists, the Nazi "Eternal Forest" program is as impressive as a yummy glass of luke-warm Kombucha.

“Ironically, then we might conclude that it was the Nazis who pioneered the application of ecologically aware forestry in Germany. But is this assessment correct?” The book rightly points out that when war ramped up, the Nazis clearly prioritized the military over the trees, but “I would argue that this policy left a long-term legacy for the German forest that was ecologically beneficial.”

Jonah Goldberg also outlined the regime's similarities when it came to these areas, in his book Liberal Fascism: “Heinrich Himmler was a certified animal rights activist and aggressive promoter of “natural healing.”

Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s deputy, championed homeopathy and herbal remedies. Hitler and his advisers dedicated hours of their time to discussions of the need to move the entire nation to vegetarianism as a response to the unhealthiness promoted by capitalism. A Hitler Youth manual proclaimed, “Nutrition is not a private matter!”

Organic food was inextricably linked to what the Nazis then described --- as the left does today --- as “social justice issues.” The one environmental issue you don’t see Hitler concerned about was global warming. Which is odd, considering the earth warmed about 0.7 degrees celsius between 1910-1940, just slightly less than the entire amount of warming that has occurred in the last century.

I guess the world had more pressing issues to deal with back then.

Of course, for those eight annoying people waving their fists at the screen, this again doesn’t mean that Al Gore is actually just a somewhat well-preserved Adolf Hitler. Nazis were environmentalists, but they also believed in terrible things like killing all the Jews, and massive government control of every aspect of your life.

For today’s environmentalists --- to quote the Meat Loaf --- 2 out of 3 ain’t bad.

So to review:

  • The environmentalists of the second half of the 20th century sound a lot like the Nazis of the first half of the 20th century.
  • The Nazi conservationism combined with all the government power needed to implement extreme sacrifice and regulation, won over the environmentalists of the day, and still impresses many.


And I didn’t talk too much about Hitler’s well-known vegetarianism, partially because it may not be completely true. According to the Telegraph, “Although he referred to meat broth as “corpse tea,” he was not fastidious about declining meat. Dione Lucas, his cook before the war, claimed that he was a fan of stuffed pigeon and he was also known to be partial to Bavarian sausages and the occasional slice of ham.”

The worst part about this is that I’m a vegetarian that does not eat stuffed pigeon --- technically making me more extreme than Adolf Hitler.

I think I’ll keep that one off the resume.


WATCH: Biden won’t answer questions & then BLABS too much?

In typical Joe Biden fashion, the president refused to answer reporters' questions about the Silicon Valley Bank closure — and about our potentially imminent banking crisis — after his speech on Tuesday. But he DID blab about something else…watch this clip to find out what Joe said that he probably should’ve kept to himself…


Glenn: Be ‘healthily’ TERRIFIED of the coming banking CHAOS

‘I don’t think people understand the destruction that is coming our way,’ Glenn says. ‘This is going to happen. It’s just a matter of when.’ In this clip, Glenn is joined by financial expert and author of ‘The War On Small Business,’ Carol Roth. They discuss the recent Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) closure, why it occurred, and how small entrepreneurs have to ‘play by the [banking] rules,’ whereas big businesses do not. Plus, Glenn explains why he thinks Americans should be terrified of what’s to come…terrified in a ‘healthy way,' of course.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Carol Roth, welcome back.

CAROL: Hi, Glenn. What a crazy couple of days here, never -- never ceases to amaze. Doesn't it?

GLENN: No, it -- it really doesn't.

First of all, let me get your reaction. We spoke on Friday. On the Friday exclusive, that I do for the Blaze TV.

And this story was just breaking.

CAROL: Yes. Correct.

GLENN: So they bailed everything out, with the FDIC.

But this isn't just the depositors, that they bailed out.

I'm for FDIC, covering depositors. But they just changed the law, with a stroke of a pen. Did they not?

I mean, you had $400 million in that bank. It says clearly on the door, deposits up to 250,000.

CAROL: Yeah. You know, I have a different take on this, than a lot of people that I've been talking to. Some friends and colleagues.

You know, they did not do what I would consider to be a full bank bailout. They did not protect the shareholders. They showed management the door. So, you know, the people who should be taking on risk, took on the risk. In terms of the depositors. I mean, you could say, oh, why should these tech companies be saved?

But I challenge people to change the name. If it wasn't called Silicon Valley Bank. If it was called the small business bank of Iowa, would you want those small businesses to be at risk?

GLENN: Well, there is -- there is a difference.

In those small businesses. And I'll tell you what the difference is. There's no way in hell, this federal government would bail out a small business bank, in a red state. I just don't believe it.

PAT: That may be the case. But at the same time, if you think about the potential contagion.

And, in fact, we could use this now as a benchmark. To say they've done it before. That God forbid, the small business bank of red state were to fail in the future.

But if you think about just the ripple effects, the example I like to use is Etsy.

Etsy is a marketplace. Where artisans and small entrepreneurs do crafts. And they sell them. Etsy had all of their working -- or not all of their capital. A large portion of their capital with Silicon Valley Bank.

So if that money were to have gone away, they wouldn't have been able to pay all of the entrepreneurs.

The same thing with a payroll company. They had their money with Silicon Valley Bank. And so another company wouldn't have been able to pay their entrepreneurs.

So that kind of reverberation throughout the system. And then not quelling the fears, that this could happen again, and potentially taking down not just other regional banks, but having contagions up to big banks. It would have been really bad for everyone.

GLENN: So, but wait.

I agree with you. I agree with you, that it would have been horrendous. Okay?

However, I had under the FDIC limit in Silicon Valley Bank for one of my businesses.

We ran our payroll through Silicon Valley Bank.

CAROL: Okay.

GLENN: We never put more than 250 grand in that. We never do it. Unless we care to lose it.

So why do I have to play by the rules, and expect that I'm not going to get something, but all of the big guys, will always expect, oh, well, they're going to bail me out. I'm too big to lose. I'm too big to fail.

CAROL: Yeah. Listen. This is sort of an expectation sort of game. But the reality is, that we didn't want to have that failure happen. And this was a bank that was very different than some of the other failures that had happened before.

I mean, this was not about making to their I can do loans or derivative products. This was really a liquidity issue, that should have never gotten to the panic. And I think that's the bigger issue. The way this was communicated.

The hubris. The fact that the head of Silicon Valley Bank. Sat on the board of directors, on the San Francisco fed. And didn't anticipate, that it might not be a good idea to lock up money for ten years of treasury.

There are a lot of really weird questions here.

And I think we can certainly debate, you know, what -- what we should do on a go-forward basis. But we have to have faith in the banking system, and for companies to take their cash management and now have to go through paperwork. And chop it up into little blocks so that they can be covered. And have it in all kinds of different banks and different accounts. Isn't particularly efficient.

So I think the insurance program, probably needs to be relooked at. And I think that's --

GLENN: But you can't just write the rules as you go.

CAROL: They do all the time, Glenn.

GLENN: That's wrong. I know. And it's wrong to do that.

CAROL: This is not the first time.
So it's definitely wrong to do that, but they're going to do it on an ongoing basis. This was not the time to put the flag down and go, no. This isn't the time to do it. It was a very sort of practical decision. Yes, in principle, we need to fix the underlying system.

But as I said, let's not pretend that capitalism in the United States. We've had the fed who is --

GLENN: Oh, no, it's not capitalism.

CAROL: On a historic basis. So I won't sit and complain, oh, this is some affront to capitalism, that didn't actually exist.

GLENN: No. The Fed is completely out of control. Overstepped. And all of the -- you know, the big banks. The really big banks.

They are rolling with our cash.

CAROL: Rolling in dough. Literally.

GLENN: Yeah. So let me go back to the bonds, a second.

They locked these treasuries up for ten years. And they -- when the interest rates go up, they lost about 25 percent on their bonds. If they tried to sell them in an emergency.

They were going to lose 25 cents on the dollar.

That's what caused the panic.

Because if you lose 25 cents on the dollar, you don't have enough to cover all of the things that you have covered.

CAROL: Let me add one more thing that added into the panic, because this was on paper.

Should they held them to maturity, there would have been no problem.

Like you said, only in an emergency. What happened, is that within Silicon Valley, because interest rates were rising and the bank was only paying a small amount on deposits, you could pull your money out. And park it into a Treasury bill now. And get, you know, 5 percent without very long duration.

So you had more depositors pulling their money out, than they had model and had expected, in this rising interest rate environment. As well as probably companies that needed more operating cash because of the economy.

So they didn't have that expectation.

And that sort of mismatch, in saying, oh, wait. We have a liquidity need. Because we didn't estimate for this.

That's what forced them to sell the bonds. At that loss.

And then created this panic.

GLENN: And that's where this boob, that is sitting on the Federal Reserve Board, in San Francisco.

These guys are -- I'm convinced, these guys are arrogant morons.

However, how many other banks have put their -- their money into longer term treasuries?

CAROL: Oh, I mean. It's throughout the system.

GLENN: So wait.

CAROL: Wait. Wait. Wait.

GLENN: Go ahead.

CAROL: If you take Bank of America. They also had a situation, where they had to take a big loss on selling treasuries.

The difference is they have a large and diversified business. They only had 69 percent of their liabilities being deposits. Where Silicon Valley bank it was 89 percent. They have a lot of retail deposits, that were under the threshold. They have investment trading. And wealth management. And all these other things.

So for them, it wasn't an issue. But on a smaller scale, for a bank, that really does rely on that deposit business. And because they had so much of that, as these smaller business deposits, that were uninsured, that made it different, than it was for let's say some of these bigger banks or banks that were --

GLENN: Right. But, you know, I'm looking at banks, like, you know, JP Morgan Chase.

All of that. They're fine.

They have plenty of money. And they're going to get all the depositors, as the little banks go out.

CAROL: Exactly. Let's underscore that point.

GLENN: What I'm asking you is: How -- what gives us any indication that this is -- that it's over?

That we're safe now? I mean, it might be because right now.

But this is going to happen again.

CAROL: So that's exactly why they put out the press release, that they did. You know, the fed and the Treasury.

And that very comforting statement from our president. I'm sure that gave you all the confidence in the world.

GLENN: Oh, yeah. I'm stuffed.

CAROL: But that was the point. Is the reason that those depositors pulled out their deposits, is because they were worried it wasn't going to be backstopped. And if there was this liquidity issue that was incurred. Oh, boy. What are we going to do?

Yes. There are other banks that are probably in the same situation. But if their customers don't panic and pull their deposits, and they have the time to pull the liquidity poll.

Then that's what that statement was meant to do.

Now, it really just depends on the temperament of individuals and businesses. If you believe that, if you believe they'll step in and back us up, then you're not pulling out the money, these companies -- the banks can deal with it.

And if you don't, then we will see more of this. Certainly, I think particularly Silicon Valley Bank was different than Silvergate and Signature that had more crypto exposure.

I would imagine those that have more exposure to crypto will probably see some additional issues.

But Silicon Valley Bank being that second largest bank to fail in history, one of the top 20 banks in the US. Systemically important.

As you said, plugged in and connected. It was just a different -- a bit of a different animal.

But, Glenn, I do want to go to that point you made.

This is really huge. Just like they closed down the small businesses during COVID. And all of that went over to the big guys.

You know, the big guys couldn't really step in. There's laws in place, about buying more deposits.

But what has happened in letting this play out, the way it does, is people have just decided to organically move their deposits. So JPMorgan and Citigroup. Like, they're having a field day. So much so, that Jamie Dimon just bought something like 26 million dollars' worth of JPMorgan stock. Because she's doubling down, because he knows all those depositors are rolling in. And he did not have to pay a red cent for them. The great consolidation continues.

GLENN: All right. Hang on just a second. Can you spend the hour with me?

CAROL: Yeah, of course!

GLENN: Because I've got a ton of questions on this.

We'll come back in just a second. Certain kind of person out there, and you know them when you see them.

One that fits in the category of above and beyond. Somebody who is -- they usually just love their job, and they love serving people.

They love to see their customers really, really happy.

Those are the kinds of people that we look for, when we're looking for real estate agents, that can represent you, when you're buying or selling your home. You need somebody who really loves serving you, who has compassion for people. And cares about people. And wants to do the best for them.

That's also the best way to make money. Best way to be successful is just to serve and overserve your customer.

Because they're -- they always go away happy. And then you've got more customers coming your way. We look for the people like that, who also have the best track record.

And they meet our standards. And we have pretty high standards to recommend. These people don't work for us. So we don't have any skin in the game, on, you know, who we pick and who we don't. Other than, I want to super serve you, and give you the best person. Is a referral service. Just go there. Tell us where you're buying, selling. And we'll get you some of the best real estate agents in the country. Ten-second station ID.

So as the -- as the Fed rate goes up, these Treasuries are worth less and less. If you have to sell them. Correct?

Wait. We're missing you. Hang on just a second. I don't --

CAROL: Okay. Did you get it? Yeah. So, you know, obviously, the -- not to get too wonky. But the interest rates, or the yield on the bonds trades an inverse on it. And if you think about it, why would you buy a ten-year that was on the market from a long time ago, that's yielding 1.1 something percent interest, when you can buy something that's at two years right now, that gives you 5 percent interest. That doesn't make any sense.

So their current value on the market is lower. Again, if you hold them to maturity, if they hold them to 10 years, you still get the full amount of the face value, plus, the interest. It's just the tradable value today, in that interim time period. Because there's not a lot of demand for that.

GLENN: Right.

So for any small bank that is holding these, if there's trouble, they could be in trouble just like Silicon Valley Bank.

Now, the FDIC, we were told, you know, that's the insurance.

And he said, we're -- don't worry. You don't have to worry about it.

The banks that paid into it.

Well, they don't have enough just to cover what they covered yesterday. So they're already upside down.

So that means, if we do have runs in the bank, in the future, you know, near future.

They don't have any money. Which leads me to believe, we will just print the money.

Doesn't -- I mean, the inflation rate of what we're doing is crazy. Is this the beginning of the currency death cycle?

CAROL: Well, the currency death cycle began a long time ago.

I would say a couple of things. From an FDIC standpoint. They are saying, we are going to put a fee out to other banks.

So when Joe Biden comes out and says, the taxpayers aren't paying for this. You aren't paying for it directly.

But you certainly will be, whether it's a lower interest read on your money, or more fees or whatnot, if all the other banks have to go in.

What I do think can happen here, in the meantime, is, you know, with the bank, they're trying to sell off pieces of it.

And they're trying to find new homes for it. So the FDIC is covering it. Its insurance, if it needs to make it whole. But if somebody else were to buy it or buy other assets. There's a way that that structure sort of happens. And obviously, that's the best-case scenario.

And again, frankly we just should have never gotten to the point, where we had this panic. But, you know, the idiots didn't prevail there.

You know, should there be a God forbid, wide run?

Yes. And in terms of trying to dissolve this would-be money printing. Again, if I can respond.

Some people did not like what I had to say. That's sort of my point.

Someone is saying -- I'm not paid by anybody. I'm saying, we wanted to stem this, because what would happen to everybody.

People who are not involved at all, would have cost you a lot more than this, you know, kind of temporary pin here.

GLENN: I don't think people understand the destruction that is coming our way. It's coming.

This is going to happen. It's just a matter of when.

And people are like, you know, I'm fine. Bring it on.

No. You really don't understand.

You should be in a healthy way, terrified of what's coming. And I use the word terrified.

Do you remember, our grandparents went through something, that they were 50 years away from.
And they were still like, it could happen at any time.

That's the kind of pain that America is about to go through. And remember, those people grew up without indoor toilets. Okay?

They grew up without all the fancy stuff that we have now.

They didn't have that far to fall back.

We have an enormous way to go back.

You should be terrified of it.

In a healthy way.


Mysterious Hawaii lasers UPDATE: What is China DOING there?

Around the same time the China weather balloon made its appearance over the U.S., mysterious, green lasers were spotted in the skies of Hawaii. First, government told us the lasers were part of a routine NASA exercise to measure the size of the earth. But then the story changed. And now, in this clip, Glenn presents more information about what China potentially could’ve been doing with a duel-purpose supersonic sattellite over Hawaii…


Glenn explains: THIS is how Silicon Valley Bank COLLAPSED

Silicon Valley Bank was shut down by regulators last week, marking the biggest bank failure since the 2008 collapse. So what happened? And what does this mean for YOUR finances? In this clip, Glenn explains exactly how SVG collapsed, why the Fed is to blame, and why working with a FDIC insured institution is IMPERATIVE.


Below is a rush transcript that may contain errors

GLENN: Here's what happened. A couple of things. First of all, we're raising rates.

We had the COVID money coming in, right? To have

And you just heard there, all this COVID money. Well, they wanted to invest it. They needed to put it in some place. And invest it.

Silicon Valley. They had so much money coming in from COVID.

And so what did they do?

They bought treasuries. And at the time, you could buy a ten-year treasury, and you would get 2 percent interest. Guaranteed, at the end of ten years.

That was pretty good back then.

But now, treasuries are selling for about 5 percent interest.

And you don't get that, until the end of the ten years.

So when I buy something, a ten-year treasury, you're buying it for ten years.

If you have only eight years on it, you can sell it, but you're going to probably have to sell it at a discount if the new ones are paying more. So they invested the -- the money in treasuries, at 2 percent.

Just let's remember that. What they had in the bank, if you will -- they owed $195 billion. That's to the people who have put their money into checking accounts and savings accounts, mutual funds. They owed $195 billion. They had 208 billion, on the books.

That's a 17 billion-dollar -- when you have people all over the world starting to say, I think the bank is starting to collapse. They start to take their money. $17 billion can go that fast.

There was a clog in the system, that couldn't get the money wired out fast enough.

So they decided, they needed to sell. And then they announced, we're going to sell some Treasuries.

Well, once they saw that they were selling ten-year bonds, at 2 percent interest, and the market was saying, well, that's only worth 75 cents on the dollar in you.

And Silicon Valley bank was like taking it. They knew, this is a fire sale.

This bank is in trouble. That's what started all of the run on the bank. Now, you probably have FDIC insurance.

If you have FDIC insurance, it's to stop runs on the bank. However, Silicon Valley bank is different. It's very different.

I think it's 88 percent of their accounts, are not covered by FDIC. Why?

Because they're giant companies that are using payroll and keeping their money in the bank, as -- as the place where they can run their company.

So they -- they have more than 250,000 dollars in account. If they also, use the bank for a mutual fund, they found out Friday, they were also screwed.

See, this bank, loans money to these companies. These tech companies.

And they loan them out, venture capital.

And so they loan them the money to operate, and to be able to do everything they can, over the next year.

Well, they've got to put that money somewhere.

So the bank loans it out.

It's basically the depositor's money.

They loan that savings account of yours, per se.

And loan it to this venture capital firm.

Or, or -- the tech startup. And the tech startup then says, where do I put all this money?

And Silicon Valley bank says, oh, just in my other hand. Just give me my money back, and we'll invest it in mutual funds for you. We'll invest it in very safe things like BlackRock. So they did. And the tech companies thought they were safe.

Because it's invested in very secure places like BlackRock.

Except, what the bank didn't say, except in fine print. Is that all the money that you had invested, in BlackRock, was not yours anymore.

It was -- it was under the name Silicon Valley bank.

So when people started to call and say, hey, BlackRock, my money is safe. They said, you don't have any money.

Your money is invested in Silicon Valley bank. And because their name is on it, they're counting that as an asset. And now that asset as has to go to pay creditors.

So they lost their money. This is a giant shell game.

We have created nothing, but a shell game.

And the fed is the one that is causing this collapse, by the raising of the rates. But if you don't raise the rates, what happens?

Inflation goes out of control!


Because we have printed and loaned too much money out.

Okay. We'll pull it back in.

Well, the way you pull it back in, is raising interest rates. If you raise the interest rates, bonds have to pay a higher yield, and so when you buy a bond, you get more money back. And if somebody gets into trouble, they have to sell their bonds, exactly like Silicon Valley. And they have to take a hair cut. And then the entire thing collapses.

But here's the scariest thing.

This is what the fed has set out to do.

They want to see risky things, go away.

They want to see failure.

They need to people who are not stable to go out of business. Stop spending money. So we can suck all that money back in. But when they do collapse it. And our economy is in this kind of shape. You then have a domino effect, because nobody is in great shape.

And thing banks are playing a giant game.

So then people can't pay the paycheck. And then that paycheck falls -- causes you to default on your auto loan. Or your house loan.

And that makes another bank fail.

We're at the place, I told you in 2008. We would be. We have made the 2008 problem much bigger, and there's no way out.

Once you start printing money, there's no way out.

And what did we do?

Well, the fed said, we're not doing TARP. No, no, no. We have something entirely different. It's got a different name and everything. But we're going to cover all of those accounts.

Oh. Oh, okay.

So we're backing -- we're backing that now.

Yeah. But it's not your money. It's not your money. It's the fed's money.

It's the fed's money? Yeah. It's the money that the banks gave to us, to put aside for insurance in case something like this happened. Oh.

Where -- where did the banks get that money? Well, I don't know. Doing business.

Well, I mean, aren't these the banks you bailed out?

Well, yeah. And weren't you just giving them trillions of dollars is if

Well, yeah. Of course, we did. But they were paying in to this account.

Oh, okay. So the money you printed, that I'm on the hook for, you think to the bank, but they didn't use any of that money for that insurance?


No. This is totally different.


So now they're going to be protected, and I don't have an answer for you. Today.

Because all of the answers are bad answers. Should we back that?

No. No.

The constitutionalist, capitalist in me, says that's really bad.

Okay. So we don't back it. Well, no. No.

Because the guy who would like to see the entire western world not burn down to the ground, would like you to bail it out, just to give us some more time.

But that puts us right back where we were.

So I don't have -- I prayed hard today. What do I tell people?

Work on your spiritual health.

Because this is coming. At some point. It's coming. It has to. It has to. Now, the Washington Post said today, that the baggage's death marks both a sobering and salutary moment here.

The central bank has sharply increased interest rates over the past year, hoping higher borrowing costs would slow the economy down, and take the steam out of high inflation.

This is what the fed wants to see. They want to see a tightening of the financial conditions.

Great! They're on it. The Washington Post. With $209 billion in assets, the bank was just 118th the size of JP Morgan Chase. The nation's largest. Still Wall Street Journal was rattled by their abrupt end.

Bank of America was down nearly 12 percent in the past five trading sessions. They're down another five or about four and a half percent today.

Some banks are down as much as 10 percent today, before trading even started. The banks that served the riskiest part of the country and the economy, are the ones in trouble. Now, this is the Washington Post. I want you to listen to this.

Banks like SVB and Silvergate Capital, a San Diego-based bank that catered to cryptocurrency users, are the ones that are getting into trouble.

Oh. It's not a run -- it's not a run on the business model of the bank, it's -- it's not -- I'm sorry. It's not a run on the business model of the banking industry, in general, it's just the business model of this bank. So, in other words, if you are making risky loans, to -- to tech, or if you're investing and doing anything at all with cryptocurrency.

You're the problem. Hmm. That's interesting.

I'm going to tie some of this together here. We have a lot to go over, in just a second.

Sadly, it probably comes as no surprise, that anyone after the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Abortion is still the number one killer among infants. We're still killing nearly a million of our own children, every single year.

And that is still here, in the United States.

I asked you, by the way, if you had had an abortion. You knew somebody that did. And they regret it.

Or you're F you're a child. That somebody tried. Mom tried to end your life. And you lived. Or she changed your mind. Will you write me a letter, and tell me your story?

I have something coming. That I'm working on.

And I will keep your name out of it.

You can use an assumed name. We just need your phone number, so that we can call and verify that you're an actual person. But all the details are at

But we are fighting the good fight. I don't think there is anything we could do that would be more important than standing up and stopping the slaughter of our children.

For $140, you can introduce moms to their babies on an ultrasound. And help rescue five babies. When you do, you will see five stories, and five ultrasound pictures of babies saved. Preborn's goal this year is to rescue 80,000 babies, just from this audience. That's our goal.

They can only do it with your help. So will you join us?

Dial #250. Say the key word baby. Give just a dollar, $10, $140; 15,000 buys an ultrasound machine.

#250. Key word baby. Or go to That's

Ten-second station ID.
Okay. So here's something you probably didn't know: The New York Times is reporting today, that good thing this bank has been saved. Silicon Valley Bank was in many ways, a climate bank. When you have the majority of the market banking through one institution, there will be a lot of collateral damage. Community solar projects appeared to be especially hard hit. Silicon Valley banks said, it led or participated in 62 percent of financing deals for community solar projects. Their smaller scale solar projects also serve lower income residential areas. Don't worry. Don't worry. The fed is covering all of this.

The devastation comes at a critical moment.

It is central to cut the greenhouse gases that are dangerously heating the planet, says the New York Times.

The federal government depends on climate technically companies to develop the innovations needed.

This is going to set the climate change industry down and set them back, for years.

Hmm. Gee. Well, good thing we're not drilling for oil. Good thing we're getting rid of all of our backup power plants, isn't it?

Home Depot cofounder said, the global lending firm, Silicon Valley bank, went broke because it was woke.

Now, the rising interest rates are really -- really why. But if you want to look at their business model, these guys are woke activists. He said, instead of protecting the shareholders and their employees, they're more concerned about the social policies.

As recently as this month just days before it went into receivership with the FDIC, the Silicon Valley bank discussed decarbonization, gay rights, the black venture ecosystem. And so much more.

Well, they were woke. Good thing.

Good thing. By the way, they were purchased this morning. By a British bank. Because Great Britain was worried about their tech industry. As SVB, funded a lot of their stuff too.

So that's good news