Podcasts about Affirmative

Episode 273-Warning: Critical Gun Law Alert  Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 273 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS New Jersey gun laws, accidental discharge, criminalization, reckless discharge, felony consequences, gun ownership rights, self-defense, insurance coverage, Second Amendment, gun safety, gun dealers, international disarmament, gun control, gun owner education, legal challenges. SPEAKERS Speaker 2, Evan Nappen, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:20 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, folks, the New Jersey legislature has done it again. They have passed some atrocious gun laws, and I need to make all of you aware of one, particularly, that is very much a threat. It is something that’s going to affect many, many gun owners, and it is not being talked about in the general media, of course, because of how they write these laws in such a sneaky, underhanded way. But this law is going to impact all of us, frankly. And the potential is there, under this law, to not only take away gun owners’ rights to have guns, but to turn us all into felons at any time, simply based on an accident. That’s right, an accident. Evan Nappen 01:31 Because what New Jersey legislature’s both houses have passed, and I expect, very shortly, the governor will sign, is Assembly Bill, 4976. (https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/A5000/4976_R2.PDF) And what this bill does is it criminalizes Accidental Discharges (ADs). Now, an accidental discharge is when your gun goes off, accidentally, either by what some folks call an uncommanded discharge or an accidental discharge. But it is something that can happen, and although we have to always be very careful, circumstances can be such that a mistake can be made. I mean, we’re all human, and mistakes can happen. And unfortunately, you know, I see it in the practice, and I get accidental discharge cases all the time where individuals make a mistake and a gun goes off unintended. It happens. Now sometimes it happens because of the actual mechanical flaws to a firearm and that can be because of a gun’s design. It can even be due to circumstances where a firearm can go off from the slightest touch. Evan Nappen 03:08 Now you may not be aware of this, but years and years ago, I know of a case where an individual had a shotgun that this fellow had kept loaded. One of those single shot, top-breaker type shotguns. You know, like the old kind of like the toppers, the H and R Toppers, and what have you, similar to that. It Page – 1 – of 11may even have been one. I don’t know. But it’s one of those old single shot shotguns. And for probably 50 years, that gun had remained loaded with a shell in it. At one point, there were folks that were causing all kinds of problems in this guy’s yard, and he wanted to scare them off. He didn’t want to shoot them, and he put the gun out of, pointed the gun out the window, and boom. It went off, and he never pulled the trigger. He absolutely never pulled the trigger. There was no hit to the primer of the shell when it went off. And what has happened was, in this particular design of the gun, the firing pin had been pushing against the primer because the hammer was down and it didn’t have a firing pin block. And for like 50 years, this gun sat there, sensitizing the primer so that the slightest touch, you know, just the right jolt, without having to actually pull the trigger, made it go off. So, a gun can actually even do that under those extraordinary circumstances. Evan Nappen 04:57 But normally, an accidental discharge or uncommanded discharge that we encounter is because somebody believed, honestly believed, their gun was unloaded. And it ends up, of course, that it wasn’t. Now this can happen because somebody thought they checked it and maybe even did check. But then, with a magazine in and the slide going forward, a round loads, but they didn’t realize that it loaded, because they checked that it was unloaded. And sure enough, there’s a round there. I mean, I’ve seen every combination of error that could happen and a discharge can occur. And, of course, we know the rules, always point in a safe direction, etc. Make sure your gun is unloaded. Double, triple check to make sure that the chamber is empty. That there’s no magazine, and there’s no live ammo. I mean, all those things that we do. But accidents can happen, just like in a motor vehicle. We drive as safe as we possibly can, but people still have accidents. And what New Jersey has done in this bill is essentially criminalize an accident so that individuals will be looking at what is, in all likelihood, felony level charges. And they structured this bill in just a sneaky, evil, devious way. It’s going to have great impact, and it’s going to create, I think, unintended consequences. Evan Nappen 06:40 Now, as gun owners, we have to understand how we have to behave if any of us ever are so unfortunate as to have an uncommanded or accidental discharge. So, the law talks about “recklessly” having a discharge. “Reckless” in criminal law means, you know, with a conscious disregard of a known risk, okay? Criminal laws can have recklessly or reckless as a standard, as opposed to something being intentional, right? So, if you intentionally meant to pull the trigger, that’s intentional. Reckless could still be you didn’t intend to do it. But if there was that conscious disregard of that known risk and it ended up discharged, then you could argue that it’s reckless. So, reckless is kind of a standard where it’s not that traditional mens rea, your mental and your mental state of having that intention to have the gun fire. Reckless has been in our criminal law for a long time, and reckless conduct is something that’s out there, like reckless driving. I’m sure that you have heard of that. Evan Nappen 08:05 But what they’re doing here is even more devious by using the word “reckless”. So, what now is being prohibited? And I’m going to read this to you so you can see how they’ve done this. It says, a person commits a disorderly person’s offense. Now that sounds like, okay. A disorderly persons offense in New Jersey is equivalent to a misdemeanor. It’s not a felony. So, you’re saying, well, first of all, this is not creating a felony. It’s creating a disorderly persons offense, right? It sounds like it’s, you know, Page – 2 – of 11apparently, trying to be reasonable. But trust me, folks, it isn’t. I’m going to show you why. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm.” Okay, so at this point they’re saying, well, it’s just a low level offense, and it’s for recklessly discharge. You know, we’ve conscientiously disregarded a known risk. Okay, so it started out sounding, you know, not great, but okay. It’s not. It shouldn’t affect a lot of folks, and luckily, if it does, it’s still a misdemeanor. And, of course, it requires that recklessness. So, that sounds all good. Evan Nappen 09:22 Let me start again and read you, but wait until you hear the rest of it. A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm “using live ammunition rounds”. Well, okay, that’s good to know. A blank gun isn’t a reckless discharge, but you know you’re firing a blank. No live ammo. Okay. So, if I’m firing dead ammo or ammo that’s not live, then that’s not a reckless discharge. Well, good. How do I get a discharge with ammo that’s not live? I don’t know how that’s even going to happen. But okay, they throw that in, probably more as subterfuge and, you know, smoke and mirrors. But again, here we go. “A person commits a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm using live ammunition rounds unlawfully . . .” Okay, unlawfully. So, you’re unlawful. “. . . or without a lawful purpose.” Whoops, wait a minute. “Without a lawful purpose.” You commit a disorderly persons offense by recklessly discharging a firearm without lawful purpose. Evan Nappen 10:35 Except that a second conviction for such an offense constitutes a crime of the fourth degree. Well, a crime is a felony, and that’s a fourth degree. It’s a year and a half in jail. And a third or subsequent conviction is a third degree and that’s five years in State Prison. Okay. So, you may even read this part and say, well, it’s still arguably, weirdly reckless, maybe. But it’s for discharging a firearm without lawful purpose, but at least it’s a disorderly persons offense. And I, boy, if we do it once, I sure wouldn’t think I’d do it again. So, why is this such a problem, you know. Evan Nappen 11:09 But oh, well, wait, wait, wait. We’re not done yet. Because then it says, if a person commits a violation under this section, you’re charged with a crime one degree higher than what ordinarily would be charged for such an offense when the violation occurs within 100 yards, 100 yards, folks. Not 100 feet. A football field’s worth of distance of an occupied structure. Oh, what’s an occupied structure? Any building, room, ship, vessel, car, vehicle, or airplane, or a place adopted for overnight accommodations of persons or for carrying on business therein. Wait a minute, wait a minute. Wait a minute! An occupied structure includes a car or vehicle, and it doesn’t even mean it has to be occupied. It means even a vehicle or a building or a room, and it has to be within 100 yards, a football field, of a car. If there’s a car driving by within 100 yards where the accidental discharge takes place. If you’re in your own home? I mean, this is basically every accidental discharge. You will probably be within 100 yards of a car or a building or a room, or hotel or whatever, or an airplane. Man, even if the airplane is flying over the sky, I don’t know. I mean, this is nuts. Evan Nappen 12:55 So, if the violation occurs within 100 yards of a “structure”, guess what? It’s no longer that disorderly persons offense. It’s bumped instantly to the fourth degree, felony level offense. Up to a year and a half Page – 3 – of 11in State Prison, and now you’re going to be a convicted felon. That’s if your gun discharged for not having, without a lawful purpose. Oh, you mean like an accident? Yeah! Like an accident. An accident because you didn’t have a lawful purpose. Did you lawfully have a purposeful accident? No, that’s silliness in a nutshell. So, what it means now is essentially any accidental discharge is a felony in New Jersey, and you can face State Prison time of at least a year and a half, unless it’s going to be enhanced even more based on these other factors. And as a felon, you lose your gun rights for the entire United States. Evan Nappen 14:12 And even if it’s kept at the misdemeanor, a so-called disorderly persons level, they’re still going to go after your gun license and your gun rights. They’ll claim, under Chapter 58-3 of the licensing law, that you’re somehow a danger to public health, safety, welfare. You think if you’re going to have a criminal charge, a criminal offense charged here of accidental discharge, where they’re classifying it as reckless because it went for a “an unlawful purpose”. Like I said, I don’t know how you have a lawful purpose accident. And it was somehow within 100 yards of any car or room, which made it originally a felony even, right? Felony level in New Jersey. You’re getting your license and your guns confiscated and taken and face prosecution over this insane law. Evan Nappen 15:17 Now, this is the consequences of this bill, right? But that’s just the consequences in the law itself, like the penalty you may face and licensing problems. But what it also means is that upon any accidental discharge, folks, any, you immediately, now, immediately, have a Fifth Amendment right against self- incrimination, and you’re going to have to stand by that. Because I know in many of the cases we’ve seen, someone had an accidental discharge, and it may have gone through their wall. It may have gone to a neighbor’s house. It may have not whatever. But if you react, if you call the police, if you try to find out what happened, any type, you’re getting criminally charged. You have a right to say nothing. You have an absolute right, a Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, because you will end up incriminating yourself. This is going to mean that any New Jersey gun owner who has an AD or an uncommanded accidental discharge needs to immediately take the Fifth and seek counsel, the Sixth Amendment. Just call your attorney and don’t say anything to anyone. Do not make any statements to law enforcement or anybody. And, you know, this is a shame. Because what if that round actually caused injury to somebody? Teddy Nappen 16:59 Actually take it a step further. Evan Nappen 17:01 Think about it. You’re gonna incriminate yourself. You gotta absolutely. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 17:07 Take it a step further. Imagine instead of “gun”, this was “car”. I asked. I was in. I got into a car accident. So, therefore, all car accidents are felonies, where there is nowhere. Were you back? Were you 100 feet from your driveway? Was there a car driving by? Did you back into that car? Felony! You are now a felon because of that. And don’t tell me it’s the firearm versus the car! Because the car is a Page – 4 – of 11two ton steel death machine that kills more people than firearms do. So, it’s that level of argument, the utter draconian insanity that they have created here. Where from an accident, an actual accident, God forbid. Evan Nappen 17:54 An accident. That is right. Teddy Nappen 17:56 You are guilty until proven innocent. Evan Nappen 17:59 And wait. Let me say this. This has been put out there as a possible problem for self-defenders. And that’s actually not completely accurate, because there’s an exemption here that says it’s an affirmative defense, if you fired your gun in self-defense. Okay. Affirmative defense means the burden is on you to prove that you acted in self-defense. Then they’ll say, okay, that wasn’t a reckless discharge. But even the fact that the legislature has to put in there that if you act in self-defense, it’s an affirmative defense. Well, wait a minute. Why is it an affirmative defense? Because it wouldn’t have been reckless if it was intentional. Why do we even need that? So, in other words, the legislature itself knows that they’ve manipulated this law to simply be discharge for unlawful purpose, period. If you didn’t have a lawful purpose when your gun went off, it’s felony level if it’s within 100 yards of a car, or a room, or a building. Insanity. Evan Nappen 19:05 And as you say, Teddy, it would be like making every car accident, any fender bender that you have, you become charged with a felony. New Jersey has done that to gun owners now. Any accident, any accidental discharge, you’re going to face these criminal charges. This is going to, you’re going to end up in the system. If you have an AD, you’re getting charged. And now we’re going to have to fight this out on an offense that is essentially strict liability. That is the way they’ve set it up. Couching it and hiding it under so-called reckless, recklessly. But when they actually write it, they put the recklessly with the little bonus of having “without a lawful purpose”. This is nuts. Nuts. Nuts. Evan Nappen 19:58 I’m telling you right now the cases we get, it’s going to be crazy, crazy and a problem. So, folks, be extra careful. This is bad news. It has passed both houses, and the Governor, I’m sure, will sign it very shortly, if he hasn’t signed it already. And now gun owners are at extreme risk under this law. Teddy Nappen 20:24 I just thought of another one, too. What if you’re a first time shooter and you go to a range course, you’re in a range, a gun range learning, and the gun accidentally goes off because you’re brand new to firearms? You’re now a convicted felon. No discretion. Evan Nappen 20:44 Oh, well. It was near a room. That’s right, no discretion, and anybody that has that AD. So, again, it’s designed to disenfranchise gun owners of Second Amendment rights. And by the way, you may not be Page – 5 – of 11able to then get even insurance coverage. Because if it’s criminalized over what you did, it’s not anymore. Now, you’re talking about behavior where they can claim it’s a criminal act. It’s a criminal act, okay? And again, you may depending on your policy, depending on what actually the injuries and damage, you may not even have coverage. The insurance companies will use it to deny you coverage. I’m sure of that. That’s their job, as it normally is, anyway. To try to figure out how to deny coverage. Well, they’ve just given them that ability on the civil side to further make it harder for you. It’s jeopardizing gun rights, and it’s looking at creating incarceration at felony level for gun owners. It’s outrageous, and it really is something that I’m sure we’re going to see major, major impact. And then that’s not the only fun. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 22:04 I was just curious on the constitutionality of it? Because they’ve made, there must be some avenue. Because it’s very, like they’re giving no discretion? And just saying. Evan Nappen 22:16 Nope. Teddy Nappen 22:16 It’s automatic. There’s no constitutional challenge. Evan Nappen 22:20 Well, I guess there could always be a constitutional challenge. But what’s going to happen is it’s going to have to be the fight. The real fight is going to be over, maybe an argument of, was there a conscious, conscientious disregard, or conscious disregard of a known risk. But the other side will argue that as soon as you have a gun with ammo, you have a known risk. I mean, a firearm, and that’s their entire anti-Second Amendment strategy. Teddy Nappen 22:43 When you deal with guns, you do so at your peril. Evan Nappen 22:53 Right! And that’s New Jersey case law, right there. So, they’re saying, hey, you do it at your peril. You took a known risk because you possessed a gun, even. You can well see a New Jersey jury buying that argument. This is nuts, and gun owners, beware, beware, beware, beware. And like I said, this isn’t the only shenanigan that occurred in Trenton. They also signed S1425. (https://pub.njleg.gov/Bills/2024/S1500/1425_R1.PDF) Now, this is actually law. This law, real quick, specifically applies just to dealers. Just to New Jersey dealers. How nice. They have their own very special law now. This law says, “A licensed dealer who sells or transfers a firearm to a person when the dealer knows or reasonably should know that person intends to sell, transfer, assign, or otherwise dispose of that firearm to a person who is disqualified from possessing a firearm under State or federal law is guilty of a crime of the second degree.” That means up to 10 years in State Prison. They have a minimum mandatory period of three and a half years, and they made it a second degree. This is insane. Page – 6 – of 11Evan Nappen 24:03 If you’re a dealer in New Jersey, they can claim that you reasonably should have known that a gun you transferred to somebody was going to be transferred to somebody who was disqualified from possessing. Let me give you an example. You sell a Red Rider BB gun. That’s a firearm under New Jersey law. And if you reasonably should have known that that person was going to let their kid have that BB gun, you’re looking at a second degree charge here, Dealers. Yeah for that BB gun. Because as long as the state can show you reasonably should know that, that the person intended to transfer it to someone who was disqualified, who would be arguably that minor, unless it’s under a strict exemption. I mean, this is the kind of pathways being cut here. How do you know or reasonably should know? What is that reasonably should have known nonsense? Evan Nappen 25:03 I mean, that’s again, 12 people on a jury are the ones who’s going to decide whether reasonably you should know. All the law says, “. . . ‘reasonably should know’ means that a person reasonably should know a fact when, under the circumstances, a person of reasonable prudence and competence would ascertain or know that fact.” Oh, that’s a that’s so crystal clear. Huh? Real, crystal clear. Now what it means is 12 people who aren’t smart enough to avoid jury duty are going to decide whether the dealer should have known on that gun sale. And if they decide otherwise, the dealer is looking at a minimum mandatory sentence on a second degree crime, which carries up to 10 years in State Prison. Okay? That’s what they’re doing. Focused on New Jersey dealers. Do you think they want to put every dealer in New Jersey out of business? I do. And that’s the other bonus law that’s actually signed into law. It’s ripe for abuse, folks. Beware. It is just atrocious what’s going on in New Jersey. Evan Nappen 26:07 Let me tell you about our fight. You know, we are in this fight. We constantly, we’ve tried to fight these things. New Jersey is an extremely tough environment. We’re going to see court challenges, even more court challenges, and it’s our state Association that’s going to be heading the fight. I’m sure we’re going to see a constitutional challenge to this so-called Accidental Discharge bill and the same over what they’re looking to do to dealers. And it’s ANJRPC, the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs at the forefront, fighting for our rights. They’re the umbrella organization of gun clubs in New Jersey, and you can join as an individual member. You really need to. You’ll be sent email alerts, and you’ll be told what’s going on. And you know, we’re able to get changes made with pressure, but most importantly, our salvation seems to be in the judicial fight in the courts. The Association is there as we speak. This is an extremely tough environment in New Jersey, the toughest in America, where the oppression of Second Amendment rights is second to none. New Jersey wins the prize for Second Amendment oppression, and it’s the Association there at the forefront. You need to be a member. Go to anjrpc.org and join today. Be part of the solution. It’s really important that you do that. Evan Nappen 27:43 I’d also like to talk about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is an indoor range in Lakewood, easily accessible, off the Parkway. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and we both qualified. It’s where we got our CCARE and where we get our training. We love WeShoot. That’s the place to shoot. It’s a place you can shoot. They have a wonderful facility, a great pro shop, and great instructors. You’ve got to check out their website, magnificent photography there. And they run all kinds of great deals and Page – 7 – of 11specials, and they have all the top state of the art equipment. Check out weshootusa.com. weshootusa.com. You’ll be glad you did. It is a great resource for us to have a range right there in Central New Jersey that is as professional and modern as WeShoot. Go to weshootusa.com and check them out. You will be thrilled, just like Teddy and I. Well, that’s where we shoot. It’s what we love. You’ll love it too. Evan Nappen 29:00 Let me also mention my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the Bible of New Jersey gun law. I’m working on the update from what I just told you today. So, the free update will be coming out, including the 2026 Comprehensive Update. We’re going to look at and add in all the new laws that’ll be coming out shortly. So, if you have the book, make sure you scan the QR cover. The QR code on the cover. Join my free private subscriber base, and you’ll get notice of the updates that are forthcoming. You can buy the book at EvanNappen.com. That’s right, www.EvanNappen.com. Go to EvanNappen.com and get the big orange book today. You’ll be glad you did. It’s over 500 pages, 120 topics, all Question and Answer, designed to make it as user friendly as possible. I try to make it so you can navigate these treacherous waters of Second Amendment oppression in New Jersey. So, go to EvanNappen.com and get your book. Teddy, what do you have for us today in Press Checks? Teddy Nappen 30:15 Well, as you know, Press Checks are always free. While you’re talking about the utter insanity that is New Jersey, there’s one positive bit of news. It’s kind of been, you know, from the entire news cycle of everything they try to cover. There’s one thing that kind of slipped under the cracks that some people did pick up on. And it caught my eye. I was like, wait a second, I remember this. So, President Trump has withdrawn from the UN Register of Conventional Arms. (https://gunrights.org/united-states- withdraws-from-united-nations-register-of-conventional-arms/) That treaty. Now, I remember growing up as a kid, Dad, you told me, always keep an eye out if there are blue helmets walking down the street. Evan Nappen 31:01 Yeah, that’s right, that blue helmet day came, if that ever was to come. Yep. Teddy Nappen 31:08 And oh, I remember you telling me about that treaty. And you know that stupid, you know, the UN has always been an anti-gun organization, with that stupid, bent revolver they have. Evan Nappen 31:20 Yeah, the revolver with a barrel and a pretzel knot. (https://dam.media.un.org/archive/Gift-of- Luxembourg-to-the-United-Nations-2AM9LOQORWK.html) I mean, look at folks. It’s a revolver, by the way. It’s not an AK, you know. It’s not an AR. It’s not in an “assault firearm”. No, no. It’s a freaking revolver with a barrel in a pretzel knot there. Gee, who are the primary possessors of revolvers? I wonder. Is that paramilitary organizations? No. Terrorist, radicalized wackos? No. A revolver. Let me see. Oh, you mean, like average citizens? Wow, hmm. Interesting. Page – 8 – of 11Teddy Nappen 32:02 But what I remember that being back, you know, where this was a big fear. Where it was the giant arms treaty, where they were trying, I think it wasn’t ratified by Obama, but that was that insane policy to try, even. The UN even actually has an Office of Disarmament. (https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our- work/conventional-arms/legal-instruments/arms-trade-treaty) That’s actually their whole like deal. What they try to push for. Now, they cloak it in like militarily. If you actually go to the website, this was from the gunrights.org. (https://gunrights.org/united-states-withdraws-from-united-nations-register-of- conventional-arms/) The National Association of Gun Rights put out the article, and they provide the link where you can go on to the UN website. You can see their register of their whole charter on the UN, and it goes into they brag about it. We’ve recorded and captured 90% of the global arms trade. By the way, this was supposed to be about, you know, tanks, armored carriers. You know, stuff used in actual, like, large scale warfare. But then I love how they do this. In 2016 they adopted the international small arms and light weapons in parallel with the other seven categories, so we can keep track of all small arms. Hmm, 2016. What were they doing to try, what was the big anti-gun push to try to disarm us around that time? Thinking that they’re going to try to go around collecting our arms in the United States. Like it’s so disgusting. I love how they just cloak it. You actually can go on to their reports. I got bored. So, I clicked the arms report of 2023 and I was like, okay, armored carriers, all that . Small arms. I wanted to look and see who were like the top buyers. So, revolvers and self-loading pistols – Iraq. Apparently. Evan Nappen 33:57 Really? Teddy Nappen 33:58 Yeah, like 2,150 pistols from us to Iraq. Evan Nappen 34:03 Oh, from the U.S.? Teddy Nappen 34:05 Yeah, from the U.S. It keeps track of each country. Evan Nappen 34:07 Well, we’re making them. Teddy Nappen 34:09 Yeah. Evan Nappen 34:09 Of course. We’re a major industrial manufacturer. What we should be doing is making guns. Teddy Nappen 34:14 Yeah. And then rifles and carbines. They separate that from “assault firearms”. Rifles and carbines. 20,000 to Israel. So, there you go for that end. Page – 9 – of 11Evan Nappen 34:27 Yeah, Israel makes a lot of their own weapons, too, and they make really good ones. Teddy Nappen 34:32 Yeah, I know they have the Hebrew hammer. Evan Nappen 34:35 Oh, yeah! Teddy Nappen 34:35 The Tabor X95. (https://iwi.us/firearms/tavor-x95/) But with the sub-machine guns, Saudi Arabia, 550. Evan Nappen 34:41 This doesn’t even matter. This is so absurd, and it’s just trying to globalize Second Amendment oppression. You know, our country’s blessed with Second Amendment. And of course, New Jersey does everything it can to undermine it, but the majority of America doesn’t do that. But internationally, we, you know, they hate us. They hate our Constitution, and they want to see us disarmed. We are standing as a threat to their globalist intentions, right? Teddy Nappen 35:21 I mean, that was the famous line that Donald Trump said to the world. The world does not belong to globalists. And that’s a fact. And here, in their charter, they even say, such measures, as they’re describing the whole disarmament office, such measures can also encourage restraint in the transfer and production of armament and decelerate military build up. In words of, okay, we need to lower the amount of guns in the world and try to disarm the people. That’s the cover they run, but they dress it up. I will give the Left credit. Their ability to wordsmith their way into something else is crazy. Evan Nappen 36:06 Well, listen, man. It’s not every political group that can convince people, you know, that a man can be a woman. So, why can’t they convince the world about this with guns? Right? Teddy Nappen 36:17 Well, it’s the political group that has the. When they did the whole study on mental health of different groups, the vast majority of people that vote Democrat have mental illness. So, let that sink in. That was an actual study, and that was put out by, like, CNN! So. Evan Nappen 36:18 Really? Teddy Nappen 36:19 Yeah, they had to be like. No, I love it. If you are ever bored? Anyone who’s very bored, go on to CNN and catch Harry Enton, the statistics guy. He’s the golden retriever of CNN. He just talks about numbers, and he gets so excited. He’s like, oh my God, have you seen these numbers? I can’t believe Page – 10 – of 11it. He’s always, like, shocked every time. He sees like, you know, everyone keeps saying Trump’s numbers are going bad, but you go over to here. Six months ago, 84, and now, it’s 85. Oh, wow, amazing. Like, it’s just, it’s that energy. It’s crazy. Evan Nappen 37:13 Well, how old is he? Maybe he’s just trying to get excitement to statistics? Teddy Nappen 37:18 I know, but it’s just like, what are the numbers? Pretty good. He’s like, gad Zooks. He’s like, clapping. I know. It’s just like, what the heck is it? Like if anyone is bored? Just look up Harry Enten on CNN. He’s, it’s so fucking weird. Evan Nappen 37:37 Okay, I love it. All right, Teddy. Well, that is interesting to know, but I’m not surprised, not surprised at all. This is the moment, the moment when we discuss the GOFU, that is the Gun Owner Fuck Up. It is one of the most important aspects of what we do, because every day we deal with Gun Owner Fuck Ups. And when we can let the listeners know, you get to learn expensive lessons for free. And this week’s GOFU is real simple. It’s Accidental Discharge. Let me just make it real clear. Now, more than ever, more than ever, you’ve got to be extremely overly conscientious. You better triple check chambers. You’ve got to make sure. You cannot afford in any way to have any kind of Accidental Discharge in New Jersey, because you risk it all. You risk it all. You risk becoming a felon. You risk going to prison. You risk losing your gun rights for the entire United States. You risk not being covered, arguably, by insurance. It is an insane risk that New Jersey is imposing, and I’ve seen 80 cases throughout my entire practice. Unfortunately, they happen, and, you know, in hindsight, they’re all avoidable. But folks don’t be a GOFU. Please, please, please. Follow all the rules of safety, and make sure you treat every gun as loaded. Every gun, you treat as loaded. Do not for a second, not do that. It’s just that critical. They’re criminalizing those who make a simple mistake, and there is no tolerance. Evan Nappen 40:00 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Speaker 2 40:13 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Page – 11 – of 11 Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E273_Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Topics this week: Will AI slop take over in 2026? How AI-generated media is breaking our ability to tell what's real, and why rebuilding trust and virtue matters more than just better tech. AI manipulation + Iran protests: How AI can distort protest footage and narratives, making propaganda easier and truth harder to confirm in real time.Affirmative action after the 2023 Supreme Court ruling: Is affirmative action “dead,” what loopholes might remain, and what recent law school enrollment data suggests.Supreme Court likely to uphold transgender athlete bans: The conversation covers the legal argumentation, the Idaho and West Virginia cases, and how this may push decisions back to state-level authority. Listener Question: Spiritual transformation ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will block hospitals from performing certain interventions that are intended to change a child's physical appearance to align an asserted sex identity.Reporting the lead story during the next live edition of Monitor Mondays will be independent physician consultant Dr. Drew Updike.More than four weeks since its last news broadcast, Monitor Mondays will return this coming Monday, Jan. 12, with a cadre of the smartest minds in healthcare auditing. You'll hear auditing news you won't find anywhere else – except here the RACmonitor.Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.Legislative Update: Matthew Albright, chief legislative affairs liaison for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.

The Evolution of Tort Law: From Contributory Negligence to Comparative JusticeThis conversation delves into the complexities of tort law, focusing on the evolution of defenses and liabilities. It begins with an overview of torts, emphasizing the importance of understanding defenses in legal education. The discussion transitions from historical concepts like contributory negligence to modern approaches such as comparative negligence, highlighting key doctrines like assumption of risk and various immunities. The conversation also covers vicarious liability and joint and several liability, providing a comprehensive framework for analyzing tort cases.In the realm of tort law, the journey from rigid, all-or-nothing rules to more nuanced standards of justice is a fascinating one. Historically, the doctrine of contributory negligence was unforgiving. Imagine being 1% at fault in an accident and receiving nothing in damages because of it. This harsh rule left many plaintiffs without recourse, prompting a shift towards fairness.The introduction of comparative negligence marked a pivotal change. This system allows for damages to be apportioned based on the relative fault of each party, ensuring that even those partially at fault can receive compensation. The transition wasn't swift; it evolved over decades, influenced by landmark cases and legislative changes.One of the most illustrative cases is Butterfield v. Forrester, where the court's decision highlighted the severe implications of contributory negligence. However, the doctrine of last clear chance emerged as a counterbalance, allowing plaintiffs to recover if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid the harm.Today, the majority of jurisdictions have adopted some form of comparative negligence, with variations like the 50% and 49% rules, which determine the threshold for recovery. This evolution reflects a broader trend in the legal system towards balancing fairness with the need for clear, predictable rules.As we continue to navigate these legal waters, the challenge remains: how do we ensure justice while maintaining the integrity of the legal system? This question is at the heart of tort law's ongoing evolution.Subscribe now to stay updated on the latest in legal education and insights.TakeawaysThe entire ball game often hinges on surviving the defenses.Contributory negligence operated as a complete bar to recovery.The last clear chance doctrine allows recovery despite plaintiff's negligence.Comparative negligence apportions damages based on relative fault.Immunities are shields that protect certain defendants from liability.Vicarious liability holds employers responsible for employees' actions.Joint and several liability allows plaintiffs to recover full damages from any defendant.The discretionary function exception protects government actions from liability.Assumption of risk can be primary or secondary, affecting recovery.The evolution of tort law reflects a shift towards more flexible standards.torts, contributory negligence, comparative negligence, assumption of risk, sovereign immunity, vicarious liability, tort law defenses, legal education, law students, liability

Today, we're diving into a significant shift in federal policy that's sparking serious debate across the nation. Recent executive orders from the Trump administration are dramatically reshaping how the government approaches equity, affirmative action, and anti-discrimination policies, with civil rights advocates warning of profound consequences for communities of color.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/racism-white-privilege-in-america--4473713/support.

FAN MAIL--We would love YOUR feedback--Send us a Text MessageHeadlines can heat the blood; evidence steadies the mind. We step back from election drama to explore Thomas Sowell's lifetime of clear thinking on prices, incentives, culture, and the hard truth that there are no solutions—only trade-offs. From a hardscrabble childhood and a GED to Harvard, Chicago, and the Hoover Institution, Sowell's journey shapes a method: test claims against outcomes, not intentions. That approach leads us into the politics of “affordable” promises, why price signals matter, and how well-meaning policies can shrink the very prosperity they aim to expand.We dig into Sowell's early work at the Department of Labor and his influential findings on minimum wage effects for low-skilled workers, especially black teenagers. We read from The Thomas Sowell Reader to unpack the affordability fallacy and trace the historical costs of price controls that produced shortages and hunger. Then we widen the lens: the welfare state's incentive problem, the constrained versus unconstrained visions from A Conflict of Visions, and what Hayek's knowledge problem tells us about why markets outperform central planning by discovering information rather than pretending to possess it.Culture, too, plays a pivotal role. We discuss patterns highlighted in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, the portability of skills across migrant communities, and the controversy and clarity around affirmative action mismatch and outcomes after California's Prop 209. Through it all, we keep returning to Sowell's style: relentlessly empirical, comparative across countries and centuries, and immune to flattery or faction. If you're ready to think harder, start with Basic Economics, then move to A Conflict of Visions, and let the data change your mind where it should.If this conversation sharpened your thinking, follow the show, share it with a friend who loves big ideas, and leave a review so more curious listeners can find us.Key Points from the Episode:• Sowell's early life, military service, and academic rise  • Lessons from labor economics and minimum wage data  • The “affordable” fallacy and the role of price signals  • Historical failures of price controls and shortages  • Trade-offs versus intentions in welfare policy  • Constrained and unconstrained visions of human nature  • Culture, skills, and group outcomes across countries  • Affirmative action mismatch and graduation rates  • Hayekian knowledge, markets, and adaptation  • Recommended books and a reading path for newcomersOther resources: Want to leave a review? Click here, and if we earned a five-star review from you **high five and knuckle bumps**, we appreciate it greatly!

In this Pre-Episode Episode, the original "Psypris' Asylum" Podcast is shared! 7 episodes with current commentary in between - Enjoy!•☽────✧˖°˖☆

Affirmative action and DEI have become lightning rods in today's culture wars, but how much do we really know about where they came from and why they exist? In this episode, Sergio breaks down the long history of systemic racism in America, from slavery and Jim Crow to redlining and modern hiring bias. You'll learn what affirmative action actually is, what DEI really means, and how both have shaped access, opportunity, and fairness for everyone not just a few. This isn't about guilt. It's about awareness. Because when you understand the history, you start to see the patterns. And once you see them, you can't unsee them.1.Intro2. America's Original Construction Project3. The Evolution of Inequality4. Who's Really Getting the Handout?5. Before Affirmative Action, There Was Just...Discrimination6. DEI for Dummies: The Part They Never Told YouSources & References:• Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w9873• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). EEOC history: 1964–1969. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. https://www.eeoc.gov/history/eeoc-history-1964-1969• National Park Service. (n.d.). Equal Pay Act of 1963. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/articles/equal-pay-act.htm• Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_Press_Co._v._Pittsburgh_Commission_on_Human_Relations• University of Washington. (n.d.). Racial restrictive covenants: Enforcing neighborhood segregation in Seattle. Civil Rights & Labor History Consortium. https://depts.washington.edu/civilr/covenants_report.htm• Jones-Correa, M. (2000). Origins and diffusion of racial restrictive covenants. Political Science Quarterly, 115(4), 541–568. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2657609• Urban Institute. (2023). Addressing the legacies of historical redlining. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Addressing%20the%20Legacies%20of%20Historical%20Redlining.pdf• Nardone, A., Casey, J. A., Morello-Frosch, R., Mujahid, M., Balmes, J., & Thakur, N. (2020). Associations between historical residential redlining and current age-adjusted rates of emergency department visits due to asthma across eight cities in California. The Lancet Planetary Health, 4(1), e24–e31. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9901820/• Pager, D., Western, B., & Bonikowski, B. (2009). Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: A field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 777–799. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2915472/• Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U.S. 323 (1926). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corrigan_v._Buckley• ADA National Network. “Timeline of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” adata.org. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://adata.org/ada-timeline• Administration for Community Living. “Origins of the ADA.” acl.gov. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://acl.gov/ada/origins-of-the-ada• U.S. Department of Justice. “Introduction to the Americans with Disabilities Act.” ada.gov. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://www.ada.gov/topics/intro-to-ada/• Section508.gov. “IT Accessibility Laws and Policies.” section508.gov. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://www.section508.gov/manage/laws-and-policies/• BrownGold. “DEI & A: The Effect of Donald Trump's DEI Executive Order on Accessibility.” browngold.com. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://browngold.com/blog/dei-a-the-effect-of-donald-trumps-dei-executive-order-on-accessibility/• Wikipedia. “Architectural Barriers Act of 1968.” Wikipedia.org. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architectural_Barriers_Act_of_1968• Michigan State University Libraries. “Advancing Accessibility: A Timeline.” lib.msu.edu. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://lib.msu.edu/exhibits/advancing-accessibility/timeline• Duane Morris LLP. “ADA Considerations for Neurodiversity Hiring Programs.” duanemorris.com. August 3, 2023. https://www.duanemorris.com/articles/ada_considerations_for_neurodiversity_hiring_programs_0803.html• Autism Spectrum News. “Neurodiversity Hiring Programs: A Path to Employment.” autismspectrumnews.org. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://autismspectrumnews.org/neurodiversity-hiring-programs-a-path-to-employment/Institute for Diversity Certification. “What Does It Mean to Provide Reasonable Workplace Accommodations for Your Neurodiverse Employees?” diversitycertification.org. Accessed October 2, 2025. https://www.diversitycertification.org/deia-matters-blog/what-does-it-mean-to-provide-reasonable-workplace-accommodations-for-your-neurodiverse-employeesKatznelson, I. (2005). When affirmative action was white: An untold history of racial inequality in twentieth-century America. W. W. Norton & Company. (See summary: History & Policy).• Onkst, D. H. (1998). “'First a negro… incidentally a veteran': Black World War II veterans and the G.I. Bill of Rights in the Deep South, 1944–1948.” Journal of Social History, 32(3), 517–543.• Blakemore, E. (2019; updated 2025). “How the GI Bill's promise was denied to a million Black WWII veterans.” History.com. https://www.history.com/articles/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits.• Heller School, Brandeis University. (2023). “Not all WWII veterans benefited equally from the GI Bill” (impact report). https://heller.brandeis.edu/news/items/releases/2023/impact-report-gi-bill.html.• Perea, J. F. (2014). [Law review article on GI Bill and race]. University of Pittsburgh Law Review (available as PDF).• NBER working paper(s). (2024–2025). “Quantifying Racial Discrimination in the 1944 GI Bill” (authors and links in NBER repository). 

I'm what you might call Consent Happy and I'm in no way being sarcastic, I CRAVE consent, in fact--for all manner of interactions and activities,  Consent is Informed, Conscious, Revocable, Affirmative, Voluntary and Enthusiastic,  The first letters of which spell out “I CRAVE”--thus satisfying my poetic sensitivities.   [full text below] Ep. 425 - Consent Happy We begin as always  with the Happy Creed. We believe in Happy,  in Balance and Growth,  of being Mindful and Grateful, Compassionate and Understanding. Yowza Haha My Happy Friends! I'm what you might call Consent Happy and I'm in no way being sarcastic, I CRAVE consent, in fact--for all manner of interactions and activities,  Consent is Informed, Conscious, Revocable, Affirmative, Voluntary and Enthusiastic,  The first letters of which spell out “I CRAVE”--thus satisfying my poetic sensitivities. Consent must be Informed or else you won't know what you're agreeing to, And Conscious, since you can't agree if you're all passed out with nowhere to go, And Revocable, meaning you can take it back if that's what you want to do, And Affirmative, meaning it's a clear decision and not just the absence of the word No. Consent must also be Voluntary, and not the result of some pressure or threat, And it must be Enthusiastic, meaning it is clearly, positively and actively stated, And I CRAVE Consent because this world doesn't seem to have gotten that memo yet, This means I think people should ask before they so much as hug--even if you're related. Maybe someone's suddenly shy, or has back pain or just feels icky inside, Consent is just a good habit to get into as it gives people a choice, And it also means that people who do the asking have to be okay with being denied, ‘Cause it defeats the whole purpose if nobody listens to your voice. And the right of Consent is not just for some people, but for everyone, Regardless of gender, age, culture, relationship or any previous consent, Just ‘cause you hugged somebody once doesn't mean consent is over and done-- Reestablish it each and every time in case something changed in preference or intent. Now I know this must seem like overkill to some folks ‘cause who's going to bother? Like, what kid is really going to ask for consent to hug or kiss his mother or father? And I get that, which is why I say it's something I CRAVE, since I know it's in short supply, And I can't even claim that I always insist that others comply. Sometimes it's tough to stop someone before they grab you, And saying something then might be seen as unfriendly and a bit cuckoo, But I still prefer consent, regardless, and I want to normalize it, So let it just be a reminder that we all should decide what we're willing to permit. Haha Yowza

Affirmative action is about righting some of the wrongs of our society and our history. Listen as Aaron and Damien discuss the fifth episode of the docuseries “Eyes on the Prize III: We Who Believe in Freedom Cannot Rest” titled “We Don't See Color (1996-2013)” (directed by Smriti Mundhra), which explores the complexities and impact of affirmative action policies in places like California, Michigan, and North Carolina on our schools and society at large, and what we learn and take away from this incredible episode in our continued learning and unlearning work and fight for collective liberation. Follow us on social media and visit our website! Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Threads⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Leave us a voice message⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch store⁠⁠⁠⁠

Guest: Banele Mhaleni.

On this episode of the Get Lit(erate). podcast, we're exploring the newest addition to my restorative writing framework: affirmative writing. Come listen as I explore what affirmative writing is (writing that affirms and uplifts your mindset) and offer 5 ways to try affirmative writing in your notebook:AffirmationsGratitudeManifestationJoyNotes of Acknowledgement All you need is your notebook to start turning around a bad mood!You'll find the show notes for the episode with links to all of the books and resources mentioned right here: https://www.alitlife.com/2025/09/30/affirmative-writing-ideas-to-change-your-mood/Love this podcast and want more? Consider this your invitation to join my Get Lit(erate) Substack community! Each month, we take a deep dive into one bookish theme and work to bring it to life in our own lives. You'll get bonus episodes, book calendars, live book club and notebook sessions, special events and much more. Learn more at www.getliterate.co. Get your own Get Lit(erate). notebook to take notes on the books you want to read and notebook ideas you want to try: https://amzn.to/44wELKNIf you'd like to support the podcast, consider purchasing some Get Lit(erate). merchandise from my Zazzle store: https://www.zazzle.com/store/alitlifeAll earnings are funneled right back into the podcast expenses and maintenance fees. Thanks for your support!Follow Stephanie:Website: http://www.alitlife.com/ Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/AffinitoLitTwitter: http://www.twitter.com/AffinitoLitInstagram: http://www.instagram.com/AffinitoLit

Episode 9 – The tone of affirmative thinkingGay Science Book 400:30-12:40Nietzsche's affirmative direction; 276; 307; reason is a symptom of a way of life; 278 – how great that we aren't always honest, esp about death; 28912:50-a delight in the prospect of becoming; joy of philosophizing as the production of new ways of living; 324 life as an experiment; not redemption – to see what is necessary as beautiful; not arguing against, but situating your ‘opponent' within your narrative; concepts have different senses; cultivating the capacity to sense; thinking as therapeutics; life is not endurance for N – some fresh air into philosophy; Ns health27:30-46:00295 - Brief habits; Endurance is heavy; amor fati; BooBoo misses disc golf; do different stuff; put onself in situations that can induce dispositional shifts; Deleuze's refrain; repetition and speeds and slowness; breaking stability vs figuring out how things are ever stable; become suspicious of unity of anything; academic freedom is unprecedented (this was 2024 btw); capitalism and subjectivity; nietzsche vs. marx;46:00-1:01:01Existence of embattled humanities has always been the case; whats a worthy enemy?; to criticize is to honor (for some); straw-manning; learning to not have a position on something; teaching as the way to learn – liking what you teach; generosity is more interesting; harold bloom; teaching the cognitivists; Habermas; a method for teaching generous responses to texts; different styles of life1:01:10-1:17:00282 the stride of thinking; teaching as installing a speed of thinking and writing; modulating speed; conversations are too fast; writing thinking; slogans; teaching as entertainment; booboo's pedagogy; teaching strategies; being open but decisive

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.(commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

JP Morgan has responded to the U.S. Virgin Islands' (USVI) motion to strike several of its affirmative defenses in the ongoing lawsuit related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex trafficking operations. The bank argues that these defenses are crucial to demonstrate the alleged complicity of the USVI government in enabling Epstein's activities.JP Morgan contends that high-ranking USVI officials, including former First Lady Cecile de Jongh, played a role in facilitating Epstein's operations by managing his local companies and helping spread his influence throughout the government. The bank alleges that Epstein's ties with local political figures allowed him to receive favorable treatment, such as tax benefits and reduced oversight, despite his known criminal background/The USVI's motion to strike these defenses is viewed by JP Morgan as an attempt to avoid exposing the government's own culpability. Conversely, the USVI argues that the bank's defenses are baseless and are intended to deflect from its failure to act on clear signs of Epstein's criminal behavior​.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.610915.94.5.pdf (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this special episode, host Amanda Joy welcomes the compassionate hypnotherapist and spiritual practitioner Joan Coletto, creator of the Heart Shift Method. Together, they explore the powerful ways spirituality and clinical hypnotherapy intertwine to create profound transformation.Amanda Joy opens up about her own raw and challenging spiritual awakening, and Joan shares her personal journey through pain, infertility, and healing, leading her to discover the practices that now form the heart of her life's work. From prayer and meditation to affirmations and heart-centered hypnosis, Joan's method helps clients release old patterns, reconnect with themselves, and step into a life filled with peace, purpose, and love.This conversation extends beyond techniques; it delves into the essence of spiritual connection, self-love, and resilience. Expect discussions on: ✨ The truth about spiritual awakening (and why it isn't always calm and blissful) ✨ Affirmative prayer and how to “claim” what you desire ✨ The healing power of gratitude and visualisation ✨ Working with limiting beliefs and inner child wounds ✨ How spirituality and hypnotherapy combine to support deep emotional healing ✨ Joan's upcoming book Heart Shift Transformation and exclusive resources for listenersWhether you're a therapist, a spiritual seeker, or simply curious about how hypnotherapy can help you reconnect with your true self, this episode is rich with insights and practical wisdom.

 Getting Policed & Propositioned. A 2-part story By Requiax. Listen to the Podcast at Steamy Stories. So I was feeling euphoric as I continued on my way back to my family's vacated house. This whole experience had been a fantasy of mine for a long time; that it was going so well in reality was giving me even more confidence. Car 9 So, I didn't hear the car pull in behind me. Not until the flash of blue lights and the peal of the siren, anyway! I jumped, and turned. I was on a quiet road, no other people or traffic; but a police cruiser had just pulled up to the curb right where I was walking!Had someone who had seen me walking around naked called the police? That was my first thought. It was, after all, something I had expected. My only plan for dealing with such as that had been to keep moving, and hope that by the time the cops were called and (if they decided to) responded, I would be somewhere else. But was that enough, or had my own hubris gotten the better of me and I'd underestimated the police ability to locate one naked dude somewhere in town? Or was this just a random patrol who had seen me out walking and done what any cop would do and investigate. I froze in panic, all my excitement undone in an instant. I knew I was breaking the law. Public nudity is illegal in my state. Yet here I was, stark naked on a public street, with no clothes nearby. I was potentially in real trouble. In a flash I considered my options. I'm a fit guy, and I briefly wondered about running. I wasn't a million miles from the house now. But it wasn't like I had access to the house any more, the keys were with the realtor. The only reason I was going back to the house was for me to put my clothes back on, get in my car and go. And could I really outrun a police cruiser? Or was it more likely that I'd just make more trouble for myself (or even; worst case scenario; end up in a car chase if the police assumed I was intoxicated and then saw me get behind the wheel)? I could pretend I was drunk, or high; or even that I was freaking out. But those weren't sensible suggestions. Being drunk or high and naked in public would probably go down worse than being straight sober and nude; and if they thought I was crazy I might find myself getting a tazer to the balls; or even a gun pointed in my face. Even at best I'd probably end up in a hospital getting checked out when I needed to be on my way back to college. I decided that really, the only option I had was to co-operate with the cops and tell them the truth (well, a version of the truth; if at all possible I intended to leave out the part where I had masturbated publicly in front of people!). I turned and faced the cruiser. I had my hands by my sides, palms out; I didn't want the cops to think I meant trouble. It was a lone officer driving, and he got out of the car. He was an older cop, about my dad's age. I recognised him; I didn't know his name but when you've been a teenager in a small town you get to know all the local cops, and they get to know you. "Are you alright there, son?" he asked me. I nodded. "Uh-huh, I'm fine officer." He took a long look at me. "Where are your clothes, son?" "Um, I don't have them with me." "I can see that. Where are they?" I paused. "Back at my house." "You been drinking?" He asked. "Smoked anything? Taken anything?" I shook my head. "No sir." He looked sceptical, but appeared to take me at my word. "Then, son, do you mind telling me what you're doing out here at this time of day in a public place without a stitch of clothing on you?" I chose my words carefully. "Well, officer," I began, "it's my last day in town. I'm moving away and I'm leaving tonight. And, well, I just got this idea in me that before I went I would do a little streak, just my way of seeing the town off. It seems real dumb now to say it to you but it just made me laugh at the time to think it, so I sorta dared myself to take my clothes off and run about a bit. You know, the way sometimes people do at football games and the like?" Well, it wasn't a lie. I wasn't sure if the sort of prolonged public nudity I had engaged in counted as 'streaking' exactly; but it came I think from the same motivation; that compulsion to exhibit oneself, to show my naked body to the world. The cop said nothing for a minute. I could tell he was turning my explanation over in his mind, looking to see if it held up. I had no idea if he was responding to a complaint; if he was, my story might unravel, especially if it showed I had been naked for about 90 minutes now and travelled quite far. "You know, son, that running around in public view in the altogether is against the law?" "I know, officer," I replied, trying to sound suitably contrite. "I'm sorry for this. I meant no harm, I was just having a little fun before I leave town. But I should have thought about it more. I guess I'm in real trouble now, huh?" The cop looked thoughtful. "Well now," he said after a while, "I wouldn't say that." He opened the door to his cruiser and made to lean inside, but stopped and turned back to me. "Cover yourself up a moment would you, son," he advised. I cupped both hands over my cock and balls. I'd been very conscious of my nakedness during this whole conversation; the presence of the cop in his starchy uniform seemed to emphasise more my own nudity and vulnerability. Fortunately, my cock had stayed flaccid; I was too nervous to get aroused. Satisfied for the moment, the cop leaned back into his cruiser and picked up his radio. "Dispatch, this is car 9," he hailed. After a moment the radio crackled back; "Dispatch. Go ahead car 9." The cop paused, then spoke clearly. "Dispatch, has anyone called in a code 3 1 4 tonight?" The woman on the other end of the radio seemed thrown by this question. "Code 3 1 4, car 9?" she repeated. "Affirmative, dispatch. Has anyone called in a code 3 1 4 tonight?" "No, car 9," the woman replied after a moment. "No call outs for code 3 1 4. Why?" "Just a conversation with a citizen, dispatch," the cop replied. "Nothing to worry about. Car 9 out." (I learned later that a 3 1 4 was the penal code for indecent exposure or public nudity, and if someone had called the cops about me, that would have been what would have gone out to the officer on call; although at the time it meant nothing to me). Cupped or Cuffed The cop turned back to me. "Well son," he said, "it seems like we've had no complaints about you. So it looks like the only law enforcement that knows you're out here with your dingus in the wind is me. "Now," he continued, "I really should write you up with a citation, at least give you a ticket and give you a ride back home. But, you seem like a good kid. I know your folks, know of them anyway, and when you say you're leaving town tonight I know that's true. I think you're a smart kid who decided to do something dumb on a goof and, well, it isn't in me to punish you for that. How old are you, son? 18, 19?" "20," I replied. He nodded. "I got a son around your age and he's a smart kid too but he says and does the dumbest stuff sometimes. Not 'run around the street in your birthday suit' dumb but still pretty dumb. I wouldn't want to see him get into trouble for that and I doubt your daddy would want the same for you. "Well," he continued, "the way I see it is, if you can tell me you're gonna turn around and head straight back home and put your goddamn pants back on, and you do just that, I'm willing to forget I ever saw you. Can you do that?" I nodded enthusiastically. "Of course officer. I was actually just heading-" He cut me off. "Just go, son. The longer you're stood there with your balls out, the more likely it is someone will call it in and then I can't ignore it." Evidently, I learned later; there are some statutes which require a community complaint, in order to be prosecuted. Just as a cop's peace cannot be disturbed, A cop's morals cannot be outraged. The community has to initiate the complaint. I thanked him and set off in a sprint for home. I kept my hands cupped over my genitals until I was out of his sight, then I just jogged briskly, my cock swinging as I moved. I felt a great sense of relief; I'd got caught by a cop, the thing I had specifically not wanted to happen to me, and yet I'd got away with it. Had it been any other day or night I had tried this, I might well have ended up in a whole load of trouble, with the law and with my parents. But because it was my final night in town, it seemed like fate had cut me some slack and given me a cop who was willing to look the other way as long as nobody had come to any harm. Sunset Driveway I was feeling excited again, thrilled once more by my own exposure. But I also felt a sense of sadness. I was almost back at the family home; I'd no intention of breaking my word to the cop and doing any further nude adventuring tonight. But once I got back to our old home, the fun would be over, and I'd be clothed again and on my way. I rounded the corner and headed along my old street. It was night now, and a lot of the houses were dark. There were a few lights on but I didn't feel like I was at risk of getting into trouble here. I was nearly home anyway, and my clothes should be where I left them, on the floor by my car. Sure enough, as I walked up my driveway I could see them; crumpled jeans, boxers and a t-shirt. It had been over 2 hours since I'd last had any clothes on, and in that time I'd been seen by who knows how many people; all of them staring at my naked body and exposed cock. I'd masturbated, and ejaculated, in front of two complete strangers, shopped in a convenience store nude, and even brushed with the law and got away with it. Whatever exhibitionism I got up to in future, it would be hard to top this. As I got to the car I decided to postpone the disappointment. As it was now dark, I could probably get away with driving in the nude. As long as I kept my clothes close by, I would be able to go maybe even until my first stop for gas without dressing! Mrs. Robinson I was walking around to where my clothes lay when I heard my name being called. "Chris?" came the shout. "Chris Gill?" I turned. Walking up the driveway towards me was a woman. I recognised her straight away. Her name was Laura. She was one of our neighbours; and the wife of a friend of my dad's. I was busted. Ryan, Laura's husband, was one of the people who would be keeping in touch with my parents, if only through Facebook. If she told her husband she'd caught me naked outside the house, word would get back to my mom and dad, and I'd have some awkward explaining to do. I could probably come up with an excuse to them that would cover it (as it was only in the driveway), but still, I'd have preferred not to have had to discuss it with them. "Um, hi Laura," I said. My clothes were on the bottom step; I went to reach for them, then stopped. Laura was close now, lit by the outside light of the house, which was still on, its sensor triggered by her presence. Laura was younger than her husband by quite a few years; she was only in her late thirties, or at most forty. She was dressed, as she often was this time of night, in running gear; yoga pants and sneakers, a loose muscle vest with a sports bra top underneath it. The tight clothes hugged her athletic curves. Laura was always working out, running or exercising, and it paid off. She was flat stomached, with a rounded swing to her hips and small, but not over-small, breasts. Her face was tanned and youthful, only a few lines in the corner of her eyes. She took care of herself and never left the house without looking her best, and in my teens I had harboured more than a small crush on her. And she was currently smiling happily at me. "Chris Gill, you're naked," she exclaimed. "What are you doing out here naked?" "Uh, yeah," I said, standing up. "I was just;  uh; " "I saw you earlier," she went on. "You went out, down the street, no clothes on you at all, just like now. Have you been naked this whole time?" I decided, once again, that honesty was the best policy. It's hard to lie when you've got no clothes on! "Yeah," I said, trying to appear casual about it. "What?" she said. "You've been running round the neighbourhood naked?" "Yeah," I said. "Actually I went into town." Her eyes widened. "Like that?" She looked me up and down. I became very aware of my gaze, and my cock, which had been flaccid, began to stir. I nodded. "And you didn't get arrested?" "Nah. A cop saw me. He was cool though." She shook her head. "I can't believe it," she said. "Why on earth would you do that?" "Well," I shrugged. "It was my last night here. I wanted to make it memorable. And besides," my cock was slowly rising now, "I just really like being naked in front of people." She laughed warmly. "Why am I just learning this now?" she asked in mock exasperation. "Why when this is your last night here? I'd have had you mowing our lawn naked every time Ryan was out of town!" A dozen frustrated teenage Milf fantasies fizzed in my mind. From her tone and body language I could tell that, far from being shocked or embarrassed by my naked body, Laura was enjoying the experience of seeing me exposed. My cock sprang to full attention as we talked. "Front lawn?" I joked. Laura laughed again. "It would give the neighbours something to talk about," she said. "And something tells me you'd have been quite happy to do it." She was doing the worst job of pretending she hadn't noticed my erection; something which only served to increase my arousal as I noticed every downward glance she was making. I confirmed to her that, yes, I'd have been more than happy to go naked in public at her direction, and I began to describe some of my prior experiences with exhibitionism, which she reacted to with humour and enthusiasm. I was rock hard now. Almost without realising it, as we talked I reached down and took my cock in my hand. I gave myself a few lazy, slow strokes, a tingle of pleasure running through me. Laura looked down again, making no attempt to hide it this time. "Naughty boy," she said with a smile. I made no reply, instead I slowly stroked my cock again. Laura pulled off her muscle vest, exposing her tanned, flat stomach. "Is that what you want to do?" she asked. I nodded. Laura hiked herself up, sitting on the hood of my car. She parted her legs, and I stepped into that V of space between them, under the spotlight of the security lamp, ready to perform. I stroked myself, long movements up and down my shaft. I stood legs apart, crotch thrust forward, stomach muscles tight. I took my time; I had come once already, not an hour before, so I knew I would last a lot longer this time. Laura would appreciate a decent show, I thought. She watched in silence, eyes wide. She was leaning back on the front hood of my car, biting her lip, a smile teasing on her face. I stroked myself for a few minutes, finding a rhythm. I made sure she could see everything. After a while, Laura shifted. As I watched and pleasured myself, she pushed her elasticated sports bra upwards, freeing her breasts beneath, exposing them. Her skin was the same tanned shade; clearly she didn't wear a bikini to sunbathe; her small brown nipples puckered and hard. She rolled one between thumb and forefinger, letting out a little moan of pleasure. Her other hand slid into the waistband of her yoga pants and she began to touch herself. That was it for me, and I could hold back no longer. I crested the wave of my orgasm, my shaft pulsing. Cum squirted from the end; not the geyser I had shot forth earlier but still clearly visible in the light, dripping from my cock to spot on the asphalt between myself and the car on which Laura sat. I grunted and moaned as I came, as if to force every drop of cum from my balls, and Laura laughed delightedly. My orgasm finished, I slowed then ended my stroke. I stood for a moment, still hard, a bead of cum formed on my cock head. Laura withdrew her hand from her waistband almost embarrassedly. I bent to retrieve my boxers, making as if to wipe myself with them, but Laura stopped me. Leaning forward, she slipped the head of my cock into her warm, wet mouth, licking me clean. My cock was still sensitive from my orgasm, and I gasped and shivered. Laura made an appreciative noise as she let my cock plop loose from her mouth. "I wanted to blow you," she said, a hint of disappointment in her voice. "But you're such a kinky guy, I knew you'd be happier giving me a show." "You didn't like the show?" I asked. "Oh, I loved it," she smiled. "But it means I'll never get a chance to show you what I can do, too. Now now you're going away." "Well," I said, "I can always come and visit; the next time Ryan's out of town?" She laughed. "I just might take you up on that." We said our goodbyes then. She grabbed me in a bare-chested hug before pulling her top down, pressing her bare breasts to my naked torso. She reached behind me and grabbed my ass with both hands, squeezing, and squealing delightedly. "Seriously, call me," she said, replacing her clothing, and she headed quickly back down the driveway and away, presumably before her husband wondered where she had gone to. After that, there was little left for me to do. I gathered up my discarded clothes, tossed them into the passenger seat, and then hopped into my car and drove away from the house. On The Road To Campus I spent most of the overnight drive back to college nude, donning my t-shirt and jeans only to get gas or visit rest stops. I was nude again as I arrived on campus; it was early morning by then, and not a soul was around when I parked up by the dorm. Cautiously I opened the car door and stepped out. It wasn't my first time being nude on campus at this sort of hour, and I knew the low light and early morning mist meant I was pretty safe to do so. But I was so tired I had no energy for fun, and picking up my loose clothes and one of my bags from the car I headed straight into the dorm. My roommate didn't stir as I went into our room; fortunate, as I would have had to explain to him why I had walked in completely naked; and I quickly kicked off my shoes and crawled into bed. I lay back, and as sleep came quickly to me I smiled. I would miss my old home town a great deal, and I had so many fond memories of growing up there. But, I told myself, none would be quite as memorable as my last evening there. By Requiax, for Literotica

Send us a textPeaches kicks off this drop swinging at everything from the chaos in D.C. to the ridiculous idea that military academies ever needed race-based admissions. National Guard troops are back in the capital because apparently it's become Mad Max with monuments. Cyber interns get a salute for their terrifyingly cool hacking skills, a World War I badass gets long-overdue recognition, and Space Force is about to light off the Vulcan rocket like it's the Fourth of July. There's also some sharp-shooting at West Point, desert fun with the Marines, and a not-so-subtle reminder that your enemy doesn't give a damn about your DEI training—they just want you dead. Strap in.

This is the second in a 4 part series on treatment, or affirmative prayer. Affirmative prayer or treatment is a powerful spiritual practice that will deepen your relationship with a god of your understand and allow you to get what you pray for.  The steps of treatment are Recognition, Unification, Realization, Thanksgiving and Release. The first podcast in this series is called The Treatment Series, 1st Step, What Is GodYour support is very much appreciated!Support the podcastDonate via PayPalDonate via VenmoCheck out our website!Send us a textSupport the show

In today's episode, Dr. Sheila White talks with Tanesha Thompson, a creative entrepreneur and founder of the artistic organization It's L.I.T Candles by Tanesha, about how the affirmative power of self-care can help people become more empowered to achieve mindfulness and healing in their own lives.

Send us a textFIRST BLOOD SPECIAL NOTE: SEASON 15 OF THE GOOD, THE POD AND THE UGLY CELEBRATES THE USE OF THE PRACTICAL AND DIGITAL EFFECT KNOWN AS THE SQUIB. IRL GUN VIOLENCE IS INTOLERABLE AND RENOUNCED BUT... CINEMATIC VIOLENCE WILL BE CELEBRATED IN A WAY WILL DISTURB SOME LISTENERS.   FIRST BLOOD (1982), a.k.a. Rambo I! Surely the best possible pick for TGTPTU's Season 15 – Squib Season. An‘80s action flick, special forces, small town cops, a M60 machine rifle capable of firing 600 rounds a minute… Unless… Perhaps… Could it be the sequels changed the original movie, that actually the Rambo series starts not as the rah-rah patriotic killer of anonymous foreign brown peoples with knife, machine gun, and explosive-tipped arrows?  Affirmative. (Yes.) After years in development hell trying to adapt an early 70s anti-war novel about a young returning soldier-drifter (perhaps even younger than pod host Thomas and season guest Jack) with PSTD from his time as an elite killer in Vietnam, the movie First Blood went through three production companies and eighteen screenplays--including pod fav and former 4x4 season director John Frankenheimer attached at one point and Paul Newman, Al Pacino, Steve McQueen (who liked the jailbreak+motorcycle chase), Eastwood, DeNiro, Nolte, and Michael Douglas all considered for the role--as a nearly a decade passed from the actions of the undeclared war in ‘Nam contemporary with the novel and the protagonist subsequently aged up in the movie's contemporary Regan-era world. Other elements in adapting the book for the screen included giving Rambo a first name (John); omitting alternating storylines between Rambo and Sheriff Teasle; reducing the vet's body count from intentional dozens killed in the forest and back in town to one confirmed death falling from a helicopter after John Rambo throws a rock (with three additional possible from a vehicle wreck and gunshot wound), and giving Rambo a good cry at the film's end.   But while changes made, one thing unfortunate for the pod was maintained adapting the book into movie: Neither has blood squibs.   While a tree gets shot and a wall explodes in simulated gunfire, few people get plugged on screen in this action film, and those who do are sans exploded condoms of red liquid and juicy matter. Despite the franchise reputation to be parodied in pod fav Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993), this initial entry in the Rambo film pentalogy is relatively bloodless. (Here might be a good place for a parenthetical on how this film was selected by bookworm Thomas who's expressed subversive reservations about the violence inherent in this season of the pod.) This ep: Jack returns to the pod, Thomas presents the book report, Ken postulates that shooting the picture during an unexpectedly cold Canadian autumn might be why the sequels take place in warmer climes, Ryan continues his disgusting habit of recommending other film podcasts, and Sidney Poitier's Ghost Dad (1990) reenters the chat.  Note: Former presidential candidate Ross Perot's involvement with Vietnam War POW/MIA in the 80s, playability reviews of the NES and arcade Rambo video games,  and episode-by-episode recaps of the 1986 Saturday morning Rambo cartoon series were all cut for brevity.  THEME SONG BY: WEIRD A.I.Email: thegoodthepodandtheugly@gmail.comFacebook: https://m.facebook.com/TGTPTUInstagram: https://instagram.com/thegoodthepodandtheugly?igshid=um92md09kjg0Bluesky: @goodpodugly.bsky.socialYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6mI2plrgJu-TB95bbJCW-gLetterboxd (follow us!):Podcast: goodpoduglyKen: Ken KoralRyan: Ryan Tobias

Jason "Mr. Integrity" and GOOFBALLERY  GOOFBALLERY: Term coined by Jason, aka Mr. Integrity, reflecting his no-nonsense, straight-talking style. Marketing Maven: Jason is known for being a standout, no B.S. marketer with a sharp instinct for authenticity. Poker Player: He dabbles in the World Poker Tour—indicating strong intuition and strategic thinking. AND LUCK! "Bullsh$t Meter" Always On: Jason quickly assesses potential clients with a high-functioning intuition radar. Want to learn more? Visit https://integritygo.com/   Mental Muscle & Intuition INTUITION as a Skill: Jason's top trait is his well-developed intuition, one of the six mental muscles Bob Proctor emphasizes. Innate Ability: Jason seems to be naturally gifted at spotting authenticity in people—especially potential clients. Why Intuition Matters in Business Jason identifies three essential reasons to develop and use intuition in business: Understand Who YOU Are Understand How You Connect with People Understand and Know Your Target Market These steps go beyond “sales is a numbers game” to create real alignment with ideal clients.   Jason's Self-Discovery Process Deep & Honest: His method is a self-discovery journey that may evoke strong emotions—even tears. Painful but Powerful: The process challenges people to confront personal truths to grow their business effectively. Selective Approach: Jason's process helps filter out those not committed to genuine business growth. Using Intuition and Jason's process of  DISCOVERY:  “HERE'S WHAT YOU DO,   Understand Who YOU are,  How You Connect with People” This is a self discovery process and it can be painful… I mentioned that I bet people cry during this process AFFIRMATIVE was his response Kundalini Yoga  We all hear about MERCURY in RETROGRADE.  Learn a yoga technique that helps you power through that time https://youtu.be/N_oYW1nfhfI?feature=shared FINE SPIRITS FOR SUMMER - SIPPING TEQUILA Typical flavors of Tequilla for food pairing: Blanco - unaged or slightly in neutral oak.  Pair with fish, cheese, light meals such as shrimp salad.  Reposado means rested - it is aged in barrels from a few months to two years.. pair with Mexican food..easy. Anejo- smokey and smooth- grilled meats on the barbeque.. portabello mushrooms, corn on the cob.. big flavors so barbeque flavors are the perfect match. https://youtube.com/shorts/aueylrQFLM0?si=3QbNZ6Md6lF7UZtO RESOURCES Jason Integrity Go Want to learn more? https://integritygo.com/ MARKETING CHECKLIST from Jason Integrity. GO TO HIS WEBSITE ABOVE https://drive.google.com/file/d/10MqZVp3R7Mxs7FWW-pUesHutM3IYszgy/view?usp=share_link RECOMMENDED by JASON: 12 Week Year https://12weekyear.com The 12 Week Year book will walk you through the proven step-by-step system for achieving more in 12 weeks than others do in 12 months CONTACT: Merci valerie@allinourminds.com www.allinourminds.com    

Josh welcomes his 1620 the Zone colleague, Matt McMaster, to the Saturday Morning Coffee Show for his I-80 Club debut! They dive into Nebraska football and the 2025 season, in particular Josh's recent HuskerMax column about reasons to doubt the Huskers can take the next step in 2025. In order, they tackle:Are we sure Dylan Raiola can take the next step? (10:56)How much regression should be baked into the defensive cake? (21:21)Are there difference makers on offense or defense? (33:03)Is the schedule as light as it seems on paper? (46:23)Can Nebraska finally close games out? (55:10)Plus, why 2025 needs to be a setup year to buy into Nebraska in 2026, special teams, and so much more!Want more podcasts like this? Subscribe to the I-80 Club for as low as $5 a month: patreon.com/i80club. And don't forget to subscribe to the I-80 Club YouTube channel! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before the stories, the deep dives, and the guided meditations—comes the anthem.

Hello, horror fans! To kick off summer, we're covering our first sequel: Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Crack open a cold one and join us in our living room as we discuss existential robots, mind blowing practical effects, daddy issues, and more. Is this the greatest action movie ever made? AFFIRMATIVE!Follow us on Instagram ⁠⁠@bloodfearandbeerpodcast⁠⁠If you have questions for us, movie or beer suggestions, or just want to say hello, we would love to hear from you! Email us at bloodfearandbeer@gmail.comCover art by Silvia G.Music by Jeri CrossCheers!

Our guest this time is Dr. Margaret Nichols. Dr. Nichols, Ph.D., is a psychologist, AASECT certified sex therapy supervisor, founder, and first Executive Director of the Institute for Personal Growth, a psychotherapy organization in New Jersey specializing in clinical work with the sex, relationship, and gender diverse community. She is the author of The Modern Clinician's Guide to Working with LGBTQ+ Clients: The Inclusive Psychotherapist. Dr. Nichols is an international speaker and author of many articles on LGBTQ sexuality, transgender youth, kink, and consensual nonmonogamy, as well as the co-director of Modern Sex Therapy Institutes' Transgender Mental Health certification program. Dr. Nichols has been licensed since 1981 and trained as a sex therapist since 1983. In 1983, she founded the Institute for Personal Growth, and in 1985, she helped found and served as the first Executive Director of the Hyacinth AIDS Foundation, New Jersey's largest HIV social service agency. Since she sold IPG in 2018, Dr. Nichols has maintained a small private psychotherapy practice and a roster of sex therapy supervisees across the country. Resources on ways to support trans and non-binary people: Supporting transgender people in your life - Advocates for trans equality How to be an ally to trans and non-binary people - Trevor Project How to be an ally to trans and non-binary people - George Mason LGBTQ+ center  Dr. Margie Nichols' TED talk  If you want to catch up on other shows, just visit our website and please subscribe! We love our listeners and welcome your feedback, so if you love Our Better Half, please give us a 5-star rating and follow us on Facebook and Instagram. It really helps support our show! As always, thanks for listening!

Check the full script on YouTube ⇒ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://youtu.be/4_QjU0sfV-k⁠⁠⁠GENKI 2 Japanese Textbook P58, 59 (Edition 2) / P54, 55 (Edition 3) ▼Buy me a coffee and Be a sponsor of one episode ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/KANAKO-Coffee⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠▼BGM ⇒ DOVA-SYNDROME（⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dova-s.jp/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)▼Ending BGM ⇒Flower Field【FLASH☆BEAT】

In this episode of Friday Fiduciary Five, Eric Dyson presents a follow-up to the previous Friday Fiduciary Five regarding the Supreme Court's Decision on Cunningham v Cornell. Eric talks about the concept of affirmative defense. He explains that affirmative defense allows for exceptions to prohibited transactions if certain conditions are met, particularly the proper disclosure of fees through 408(B)2. Eric suggests that advisors and committee members ensure they have these disclosures and understand them, as they are not typically issued annually. He also suggests that plan sponsors request these disclosures annually from all service providers. Use the keyword “90north”: https://www.fiduciaryinabox.com/ Connect with Eric Dyson: Website: https://90northllc.com/Phone: 940-248-4800Email: contact@90northllc.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/401kguy/ The information contained herein is general in nature and is provided solely for educational and informational purposes.It is not intended to provide a specific recommendation of any type of product or service discussed in this presentation or to provide any warranties, financial advice or legal advice.The specific facts and circumstance of all qualified plans can vary and the information contained in this podcast may or may not apply to your individual circumstances or to your plan or client plan specific circumstances.

Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration's funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.  Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.  To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard's recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are: - David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law - Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law Timestamps:  00:00 Intro 02:50 Govt's approach with Harvard and Columbia 05:39 Title VI violations 11:30 Anti-Semitism on campuses 23:02 Viewpoint diversity in higher education 27:12 Affirmative action and the Supreme Court 35:52 Title IX under the Obama and Biden administrations 42:32 Bob Jones University and tax-exempt status 45:53 Future of federal funding in higher education 54:08 Outro Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more. If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at thefire.org and would like access to Substack's paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@thefire.org. Show notes: Academic freedom: from professional norm to first amendment right David Rabban (2024) Worse than nothing: the dangerous fallacy of originalism Erwin Chemerinsky (2022) “A statement from constitutional law scholars on Columbia” The New York Review (2025) Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957) Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1967) Federal government letter to Harvard (2025) “The promise of American higher education” Alan Garber (2025) Harvard's lawsuit (complaint) (2025) “Columbia agrees to Trump's demands after federal funds are stripped” The New York Times (2025) “Sustaining Columbia's vital mission” Claire Shipman (2025) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) “What is Title IX? Its history & implications” FIRE (2025) Bridges v. Wixon (1945)

Send us a text

Let us know what you think of this episode with a text!A discussion about some of the pitfalls of modern technology and robots.Affirmative, robots.Email: 3copstalk@gmail.comWebsite: https://www.3copstalk.comYoutube: https://youtube.com/channel/UCFWKMerhChCE6_s5yFqc4awFacebook: 3 Cops Talk | FacebookInstagram: https://instagram.com/3copstalk?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

In this episode, Cloie delves into the principles of neuro-affirmative care, explaining its significance and offering insights into fostering a supportive and inclusive environment.guest: Dr. Cloie Parfitt, neurodiversity-affirming psychotherapist and researcherVisit the Website To Learn More: Diverse Minds Therapy - HOMEConnect on Instagram: Dr Cloie Parfitt | Diverse Minds Therapy (@the_neurodivergent_therapist) • Instagram photos and videos

Wellness + Wisdom | Episode 717 Wellness + Wisdom Podcast Host, Josh Trent, shares why your self-narrative and language are the ultimate mindset reset for personal growth and emotional well-being, and practical tools and exercises for self-love and manifesting your dreams. Is there a topic that you'd like us to cover in the next AMA episode? Record your message HERE.

Today, Hunter spoke with Alexandra Bailey and Cindy Nguyen to discuss Oklahoma's Failure to Protect Laws. A few years back, Alexandra joined the show to discuss theses laws, and as a reminder, these laws allow for victims of domestic violence, mostly women, to be sentenced to longer jail sentences for failing to protect their children from abuse than the men who commit the abuse. Today, Cindy and Alexandra join the show to discuss the fight to reform these laws.   Guest Alexandra Bailey, Domestic Violence Survivor and Advocate Cindy Nguyen, Policy Director, Oklahoma ACLU Resources: SB 594: https://www3.oklegislature.gov/BillInfo.aspx?Bill=sb594&Session=2500   https://www.motherjones.com/criminal-justice/2022/08/failure-to-protect-domestic-abuse-child-oklahoma-women-inequality-prison/   https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/02/oklahoma-failure-to-protect-kerry-king-dave-rader/   Latest version of SB 594 (2/10/25) Taking out reductions for child abuse/neglect due to having to apply retroactivity for all of them Keeping reductions for FTP/enabling child abuse and neglect = 6 years Affirmative defense + retroactivity    ACLU-OK Research/Stats for FTP: 1 in 4 women convicted of failure to protect received sentences longer than the man convicted of abusing the child. 93% of those convicted under failure to protect are women. Almost half of the women convicted under failure to protect were experiencing domestic violence.   Key Stories: Tondalao Hall – 30-year sentence compared to the actual abuser receiving a 10-year suspended sentence.  Robert Braxton Jr. abused two of her children and broken multiple bones.  Released after 15 yrs, we have direct contact with her and she can help on storytelling for campaign.   Elizabeth Crafton – 20 year sentence  compared to the actual abuser receiving 11.  Chris Good beat Crafton's 1 year old while she was away at work. Crafton took her baby to the hospital but was accused of enabling child abuse.    Kerry Lalehparvaran – 30 year sentence compared to actual abuser receiving 18.  Boyfriend beat daughter and Kerry put herself in between the spankings.  ACLU of Oklahoma https://www.acluok.org/en       Contact Hunter Parnell:                                 Publicdefenseless@gmail.com  Instagram @PublicDefenselessPodcast Twitter                                                                 @PDefenselessPod www.publicdefenseless.com  Subscribe to the Patron www.patreon.com/PublicDefenselessPodcast  Donate on PayPal https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=5KW7WMJWEXTAJ Donate on Stripe https://donate.stripe.com/7sI01tb2v3dwaM8cMN Trying to find a specific part of an episode? Use this link to search transcripts of every episode of the show! https://app.reduct.video/o/eca54fbf9f/p/d543070e6a/share/c34e85194394723d4131/home  

Why did President Barack Obama start using words like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” instead of the typical "affirmative action"? Affirmative action was created to right the historic wrongs imposed on African Americans during the Jim Crow era, which included about 10% of the U.S. population. Obama used DEI to expand the terminology to anyone who isn't white. Why? Victor Davis Hanson argues in this edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words” that it was to dramatically increase the size of the historically marginalized constituency, allowing the Obama administration to implement its expansive woke agenda:  “Affirmative action was created during the civil rights era, 1964 and '65, and then, now, it has been with us almost 60 years. But remember what it was originally designed for—to address the historic racism and oppression of black Americans through slavery and Jim Crow, de facto segregation in some of the Northern states, but de jure segregation in the South. "And it said that because of that African Americans had not been given equality of opportunity. Statute never said anything about quotas or equality result ...  “When the Obama administration came in, they saw that that constituency was not big enough for the type of woke agenda that they were envisioning  "So, they recreated it. They used a word, “diversity.” And diversity then would morph in, during the Obama years, to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” They added the “equity and inclusion” so you didn't obsess on race, which was the obsession. But they didn't want you to think about that. So then, all of a sudden, anybody was diverse on one qualification. "They were not white." For Victor's latest thoughts, go to: https://victorhanson.com/   Don't miss out on Victor's latest videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You'll be notified every time a new video drops: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHqkXbgqrDrDVInBMSoGQgQ The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories like this one without the support of our viewers: https://secured.dailysignal.com/   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why did President Barack Obama start using words like “diversity, equity, and inclusion” instead of the typical “affirmative action”? Affirmative action was created to right the historic wrongs imposed on African Americans during the Jim Crow era, which included about 10% of the U.S. population. Obama used DEI to expand the terminology to anyone who […]

This week Fran and Alvin discuss food, Pakistan, and American history.Join Our Patreon For Bonus Content! https://patreon.com/affirmativemurder?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkWE'RE GOING TO CRIME CON UK!!!! Use code AFFIRMATIVE at checkout for 10% off you pass!Our Sponsors:* Check out Diet Smoke and use my code AMP20 for a great deal: https://www.dietsmoke.com* Check out Factor: https://factormeals.com/amp50off* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code AMP for a great deal: https://happymammoth.com* Check out Magic Mind: https://www.magicmind.com/ampjan* Check out Mood and use my code AMP for a great deal: https://mood.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/affirmative-murder/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

This week Fran and Alvin discuss chicken and religion.Join Our Patreon For Bonus Content! https://patreon.com/affirmativemurder?utm_medium=unknown&utm_source=join_link&utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator&utm_content=copyLinkWE'RE GOING TO CRIME CON UK!!!! Use code AFFIRMATIVE at checkout for 10% off you pass!Our Sponsors:* Check out Diet Smoke and use my code AMP20 for a great deal: https://www.dietsmoke.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code AMP for a great deal: https://happymammoth.com* Check out Incogni: https://incogni.com/affirmativemurder* Check out Magic Mind: https://www.magicmind.com/ampjanSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/affirmative-murder/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Everything is changing -- FAST. After five years, Hasbro-owned Wizards of the Coast has stopped bankrolling a group for "marginalized genders" in Magic the Gathering. Then we talk about author Ben Riggs, who is convinced the Drow are stand-ins for African Americans despite the OG TSR creators repeatedly stating they were based on evil fairies from folklore. Will Wizards drop the woke to save their own butts? Wizards of the Coast abruptly terminated funding for the VML program, which supported marginalized genders in Magic: The Gathering, despite previous commitments to diversity and inclusion. The sudden cancellation of the VML program has left marginalized players feeling betrayed and questioning the integrity of Wizards of the Coast's commitment to diversity initiatives. Affirmative action and diversity hires in the VML program led to perceived favoritism and questioning of legitimacy for players who identify as marginalized genders, even those who earned their spots through skill. The controversy has sparked debate about the impact of diversity initiatives on gaming communities, with some arguing they can lead to unfair advantages and undermining merit-based competition. Wizards of the Coast cited lack of funds as the reason for stopping VML program support, despite previously providing funding and invites to competitive events. Author Ben Riggs controversially claims that Drow in D&D are stand-ins for African Americans, contradicting original TSR creators who state they were based on evil fairies from folklore.

The true crime podcasting community has come together for the holiday season to discuss all things true crime podcasting. Over the next two weeks, ten shows will be dropping bonus episodes sharing these conversations. In this episode, I'm joined by Alvin Williams (Affirmative Murder) and Javier Leiva (Pretend) to discuss how we started our shows, true crime as an industry, how we've grown and lessons we've learned, cases we've covered, monetizing true crime, television, the future of our shows, and more.Check out Alvin's and Javier's shows:Affirmative MurderPretendOther true crime conversations coming:• Josh (True Crime Bullsh**), The Captain (True Crime Garage), Charlie (Crimelines)• Lucy (Wine & Crime), Kristen (Murder, She Told), Charlie (Crimelines)• Amanda (Wine & Crime), Javier (Pretend), Whitney (Navigating Advocacy)• Robin (The Trail Went Cold), Melissa (Navigating Advocacy), Robert (The Broken System)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-crime-bullsh--3588169/support.

The true crime podcasting community has come together for the holiday season to discuss all things true crime podcasting. Over the next two weeks, ten shows will be dropping bonus episodes sharing these conversations. In this episode, I'm joined by Alvin Williams (Affirmative Murder) and Josh Hallmark (True Crime Bullsh**) to discuss how we started our shows, true crime as an industry, how we've grown and lessons we've learned, cases we've covered, monetizing true crime, television, the future of our shows, and more. Check out Josh's and Alvin's shows: Affirmative Murder True Crime Bullsh** Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In possibly the last episode of the calendar year, Fran and Alvin make some 2025 predictions, talk Aliens, and dive into one of the most horrid cases of police misconduct imaginable Merch Links- https://www.bonfire.com/am-snowball-stand-worker-tee/?utm_source=copy_link&utm_medium=campaign_page&utm_campaign=am-snowball-stand-worker-tee&utm_content=defaultWant more Affirmative Murder? https://www.patreon.com/affirmativemurderOur Sponsors:* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code AMP for a great deal: happymammoth.com* Check out Incogni: https://incogni.com/affirmativemurderSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/affirmative-murder/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

The game of football is won in the trenches. You've heard this. We have to agree. It starts and ends with the big guys up front on offense and defense.  WRU? Sure. QB factory? Affirmative. DBU? We can make a strong argument. But the trenches ... the trenches. Which brings us to defensive linemen Trajen Odom and Maxwell Roy. Two guys that get it done in their respective high school trenches. Our Bill Kurelic has rolled Crystal Balls for both to do the same for Ohio State. We get you totally up to speed on that duo and their impending commitments, offer info on David Sanders, Dorian Brew, Jordan Davison and others before a deep dive on new offensive lineman commitment Jake Cook.  Spend 5ish with us this a.m., 'Nutters! To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today, we sit down with author and senior fellow at the Claremont Institute Jeremy Carl to discuss his new book, "The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Tearing America Apart." How is anti-white racism invading American workplaces and the evangelical church? How does anti-white discrimination impact high-risk career paths, including pilots and doctors? And what should conservative Christians do to combat white guilt masked as humility? Get Jeremy's book, "The Unprotected Class: How Anti-White Racism Is Destroying America," at https://www.regnery.com/9781684514588/the-unprotected-class/ Get your tickets for Share the Arrows: https://www.sharethearrows.com/ --- Timecodes: (01:28) Introduction to Jeremy's work (05:27) Response to George Floyd & racial rhetoric (14:09) In groups and out groups (18:29) Anti-white descrimination in civil rights laws (22:15) Affirmative action & disparities (41:35) Representation in media (49:31) Anti-white racism in Evangelicalism (55:45) Immigration (01:03:24) Social Justice (01:16:14) Workplace Discrimination (01:19:00) Where do we go from here? --- Today's Sponsors: Jase Medical — get up to a year's worth of many of your prescription medications delivered in advance. Go to JaseMedical.com today and use promo code “ALLIE". Carly Jean Los Angeles — use promo code ALLIE50 for $50 off your order of $100+ at carlyjeanlosangeles.com. Patriot Mobile — go to PatriotMobile.com/ALLIE or call 972-PATRIOT and use promo code 'ALLIE' for free activation! Cozy Earth - go to COZYEARTH.COM/RELATABLE to enjoy 30% off using the code RELATABLE. --- Relevant Episodes: Ep 282 | Exposing & Opposing Social Justice Theology | Guest: Dr. Voddie Baucham https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/relatable-with-allie-beth-stuckey/id1359249098?i=1000486696085 Ep 878 | Why Does Social Justice Divide the Church? | Guest: Voddie Baucham https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/relatable-with-allie-beth-stuckey/id1359249098?i=1000629116107 Ep 985 | Why DEI Always Leads to LGBTQ | Guest: Delano Squires https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-985-why-dei-always-leads-to-lgbtq-guest-delano-squires/id1359249098?i=1000652534041 Ep 792 | What's to Blame for the Chicago 'Teen Takeover'? | Guest: Heather MacDonald https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/ep-792-whats-to-blame-for-the-chicago-teen-takeover/id1359249098?i=1000609986059 Ep 460 | How Social Justice Activism is Infecting the Church | Guest: Dr. Voddie Baucham https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/relatable-with-allie-beth-stuckey/id1359249098?i=1000530206985 --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise – use promo code 'ALLIE10' for a discount: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices