Podcasts about CAIR

Connacht have made 14 changes for Saturday's under-18 girls interprovincial final against Leinster with Tuam/Oughterard's Juno Hayes remaining in the 2nd row (30th August 2025) The Galway contingent on the starting team includes Ballinasloe trio Roisin O'Sulivan, Esther Albert and co-captain Anna McDermott; Tuam/Oughterards' Aoibh Morrow and Juno Hayes; Creggs' Mia White and Ciara Corrigan; along with Gort Monivea's Cairinn Kearns. Connacht under-18 head coach Craig Hansberry caught up with Galway Bay FM's William Davies. == Kick-off at UCD on Saturday is 2.45pm. CONNACHT U18 GIRLS MATCHDAY SQUAD VS LEINSTER RUGBY 15. Roisin O'Sullivan (Ballinasloe RFC) 14. Kate Gallagher (Ballina RFC) 13. Esther Albert (Ballinasloe RFC) 12. Ruth Conway (Westport RFC) Co-Captain 11. Aoibh Morrow (Tuam/Oughterard RFC) 10. Mia White (Creggs RFC) 9. Kitty Fin Sweeney (Westport RFC) 1. Isabel Lynott (Ballina RFC) 2. Ciara Corrigan (Creggs RFC) 3. Cairínn Kearns (Gort/Monivea RFC) 4. Aoibhinn Lyons (Westport RFC) 5. Juno Hayes (Tuam/Oughterard RFC) 6. Ruby Jennings (Claremorris RFC) 7. Anna McDermott (Ballinasloe RFC) Co-Captain 8. Evie Kennedy (Ballina RFC) 16. Millie Ager (Claremorris RFC) 17. Holly Horkan (Westport RFC) 18. Sharron Thornton (Tuam/Oughterard RFC) 19. Orla Palasz (Westport RFC) 20. Poppy Tunney Ware (Westport RFC) 21. Maebh Smith (Claremorris RFC) 22. Sally Fleming (Buccaneers RFC) 23. Leah McNamara (Westport RFC)

Ainda assim, balanço de 2025 mostra valores mais altos no acumulado do ano para todas as matérias-primas. Relações de troca são interessantes para o milho safrinha 2026.

On today's Quick Start podcast: NEWS: Sen. Tom Cotton pushes the IRS to strip CAIR's tax-exempt status over alleged Hamas ties. A Kentucky church defends members who refused to return LGBT-themed library books, calling it civil disobedience. FOCUS STORY: Cracker Barrel reverses its controversial rebrand after intense backlash—what pushed the iconic restaurant chain to cave? MAIN THING: Puerto Rico isn't just beaches—it may be America's most important line of defense as China and Russia move into the Caribbean. CBN's Caitlin Burke has more. LAST THING: Proverbs 13:10 — “Where there is strife, there is pride, but wisdom is found in those who take advice.” PRAY WITH US! Faithwire.substack.com SHOW LINKS Faith in Culture: https://cbn.com/news/faith-culture Heaven Meets Earth PODCAST: https://cbn.com/lp/heaven-meets-earth NEWSMAKERS POD: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/newsmakers/id1724061454 Navigating Trump 2.0: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/navigating-trump-2-0/id1691121630

Em entrevista ao Jornal Eldorado, da Rádio Eldorado, o senador Marcelo Castro (MDB-PI), relator do novo Código Eleitoral, reafirmou ser contrário à inclusão do voto impresso no texto aprovado pela Comissão de Constituição e Justiça (CCJ) do Senado. “O voto impresso é um retrocesso. Só vai trazer mais insegurança, mais problema e judicialização”, disse o parlamentar, lembrando que o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) já declarou a proposta inconstitucional em 2015. Em entrevista ao Jornal Eldorado, da Rádio Eldorado, o senador Marcelo Castro (MDB-PI), relator do novo Código Eleitoral, reafirmou ser contrário à inclusão do voto impresso no texto aprovado pela Comissão de Constituição e Justiça (CCJ) do Senado. “O voto impresso é um retrocesso. Só vai trazer mais insegurança, mais problema e judicialização”, disse o parlamentar, lembrando que o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) já declarou a proposta inconstitucional em 2015. Em entrevista ao Jornal Eldorado, da Rádio Eldorado, o senador Marcelo Castro (MDB-PI), relator do novo Código Eleitoral, reafirmou ser contrário à inclusão do voto impresso no texto aprovado pela Comissão de Constituição e Justiça (CCJ) do Senado. “O voto impresso é um retrocesso. Só vai trazer mais insegurança, mais problema e judicialização”, disse o parlamentar, lembrando que o Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) já declarou a proposta inconstitucional em 2015. Segundo o senador, a inclusão ocorreu após destaque do senador Esperidião Amin (PP-SC), aprovado contra seu voto. Castro afirmou, porém, que não acredita na aprovação do dispositivo em plenário. “Pela lógica, o plenário vai votar contra. Mas como vivemos tempos estranhos, tudo é possível”, ponderou. Entre os pontos que considera avanços do novo Código Eleitoral, Castro destacou a reserva obrigatória de 20% das cadeiras em todos os parlamentos do país para mulheres, incluindo câmaras municipais, assembleias legislativas e Congresso Nacional. “O Brasil ocupa uma situação constrangedora no cenário internacional: é o 137º país em representatividade feminina. Isso é inaceitável”, afirmou. O texto também altera a Lei da Ficha Limpa, fixando em oito anos o prazo de inelegibilidade a partir de 1º de janeiro do ano subsequente à condenação, para uniformizar prazos e evitar interpretações diferentes. Questionado sobre as críticas à redução de penas para a propagação de fake news em campanhas, o senador disse que o tema deve seguir em debate. “É um problema universal. Precisamos aprender com legislações como a da União Europeia e dos Estados Unidos. É um assunto sensível que exige muito cuidado.” O projeto ainda precisa ser votado pelo plenário do Senado até setembro para ter validade nas eleições de 2026.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

O mercado finalmente reagiu à crise entre Brasil e EUA. Dólar dispara, bolsa cai e bancos despencam após a decisão de Flávio Dino, que ignora a Lei Magnitsky. O STF está empurrando os bancos para o abismo? Multas bilionárias e risco de sanções contra instituições brasileiras estão no radar. Entenda os desdobramentos e por que o Banco Central pode ser forçado a agir.

Laura Loomer, Conservative Political Activist, calls into the show to talk about US policy on terrorism, particularly focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). She references Marco Rubio's recent comments regarding the difficulty of designating terrorist organizations. Loomer criticizes the Trump administration for the lack of progress on officially designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, despite many other countries having already done so. She emphasizes the problem of Islamic charities in the US obtaining tax-deductible status and allegedly funding global jihad. Loomer also reveals that she has been threatened by CAIR and talks about ongoing efforts and internal challenges within the GOP, notably pointing to lobbyists' influence and alleged professional jealousy. Loomer discusses her investigative work uncovering the arrival of people from Gaza into the US on temporary medical visas and voices concerns over national security implications. The conversation concludes with a call to action for the public to demand accountability from their representatives regarding these issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Laura Loomer, Conservative Political Activist, calls into the show to talk about US policy on terrorism, particularly focusing on the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). She references Marco Rubio's recent comments regarding the difficulty of designating terrorist organizations. Loomer criticizes the Trump administration for the lack of progress on officially designating the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, despite many other countries having already done so. She emphasizes the problem of Islamic charities in the US obtaining tax-deductible status and allegedly funding global jihad. Loomer also reveals that she has been threatened by CAIR and talks about ongoing efforts and internal challenges within the GOP, notably pointing to lobbyists' influence and alleged professional jealousy. Loomer discusses her investigative work uncovering the arrival of people from Gaza into the US on temporary medical visas and voices concerns over national security implications. The conversation concludes with a call to action for the public to demand accountability from their representatives regarding these issues. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jeff Lax, Pro-Israel Activist and CUNY Professor, calls into the show to discuss the controversial influence of CAIR and the Muslim Brotherhood on New York politics, the complexities of designating terrorist organizations, and the ongoing mayoral race in New York City. Lax particularly emphasizes past legal cases involving CAIR and criticizes the motivations behind certain political actions and groups. The discussion also touches on media bias and the rebranding of MSNBC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

O Fed está prestes a iniciar um ciclo de cortes de juros?Com dados de inflação sob controle e revisões nos números de emprego mostrando uma economia mais fraca do que parecia, o cenário mudou. O secretário do Tesouro já fala em corte de 0,5% na próxima reunião.Mas será que o Fed está atrasado?E como esse corte pode impactar o dólar, os mercados globais, a Selic e o real?Entenda o que está por trás dessa possível virada na política monetária americana — e o que ela pode significar para o Brasil.

This is Frank Gaffney with the Secure Freedom Minute.  Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked yesterday by talk radio host Sid Rosenberg, “Why wouldn't you guys designate the Muslim Brotherhood and CAIR?” He responded,  “All of that is in the works. Obviously, there are different branches of the Muslim Brotherhood, so you'd have to designate each one of them.” Those who have enabled that Sharia-supremacist – and therefore terrorism-tied – group and its fronts like the Council on American-Islamic Relations to metastasize in this country will surely mobilize to prevent their designations as such. Qatar, Turkey and jihadist organizations they support will use their considerable influence and operatives to protect the Brothers.  Still, nine years ago this week, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump pledged that “the support networks for Radical Islam in this country will be stripped out and removed one by one.” That's a promise made that must be kept now. This is Frank Gaffney.

O TikTok Shop chegou com força ao Brasil, oferecendo a possibilidade de comprar produtos sem sair do aplicativo. Mas, junto com as vantagens, vieram também os golpes. No episódio de hoje do Podcast Canaltech, conversamos com Zé Lucas Dias, analista de criação da LOI, que explica como funciona a plataforma, quais armadilhas são mais comuns e o que usuários, criadores e marcas podem fazer para se proteger. Você também vai conferir: GPT-5 chega para todos, Anatel endurece regras contra ligações e SMS abusivos, celular que solta perfume chega ao Brasil, power bank pega fogo em voo da KLM que saiu de SP e Musk libera IA de vídeos de graça, mas só em um país Este podcast foi roteirizado e apresentado por Fernanda Santos e contou com reportagens de Emanuele Almeida, Wendel Martins, Vinicius Moschen e Bruno de Blasi. A trilha sonora é de Guilherme Zomer, a edição de Jully Cruz e a arte da capa é de Erick Teixeira. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

O apresentador Eduardo Moura conversa com Quetelin Rodrigues, a Queki, do projeto A Voz da Torcida, sobre a derrota para o Fluminense pela 18ª rodada do Campeonato Brasileiro. A representante da torcida desabafa diante dos problemas vistos não somente no Maracanã, mas durante a temporada inteira. Como acreditar que a situação pode melhorar? Dê o play e ouça.

Abertura dos trabalhos na Amorosidade

Abertura dos trabalhos na Amorosidade

Alexandre Garcia comenta defesa de Alexandre de Moraes feita por Sarney, movimentações do STF, mudança de empresas para o Paraguai, e China avisando que não comprará ainda mais produtos brasileiros.

Alexandre Garcia comenta próximos passos depois de Lei Magnitsky contra Alexandre de Moraes, caso de Carla Zambelli e decisão do Copom sobre Selic.

Líder do governo no Senado diz não acreditar no adiamento das tarifas de Trump. E depois de Netanyahu negar fome em Gaza, Trump afirma que não está convencido pelo premiê.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ultrapassada a primeira metade de 2025, será que os consumidores europeus continuam a apostar nos veículos eléctricos ou esta moda ficou para trás? E os eléctricos chineses são mesmo uma ameaça?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Após cinco anos à frente do Banco de Portugal, Mário Centeno continua tão polémico quanto no primeiro dia. Irá o projeto de construção da nova sede do banco central custar-lhe a recondução?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Após cinco anos à frente do Banco de Portugal, Mário Centeno continua tão polémico quanto no primeiro dia. Irá o projeto de construção da nova sede do banco central custar-lhe a recondução?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Antônio Martins disse que com o bolsonarismo em baixa, o Centrão deve evitar anistia, ele também apontou que é fundamental derrubar o arcabouço fiscal

Devocional do dia 19/07/2025 com o Tema: "Firme e seguro" Talvez você já tenha levado um tombo na rua – vinha andando ou correndo distraído e tropeçou numa pequena elevação ou pisou num buraco. Quando isso acontece, ficamos constrangidos e logo nos levantamos, olhando para os lados para ter certeza de que ninguém esteja vendo. Cair, embora não seja uma coisa comum, pode acontecer. LEITURA BÍBLICA: Salmo 37.22-24 Tu, [SENHOR], alargas o caminho sob os meus passos para que os meus tornozelos não se torçam (2Sm 22.37).See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No Mercoscast 158, Felipe Almeida, diretor comercial da HPrime, se junta a Afonso Tonelli e Marcelo Caetano para um bate-papo descontraído e muito importante sobre estratégia comercial. A conversa traz reflexões práticas sobre: ✅ O que está matando sua estratégia sem você perceber ✅ Por que focar só no “como” sem entender o “porquê” atrasa os resultados ✅ Como mudar a rota da operação sem perder o time no processo ✅ O papel do representante dentro da estratégia da indústria ✅ Quando a tecnologia deixa de ser ferramenta de apoio e passa a ser parte central da estratégia Um episódio para quem precisa tirar o comercial do modo automático e assumir o controle da operação.

Produtores de trigo de todo o mundo estão de olho na movimentação da Rússia ao longo do mês de julho. Isso porque o país foi taxado em 100% por Donald Trump, e a tendência é que os russos acelerem as vendas do cereal antes de primeiro de agosto, quando a tributação entra em vigor. Vlamir Brandalizze avalia esse cenário e comenta sobre o mercado brasileiro, ainda tímido e com poucos negócios.

Pergunta 106 - Pelo que oramos na Sexta petição?R: Na Sexta petição, que é: “E não nos deixes cair em tentação, mas livra-nos do mal”, pedimos que Deus nos guarde de sermos tentados a pecar, ou nos preserve e livre, quando formos tentados. Ref.: Mt 26.41; Sl 19.13; I Co 10.13; Sl 51.10,12

Após números expressivos nas exportações ao longo do primeiro semestre de 2025, a pecuária brasileira se viu ameaçada pelas tarifas impostas por Donald Trump de 50%. Uma boa parcela da proteína importada pelos Estados Unidos é do Brasil. De acordo com Vlamir Brandalizze, após o anúncio do presidente americano, as cotações dos bovinos já iniciaram uma pressão de baixa. Fornecimento para a China pode ser alternativa até que haja um acordo entre brasileiros e norte-americanos.

O "Ulrich Responde" é uma série de vídeos onde respondo perguntas enviadas por membros do canal e seguidores, abordando temas de economia, finanças e investimentos. Oferecemos uma análise profunda, trazendo informações para quem quer entender melhor a economia e tomar decisões financeiras mais informadas.00:00 – Nesse episódio...01:03 – Acredita em dólar a R$5,00?02:45 – Lula vai deixar a conta para o próximo presidente?04:14 – A relação M2 e PIB serve como índice de inflação?05:20 – Existe a possibilidade de valorização dos ativos pela escassez e não pela inflação?06:52 – O mercado está convencido de que a economia dos EUA é mais resiliente do que imaginavam?08:32 – Se pararem de inflacionar as moedas, o Bitcoin perde seu valor?10:20 – O IOF de Trump passou na aprovação da Big Beautiful Bill?13:05 – O mercado não liga mais para a dívida americana?14:04 – O que faria no lugar de Jerome Powell?16:35 – Esse ataque ao Bacen será um pretexto para uma restrição maior às criptomoedas e o Bitcoin?19:25 – Seria o DREX e as CBDCs tão seguras quanto as demais criptomoedas?20:30 – Algo vai mudar após esse roubo ao Bacen?22:42 – Selic pode cair sem provocar uma subida forte do dólar?23:25 – Qual o melhor livros sobre a TACE?25:27 – Para onde foi todo o dinheiro do Bacen?27:53 – Como fazer uma boa alocação de ativos?30:20 – Países menores tendem a ser mais livres?32:00 – Por que o Rio Grande do Sul está parado no tempo em desenvolvimento?33:52 – Como seguir vivendo no Brasil com tanta notícia ruim todo dia?35:33 – Esse é o momento de marcação a mercado com IPCA+?36:22 – O que está lendo no momento?

Sete anos depois de ter chegado ao poder, aprovando uma moção de censura contra o governo popular de Mariano Rajoy, envolto em escândalos de corrupção, chegou a vez do governo socialista de Pedro Sánchez estar na corda bamba, também marcado por problemas com a justiça. Neste episódio, conversamos com o editor de Internacional, Pedro Cordeiro.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, Iran's nuclear ambitions and ballistic missile development pose an existential threat to Israel and American civilization, which cannot be ignored. Israel, possibly with U.S. assistance, will take military action to neutralize this threat, as Iran will not go away on its own. Iran's actions, including attacks via proxies and American casualties, demand a decisive military response, which is self-defense rather than nation-building. These radical Democrats, fifth-columnists, and isolationists lack any strategy and moral clarity. Also, the people of Israel are never discussed by the media. They face severe challenges every day, especially in Tel Aviv, where ballistic missiles from Iran target hospitals and public areas, forcing families into bomb shelters. They are in constant fear with a disrupted quality of life. Media outlets ignore these struggles and ignore the regime's history of killing and maiming American soldiers. Later, Zuhdi Jasser calls in and addresses the mindset of the isolationists and fifth columnists who deliberately ignore the existential threat posed by Iran's theocratic regime and its proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis. He emphasizes that these groups are driven by a radical theology that glorifies suicide bombing, chaos, and the targeting of non-combatants, with the ultimate goal of triggering an apocalyptic scenario tied to the return of the 12th Imam. Jasser asserts that Iran's uranium enrichment is clearly aimed at developing nuclear weapons, not peaceful purposes, and warns that the regime would use such weapons, likening its leadership to a cult willing to commit national fratricide. Finally, Sayyid Qutb's book Milestones, promotes pure Islam and strict shariah, rejecting Western values and most modern Muslims as ignorant (jahiliyyah). Groups like CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, MSA, and MPAC dismiss devout Muslims who oppose their views. Qutb's ideas fuel sectarian violence and terrorism by groups like Hamas and al-Qaida, and states like Iran, which pursues nuclear weapons through deception (taqiyya). Western appeasement fails to counter this clash with democratic values. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Israel poderá estar a aproveitar a fraqueza do Irão para infligir uma derrota ao inimigo. E o que se seguiria? Paulo Baptista Ramos, especialista em Relações Internacionais, é o nosso convidado.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Israel poderá estar a aproveitar a fraqueza do Irão para infligir uma derrota ao inimigo. E o que se seguiria? Paulo Baptista Ramos, especialista em Relações Internacionais, é o nosso convidado.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

00:00 Preso na corrida dos ratos01:02 A ilusão da segurança no emprego02:51 O sistema de ensino te treinou pra ser peão04:09 O governo te esfola vivo06:08 O erro fatal08:02 A grande reflexão

"Adversidade, sonho, cair, voltar a levantar; tudo o que acontece no futebol é o que acontece na nossa vida." Quem é o homem que levou Portugal à conquista da Liga das Nações? A história de vida de Roberto Martínez, contada pelo próprio, nesta emissão do Alta Definição em podcast de 16 de março de 2024, com Daniel Oliveira. "Quero melhorar o meu português, poder sentir o que o povo português sente pela seleção e preciso de mais vocabulário para isso; estou aqui para representar o futebol português, para tentar ajudar o futebol português", dizia o selecionador nacional português antes de rumar ao Euro 2024 e de consquistar a Liga das Nações 2025. Nesta conversa franca e intimista com Daniel Oliveira, Roberto Martinez partilha o seu percurso como como homem, pai e treinador, destacando a dor da distância, a importância da honestidade e do equilíbrio entre carreira e vida pessoal. Martinez reflete sobre saúde mental, liderança e legado: "Quero transmitir às minhas filhas que podem tudo, mas com valores. As minhas filhas nasceram na Inglaterra, tiveram sete anos na Bélgica, agora estamos em Portugal. Preocupa-me que pode ser um problema não ter raízes, mas há uma riqueza. A outra parte é que as meninas falam três idiomas, têm culturas diferentes, gostam de patriotismo", conta. O Alta Definição de março de 2024 foi novamente emitido a 14 de junho de 2025, na SIC.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Nesta segunda parte do podcast “A Beleza das Pequenas Coisas”, o ator Filipe Vargas fala dos novos desafios profissionais que vêm aí, como a condução de um podcast da sua autoria ou a estreia num musical. E revela como a sua rede de amigos, a terapia e a ajuda médica o impediram de cair após uma fase difícil a acompanhar o último capítulo da vida dos pais. Filipe partilha ainda as estratégias que usa para não cair na armadilha de amargar com a idade, os prazeres quotidianos, as músicas que o acompanham e deixa uma generosa lista de sugestões culturais que merecem ser escutadas com atenção e um bloco de notas. Boas escutas!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

A Bolsa está barata? Ou só parece?As utilities subiram 40% e o Ibovespa não mostra a real foto da Bolsa. Fundos de valor perderam espaço. Os fundos de momentum amplificaram os movimentos. O FOMO tomou conta da indústria. E ainda tem a eleição — que pode definir se a trajetória da dívida vai fechar ou explodir.É, num cenário desses, confiar só em narrativa pode custar caro.Por isso, o Stock Pickers convidou Gustavo Constantino, sócio e CIO da Távola Capital, uma das gestoras mais técnicas e criteriosas do mercado. Com a gente, ele discutiu se ainda faz sentido falar que a bolsa está barata, como a Távola tenta precificar o risco político no valuation dos ativos, e quais são hoje suas principais convicções.Uma aula sobre disciplina de valuation, análise de risco e como fugir da histeria coletiva do mercado.Aperta o play, porque esse episódio é pra quem realmente quer entender o jogo.________________PLANILHA AGENDA DE DIVIDENDOSAcompanhe datas de pagamento, data com e data ex com uma planilha gratuita e sempre atualizada: https://www.infomoney.com.br/conteudos/planilhas/agenda-de-dividendos/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=canal-infomoney&utm_campaign=adi &utm_term=hiperlink&utm_content=descricao________________Cadastre-se e receba InfoMoney Premium, uma seleção única do melhor conteúdo produzido pelo maior ecossistema de informação financeira do Brasil: https://lps.infomoney.com.br/infomoney-premium-inscricao/?utm_source=youtube&utm_medium=canal-infomoney&utm_campaign=imp&utm_term=hiperlink&utm_content=descricao

NATO pode deixar cair adesão da Ucrânia. Vítor Gabriel Oliveira acredita que pode ser resultado das negociações entre Washington e Mark Rutte. Governo de Netanayahu pode cair, mas tem “várias vidas”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

No Brasil, alerta aceso para austeridade fiscal e pacote do IOF

O ministro Alexandre de Moraes, do STF, reformou seu voto em julgamento sobre a possibilidade de intervenção da Corte na Assembleia Legislativa do Maranhão após ter embarcado em uma argumentação equivocada do partido Solidariedade.Felipe Moura Brasil e Duda Teixeira comentam:Papo Antagonista é o programa que explica e debate os principais acontecimentos do   dia com análises críticas e aprofundadas sobre a política brasileira e seus bastidores.     Apresentado por Felipe Moura Brasil, o programa traz contexto e opinião sobre os temas mais quentes da atualidade.     Com foco em jornalismo, eleições e debate, é um espaço essencial para quem busca informação de qualidade.     Ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira às 18h.    Não espere mais, assine agora e garanta 2 anos com 30% OFF - últimos dias.   2 anos de assinatura do combo O Antagonista e Crusoé com um super desconto de 30% adicional* utilizando o voucher 10A-PROMO30 Use o cupom 10A-PROMO30 e assine agora:  papo-antagonista (https://bit.ly/promo-2anos-papo)   (*) desconto de 30% aplicado sobre os valores promocionais vigentes do Combo anual | Promoções não cumulativas com outras campanhas vigentes. | **Promoção válida só até o dia 31/05 

In this episode of The Dental Brief, host Patrick Chavoustie and guest Dr. Bryan Laskin uncover the costly systems holding dental practices back and reveal how connected dentistry is changing everything. From broken data flow to patient engagement gaps, learn how platforms like ToothApps and CAIR are helping dentists modernize, improve care, and operate more efficiently.  About the guest: Dr. Bryan Laskin is a Minnesota dentist and tech entrepreneur on a mission to connect dentistry by breaking down the silos that exist between dentists and their patients, their teams and their data.CEO and Co-Founder of Toothapps, as well as creator of Lake Minnetonka Dental, Upgrade Dental, Digital Nitrous, OperaDDS and Dental Standards Institute, Dr. Laskin is an advisor to many progressive healthcare companies. He is the author of the Amazon best selling books “The Patient First Manifesto" and “Dental Disorder” and the host of "The Patient First Podcast".Learn more here: www.toothapps.com ***** SPONSOR: – Omni Premier Marketing: https://omnipremier.com/dental-marketing/ CONNECT: – Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thedentalbrief/ – Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedentalbriefpodcast/ – LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dental-brief-podcast-564267217 – Patrick's LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pchavoustie/– Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd08JzybKfNH0v12Q9jf50w WEBSITE: – https://dentalbrief.com/

Listen to ASCO's JCO Oncology Practice, Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last” by Dr. David Johnson, who is a clinical oncologist at University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. The article is followed by an interview with Johnson and host Dr. Mikkael Sekeres. Through humor and irony, Johnson critiques how overspecialization and poor presentation practices have eroded what was once internal medicine's premier educational forum. Transcript Narrator: An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last, by David H. Johnson, MD, MACP, FASCO   Over the past five decades, I have attended hundreds of medical conferences—some insightful and illuminating, others tedious and forgettable. Among these countless gatherings, Medical Grand Rounds (MGRs) has always held a special place. Originally conceived as a forum for discussing complex clinical cases, emerging research, and best practices in patient care, MGRs served as a unifying platform for clinicians across all specialties, along with medical students, residents, and other health care professionals. Expert speakers—whether esteemed faculty or distinguished guests—would discuss challenging cases, using them as a springboard to explore the latest advances in diagnosis and treatment. During my early years as a medical student, resident, and junior faculty member, Grand Rounds consistently attracted large, engaged audiences. However, as medicine became increasingly subspecialized, attendance began to wane. Lectures grew more technically intricate, often straying from broad clinical relevance. The patient-centered discussions that once brought together diverse medical professionals gradually gave way to hyperspecialized presentations. Subspecialists, once eager to share their insights with the wider medical community, increasingly withdrew to their own specialty-specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. As a former Chair of Internal Medicine and a veteran of numerous MGRs, I observed firsthand how these sessions shifted from dynamic educational exchanges to highly specialized, often impenetrable discussions. One of the most striking trends in recent years has been the decline in presentation quality at MGR—even among local and visiting world-renowned experts. While these speakers are often brilliant clinicians and investigators, they can also be remarkably poor lecturers, delivering some of the most uninspiring talks I have encountered. Their presentations are so consistently lackluster that one might suspect an underlying strategy at play—an unspoken method to ensure that they are never invited back. Having observed this pattern repeatedly, I am convinced that these speakers must be adhering to a set of unwritten rules to avoid future MGR presentations. To assist those unfamiliar with this apparent strategy, I have distilled the key principles that, when followed correctly, all but guarantee that a presenter will not be asked to give another MGR lecture—thus sparing them the burden of preparing one in the future. Drawing on my experience as an oncologist, I illustrate these principles using an oncology-based example although I suspect similar rules apply across other subspecialties. It will be up to my colleagues in cardiology, endocrinology, rheumatology, and beyond to identify and document their own versions—tasks for which I claim no expertise. What follows are the seven “Rules for Presenting a Bad Medical Oncology Medical Grand Rounds.” 1.  Microscopic Mayhem: Always begin with an excruciatingly detailed breakdown of the tumor's histology and molecular markers, emphasizing how these have evolved over the years (eg, PAP v prostate-specific antigen)—except, of course, when they have not (eg, estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, etc). These nuances, while of limited relevance to general internists or most subspecialists (aside from oncologists), are guaranteed to induce eye-glazing boredom and quiet despair among your audience. 2. TNM Torture: Next, cover every nuance of the newest staging system … this is always a real crowd pleaser. For illustrative purposes, show a TNM chart in the smallest possible font. It is particularly helpful if you provide a lengthy review of previous versions of the staging system and painstakingly cover each and every change in the system. Importantly, this activity will allow you to disavow the relevance of all previous literature studies to which you will subsequently refer during the course of your presentation … to wit—“these data are based on the OLD staging system and therefore may not pertain …” This phrase is pure gold—use it often if you can. NB: You will know you have “captured” your audience if you observe audience members “shifting in their seats” … it occurs almost every time … but if you have failed to “move” the audience … by all means, continue reading … there is more! 3. Mechanism of Action Meltdown: Discuss in detail every drug ever used to treat the cancer under discussion; this works best if you also give a detailed description of each drug's mechanism of action (MOA). General internists and subspecialists just LOVE hearing a detailed discussion of the drug's MOA … especially if it is not at all relevant to the objectives of your talk. At this point, if you observe a wave of slack-jawed faces slowly slumping toward their desktops, you will know you are on your way to successfully crushing your audience's collective spirit. Keep going—you are almost there. 4. Dosage Deadlock: One must discuss “dose response” … there is absolutely nothing like a dose response presentation to a group of internists to induce cries of anguish. A wonderful example of how one might weave this into a lecture to generalists or a mixed audience of subspecialists is to discuss details that ONLY an oncologist would care about—such as the need to dose escalate imatinib in GIST patients with exon 9 mutations as compared with those with exon 11 mutations. This is a definite winner! 5. Criteria Catatonia: Do not forget to discuss the newest computed tomography or positron emission tomography criteria for determining response … especially if you plan to discuss an obscure malignancy that even oncologists rarely encounter (eg, esthesioneuroblastoma). Should you plan to discuss a common disease you can ensure ennui only if you will spend extra time discussing RECIST criteria. Now if you do this well, some audience members may begin fashioning their breakfast burritos into projectiles—each one aimed squarely at YOU. Be brave … soldier on! 6. Kaplan-Meier Killer: Make sure to discuss the arcane details of multiple negative phase II and III trials pertaining to the cancer under discussion. It is best to show several inconsequential and hard-to-read Kaplan-Meier plots. To make sure that you do a bad job, divide this portion of your presentation into two sections … one focused on adjuvant treatment; the second part should consist of a long boring soliloquy on the management of metastatic disease. Provide detailed information of little interest even to the most ardent fan of the disease you are discussing. This alone will almost certainly ensure that you will never, ever be asked to give Medicine Grand Rounds again. 7. Lymph Node Lobotomy: For the coup de grâce, be sure to include an exhaustive discussion of the latest surgical techniques, down to the precise number of lymph nodes required for an “adequate dissection.” To be fair, such details can be invaluable in specialized settings like a tumor board, where they send subspecialists into rapturous delight. But in the context of MGR—where the audience spans multiple disciplines—it will almost certainly induce a stultifying torpor. If dullness were an art, this would be its masterpiece—capable of lulling even the most caffeinated minds into a stupor. If you have carefully followed the above set of rules, at this point, some members of the audience should be banging their heads against the nearest hard surface. If you then hear a loud THUD … and you're still standing … you will know you have succeeded in giving the world's worst Medical Grand Rounds!   Final Thoughts I hope that these rules shed light on what makes for a truly dreadful oncology MGR presentation—which, by inverse reasoning, might just serve as a blueprint for an excellent one. At its best, an outstanding lecture defies expectations. One of the most memorable MGRs I have attended, for instance, was on prostaglandin function—not a subject typically associated with edge-of-your-seat suspense. Given by a biochemist and physician from another subspecialty, it could have easily devolved into a labyrinth of enzymatic pathways and chemical structures. Instead, the speaker took a different approach: rather than focusing on biochemical minutiae, he illustrated how prostaglandins influence nearly every major physiologic system—modulating inflammation, regulating cardiovascular function, protecting the gut, aiding reproduction, supporting renal function, and even influencing the nervous system—without a single slide depicting the prostaglandin structure. The result? A room full of clinicians—not biochemists—walked away with a far richer understanding of how prostaglandins affect their daily practice. What is even more remarkable is that the talk's clarity did not just inform—it sparked new collaborations that shaped years of NIH-funded research. Now that was an MGR masterpiece. At its core, effective scientific communication boils down to three deceptively simple principles: understanding your audience, focusing on relevance, and making complex information accessible.2 The best MGRs do not drown the audience in details, but rather illuminate why those details matter. A great lecture is not about showing how much you know, but about ensuring your audience leaves knowing something they didn't before. For those who prefer the structured wisdom of a written guide over the ramblings of a curmudgeon, an excellent review of these principles—complete with a handy checklist—is available.2 But fair warning: if you follow these principles, you may find yourself invited back to present another stellar MGRs. Perish the thought! Dr. Mikkael SekeresHello and welcome to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology, which features essays and personal reflections from authors exploring their experience in the oncology field. I'm your host, Mikkael Sekeres. I'm Professor of Medicine and Chief of the Division of Hematology at the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami.  What a pleasure it is today to be joined by Dr. David Johnson, clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School. In this episode, we will be discussing his Art of Oncology Practice article, "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Our guest's disclosures will be linked in the transcript.  David, welcome to our podcast and thanks so much for joining us. Dr. David JohnsonGreat to be here, Mikkael. Thanks for inviting me. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI was wondering if we could start with just- give us a sense about you. Can you tell us about yourself? Where are you from? And walk us through your career. Dr. David JohnsonSure. I grew up in a small rural community in Northwest Georgia about 30 miles south of Chattanooga, Tennessee, in the Appalachian Mountains. I met my wife in kindergarten. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh my. Dr. David JohnsonThere are laws in Georgia. We didn't get married till the third grade. But we dated in high school and got married after college. And so we've literally been with one another my entire life, our entire lives. Dr. Mikkael SekeresMy word. Dr. David JohnsonI went to medical school in Georgia. I did my training in multiple sites, including my oncology training at Vanderbilt, where I completed my training. I spent the next 30 years there, where I had a wonderful career. Got an opportunity to be a Division Chief and a Deputy Director of, and the founder of, a cancer center there. And in 2010, I was recruited to UT Southwestern as the Chairman of Medicine. Not a position I had particularly aspired to, but I was interested in taking on that challenge, and it proved to be quite a challenge for me. I had to relearn internal medicine, and really all the subspecialties of medicine really became quite challenging to me. So my career has spanned sort of the entire spectrum, I suppose, as a clinical investigator, as an administrator, and now as a near end-of-my-career guy who writes ridiculous articles about grand rounds. Dr. Mikkael SekeresNot ridiculous at all. It was terrific. What was that like, having to retool? And this is a theme you cover a little bit in your essay, also, from something that's super specialized. I mean, you have had this storied career with the focus on lung cancer, and then having to expand not only to all of hematology oncology, but all of medicine. Dr. David JohnsonIt was a challenge, but it was also incredibly fun. My first few days in the chair's office, I met with a number of individuals, but perhaps the most important individuals I met with were the incoming chief residents who were, and are, brilliant men and women. And we made a pact. I promised to teach them as much as I could about oncology if they would teach me as much as they could about internal medicine. And so I spent that first year literally trying to relearn medicine. And I had great teachers. Several of those chiefs are now on the faculty here or elsewhere. And that continued on for the next several years. Every group of chief residents imparted their wisdom to me, and I gave them what little bit I could provide back to them in the oncology world. It was a lot of fun. And I have to say, I don't necessarily recommend everybody go into administration. It's not necessarily the most fun thing in the world to do. But the opportunity to deal one-on-one closely with really brilliant men and women like the chief residents was probably the highlight of my time as Chair of Medicine. Dr. Mikkael SekeresThat sounds incredible. I can imagine, just reflecting over the two decades that I've been in hematology oncology and thinking about the changes in how we diagnose and care for people over that time period, I can only imagine what the changes had been in internal medicine since I was last immersed in that, which would be my residency. Dr. David JohnsonWell, I trained in the 70s in internal medicine, and what transpired in the 70s was kind of ‘monkey see, monkey do'. We didn't really have a lot of understanding of pathophysiology except at the most basic level. Things have changed enormously, as you well know, certainly in the field of oncology and hematology, but in all the other fields as well. And so I came in with what I thought was a pretty good foundation of knowledge, and I realized it was completely worthless, what I had learned as an intern and resident. And when I say I had to relearn medicine, I mean, I had to relearn medicine. It was like being an intern. Actually, it was like being a medical student all over again. Dr. Mikkael SekeresOh, wow. Dr. David JohnsonSo it's quite challenging.  Dr. Mikkael SekeresWell, and it's just so interesting. You're so deliberate in your writing and thinking through something like grand rounds. It's not a surprise, David, that you were also deliberate in how you were going to approach relearning medicine. So I wonder if we could pivot to talking about grand rounds, because part of being a Chair of Medicine, of course, is having Department of Medicine grand rounds. And whether those are in a cancer center or a department of medicine, it's an honor to be invited to give a grand rounds talk. How do you think grand rounds have changed over the past few decades? Can you give an example of what grand rounds looked like in the 1990s compared to what they look like now? Dr. David JohnsonWell, I should all go back to the 70s and and talk about grand rounds in the 70s. And I referenced an article in my essay written by Dr. Ingelfinger, who many people remember Dr. Ingelfinger as the Ingelfinger Rule, which the New England Journal used to apply. You couldn't publish in the New England Journal if you had published or publicly presented your data prior to its presentation in the New England Journal. Anyway, Dr. Ingelfinger wrote an article which, as I say, I referenced in my essay, about the graying of grand rounds, when he talked about what grand rounds used to be like. It was a very almost sacred event where patients were presented, and then experts in the field would discuss the case and impart to the audience their wisdom and knowledge garnered over years of caring for patients with that particular problem, might- a disease like AML, or lung cancer, or adrenal insufficiency, and talk about it not just from a pathophysiologic standpoint, but from a clinician standpoint. How do these patients present? What do you do? How do you go about diagnosing and what can you do to take care of those kinds of patients? It was very patient-centric. And often times the patient, him or herself, was presented at the grand rounds. And then experts sitting in the front row would often query the speaker and put him or her under a lot of stress to answer very specific questions about the case or about the disease itself.  Over time, that evolved, and some would say devolved, but evolved into more specialized and nuanced presentations, generally without a patient present, or maybe even not even referred to, but very specifically about the molecular biology of disease, which is marvelous and wonderful to talk about, but not necessarily in a grand round setting where you've got cardiologists sitting next to endocrinologists, seated next to nephrologists, seated next to primary care physicians and, you know, an MS1 and an MS2 and et cetera. So it was very evident to me that what I had witnessed in my early years in medicine had really become more and more subspecialized. As a result, grand rounds, which used to be packed and standing room only, became echo chambers. It was like a C-SPAN presentation, you know, where local representative got up and gave a talk and the chambers were completely empty. And so we had to go to do things like force people to attend grand rounds like a Soviet Union-style rally or something, you know. You have to pay them to go. But it was really that observation that got me to thinking about it.  And by the way, I love oncology and I'm, I think there's so much exciting progress that's being made that I want the presentations to be exciting to everybody, not just to the oncologist or the hematologist, for example. And what I was witnessing was kind of a formula that, almost like a pancake formula, that everybody followed the same rules. You know, “This disease is the third most common cancer and it presents in this way and that way.” And it was very, very formulaic. It wasn't energizing and exciting as it had been when we were discussing individual patients. So, you know, it just is what it is. I mean, progress is progress and you can't stop it. And I'm not trying to make America great again, you know, by going back to the 70s, but I do think sometimes we overthink what medical grand rounds ought to be as compared to a presentation at ASH or ASCO where you're talking to subspecialists who understand the nuances and you don't have to explain the abbreviations, you know, that type of thing. Dr. Mikkael SekeresSo I wonder, you talk about the echo chamber of the grand rounds nowadays, right? It's not as well attended. It used to be a packed event, and it used to be almost a who's who of, of who's in the department. You'd see some very famous people who would attend every grand rounds and some up-and-comers, and it was a chance for the chief residents to shine as well. How do you think COVID and the use of Zoom has changed the personality and energy of grand rounds? Is it better because, frankly, more people attend—they just attend virtually. Last time I attended, I mean, I attend our Department of Medicine grand rounds weekly, and I'll often see 150, 200 people on the Zoom. Or is it worse because the interaction's limited? Dr. David JohnsonYeah, I don't want to be one of those old curmudgeons that says, you know, the way it used to be is always better. But there's no question that the convenience of Zoom or similar media, virtual events, is remarkable. I do like being able to sit in my office where I am right now and watch a conference across campus that I don't have to walk 30 minutes to get to. I like that, although I need the exercise. But at the same time, I think one of the most important aspects of coming together is lost with virtual meetings, and that's the casual conversation that takes place. I mentioned in my essay an example of the grand rounds that I attended given by someone in a different specialty who was both a physician and a PhD in biochemistry, and he was talking about prostaglandin metabolism. And talk about a yawner of a title; you almost have to prop your eyelids open with toothpicks. But it turned out to be one of the most fascinating, engaging conversations I've ever encountered. And moreover, it completely opened my eyes to an area of research that I had not been exposed to at all. And it became immediately obvious to me that it was relevant to the area of my interest, which was lung cancer. This individual happened to be just studying colon cancer. He's not an oncologist, but he was studying colon cancer. But it was really interesting what he was talking about. And he made it very relevant to every subspecialist and generalist in the audience because he talked about how prostaglandin has made a difference in various aspects of human physiology.  The other grand rounds which always sticks in my mind was presented by a long standing program director at my former institution of Vanderbilt. He's passed away many years ago, but he gave a fascinating grand rounds where he presented the case of a homeless person. I can't remember the title of his grand rounds exactly, but I think it was “Care of the Homeless” or something like that. So again, not something that necessarily had people rushing to the audience. What he did is he presented this case as a mysterious case, you know, “what is it?” And he slowly built up the presentation of this individual who repeatedly came to the emergency department for various and sundry complaints. And to make a long story short, he presented a case that turned out to be lead poisoning. Everybody was on the edge of their seat trying to figure out what it was. And he was challenging members of the audience and senior members of the audience, including the Cair, and saying, “What do you think?” And it turned out that the patient became intoxicated not by eating paint chips or drinking lead infused liquids. He was burning car batteries to stay alive and inhaling lead fumes, which itself was fascinating, you know, so it was a fabulous grand rounds. And I mean, everybody learned something about the disease that they might otherwise have ignored, you know, if it'd been a title “Lead Poisoning”, I'm not sure a lot of people would have shown up. Dr. Mikkael Sekeres That story, David, reminds me of Tracy Kidder, who's a master of the nonfiction narrative, will choose a subject and kind of just go into great depth about it, and that subject could be a person. And he wrote a book called Rough Sleepers about Jim O'Connell - and Jim O'Connell was one of my attendings when I did my residency at Mass General - and about his life and what he learned about the homeless. And it's this same kind of engaging, “Wow, I never thought about that.” And it takes you in a different direction.  And you know, in your essay, you make a really interesting comment. You reflect that subspecialists, once eager to share their insight with the wider medical community, increasingly withdraw to their own specialty specific conferences, further fragmenting the exchange of knowledge across disciplines. How do you think this affects their ability to gain new insights into their research when they hear from a broader audience and get questions that they usually don't face, as opposed to being sucked into the groupthink of other subspecialists who are similarly isolated? Dr. David Johnson That's one of the reasons I chose to illustrate that prostaglandin presentation, because again, that was not something that I specifically knew much about. And as I said, I went to the grand rounds more out of a sense of obligation than a sense of engagement. Moreover, our Chair at that institution forced us to go, so I was there, not by choice, but I'm so glad I was, because like you say, I got insight into an area that I had not really thought about and that cross pollination and fertilization is really a critical aspect. I think that you can gain at a broad conference like Medical Grand Rounds as opposed to a niche conference where you're talking about APL. You know, everybody's an APL expert, but they never thought about diabetes and how that might impact on their research. So it's not like there's an ‘aha' moment at every Grand Rounds, but I do think that those kinds of broad based audiences can sometimes bring a different perspective that even the speaker, him or herself had not thought of. Dr. Mikkael SekeresI think that's a great place to end and to thank David Johnson, who's a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and just penned the essay in JCO Art of Oncology Practice entitled "An Oncologist's Guide to Ensuring Your First Medical Grand Rounds Will Be Your Last."  Until next time, thank you for listening to JCO's Cancer Stories: The Art of Oncology. Don't forget to give us a rating or review, and be sure to subscribe so you never miss an episode. You can find all of ASCO's shows at asco.org/podcasts.  David, once again, I want to thank you for joining me today. Dr. David JohnsonThank you very much for having me. The purpose of this podcast is to educate and to inform. This is not a substitute for professional medical care and is not intended for use in the diagnosis or treatment of individual conditions. Guests on this podcast express their own opinions, experience, and conclusions. Guest statements on the podcast do not express the opinions of ASCO. The mention of any product, service, organization, activity, or therapy should not be construed as an ASCO endorsement.    Show notes: Like, share and subscribe so you never miss an episode and leave a rating or review.  Guest Bio: Dr David Johnson is a clinical oncologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School.

O Bate-Pronto de hoje debaterá a nova crise interna na CBF, que pode resultar até na destituição do presidente Ednaldo Rodrigues. O programa também atualizará as principais informações do futebol mundial.

Muito bom dia, boa tarde e boa noite queridos ouvintes, meu nome é Sérgio Sacani, sou editor do blog Space Today e do canal Space Today no Youtube e trago para vocês mais uma edição do podcast Horizonte de Eventos.E no programa de hoje!!!Vamos desenterrar a incrível e pouco conhecida saga da Kosmos 482, uma missão soviética destinada a Vênus em 1972 que falhou logo após o lançamento. Descobriremos como essa falha, em plena Guerra Fria, levou à queda de destroços misteriosos na Nova Zelândia e deixou uma cápsula espacial, um verdadeiro 'fantasma de Vênus', orbitando a Terra por mais de 50 anos! Exploraremos os desafios de pousar no inferno venusiano, os segredos por trás da missão, sua longa jornada orbital e o que sua história nos ensina sobre a exploração espacial e o crescente problema do lixo espacial.Então você já sabe, se prepara, chegou a hora da ciência invadir o seu cérebro!!!!Imaginem o cenário: estamos em 1972, no auge da Corrida Espacial. A União Soviética, após ver os americanos cravarem a bandeira na Lua, está determinada a manter sua dianteira na exploração dos planetas. O alvo da vez é Vênus, o nosso vizinho mais próximo, um mundo coberto por nuvens densas e com uma superfície tão hostil que desafia a imaginação. Uma nave sofisticada, parte do lendário programa Venera, é lançada com a missão de penetrar essa atmosfera esmagadora e talvez até pousar em solo venusiano.Mas algo, algo crucial, dá terrivelmente errado logo após o lançamento. O último estágio do foguete falha. A nave, em vez de seguir sua jornada interplanetária, fica presa, girando e girando ao redor da Terra numa órbita elíptica e instável, como um **carro que patina no gelo e não consegue sair do lugar**. O que poderia ter acontecido?E a história só fica mais estranha a partir daí.Poucos dias depois, objetos metálicos misteriosos começam a cair do céu na Nova Zelândia, do outro lado do mundo, causando espanto e teorias mirabolantes. Eram esferas de titânio com inscrições em russo! Seriam destroços da missão fracassada? O governo soviético nega veementemente qualquer relação. Por que tanto segredo?Enquanto isso, a nave principal se desfaz em órbita, seus pedaços reentrando na atmosfera ao longo dos anos... exceto um. Um fragmento específico, que muitos acreditam ser a parte mais importante da missão – a cápsula de descida, projetada para suportar o inferno de Vênus – permanece lá em cima. Por décadas! Cinquenta anos orbitando a Terra como um espectro silencioso da Guerra Fria, um segredo soviético flutuando no espaço, como uma **mensagem numa garrafa que nunca chegou ao seu destino**. O que aconteceu com essa cápsula? Ela ainda está lá? Ou já caiu?O que era exatamente essa missão Venera-72? Por que ela falhou de forma tão dramática? Que segredos essa cápsula perdida guardou por tanto tempo em sua jornada solitária? E o que a queda dos seus destroços nos ensina sobre a exploração espacial e seus perigos?Para entendermos completamente a história da Kosmos 482, precisamos primeiro ajustar nossos relógios e calendários. Voltemos para o início da década de 1970, mais precisamente para o ano de 1972. A Guerra Fria, aquela disputa tensa e multifacetada entre os Estados Unidos e a União Soviética, estava em pleno vapor, e um dos seus palcos mais visíveis e simbólicos era, sem dúvida, o espaço. Mas por que o espaço se tornou um campo de batalha tão importante nessa disputa ideológica?

Confira mais um episódio do PFC Debate. Falamos de todos os assuntos possíveis, sobre corrida ou não, de um jeito que você não vai acreditar.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEJA MEMBRO DO CANAL!!!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠200 Debates; Sabor do gel; Fortalecimento; Melhor amador e melhor amadora; Cair em prova.Tem isso e muito mais no cardápio variado com tudo que o PFC Debate sempre oferece. Escute, informe-se e divirta-se.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lista de casamento Enio e Andressa⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Compre o livro da Camila⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Siga quem faz o PFC Debate: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Enio⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Gigi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Marcos⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Camila⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Duda⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠,⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Ana⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ e⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Thainara⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SEJA MEMBRO DO CANAL NO YOUTUBE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use nossos cupons de desconto:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠KEEP RUNNING BRASIL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CARAMELO⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MARATONA DE FLORIPA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FOCO RADICAL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SPORTBR⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CLUBE DE AUTORES⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LIVE! RUN XP⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC15⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠MARATONA MONUMENTAL DE BRASÍLIA⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10⁠⁠⁠⁠CORRIDA INTEGRAÇÃO⁠⁠⁠⁠ - PFC10

Este é só um trecho da aula completa da música "Smooth", com Santana & Rob Thomas, que você encontra aqui no podcast "Aprenda Inglês com Música". Use a lupa do podcast para encontrar a aula completa para ouvir ;) Quer dar aquele up no seu inglês com a Teacher Milena ?

Send me feedback!Vic Kaplan joins me to discuss his candidacy for NJ Governor.Vic Kaplan has worked in a variety of services, ranging from translation to sales. He was the second-best Libertarian vote-getter in the 2024 congressional races and was endorsed by CAIR for his staunch peace stance. Mr. Kaplan is currently serving as VP of Membership for the NJ Libertarian Party.SUPPORT THE SHOWLocals for $5/monthRumble Rants: Click green dollar sign during the showRumble Subscription: Click subscribe $5/monthHOW AM I DOING?Email: libertydadpod@gmail.comSHOW NOTESCampaign SiteX (formerly Twitter) FacebookWait Song: Smoke RisingMusic by: CreatorMix.comVideo

A Apple está de olho em anúncios, a Meta não quer a IA da Apple, e o vibe coding está chegando a Cupertino.

A Apple está de olho em anúncios, a Meta não quer a IA da Apple, e o vibe coding está chegando a Cupertino.

O mercado dos doces gourmet é um campo minado para quem procura guloseimas saudáveis. Não basta ser sem açúcar, a moda atual são os produtos “sem poliois”.Mas o que será que entra nessas receitas quando saem o açúcar e os poliois?Voltadas a um público que está disposto a pagar mais para evitar os danos do açúcar, muitas marcas exploram a ingenuidade do consumidor.Os absurdos vão desde o uso de ingredientes proibidos até as alegações de baixo impacto glicêmico — algo que frequentemente não é verdade e pode colocar em risco a saúde dos diabéticos.Para evitar que você caia nessas falsas promessas, a Sari investigou a fundo os ingredientes e as tabelas nutricionais dos produtos Haoma e Moon Milk, duas marcas que se apresentam como saudáveis e livres de açúcar — agora também “sem poliois!” —, mas não passam de uma enganação.Neste episódio listamos 5 bons motivos para você pensar duas vezes antes de comprar produtos como Haoma ou Moon Sugar.Links relacionados:Para ler os comentários no post no instagramA farsa dos doces gourmetDoce ilusãoSucraloseGuia de adoçantesEstamos no Instagram: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dr. Souto⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Sari Fontana⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Para ser avisado sobre cada novo episódio e receber os links das matérias mencionadas e as referências bibliográficas por e-mail, cadastre-se gratuitamente em ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://drsouto.com.br/podcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Adquira seu livro - UMA DIETA ALÉM DA MODA: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Amazon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (também na versão Kindle)"Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy"Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/⁠

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, President Trump has come into office and wants to slash the government and control the bureaucracy. But the swamp doesn't allow the people's will to take hold. We have a massive federal government, and it grows and grows. The judiciary has become an arm of a massive, centralized government, protecting its interests against Trump. Judge Loren AliKhan, a Biden appointed Judge, temporarily blocked Trump's plan to pause federal aid spending. AliKhan is an extremist leftist who thinks she can decide what the President can do or not. Also, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered the Defense Department Inspector General to investigate Gen Mark Milley's actions to “undermine the chain of command” during Trump's first term, which could result in Milley being demoted and stripped of a star. He's also pulling his security detail and clearance immediately. Later, the Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, just delivered for the Hamas front group CAIR and worldwide terrorism and prevented a majority vote on sanctioning the American-hating, Israel/Jew-hating ICC, which is led by Marxist-Islamists.  The Democrat Party has crossed a redline from which it can never recover. Afterward, Caroline Kennedy calls her cousin, RFK Jr., a 'predator' before his HHS hearing. Predator?  Perhaps Caroline is confusing RFK with Uncle Teddy. Now, there was a predator.  They hate RFK Jr. because he campaigned for Trump.  Finally, Professor Sadegh Zibakalam is a very brave man. He gave us an inside look at the Iranian people, who are rooting for Benjamin Netanyahu and Trump. He was indicted by Iran for saying that young Iranians are praising Netanyahu as a hero. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices