Podcasts about Constitution

This Day in Legal History: 26th AmendmentOn June 30, 1971, the Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. This change was largely driven by the political and social pressures of the Vietnam War era, when young Americans were being drafted to fight at 18 but could not vote. The rallying cry “old enough to fight, old enough to vote” captured the public's attention and galvanized a national movement. Though proposals to lower the voting age had circulated for decades, the urgency escalated in the 1960s and early 1970s as anti-war sentiment intensified.Congress passed the amendment with overwhelming support, and it achieved ratification at an unprecedented pace—taking just over three months, the fastest in U.S. history. This amendment added a new section to the Constitution, explicitly prohibiting federal and state governments from denying the right to vote to citizens aged 18 or older based on age. The swift ratification reflected broad bipartisan consensus and mounting public pressure to align civic duties and rights.The legal shift represented a significant expansion of suffrage in the United States, enfranchising millions of young people. It was also a notable example of constitutional change in response to contemporary social conditions and activism. States were subsequently required to amend their laws and election systems to accommodate the younger electorate, which has since played a key role in shaping political outcomes.Global mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the first half of 2025 grew in value, despite fewer overall deals, thanks to a surge in megadeals—particularly in Asia. Market uncertainties tied to President Trump's tariff initiatives, high interest rates, and geopolitical tension initially dampened expectations. However, confidence among bankers is rising, with many believing that the worst of the turbulence has passed. The U.S. equity markets, bolstered by record highs in the S&P 500 and Nasdaq, have helped restore optimism for stronger M&A activity in the second half of the year.Preliminary data show $2.14 trillion in global deals from January through June 27, a 26% increase year-over-year, driven in part by Asia's doubling in activity to nearly $584 billion. North America saw a 17% rise in deal value to over $1 trillion. Large deals, such as Toyota's $33 billion supplier buyout and ADNOC's $18.7 billion acquisition of Santos, helped drive Asia-Pacific's share of global M&A to over 27%. Meanwhile, fewer total deals—down to 17,528 from over 20,000 last year—were offset by a 62% rise in transactions worth over $10 billion.Eased antitrust policies in the U.S. and a drop in market volatility contributed to a more favorable environment. Investment bankers are now more optimistic, citing a strong pipeline for the second half and renewed IPO activity. Institutional investors are re-engaging, further fueling expectations of continued M&A momentum.Global M&A powered by larger deals in first half, bankers show appetite for megadeals | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled to curtail the use of “universal” injunctions—orders that block government policies nationwide—marking a major legal victory for President Donald Trump. This decision limits the ability of individual judges to halt federal actions across the entire country, reinforcing that relief should generally only apply to the plaintiffs involved. The ruling, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, aimed to rein in what some conservatives see as judicial overreach.However, this legal win may not help Trump implement one of his most controversial policies: an executive order seeking to deny birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of non-citizen parents. Three lower court judges had already blocked the order, citing likely violations of the 14th Amendment. Although the Supreme Court narrowed the injunctions, it left room for opponents to pursue class-action suits or broader relief through state challenges.Legal scholars expect a wave of class-action cases and continued efforts by states and advocacy groups to block the order's implementation before the 30-day delay expires. States argue they need nationwide protection due to the administrative chaos such a policy would bring. Yet the Court declined to resolve whether states are entitled to broader injunctions, leaving that question to lower courts. If challengers fail to secure class-wide or state-level blocks, the executive order could go into effect unevenly across the country, creating legal confusion for families affected by it.Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may yet lose on birthright citizenship | ReutersSenate Majority Leader John Thune is racing to meet President Donald Trump's July 4 deadline to pass a massive tax and spending bill, navigating deep divisions within the Republican Party. The $3.3 trillion legislation, which includes $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, is facing resistance from at least eight GOP senators. Key disagreements center around healthcare funding, renewable energy subsidies, and the bill's fiscal impact, including a proposed $5 trillion debt ceiling increase.Senators like Thom Tillis and Rand Paul are opposing the bill, citing concerns over Medicaid cuts and fiscal irresponsibility. Tillis, recently freed from political pressure after announcing he won't seek reelection, is expected to vote no. With a slim margin for passage, Thune can afford to lose only three Republican votes, counting on Vice President JD Vance to break a tie.Market reactions have been mixed; renewable energy stocks dropped due to proposed cuts to wind and solar tax incentives. Meanwhile, moderates are pushing to preserve Medicaid benefits and clean energy credits, warning of political fallout if millions lose health coverage. Senators like Ron Johnson are pushing for deeper Medicaid cuts to reduce the bill's overall cost.Trump has not engaged in policy details but is pressuring lawmakers to deliver the bill on time, using social media to criticize dissenters. The Senate is set for a long amendment session, with the House potentially voting on the final version by Wednesday. Whether Thune can secure the needed votes remains uncertain as the July 4 deadline approaches.Trump Tax Bill Hits Senate With GOP Torn by Competing DemandsIn the aftermath of devastating wildfires in Los Angeles earlier this year, Wall Street firms are rushing to capitalize on a wave of lawsuits targeting utilities like Edison International and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. These fires, among the worst in U.S. history, destroyed over 12,000 structures and have spurred litigation that could result in tens of billions of dollars in damages. With law firms often operating on contingency fees and facing steep costs, many are turning to third-party litigation financing—a lightly regulated, fast-growing industry now valued at $16 billion in the U.S.Major financial players including Jefferies and Oppenheimer are brokering deals to provide multimillion-dollar loans to lawyers handling these complex cases. These loans, often subject to non-disclosure agreements, carry interest rates above 20% and are repaid only when the law firms recover damages. In addition to funding legal efforts, some investors are purchasing subrogation claims from insurers, betting on favorable court outcomes.California's legal doctrine of inverse condemnation makes it easier for plaintiffs to hold utilities liable without proving negligence, further enticing investors. While some attorneys refuse outside funding to preserve client interests, others argue that financing is essential for firms lacking deep capital reserves. Critics, including regulators and advocacy groups, are raising concerns about the opacity of the funding industry and the potential for conflicts of interest.Wall Street Backs Los Angeles Wildfire Lawsuits, Chasing Billions This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Supreme Court Friday ruled that circuit court judges can no longer issue nationwide injunctions that freeze the federal government. This isn't a win for President Trump as much as it is a win for the Constitution.5) Israel arrests 60 Hamas operatives in Hebron; 4) Supreme Court reigns in federal judges; 3) New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani doubles down on socialist policies; 2) Energy Department issues emergency orders to override Biden policies that would have caused rolling brownouts in Southeast; 1) Idaho gunman starts fire to ambush first responders.SkyWatchTV's Joe Ardis Horn, Derek Gilbert, and Sharon Gilbert are featured speakers at the Go Therefore Conference in Brookville (Dayton), Ohio July 25–26. Details and registration at GoThereforeConference.com.SkyWatchTV's Joe Horn, Donna Howell, Nita Horn, Derek Gilbert, and Sharon K. Gilbert are featured at the Remnant Rising Conference Aug. 22–24, 2025 in Springfield, Missouri. Details and registration at HearTheWatchmen.com.Join Derek and Sharon Gilbert in the Holy Land! Their next Israel tour is October 19–30, 2025, and features special guest, researcher, author, and lecturer Carl Teichrib. Details and registration at GilbertHouse.org/travel.FOLLOW US!X: @WatchSkyWatchTV | @Five_In_TenYouTube: @SkyWatchTelevision | @SimplyHIS | @FiveInTenRumble: @SkyWatchTVFacebook: @SkyWatchTV | @SimplyHIS | @EdensEssentialsInstagram: @SkyWatchTV | @SimplyHisShow | @EdensEssentialsUSATikTok: @SkyWatchTV | @SimplyHisShow | @EdensEssentialsSkyWatchTV.com | SkyWatchTVStore.com | EdensEssentials.com | WhisperingPoniesRanch.com

“To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.”—Adam KucharskiMy conversation with Professor Kucharski on what constitutes certainty and proof in science (and other domains), with emphasis on many of the learnings from Covid. Given the politicization of science and A.I.'s deepfakes and power for blurring of truth, it's hard to think of a topic more important right now.Audio file (Ground Truths can also be downloaded on Apple Podcasts and Spotify)Eric Topol (00:06):Hello, it's Eric Topol from Ground Truths and I am really delighted to welcome Adam Kucharski, who is the author of a new book, Proof: The Art and Science of Certainty. He's a distinguished mathematician, by the way, the first mathematician we've had on Ground Truths and a person who I had the real privilege of getting to know a bit through the Covid pandemic. So welcome, Adam.Adam Kucharski (00:28):Thanks for having me.Eric Topol (00:30):Yeah, I mean, I think just to let everybody know, you're a Professor at London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and also noteworthy you won the Adams Prize, which is one of the most impressive recognitions in the field of mathematics. This is the book, it's a winner, Proof and there's so much to talk about. So Adam, maybe what I'd start off is the quote in the book that captivates in the beginning, “life is full of situations that can reveal remarkably large gaps in our understanding of what is true and why it's true. This is a book about those gaps.” So what was the motivation when you undertook this very big endeavor?Adam Kucharski (01:17):I think a lot of it comes to the work I do at my day job where we have to deal with a lot of evidence under pressure, particularly if you work in outbreaks or emerging health concerns. And often it really pushes the limits, our methodology and how we converge on what's true subject to potential revision in the future. I think particularly having a background in math's, I think you kind of grow up with this idea that you can get to these concrete, almost immovable truths and then even just looking through the history, realizing that often isn't the case, that there's these kind of very human dynamics that play out around them. And it's something I think that everyone in science can reflect on that sometimes what convinces us doesn't convince other people, and particularly when you have that kind of urgency of time pressure, working out how to navigate that.Eric Topol (02:05):Yeah. Well, I mean I think these times of course have really gotten us to appreciate, particularly during Covid, the importance of understanding uncertainty. And I think one of the ways that we can dispel what people assume they know is the famous Monty Hall, which you get into a bit in the book. So I think everybody here is familiar with that show, Let's Make a Deal and maybe you can just take us through what happens with one of the doors are unveiled and how that changes the mathematics.Adam Kucharski (02:50):Yeah, sure. So I think it is a problem that's been around for a while and it's based on this game show. So you've got three doors that are closed. Behind two of the doors there is a goat and behind one of the doors is a luxury car. So obviously, you want to win the car. The host asks you to pick a door, so you point to one, maybe door number two, then the host who knows what's behind the doors opens another door to reveal a goat and then ask you, do you want to change your mind? Do you want to switch doors? And a lot of the, I think intuition people have, and certainly when I first came across this problem many years ago is well, you've got two doors left, right? You've picked one, there's another one, it's 50-50. And even some quite well-respected mathematicians.Adam Kucharski (03:27):People like Paul Erdős who was really published more papers than almost anyone else, that was their initial gut reaction. But if you work through all of the combinations, if you pick this door and then the host does this, and you switch or not switch and work through all of those options. You actually double your chances if you switch versus sticking with the door. So something that's counterintuitive, but I think one of the things that really struck me and even over the years trying to explain it is convincing myself of the answer, which was when I first came across it as a teenager, I did quite quickly is very different to convincing someone else. And even actually Paul Erdős, one of his colleagues showed him what I call proof by exhaustion. So go through every combination and that didn't really convince him. So then he started to simulate and said, well, let's do a computer simulation of the game a hundred thousand times. And again, switching was this optimal strategy, but Erdős wasn't really convinced because I accept that this is the case, but I'm not really satisfied with it. And I think that encapsulates for a lot of people, their experience of proof and evidence. It's a fact and you have to take it as given, but there's actually quite a big bridge often to really understanding why it's true and feeling convinced by it.Eric Topol (04:41):Yeah, I think it's a fabulous example because I think everyone would naturally assume it's 50-50 and it isn't. And I think that gets us to the topic at hand. What I love, there's many things I love about this book. One is that you don't just get into science and medicine, but you cut across all the domains, law, mathematics, AI. So it's a very comprehensive sweep of everything about proof and truth, and it couldn't come at a better time as we'll get into. Maybe just starting off with math, the term I love mathematical monsters. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?Adam Kucharski (05:25):Yeah, this was a fascinating situation that emerged in the late 19th century where a lot of math's, certainly in Europe had been derived from geometry because a lot of the ancient Greek influence on how we shaped things and then Newton and his work on rates of change and calculus, it was really the natural world that provided a lot of inspiration, these kind of tangible objects, tangible movements. And as mathematicians started to build out the theory around rates of change and how we tackle these kinds of situations, they sometimes took that intuition a bit too seriously. And there was some theorems that they said were intuitively obvious, some of these French mathematicians. And so, one for example is this idea of you how things change smoothly over time and how you do those calculations. But what happened was some mathematicians came along and showed that when you have things that can be infinitely small, that intuition didn't necessarily hold in the same way.Adam Kucharski (06:26):And they came up with these examples that broke a lot of these theorems and a lot of the establishments at the time called these things monsters. They called them these aberrations against common sense and this idea that if Newton had known about them, he never would've done all of his discovery because they're just nuisances and we just need to get rid of them. And there's this real tension at the core of mathematics in the late 1800s where some people just wanted to disregard this and say, look, it works for most of the time, that's good enough. And then others really weren't happy with this quite vague logic. They wanted to put it on much sturdier ground. And what was remarkable actually is if you trace this then into the 20th century, a lot of these monsters and these particularly in some cases functions which could almost move constantly, this constant motion rather than our intuitive concept of movement as something that's smooth, if you drop an apple, it accelerates at a very smooth rate, would become foundational in our understanding of things like probability, Einstein's work on atomic theory. A lot of these concepts where geometry breaks down would be really important in relativity. So actually, these things that we thought were monsters actually were all around us all the time, and science couldn't advance without them. So I think it's just this remarkable example of this tension within a field that supposedly concrete and the things that were going to be shunned actually turn out to be quite important.Eric Topol (07:53):It's great how you convey how nature isn't so neat and tidy and things like Brownian motion, understanding that, I mean, just so many things that I think fit into that general category. In the legal, we won't get into too much because that's not so much the audience of Ground Truths, but the classic things about innocent and until proven guilty and proof beyond reasonable doubt, I mean these are obviously really important parts of that overall sense of proof and truth. We're going to get into one thing I'm fascinated about related to that subsequently and then in science. So before we get into the different types of proof, obviously the pandemic is still fresh in our minds and we're an endemic with Covid now, and there are so many things we got wrong along the way of uncertainty and didn't convey that science isn't always evolving search for what is the truth. There's plenty no shortage of uncertainty at any moment. So can you recap some of the, you did so much work during the pandemic and obviously some of it's in the book. What were some of the major things that you took out of proof and truth from the pandemic?Adam Kucharski (09:14):I think it was almost this story of two hearts because on the one hand, science was the thing that got us where we are today. The reason that so much normality could resume and so much risk was reduced was development of vaccines and the understanding of treatments and the understanding of variants as they came to their characteristics. So it was kind of this amazing opportunity to see this happen faster than it ever happened in history. And I think ever in science, it certainly shifted a lot of my thinking about what's possible and even how we should think about these kinds of problems. But also on the other hand, I think where people might have been more familiar with seeing science progress a bit more slowly and reach consensus around some of these health issues, having that emerge very rapidly can present challenges even we found with some of the work we did on Alpha and then the Delta variants, and it was the early quantification of these.Adam Kucharski (10:08):So really the big question is, is this thing more transmissible? Because at the time countries were thinking about control measures, thinking about relaxing things, and you've got this just enormous social economic health decision-making based around essentially is it a lot more spreadable or is it not? And you only had these fragments of evidence. So I think for me, that was really an illustration of the sharp end. And I think what we ended up doing with some of those was rather than arguing over a precise number, something like Delta, instead we kind of looked at, well, what's the range that matters? So in the sense of arguing over whether it's 40% or 50% or 30% more transmissible is perhaps less important than being, it's substantially more transmissible and it's going to start going up. Is it going to go up extremely fast or just very fast?Adam Kucharski (10:59):That's still a very useful conclusion. I think what often created some of the more challenges, I think the things that on reflection people looking back pick up on are where there was probably overstated certainty. We saw that around some of the airborne spread, for example, stated as a fact by in some cases some organizations, I think in some situations as well, governments had a constraint and presented it as scientific. So the UK, for example, would say testing isn't useful. And what was happening at the time was there wasn't enough tests. So it was more a case of they can't test at that volume. But I think blowing between what the science was saying and what the decision-making, and I think also one thing we found in the UK was we made a lot of the epidemiological evidence available. I think that was really, I think something that was important.Adam Kucharski (11:51):I found it a lot easier to communicate if talking to the media to be able to say, look, this is the paper that's out, this is what it means, this is the evidence. I always found it quite uncomfortable having to communicate things where you knew there were reports behind the scenes, but you couldn't actually articulate. But I think what that did is it created this impression that particularly epidemiology was driving the decision-making a lot more than it perhaps was in reality because so much of that was being made public and a lot more of the evidence around education or economics was being done behind the scenes. I think that created this kind of asymmetry in public perception about how that was feeding in. And so, I think there was always that, and it happens, it is really hard as well as a scientist when you've got journalists asking you how to run the country to work out those steps of am I describing the evidence behind what we're seeing? Am I describing the evidence about different interventions or am I proposing to some extent my value system on what we do? And I think all of that in very intense times can be very easy to get blurred together in public communication. I think we saw a few examples of that where things were being the follow the science on policy type angle where actually once you get into what you're prioritizing within a society, quite rightly, you've got other things beyond just the epidemiology driving that.Eric Topol (13:09):Yeah, I mean that term that you just use follow the science is such an important term because it tells us about the dynamic aspect. It isn't just a snapshot, it's constantly being revised. But during the pandemic we had things like the six-foot rule that was never supported by data, but yet still today, if I walk around my hospital and there's still the footprints of the six-foot rule and not paying attention to the fact that this was airborne and took years before some of these things were accepted. The flatten the curve stuff with lockdowns, which I never was supportive of that, but perhaps at the worst point, the idea that hospitals would get overrun was an issue, but it got carried away with school shutdowns for prolonged periods and in some parts of the world, especially very stringent lockdowns. But anyway, we learned a lot.Eric Topol (14:10):But perhaps one of the greatest lessons is that people's expectations about science is that it's absolute and somehow you have this truth that's not there. I mean, it's getting revised. It's kind of on the job training, it's on this case on the pandemic revision. But very interesting. And that gets us to, I think the next topic, which I think is a fundamental part of the book distributed throughout the book, which is the different types of proof in biomedicine and of course across all these domains. And so, you take us through things like randomized trials, p-values, 95 percent confidence intervals, counterfactuals, causation and correlation, peer review, the works, which is great because a lot of people have misconceptions of these things. So for example, randomized trials, which is the temple of the randomized trials, they're not as great as a lot of people think, yes, they can help us establish cause and effect, but they're skewed because of the people who come into the trial. So they may not at all be a representative sample. What are your thoughts about over deference to randomized trials?Adam Kucharski (15:31):Yeah, I think that the story of how we rank evidence in medicines a fascinating one. I mean even just how long it took for people to think about these elements of randomization. Fundamentally, what we're trying to do when we have evidence here in medicine or science is prevent ourselves from confusing randomness for a signal. I mean, that's fundamentally, we don't want to mistake something, we think it's going on and it's not. And the challenge, particularly with any intervention is you only get to see one version of reality. You can't give someone a drug, follow them, rewind history, not give them the drug and then follow them again. So one of the things that essentially randomization allows us to do is, if you have two groups, one that's been randomized, one that hasn't on average, the difference in outcomes between those groups is going to be down to the treatment effect.Adam Kucharski (16:20):So it doesn't necessarily mean in reality that'd be the case, but on average that's the expectation that you'd have. And it's kind of interesting actually that the first modern randomized control trial (RCT) in medicine in 1947, this is for TB and streptomycin. The randomization element actually, it wasn't so much statistical as behavioral, that if you have people coming to hospital, you could to some extent just say, we'll just alternate. We're not going to randomize. We're just going to first patient we'll say is a control, second patient a treatment. But what they found in a lot of previous studies was doctors have bias. Maybe that patient looks a little bit ill or that one maybe is on borderline for eligibility. And often you got these quite striking imbalances when you allowed it for human judgment. So it was really about shielding against those behavioral elements. But I think there's a few situations, it's a really powerful tool for a lot of these questions, but as you mentioned, one is this issue of you have the population you study on and then perhaps in reality how that translates elsewhere.Adam Kucharski (17:17):And we see, I mean things like flu vaccines are a good example, which are very dependent on immunity and evolution and what goes on in different populations. Sometimes you've had a result on a vaccine in one place and then the effectiveness doesn't translate in the same way to somewhere else. I think the other really important thing to bear in mind is, as I said, it's the averaging that you're getting an average effect between two different groups. And I think we see certainly a lot of development around things like personalized medicine where actually you're much more interested in the outcome for the individual. And so, what a trial can give you evidence is on average across a group, this is the effect that I can expect this intervention to have. But we've now seen more of the emergence things like N=1 studies where you can actually over the same individual, particularly for chronic conditions, look at those kind of interventions.Adam Kucharski (18:05):And also there's just these extreme examples where you're ethically not going to run a trial, there's never been a trial of whether it's a good idea to have intensive care units in hospitals or there's a lot of these kind of historical treatments which are just so overwhelmingly effective that we're not going to run trial. So almost this hierarchy over time, you can see it getting shifted because actually you do have these situations where other forms of evidence can get you either closer to what you need or just more feasibly an answer where it's just not ethical or practical to do an RCT.Eric Topol (18:37):And that brings us to the natural experiments I just wrote about recently, the one with shingles, which there's two big natural experiments to suggest that shingles vaccine might reduce the risk of Alzheimer's, an added benefit beyond the shingles that was not anticipated. Your thoughts about natural experiments, because here you're getting a much different type of population assessment, again, not at the individual level, but not necessarily restricted by some potentially skewed enrollment criteria.Adam Kucharski (19:14):I think this is as emerged as a really valuable tool. It's kind of interesting, in the book you're talking to economists like Josh Angrist, that a lot of these ideas emerge in epidemiology, but I think were really then taken up by economists, particularly as they wanted to add more credibility to a lot of these policy questions. And ultimately, it comes down to this issue that for a lot of problems, we can't necessarily intervene and randomize, but there might be a situation that's done it to some extent for us, so the classic example is the Vietnam draft where it was kind of random birthdays with drawn out of lottery. And so, there's been a lot of studies subsequently about the effect of serving in the military on different subsequent lifetime outcomes because broadly those people have been randomized. It was for a different reason. But you've got that element of randomization driving that.Adam Kucharski (20:02):And so again, with some of the recent shingles data and other studies, you might have a situation for example, where there's been an intervention that's somewhat arbitrary in terms of time. It's a cutoff on a birth date, for example. And under certain assumptions you could think, well, actually there's no real reason for the person on this day and this day to be fundamentally different. I mean, perhaps there might be effects of cohorts if it's school years or this sort of thing. But generally, this isn't the same as having people who are very, very different ages and very different characteristics. It's just nature, or in this case, just a policy intervention for a different reason has given you that randomization, which allows you or pseudo randomization, which allows you to then look at something about the effect of an intervention that you wouldn't as reliably if you were just digging into the data of yes, no who's received a vaccine.Eric Topol (20:52):Yeah, no, I think it's really valuable. And now I think increasingly given priority, if you can find these natural experiments and they're not always so abundant to use to extrapolate from, but when they are, they're phenomenal. The causation correlation is so big. The issue there, I mean Judea Pearl's, the Book of Why, and you give so many great examples throughout the book in Proof. I wonder if you could comment that on that a bit more because this is where associations are confused somehow or other with a direct effect. And we unfortunately make these jumps all too frequently. Perhaps it's the most common problem that's occurring in the way we interpret medical research data.Adam Kucharski (21:52):Yeah, I think it's an issue that I think a lot of people get drilled into in their training just because a correlation between things doesn't mean that that thing causes this thing. But it really struck me as I talked to people, researching the book, in practice in research, there's actually a bit more to it in how it's played out. So first of all, if there's a correlation between things, it doesn't tell you much generally that's useful for intervention. If two things are correlated, it doesn't mean that changing that thing's going to have an effect on that thing. There might be something that's influencing both of them. If you have more ice cream sales, it will lead to more heat stroke cases. It doesn't mean that changing ice cream sales is going to have that effect, but it does allow you to make predictions potentially because if you can identify consistent patterns, you can say, okay, if this thing going up, I'm going to make a prediction that this thing's going up.Adam Kucharski (22:37):So one thing I found quite striking, actually talking to research in different fields is how many fields choose to focus on prediction because it kind of avoids having to deal with this cause and effect problem. And even in fields like psychology, it was kind of interesting that there's a lot of focus on predicting things like relationship outcomes, but actually for people, you don't want a prediction about your relationship. You want to know, well, how can I do something about it? You don't just want someone to sell you your relationship's going to go downhill. So there's almost part of the challenge is people just got stuck on prediction because it's an easier field of work, whereas actually some of those problems will involve intervention. I think the other thing that really stood out for me is in epidemiology and a lot of other fields, rightly, people are very cautious to not get that mixed up.Adam Kucharski (23:24):They don't want to mix up correlations or associations with causation, but you've kind of got this weird situation where a lot of papers go out of their way to not use causal language and say it's an association, it's just an association. It's just an association. You can't say anything about causality. And then the end of the paper, they'll say, well, we should think about introducing more of this thing or restricting this thing. So really the whole paper and its purpose is framed around a causal intervention, but it's extremely careful throughout the paper to not frame it as a causal claim. So I think we almost by skirting that too much, we actually avoid the problems that people sometimes care about. And I think a lot of the nice work that's been going on in causal inference is trying to get people to confront this more head on rather than say, okay, you can just stay in this prediction world and that's fine. And then just later maybe make a policy suggestion off the back of it.Eric Topol (24:20):Yeah, I think this is cause and effect is a very alluring concept to support proof as you so nicely go through in the book. But of course, one of the things that we use to help us is the biological mechanism. So here you have, let's say for example, you're trying to get a new drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the request is, well, we want two trials, randomized trials, independent. We want to have p-values that are significant, and we want to know the biological mechanism ideally with the dose response of the drug. But there are many drugs as you review that have no biological mechanism established. And even when the tobacco problems were mounting, the actual mechanism of how tobacco use caused cancer wasn't known. So how important is the biological mechanism, especially now that we're well into the AI world where explainability is demanded. And so, we don't know the mechanism, but we also don't know the mechanism and lots of things in medicine too, like anesthetics and even things as simple as aspirin, how it works and many others. So how do we deal with this quest for the biological mechanism?Adam Kucharski (25:42):I think that's a really good point. It shows almost a lot of the transition I think we're going through currently. I think particularly for things like smoking cancer where it's very hard to run a trial. You can't make people randomly take up smoking. Having those additional pieces of evidence, whether it's an analogy with a similar carcinogen, whether it's a biological mechanism, can help almost give you more supports for that argument that there's a cause and effect going on. But I think what I found quite striking, and I realized actually that it's something that had kind of bothered me a bit and I'd be interested to hear whether it bothers you, but with the emergence of AI, it's almost a bit of the loss of scientific satisfaction. I think you grow up with learning about how the world works and why this is doing what it's doing.Adam Kucharski (26:26):And I talked for example of some of the people involved with AlphaFold and some of the subsequent work in installing those predictions about structures. And they'd almost made peace with it, which I found interesting because I think they started off being a bit uncomfortable with like, yeah, you've got these remarkable AI models making these predictions, but we don't understand still biologically what's happening here. But I think they're just settled in saying, well, biology is really complex on some of these problems, and if we can have a tool that can give us this extremely valuable information, maybe that's okay. And it was just interesting that they'd really kind of gone through that kind process, which I think a lot of people are still grappling with and that almost that discomfort of using AI and what's going to convince you that that's a useful reliable prediction whether it's something like predicting protein folding or getting in a self-driving car. What's the evidence you need to convince you that's reliable?Eric Topol (27:26):Yeah, no, I'm so glad you brought that up because when Demis Hassabis and John Jumper won the Nobel Prize, the point I made was maybe there should be an asterisk with AI because they don't know how it works. I mean, they had all the rich data from the protein data bank, and they got the transformer model to do it for 200 million protein structure prediction, but they still to this day don't fully understand how the model really was working. So it reinforces what you're just saying. And of course, it cuts across so many types of AI. It's just that we tend to hold different standards in medicine not realizing that there's lots of lack of explainability for routine medical treatments today. Now one of the things that I found fascinating in your book, because there's different levels of proof, different types of proof, but solid logical systems.Eric Topol (28:26):And on page 60 of the book, especially pertinent to the US right now, there is a bit about Kurt Gödel and what he did there was he basically, there was a question about dictatorship in the US could it ever occur? And Gödel says, “oh, yes, I can prove it.” And he's using the constitution itself to prove it, which I found fascinating because of course we're seeing that emerge right now. Can you give us a little bit more about this, because this is fascinating about the Fifth Amendment, and I mean I never thought that the Constitution would allow for a dictatorship to emerge.Adam Kucharski (29:23):And this was a fascinating story, Kurt Gödel who is one of the greatest logical minds of the 20th century and did a lot of work, particularly in the early 20th century around system of rules, particularly things like mathematics and whether they can ever be really fully satisfying. So particularly in mathematics, he showed that there were this problem that is very hard to have a set of rules for something like arithmetic that was both complete and covered every situation, but also had no contradictions. And I think a lot of countries, if you go back, things like Napoleonic code and these attempts to almost write down every possible legal situation that could be imaginable, always just ascended into either they needed amendments or they had contradictions. I think Gödel's work really summed it up, and there's a story, this is in the late forties when he had his citizenship interview and Einstein and Oskar Morgenstern went along as witnesses for him.Adam Kucharski (30:17):And it's always told as kind of a lighthearted story as this logical mind, this academic just saying something silly in front of the judge. And actually, to my own admission, I've in the past given talks and mentioned it in this slightly kind of lighthearted way, but for the book I got talking to a few people who'd taken it more seriously. I realized actually he's this extremely logically focused mind at the time, and maybe there should have been something more to it. And people who have kind of dug more into possibilities was saying, well, what could he have spotted that bothered him? And a lot of his work that he did about consistency in mass was around particularly self-referential statements. So if I say this sentence is false, it's self-referential and if it is false, then it's true, but if it's true, then it's false and you get this kind of weird self-referential contradictions.Adam Kucharski (31:13):And so, one of the theories about Gödel was that in the Constitution, it wasn't that there was a kind of rule for someone can become a dictator, but rather people can use the mechanisms within the Constitution to make it easier to make further amendments. And he kind of downward cycle of amendment that he had seen happening in Europe and the run up to the war, and again, because this is never fully documented exactly what he thought, but it's one of the theories that it wouldn't just be outright that it would just be this cycle process of weakening and weakening and weakening and making it easier to add. And actually, when I wrote that, it was all the earlier bits of the book that I drafted, I did sort of debate whether including it I thought, is this actually just a bit in the weeds of American history? And here we are. Yeah, it's remarkable.Eric Topol (32:00):Yeah, yeah. No, I mean I found, it struck me when I was reading this because here back in 1947, there was somebody predicting that this could happen based on some, if you want to call it loopholes if you will, or the ability to change things, even though you would've thought otherwise that there wasn't any possible capability for that to happen. Now, one of the things I thought was a bit contradictory is two parts here. One is from Angus Deaton, he wrote, “Gold standard thinking is magical thinking.” And then the other is what you basically are concluding in many respects. “To navigate proof, we must reach into a thicket of errors and biases. We must confront monsters and embrace uncertainty, balancing — and rebalancing —our beliefs. We must seek out every useful fragment of data, gather every relevant tool, searching wider and climbing further. Finding the good foundations among the bad. Dodging dogma and falsehoods. Questioning. Measuring. Triangulating. Convincing. Then perhaps, just perhaps, we'll reach the truth in time.” So here you have on the one hand your search for the truth, proof, which I think that little paragraph says it all. In many respects, it sums up somewhat to the work that you review here and on the other you have this Nobel laureate saying, you don't have to go to extremes here. The enemy of good is perfect, perhaps. I mean, how do you reconcile this sense that you shouldn't go so far? Don't search for absolute perfection of proof.Adam Kucharski (33:58):Yeah, I think that encapsulates a lot of what the book is about, is that search for certainty and how far do you have to go. I think one of the things, there's a lot of interesting discussion, some fascinating papers around at what point do you use these studies? What are their flaws? But I think one of the things that does stand out is across fields, across science, medicine, even if you going to cover law, AI, having these kind of cookie cutter, this is the definitive way of doing it. And if you just follow this simple rule, if you do your p-value, you'll get there and you'll be fine. And I think that's where a lot of the danger is. And I think that's what we've seen over time. Certain science people chasing certain targets and all the behaviors that come around that or in certain situations disregarding valuable evidence because you've got this kind of gold standard and nothing else will do.Adam Kucharski (34:56):And I think particularly in a crisis, it's very dangerous to have that because you might have a low level of evidence that demands a certain action and you almost bias yourself towards inaction if you have these kind of very simple thresholds. So I think for me, across all of these stories and across the whole book, I mean William Gosset who did a lot of pioneering work on statistical experiments at Guinness in the early 20th century, he had this nice question he sort of framed is, how much do we lose? And if we're thinking about the problems, there's always more studies we can do, there's always more confidence we can have, but whether it's a patient we want to treat or crisis we need to deal with, we need to work out actually getting that level of proof that's really appropriate for where we are currently.Eric Topol (35:49):I think exceptionally important that there's this kind of spectrum or continuum in following science and search for truth and that distinction, I think really nails it. Now, one of the things that's unique in the book is you don't just go through all the different types of how you would get to proof, but you also talk about how the evidence is acted on. And for example, you quote, “they spent a lot of time misinforming themselves.” This is the whole idea of taking data and torturing it or using it, dredging it however way you want to support either conspiracy theories or alternative facts. Basically, manipulating sometimes even emasculating what evidence and data we have. And one of the sentences, or I guess this is from Sir Francis Bacon, “truth is a daughter of time”, but the added part is not authority. So here we have our president here that repeats things that are wrong, fabricated or wrong, and he keeps repeating to the point that people believe it's true. But on the other hand, you could say truth is a daughter of time because you like to not accept any truth immediately. You like to see it get replicated and further supported, backed up. So in that one sentence, truth is a daughter of time not authority, there's the whole ball of wax here. Can you take us through that? Because I just think that people don't understand that truth being tested over time, but also manipulated by its repetition. This is a part of the big problem that we live in right now.Adam Kucharski (37:51):And I think it's something that writing the book and actually just reflecting on it subsequently has made me think about a lot in just how people approach these kinds of problems. I think that there's an idea that conspiracy theorists are just lazy and have maybe just fallen for a random thing, but talking to people, you really think about these things a lot more in the field. And actually, the more I've ended up engaging with people who believe things that are just outright unevidenced around vaccines, around health issues, they often have this mountain of papers and data to hand and a lot of it, often they will be peer reviewed papers. It won't necessarily be supporting the point that they think it's supports.Adam Kucharski (38:35):But it's not something that you can just say everything you're saying is false, that there's actually often a lot of things that have been put together and it's just that leap to that conclusion. I think you also see a lot of scientific language borrowed. So I gave a talker early this year and it got posted on YouTube. It had conspiracy theories it, and there was a lot of conspiracy theory supporters who piled in the comments and one of the points they made is skepticism is good. It's the kind of law society, take no one's word for it, you need this. We are the ones that are kind of doing science and people who just assume that science is settled are in the wrong. And again, you also mentioned that repetition. There's this phenomenon, it's the illusory truth problem that if you repeatedly tell someone someone's something's false, it'll increase their belief in it even if it's something quite outrageous.Adam Kucharski (39:27):And that mimics that scientific repetition because people kind of say, okay, well if I've heard it again and again, it's almost like if you tweak these as mini experiments, I'm just accumulating evidence that this thing is true. So it made me think a lot about how you've got essentially a lot of mimicry of the scientific method, amount of data and how you present it and this kind of skepticism being good, but I think a lot of it comes down to as well as just looking at theological flaws, but also ability to be wrong in not actually seeking out things that confirm. I think all of us, it's something that I've certainly tried to do a lot working on emergencies, and one of the scientific advisory groups that I worked on almost it became a catchphrase whenever someone presented something, they finished by saying, tell me why I'm wrong.Adam Kucharski (40:14):And if you've got a variant that's more transmissible, I don't want to be right about that really. And it is something that is quite hard to do and I found it is particularly for something that's quite high pressure, trying to get a policymaker or someone to write even just non-publicly by themselves, write down what you think's going to happen or write down what would convince you that you are wrong about something. I think particularly on contentious issues where someone's got perhaps a lot of public persona wrapped up in something that's really hard to do, but I think it's those kind of elements that distinguish between getting sucked into a conspiracy theory and really seeking out evidence that supports it and trying to just get your theory stronger and stronger and actually seeking out things that might overturn your belief about the world. And it's often those things that we don't want overturned. I think those are the views that we all have politically or in other ways, and that's often where the problems lie.Eric Topol (41:11):Yeah, I think this is perhaps one of, if not the most essential part here is that to try to deal with the different views. We have biases as you emphasized throughout, but if you can use these different types of proof to have a sound discussion, conversation, refutation whereby you don't summarily dismiss another view which may be skewed and maybe spurious or just absolutely wrong, maybe fabricated whatever, but did you can engage and say, here's why these are my proof points, or this is why there's some extent of certainty you can have regarding this view of the data. I think this is so fundamental because unfortunately as we saw during the pandemic, the strident minority, which were the anti-science, anti-vaxxers, they were summarily dismissed as being kooks and adopting conspiracy theories without the right engagement and the right debates. And I think this might've helped along the way, no less the fact that a lot of scientists didn't really want to engage in the first place and adopt this methodical proof that you've advocated in the book so many different ways to support a hypothesis or an assertion. Now, we've covered a lot here, Adam. Have I missed some central parts of the book and the effort because it's really quite extraordinary. I know it's your third book, but it's certainly a standout and it certainly it's a standout not just for your books, but books on this topic.Adam Kucharski (43:13):Thanks. And it's much appreciated. It was not an easy book to write. I think at times, I kind of wondered if I should have taken on the topic and I think a core thing, your last point speaks to that. I think a core thing is that gap often between what convinces us and what convinces someone else. I think it's often very tempting as a scientist to say the evidence is clear or the science has proved this. But even on something like the vaccines, you do get the loud minority who perhaps think they're putting microchips in people and outlandish views, but you actually get a lot more people who might just have some skepticism of pharmaceutical companies or they might have, my wife was pregnant actually at the time during Covid and we waited up because there wasn't much data on pregnancy and the vaccine. And I think it's just finding what is convincing. Is it having more studies from other countries? Is it understanding more about the biology? Is it understanding how you evaluate some of those safety signals? And I think that's just really important to not just think what convinces us and it's going to be obvious to other people, but actually think where are they coming from? Because ultimately having proof isn't that good unless it leads to the action that can make lives better.Eric Topol (44:24):Yeah. Well, look, you've inculcated my mind with this book, Adam, called Proof. Anytime I think of the word proof, I'm going to be thinking about you. So thank you. Thanks for taking the time to have a conversation about your book, your work, and I know we're going to count on you for the astute mathematics and analysis of outbreaks in the future, which we will see unfortunately. We are seeing now, in fact already in this country with measles and whatnot. So thank you and we'll continue to follow your great work.**************************************Thanks for listening, watching or reading this Ground Truths podcast/post.If you found this interesting please share it!That makes the work involved in putting these together especially worthwhile.I'm also appreciative for your subscribing to Ground Truths. All content —its newsletters, analyses, and podcasts—is free, open-access. I'm fortunate to get help from my producer Jessica Nguyen and Sinjun Balabanoff for audio/video tech support to pull these podcasts together for Scripps Research.Paid subscriptions are voluntary and all proceeds from them go to support Scripps Research. They do allow for posting comments and questions, which I do my best to respond to. Please don't hesitate to post comments and give me feedback. Many thanks to those who have contributed—they have greatly helped fund our summer internship programs for the past two years.A bit of an update on SUPER AGERSMy book has been selected as a Next Big Idea Club winner for Season 26 by Adam Grant, Malcolm Gladwell, Susan Cain, and Daniel Pink. This club has spotlighted the most groundbreaking nonfiction books for over a decade. As a winning title, my book will be shipped to thousands of thoughtful readers like you, featured alongside a reading guide, a "Book Bite," Next Big Idea Podcast episode as well as a live virtual Q&A with me in the club's vibrant online community. If you're interested in joining the club, here's a promo code SEASON26 for 20% off at the website. SUPER AGERS reached #3 for all books on Amazon this week. This was in part related to the segment on the book on the TODAY SHOW which you can see here. Also at Amazon there is a remarkable sale on the hardcover book for $10.l0 at the moment for up to 4 copies. Not sure how long it will last or what prompted it.The journalist Paul von Zielbauer has a Substack “Aging With Strength” and did an extensive interview with me on the biology of aging and how we can prevent the major age-related diseases. Here's the link. Get full access to Ground Truths at erictopol.substack.com/subscribe

Send us a textOver the weekend, 7 B-2 bombers flew out of Missouri, "obliterated", according to Donald Trump, three nuclear facilities in Iran, and then safely landed back on American soil Sunday morning. Immediately, the accusations came that Donald Trump acted outside of the Constitution and that he needed pre-clearance from Congress. Many also believe Trump has brought WW3 upon the world, is this true? Then on Tuesday the media began saying that the bunkers were not destroyed and Trump's administration did not accomplish their goal, what's the truth and what happens now? Join Hannah as she discusses all of this and more while providing plenty of historical context for this moment in history.  Lastly, in the homeschool segment of this week's show, Hannah and her Mom, Carlotta Jackson, discuss how a homeschool parent can help facilitate independence in their student, especially in the case of having multiple children.Support the showhttps://www.thehannahmillershow.com/podcasts/https://bobslone.com/contact/bob@bobslone.com

Donate (no account necessary) | Subscribe (account required) Join Bryan Dean Wright, former CIA Operations Officer, for Friday's Headline Brief as he covers the top stories shaping America and the world. Faulty Intel Sparks Firestorm Over Iran Strike Assessment A leaked report suggesting Trump's Iran strike was ineffective relied on faulty signals intelligence. Iranian officials intentionally fed disinformation via tapped calls, misleading DIA analysts. Israeli sources confirm the operation's major success. Bryan calls for top DIA officials to be fired and their Iran shop frozen. Tariff Revenue Surges to Record Levels President Trump's tariff policies are paying off with $26.7 billion collected in June so far. Analysts say this could reduce the U.S. deficit by nearly $3 trillion over the next decade without driving inflation. GE Appliances and Liberty Phone Signal Manufacturing Comeback China-owned GE Appliances will move washing machine production to Kentucky, creating 800 jobs. Meanwhile, debate swirls over whether the Trump family's $500 “Made in USA” phone can actually be built domestically. Liberty Phone shows it's possible—just not fancy. Reshoring Cars Faces Hurdles Ford and GM are reshoring car production, but profits and supply chain challenges remain. Mexico's cheaper labor still makes foreign-made cars more profitable. Tariff clarity from the White House is needed to accelerate change. China Prioritizes Europe for Rare Earth Exports, Snubs U.S. Despite promises, China continues restricting rare earth exports to American companies while increasing shipments to Europe. Trump's team may have struck a new deal earlier this week, but details are unclear. Billionaire-Backed Lawyers Block U.S. Mining Projects Democrat donors like Michael Bloomberg are funding “green fellows” to infiltrate state regulatory boards, slowing or halting traditional mining and energy projects while promoting green energy. Economic Signals: Durable Goods Up, Federal Contractors Down Durable goods orders posted the biggest gain in 11 years. But recurring jobless claims rose and federal contractor hiring is plummeting due to Trump's deep spending cuts. Trump Ends Race-Based Federal Contracts Following a court order, the Trump administration eliminated affirmative action in highway and transit funding. Activist groups object, but the administration says it's enforcing the Constitution. New Deportation Strategy Targets Third Countries Migrants can now be deported to countries that aren't their homeland. Kilmar Abrego Garcia, linked to violent crimes, may be sent to South Sudan. Democrats are furious at the new legal precedent. Military Border Zone Expands 250 Miles Trump's administration extends the special military zone along the Texas border. DHS reports only 80 daily border “gotaways,” down from 700 under Biden. Congress Investigates Biden's Auto-Pen Presidency Lawmakers probe who actually signed documents during Biden's decline. Neera Tanden admits she authorized signatures without knowing if Biden approved them. Top aide Anthony Bernal may face subpoena. Public Trust in News Plummets as Podcasts Rise Only 11 to 16 percent of Americans trust traditional media. Young men turn to podcasts, while women prefer social media. Bryan reflects on the risks of both legacy and new media, calling for critical thinking and personal responsibility in news consumption. "And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." – John 8:32   Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code TWR using the link or at check-out and get 60% off an annual plan: Incogni.com/TWR

-The Supreme Court rules 6-3 to curtail the use of nationwide injunctions by lower federal courts, a move Rob hails as a major win for the Constitution and the Trump agenda. -Rob and guest Tony Kinnett from The Daily Signal celebrate the end of what they describe as “judicial tyranny” by activist judges. Today's podcast is sponsored by : BIRCH GOLD - Protect and grow your retirement savings with gold. Text ROB to 98 98 98 for your FREE information kit! INCOGNI – Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code CARSON at the following link and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/CARSON CB DISTILLERY : Get healthy sleep with 25% off your first order at http://CBDistillery.com and use promo code CARSON To call in and speak with Rob Carson live on the show, dial 1-800-922-6680 between the hours of 12 Noon and 3:00 pm Eastern Time Monday through Friday…E-mail Rob Carson at : RobCarsonShow@gmail.com Musical parodies provided by Jim Gossett (www.patreon.com/JimGossettComedy) Listen to Newsmax LIVE and see our entire podcast lineup at http://Newsmax.com/Listen Make the switch to NEWSMAX today! Get your 15 day free trial of NEWSMAX+ at http://NewsmaxPlus.com Looking for NEWSMAX caps, tees, mugs & more? Check out the Newsmax merchandise shop at : http://nws.mx/shop Follow NEWSMAX on Social Media:  -Facebook: http://nws.mx/FB  -X/Twitter: http://nws.mx/twitter -Instagram: http://nws.mx/IG -YouTube: https://youtube.com/NewsmaxTV -Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/NewsmaxTV -TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@NEWSMAX -GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/newsmax -Threads: http://threads.net/@NEWSMAX  -Telegram: http://t.me/newsmax  -BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/newsmax.com -Parler: http://app.parler.com/newsmax Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

BREAKING: Trump Defeats Rogue Judges at Supreme Court.

The Founders warned us. We ignored them. These eight enemies aren't at the gates - they're already inside, destroying the Constitution and liberty - from within. The post The Real Enemies of America Aren't Who You Think first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

The Supreme Court's new ruling on birthright citizenship is even worse than feared. By refusing to strike down Donald Trump's unconstitutional executive order outright, and instead gutting nationwide injunctions, SCOTUS has effectively handed the president the power to override the Constitution — and blocked the courts from universally stopping him. We break down exactly how this decision paves the way for two Americas: one where constitutional rights are upheld, and one where they are ignored. “Separate, but unequal” is back, and the consequences could be catastrophic. Journalists Jim Avila and Michael Shure will be in to discuss the Supreme Court rulings. Then, we'lll bring a dose of levity with Friday Fabuloud Florida and The Culture Blaster, Michael Snyder.

Kimberly Atkins Stohr joins the show to talk about this Supreme Court term and the far-right direction of the court. Colin and guest host Muggs Leone also discuss the devastating impacts of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and Zohran Mamdani's (D) successful primary race for New York City mayor. 

We The People must stand strong, stay united, resolute, calm, and focus on the mission. Order Mel's New Book: Americans Anonymous: Restoring Power to the People One Citizen at a Time https://themelkshow.com/book The Show's Partners Page: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Consider Making A Donation: https://themelkshow.com/donate/ Beverly Hills Precious Metals Exchange - Buy Gold & Silver https://themelkshow.com/gold/ Speak with Gold Expert Andrew Sorchini…Tell Him Mel K Sent You! Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK I trust SatellitePhoneStore when all other networks fail. With their phone, I know I'm always connected, no matter where I am or what happens. https://sat123.com/melk/ I've tried a lot of supplements over the years, but nothing has compared to the purity and results I've experienced with Chemical Free Body. USE CODE MELK Mel K Superfoods Supercharge your wellness with Mel K Superfoods Use Code: MELKWELLNESS and Save Over $100 off retail today! https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Healthy Hydration: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Patriot Mobile Support your values, your freedom and the Mel K Show. Switch to Patriot Mobile for Free. Use free activation code MELK https://themelkshow.com/partners/ HempWorx The #1 selling CBD brand. Offering cutting edge products that run the gamut from CBD oils and other hemp products to essential oils in our Mantra Brand, MDC Daily Sprays which are Vitamin and Herb combination sprays/ https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK Support Patriots With MyPillow Go to https://www.mypillow.com/melk Use offer code “MelK” to support both MyPillow and The Mel K Show The Wellness Company - Emergency Medical Kits: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Stella Immanuel, MD. Consult with a renowned healthcare provider! Offering Telehealth Services & Supplements. Use offer code ‘MelK' for 5% Off https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Rumble (Video) - The Mel K Show: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow X: https://twitter.com/MelKShow Twitter (Original): https://twitter.com/originalmelk TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@themelkshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themelkshow/ Podbean: https://themelkshow.podbean.com/ GETTR: https://www.gettr.com/user/themelkshow Locals.com: https://melk.locals.com/ Banned Video: https://banned.video/channel/the-mel-k-show We at www.themelkshow.com want to thank all our amazing patriot pals for joining us on this journey, for your support of our work, and for your faith in this biblical transition to greatness. Together we are unstoppable. We look forward to seeing you. God Wins! https://themelkshow.com/events/ Remember to mention Mel K for great discounts on all these fun and informative events. See you there! Our Website www.TheMelKShow.com We love what we do and are working hard to keep on top of everything to help this transition along peacefully and with love. Please help us amplify our message: Like, Comment & Share!

Prager University 5 Min Videos- Is Israel a Liability? The Cult of Death, What Is Birthright Citizenship? and Dinesh D'Souza- Fostering Iran Regime Change   PragerU 5 Minute Videos- Is Israel a Liability?  The Cult of Death What Is Birthright Citizenship? REGIME CHANGE? Dinesh D'Souza Podcast How Foreign Aid Keeps Africa Poor   Is Israel a Liability? | 5-Minute Videos | PragerU Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/-YR0ix_rMcY?si=3GFN3T6SzNQfE6rw PragerU 3.37M subscribers 144,687 views Premiered Jun 23, 2025 5-Minute Videos A growing chorus of voices—from the American left and right—now calls Israel “a liability.” They say it's time to walk away. Are they right? Or is Israel an indispensable ally? Michael Doran, Director of the Middle East Center at the Hudson Institute, confronts this controversy.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ripped into the mainstream media over the intel leak during a press conference at the Pentagon. He blamed them for spreading false news about Operation Midnight Hammer's success in taking out Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. The Sekulow team discusses the extent of the Iranian nuclear damage, President Donald Trump's foreign policy, U.S. Air Force General Dan “Razin” Caine's perspective on the bunker-buster airstrikes, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

Tension builds on Capitol Hill as Congressman Hakeem Jeffries fiercely criticizes the Trump administration for restricting classified intelligence after bombings in Iran—arguing the move weakens Congressional oversight and violates the Constitution. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In today’s Rickey Smiley Morning Show Podcast, tension builds on Capitol Hill as Congressman Hakeem Jeffries fiercely criticizes the Trump administration for restricting classified intelligence after bombings in Iran—arguing the move weakens Congressional oversight and violates the Constitution. Meanwhile, Real Housewives of Atlanta star Porsha Williams's ex-husband, Simon Guobadia, publicly states he “absolutely regrets” their marriage, claiming that financial motives led to their union and divorce. Switching to entertainment, Warren Ballentine joins the crew to dissect the current state of the Diddy trial, offering legal analysis on witness testimony, jury dynamics, and what comes next. And for true-crime fans, there's exciting news: Da Brat joins Season 4 of American Gangster: Trap Queens as narrator, guiding viewers through captivating stories of female "trap queen" legends on BET+. Website: https://www.urban1podcasts.com/rickey-smiley-morning-show See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US enters a violent part of the world once again, as Iran's nuclear facilities are bombed.  The President orders this without consulting Congress; indeed without asking for, much less receiving a declaration of war.  Does the Constitution require this?  What has past practice been?  What was true at the founding?  Has it changed over the centuries?  Many twists and turns to the reasoning emerge as we explore this largely indefinite area of Constitutional Law.  Meanwhile, Akhil gives a speech on the Revolution and the Constitution which sounds surprisingly relevant at this time.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from 

We discuss why the Constitution—the document we've been taught to revere as the very foundation of American democracy—might actually be responsible for the current crisis in government. It might be leading us away from a more perfect union and toward destruction or even secession.    Erwin's civic action toolkit recommendations are:  Be informed Get involved Speak out   Erwin Chemerinsky is the Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and one of the nation's leading constitutional scholars. His most recent book is No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States, which urges us to think about starting over.      Let's connect! Follow Future Hindsight on Instagram:  https://www.instagram.com/futurehindsightpod/   Discover new ways to #BetheSpark:  https://www.futurehindsight.com/spark    Follow Mila on X:  https://x.com/milaatmos    Read No Democracy Lasts Forever: https://bookshop.org/shop/futurehindsight    Sponsor:  Thank you to Shopify! Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/hopeful.   Early episodes for Patreon supporters: https://patreon.com/futurehindsight  Credits:  Host: Mila Atmos  Guests: Erwin Chemerinsky Executive Producer: Mila Atmos Producer: Zack Travis

TRADCAST EXPRESS - Episode 211 Topics covered: Pre-conclave catch-up: Taylor Marshall asks a stupid question; 'Fr.' Richard Cipolla and the specially 'anointed' Pope; the about-face of Rorate Caeli on publishing leaked content; 'Cardinal' Gerhard L. Müller is clueless on distinction between material and formal heresy; Taylor Marshall's amusing self-contradiction. Links: Tweet by Taylor Marshall: "What should the Cardinals do if a non-Catholic is elected Pope?" (May 5, 2025) Catholic Encyclopedia (1911) on "Papal Elections". States that the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female would obviously be null and void. Rev. Richard Cipolla, "The Inevitability of Francis, Fulfillment of the Council -- and the Death of the Spirit of Vatican II", Rorate Caeli (May 7, 2025) Example of 'Pope' Paul VI promulgating each of the 16 Vatican II documents: Lumen Gentium, dogmatic constitution on the Church, ends with: "Each and all these items which are set forth in this dogmatic Constitution have met with the approval of the Council Fathers. And We by the apostolic power given Us by Christ together with the Venerable Fathers in the Holy Spirit, approve, decree and establish it and command that what has thus been decided in the Council be promulgated for the glory of God." Official Latin text here. Tweet by Novus Ordo Watch on Rorate Caeli reversing its policy of never publishing leaked information (June 7, 2025) New Catholic, "Notice: leaks, leakers, and standing one's ground", Rorate Caeli (May 10, 2012) New Catholic, "For the record - Confidentiality: like water through a sieve", Rorate Caeli (June 26, 2012) New Catholic, "Rorate Exclusive: The Anti-Traditional and Anti-Liturgical Pastoral Letter to be Sent by the Bishop of Charlotte on Liturgical Norms in His Diocese", Rorate Caeli (May 28, 2025) Gerard O'Connell, "Interview: Cardinal Müller on if Pope Francis was a heretic and what he wants in the next pope", America (May 3, 2025) Some of the heresies of 'Cardinal' Gerhard Ludwig Müller: Denial of Christ's Bodily Resurrection | Denial of Transubstantiation | Denial of the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary Fathers John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology (New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1958) YouTube Video: Taylor Marshall, "I submit to POPE LEO XIV – My Initial Thoughts" (May 9, 2025). Quoted excerpt starts at 1:33:20 min mark. YouTube Video: Taylor Marshall, "Pope Leo XIV removes controversial Head of John Paul II Institute" (May 19, 2025). Quoted excerpt starts at 43:36 min mark. Sign up to be notified of new episode releases automatically at tradcast.org. Produced by NOVUSORDOWATCH.org Support us by making a tax-deductible contribution at NovusOrdoWatch.org/donate/

Ten years ago, “five lawyers” on the U.S. Supreme Court abused their duty to interpret the Constitution. Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics of the day with co-hosts and guests that impact life, liberty, and family. To stay informed and get involved, visit LC.org.

Buckle up, patriots—Jeff and Shannon are diving headfirst into DOD Press Conference on Iran's Nuke Program Obliteration; Press Sec Karoline Leavitt, tearing through the fog of mainstream media lies. With their relentless truth-seeking, they'll unpack the Department of Defense's claims about the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, questioning the narrative of “total obliteration” pushed by President Trump and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. Was the mission the resounding success Leavitt and Secretary Hegseth claim, or are reports of a mere months-long setback closer to the truth? Expect sharp analysis of Leavitt's heated rebuttals to leaked intelligence assessments, live reactions to her press briefings, and exclusive insights into the chatter on X about the strikes' impact. The truth is learned, never told—join the fight for clarity as the MG Show digs into the real story, with the Constitution as your weapon. Tune in at noon-0-five Eastern LIVE to stand with Trump! Tune in weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST, hosted by @InTheMatrixxx and @Shadygrooove. Catch up on-demand on https://rumble.com/mgshow or via your favorite podcast platform. Where to Watch & Listen Live on https://rumble.com/mgshow https://mgshow.link/redstate X: https://x.com/inthematrixxx Backup: https://kick.com/mgshow PODCASTS: Available on PodBean, Apple, Pandora, and Amazon Music. Search for "MG Show" to listen. Engage with Us Join the conversation on https://t.me/mgshowchannel and participate in live voice chats at https://t.me/MGShow. Social & Support Follow us on X: @intheMatrixxx and @ShadyGrooove Join our listener group on X: https://mgshow.link/xgroup Support the show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Special: Use code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow for savings! Crypto donations: Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links Find everything on https://linktr.ee/mgshow

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/native-american-studies

We The People must stand strong, stay united, resolute, calm, and focus on the mission. Order Mel's New Book: Americans Anonymous: Restoring Power to the People One Citizen at a Time https://themelkshow.com/book The Show's Partners Page: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Consider Making A Donation: https://themelkshow.com/donate/ Beverly Hills Precious Metals Exchange - Buy Gold & Silver https://themelkshow.com/gold/ Speak with Gold Expert Andrew Sorchini…Tell Him Mel K Sent You! Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK I trust SatellitePhoneStore when all other networks fail. With their phone, I know I'm always connected, no matter where I am or what happens. https://sat123.com/melk/ I've tried a lot of supplements over the years, but nothing has compared to the purity and results I've experienced with Chemical Free Body. USE CODE MELK Mel K Superfoods Supercharge your wellness with Mel K Superfoods Use Code: MELKWELLNESS and Save Over $100 off retail today! https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Healthy Hydration: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Patriot Mobile Support your values, your freedom and the Mel K Show. Switch to Patriot Mobile for Free. Use free activation code MELK https://themelkshow.com/partners/ HempWorx The #1 selling CBD brand. Offering cutting edge products that run the gamut from CBD oils and other hemp products to essential oils in our Mantra Brand, MDC Daily Sprays which are Vitamin and Herb combination sprays/ https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Zelenko Immunity Protocols https://zstacklife.com/MelK Support Patriots With MyPillow Go to https://www.mypillow.com/melk Use offer code “MelK” to support both MyPillow and The Mel K Show The Wellness Company - Emergency Medical Kits: https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Dr. Stella Immanuel, MD. Consult with a renowned healthcare provider! Offering Telehealth Services & Supplements. Use offer code ‘MelK' for 5% Off https://themelkshow.com/partners/ Rumble (Video) - The Mel K Show: https://rumble.com/c/TheMelKShow X: https://twitter.com/MelKShow Twitter (Original): https://twitter.com/originalmelk TRUTH Social: https://truthsocial.com/@themelkshow Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/themelkshow/ Podbean: https://themelkshow.podbean.com/ GETTR: https://www.gettr.com/user/themelkshow Locals.com: https://melk.locals.com/ Banned Video: https://banned.video/channel/the-mel-k-show We at www.themelkshow.com want to thank all our amazing patriot pals for joining us on this journey, for your support of our work, and for your faith in this biblical transition to greatness. Together we are unstoppable. We look forward to seeing you. God Wins! https://themelkshow.com/events/ Remember to mention Mel K for great discounts on all these fun and informative events. See you there! Our Website www.TheMelKShow.com We love what we do and are working hard to keep on top of everything to help this transition along peacefully and with love. Please help us amplify our message: Like, Comment & Share!

This Day in Legal History: United States v. VirginiaOn this day in legal history, June 26, 1996, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Virginia, striking down the Virginia Military Institute's (VMI) male-only admissions policy. The 7–1 ruling held that the exclusion of women violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized that gender-based government action must demonstrate an “exceedingly persuasive justification” to be constitutional.VMI had long argued that its adversative, military-style education would be compromised by the inclusion of women. In response to the lawsuit, Virginia created a separate program for women at Mary Baldwin College, which the Court found to be inherently unequal. The Court concluded that Virginia failed to show that its gender-based admissions policy was substantially related to an important governmental objective.Justice Ginsburg's opinion stressed that generalizations about gender roles cannot justify the denial of opportunity. The ruling did not require VMI to change its core program but made clear that women must be given equal access to it. This decision marked a significant moment in the legal evolution of gender equality and helped to dismantle one of the most visible public institutions that had resisted coeducation.Justice Scalia dissented, arguing that the decision imposed a rigid standard of gender equality that went beyond the Constitution's text and history. Nevertheless, the ruling reflected the Court's growing skepticism of laws that enforce traditional gender roles. United States v. Virginia remains one of the most cited gender discrimination cases and is considered a hallmark of Ginsburg's judicial legacy.A federal judge has extended a block on the Trump administration's attempt to dismantle Job Corps, a longstanding job training program for low-income youth. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter ruled that the Department of Labor's plan to abruptly end the program without congressional approval likely violates federal law. The decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the National Job Corps Association and several of its contractors.Job Corps, established in 1964, provides educational and vocational training for disadvantaged individuals aged 16 to 24. It currently serves about 25,000 participants at 120 centers nationwide, with an annual budget of $1.7 billion. The administration argued the program was inefficient, citing low graduation rates, poor job placement, and issues with violence and security at centers.However, plaintiffs maintain that only Congress can terminate a federally funded program and that the Labor Department failed to follow statutory procedures for closing individual centers. Judge Carter agreed, stating that once Congress mandates and funds a program, the executive branch cannot unilaterally terminate it.US judge extends block on Trump's bid to eliminate Job Corps program | ReutersA federal judge in San Francisco ruled in favor of Meta Platforms, dismissing a copyright lawsuit brought by authors who accused the company of using their books without permission to train its AI system, Llama. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria found the authors failed to show sufficient evidence that Meta's AI training harmed the market for their work—an essential element in proving copyright infringement under U.S. law.While Chhabria emphasized that unauthorized use of copyrighted works for AI training could be illegal in many scenarios, he clarified that his ruling was limited to the plaintiffs' failure to present the right arguments or evidence. This position diverges from another recent ruling in which Judge William Alsup found that Anthropic's AI use of copyrighted content qualified as fair use.The authors' legal team criticized the decision, calling Meta's actions a form of “historically unprecedented pirating,” while Meta praised the outcome and defended fair use as essential for developing transformative AI technologies.This case is part of a broader legal wave in which creators are challenging companies like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Anthropic over AI systems trained on copyrighted materials. At the heart of the dispute is whether using such content without payment or permission to create AI-generated works constitutes fair use or undermines creative incentives.Meta fends off authors' US copyright lawsuit over AI | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I note the IRS managed an objectively successful 2025 filing season—processing nearly 138 million returns, most of them electronically—but also that success masks deeper structural weaknesses. While headline numbers are strong, the IRS suspended over 13 million returns, largely due to fraud checks or errors, delaying refunds and spotlighting operational vulnerabilities. One of the most glaring issues is the average 20-month wait time for identity theft victims to resolve their cases, many of whom are low-income taxpayers urgently awaiting those refunds.Staffing levels are at crisis lows: the IRS workforce shrank by 26% in the first half of 2025, casting doubt on its ability to maintain performance as the temporary funding from the Inflation Reduction Act winds down. Looking ahead, the 2026 expiration of key provisions from the 2017 tax law will require major administrative overhauls—updates to forms, guidance, and withholding tables—that the current IRS may be too under-resourced to handle.The agency has promising plans, including digitization of paper returns and case system integration, but even the best-designed systems require trained staff to implement and maintain them. Moreover, modernization must be inclusive: 17% of Americans still lack internet access, and an effective IRS must serve them too. Ultimately, tax administration is not just a technical task—it's a distributive justice issue, and how we fund and staff it determines who bears the burden when the system falters.What The IRS' 2025 Filing Season Tells Us About The Future Of Taxes This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The anti-abortion cause gets another big win from the Supreme Court. President gets a big win at the NATO summit in Europe. And Marco Rubio educated Democrats on the Constitution.   Watch videos from the podcast on Rumble! https://rumble.com/user/DumbassesTalkingPolitics Visit the website to view show noted, videos, and links. https://www.dumbassestalkingpolitics.com  

A weekly magazine-style radio show featuring the voices and stories of Asians and Pacific Islanders from all corners of our community. The show is produced by a collective of media makers, deejays, and activists. Tonight Producer Swati Rayasam showcases a community panel of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech.   Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – “Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us” SHOW TRANSCRIPT Swati Rayasam: You are tuned in to APEX Express on KPFA. My name is Swati Rayasam and I'm back as your special producer for this episode. Tonight we have an incredible community panel titled Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison. This panel explores the history of how discriminatory exclusion policies during times of heightened fears of national security and [00:01:00] safety have threatened our communities in the past, and how the activities of the current administration threaten our core constitutional rights, raising the specter of politicization and polarization of citizenship, immigration visas, naturalization rights, and the right to free speech. I'll pass it on to UC Berkeley Ethnic Studies Professor Mike Chang to kick us off. Mike and Harvey: We're starting on Berkeley time, right on time at three 10, and I want to introduce Harvey Dong. Harvey Dong: Okay. The sponsors for today's event include, AADS- Asian American and Diaspora studies program, uc, Berkeley, Asian American Research Center, the Center for Race and Gender Department of Ethnic Studies- all part of uc, Berkeley. Off campus, we have the following community groups. Chinese for Affirmative Action, Asian Law Caucus, [00:02:00] Asian Prisoners Support Committee, and East Wind Books. Okay, so that's, quite a few in terms of coalition people coming together. My name is Harvey Dong and I'm also a lecturer in the AADS program and part of the ethnic studies department. I can say that I exist here as the result of birthright citizenship won by Ancestor Wong Kim Ark in 1898. Otherwise, I would not be here. We want to welcome everyone here today, for this important panel discussion titled: Deport, Exclude, Revoke, Imprison – Immigration and citizenship rights during crisis. Yes, we are in a deep crisis today. The Chinese characters for crisis is way G in Mandarin or way gay in [00:03:00] Cantonese, which means danger and opportunity. We are in a moment of danger and at the same time in a moment of opportunity. Our communities are under attack from undocumented, documented, and those with citizenship. We see urgency in coming together. In 1898, the US Supreme Court case, US versus Wong Kim Ark held that under the 14th Amendment birthright, citizenship applies to all people born in the United States. Regardless of their race or their parents' national origin or immigration status. On May 15th this year, the Supreme Court will hear a President Donald Trump's request to implement an executive order that will end birthright citizenship already before May 15th, [00:04:00] deportations of US citizen children are taking place. Recently, three US citizen children, one 2-year-old with cancer have been deported with their undocumented parents. The numbers of US citizen children are much higher being deported because it's less covered in the press. Unconstitutional. Yes, definitely. And it's taking place now. Also today, more than 2.7 million southeast Asian Americans live in the US but at least 16,000 community members have received final orders of deportation, placing their lives and families in limbo. This presents a mental health challenge and extreme economic hardship for individuals and families who do not know whether their next day in the US will be their last. Wong Kim Ark's [00:05:00] struggle and the lessons of Wong Kim Ark, continue today. His resistance provides us with a grounding for our resistance. So they say deport, exclude, revoke, imprison. We say cease and desist. You can say that every day it just seems like the system's gone amuk. There's constant attacks on people of color, on immigrants and so forth. And our only solution, or the most important solution is to resist, legally resist, but also to protest, to demand cease and desist. Today brings together campus and community people. We want you all to be informed because if you're uninformed , you can't do anything. Okay? You have to know where things are at. It's nothing new. What they're trying to do, in 1882, [00:06:00] during times of economic crisis, they scapegoated Asian Americans. Today there's economic, political crisis. And the scapegoating continues. They're not doing anything new. You know, it's old stuff, but we have to realize that, and we have to look at the past in terms of what was done to fight it and also build new solidarities today. Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. He went through, lots of obstacles. He spent three months in Angel Island he was arrested after he won his case because he was constantly being harassed wherever he went. His kids when they came over were also, spotted as being Wong Kim Ark's, children, and they too had to spend months at Angel Island. So Wong Kim Ark did not take his situation sitting down. We need to learn from him today. Our [00:07:00] next, special guest is Mr. Norman Wong, a good friend of mine. He was active here in the third world Liberation Front strike that led to ethnic studies. He did a lots of work for the development of Asian American studies and we've been out in touch for about, what, 40 years? So I'm really happy that he's able to come back to Berkeley and to talk about yourself, if you wish, maybe during the Q and a, but to talk about , the significance of your great-grandfather's case. Okay, so Norman Wong, let's give him a hand. Norman Wong: Hello, my name's Norman Wong. I'm the great grandson, Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark was [00:08:00] born in the USA, like my great-grandfather. I, too was born American in the same city, San Francisco, more than 75 years after him. We are both Americans, but unlike him, my citizenship has never been challenged. His willingness to stand up and fight made the difference for his struggles, my humble thanks. Wong Kim Ark however, was challenged more than once. In late 1889 as an American, he traveled to China in July, 1890. He returned to his birth city. He had his papers and had no problems with reentry. In 1895, after a similar trip, he was stopped from disembarking and was placed into custody for five months aboard ship in port. [00:09:00] Citizenship denied, the reason the Chinese exclusion Act 1882. He had to win this case in district court, provide $250 bail and then win again in the United States Supreme Court, March 28th, 1898. Only from these efforts, he was able to claim his citizenship granted by birthright from the 14th Amendment and gain his freedom. That would not be the last challenge to his being American. My mother suffered similar treatment. She like my great-grandfather, was born in America. In 1942, she was forced with her family and thousands of other Japanese Americans to relocation camps an experience unspoken by her family. [00:10:00] I first learned about Japanese American internment from history books. Executive order 9066 was the command. No due process, citizenship's rights stripped. She was not American enough. Now we have executive order 14160. It is an attack on birthright citizenship. We cannot let this happen. We must stand together. We are a nation of immigrants. What kind of nation are we to be with stateless children? Born to no country. To this, I say no. We as Americans need to embrace each other and [00:11:00] cherish each new life. Born in the USA. Thank you. Harvey Dong: Thank you, Norman. And Annie Lee, will moderate, the following panel, involving campus and community representatives who will be sharing their knowledge and experience. Annie Lee, Esquire is an attorney. She's also the, managing director of policy for Chinese Affirmative Action, and she's also, heavily involved in the birthright citizenship issue. Annie Lee: Thank you so much Harvey for that very warm welcome and thank you again to Norman for your remarks. I think it's incredible that you're speaking up at this moment, to preserve your ancestors' legacy because it impacts not just you and him, but all of us [00:12:00] here. So thank you. As Harvey said, my name is Annie Lee and I have this honor of working with this amazing panel of esteemed guest we have today. So I will ask each of them to introduce themselves. And I will start, because I would love to hear your name, pronouns. Title and organization as well as your personal or professional relationship with the US Immigration System. So my name's Annie. I use she her pronouns. I'm the managing Director of policy at Chinese for Affirmative Action, which is a non-profit based in San Francisco Chinatown. We provide direct services to the monolingual working class Chinese community, and also advocate for policies to benefit all Asian Americans. My relationship with the immigration system is I am the child of two Chinese immigrants who did not speak English. And so I just remember lots of time spent on the phone when I was a kid with INS, and then it became U-S-C-I-S just trying to ask them what happened to [00:13:00] a family member's application for naturalization, for visas so I was the interpreter for them growing up and even today. I will pass it to Letty. Leti Volpp: Hi everybody. Thank you so much, Annie. Thank you Harvey. Thank you, Norman. That was profoundly moving to hear your remarks and I love the way that you framed our conversation, Harvey. I'm Leti Volpp. I am the Robert d and Leslie k Raven, professor of Law and Access to Justice at the Berkeley Law, school. I'm also the director of the campus wide , center for Race and Gender, which is a legacy of the Third World Liberation Front, and the 1999, student movement, that led to the creation of the center. I work on immigration law and citizenship theory, and I am the daughter, second of four, children of my mother who was an immigrant from China, and my father who was an immigrant [00:14:00] from Germany. So I'll pass it. Thank you. Ke Lam: Thank you. Thank you all for being here. Thank you, Norman. So my name's Key. I go by he, him pronouns or Nghiep “Ke” Lam, is my full name. I work for an organization called Asian Prison Support Committee. It's been around for like over two decades now, and it started behind three guys advocating for ethics study, Asian and Pacific Islander history. And then it was starting in San Quent State Prison. All three of them pushed for ethics study, hard and the result is they all was put into solitary confinement. And many years later, after all three got out, was Eddie Zang, Mike Romero and Mike no. And when they got out, Eddie came back and we pushed for ethics study again, and we actually got it started in 2013. And it's been going on to today. Then the programs is called Roots, restoring our Original True Self. So reconnecting with who we are. And one of Eddie's main, mottos that really stuck with me. He said, we need to all connect to our chi, right? And I'm like, okay, I understand what chi is, and he said no. He [00:15:00] said, you need to connect to your culture, your history, which result to equal your identity, who you are as a person. So, the more we study about our history and our culture, like, birthright citizen, it empower us to know, who we are today. Right? And also part of that is to how do we take down the veil of shame in our community, the veil of trauma that's impacting our community as well. We don't talk about issue that impact us like immigration. So I'm a 1.5 generation. So I was born in Vietnam from Chinese family that migrant from China to Vietnam started business after the fall of Vietnam War. We all got kicked out but more than that, I am directly impacted because I am a stranded deportee, somebody that got their, legal status taken away because of criminal conviction. And as of any moment now, I could actually be taken away. So I live in that, right at that threshold of like uncertainty right now. And the people I work with, which are hundreds of people, are fixing that same uncertainty.[00:16:00] Annie Lee: Thank you, Ke. I'm gonna pass it to our panelists who are joining us virtually, including Bun. Can you start and then we'll pass it to Chris after. Bun: Hey everybody, thank you for having me. My name is Bun. I'm the co-director of Asian Prison Support Committee. I'm also, 1.5 generation former incarcerated and under, direct impact of immigration. Christopher Lapinig: Hi everyone. My name is Christopher Lapinig, my pronouns are he, him and Sha. I am a senior staff attorney on the Democracy and National Initiatives Team at Asian Law Caucus, which you may know is the country's first and oldest legal aid in civil rights organization, dedicated to serving, low income immigrant and underserved AAPI communities. In terms of my connection to the immigration system, I am, I also am a beneficiary of a birthright citizenship, and my parents are both immigrants from the Philippines. I was born in New York City. My [00:17:00] extended family spans both in the US and the Philippines. After graduating law school and clerking, my fellowship project was focused on providing litigation and immigration services to, survivors of labor trafficking in the Filipino community. While working at Asian Americans Advancing Justice Los Angeles, I also was engaged in, class action litigation, challenging the first Trump administration's practices, detaining immigrants in the Vietnamese and Cambodian communities. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Thank you Bun. Let's start off by talking about birthright citizenship since it's a big topic these days. On the very, very first day of Trump's administration, he issued a flurry of executive orders, including one that would alter birthright citizenship. But I wanna take us back to the beginning because why do we have this right? It is a very broad right? If you were born in the United States, you are an American citizen. Where does that come from? So I wanna pose the first question to Letty to talk about the [00:18:00] origins of birthright citizenship., Leti Volpp: Very happy to. So what's being fought about is a particular clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment, which says, all persons born are naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. Okay, so that's the text. There's been a very long understanding of what this text means, which says that regardless of the immigration status of one's parents, all children born here are entitled to birthright citizenship with three narrow exceptions, which I will explain. So the Trump administration executive order, wants to exclude from birthright citizenship, the children of undocumented immigrants, and the children of people who are here on lawful temporary visas. So for example, somebody here on an [00:19:00] F1 student visa, somebody on a H one B worker visa, somebody here is a tourist, right? And basically they're saying we've been getting this clause wrong for over a hundred years. And I will explain to you why I think they're making this very dubious argument. Essentially when you think about where the 14th amendment came from, in the United States, in the Antebellum era, about 20% of people were enslaved and there were lots of debates about citizenship. Who should be a citizen? Who could be a citizen? And in 1857, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case called Dread Scott, where they said that no person who was black, whether free or enslaved, could ever be a citizen. The Civil War gets fought, they end slavery. And then the question arose, well, what does this mean for citizenship? Who's a citizen of the United States? And in 1866, Congress [00:20:00] enacts a law called the Civil Rights Act, which basically gave rights to people that were previously denied and said that everybody born in the United States is a birthright citizen. This gets repeated in the 14th Amendment with the very important interpretation of this clause in Norman's great-grandfather's case, the case of Wong Kim Ark. So this came before the Supreme Court in 1898. If you think about the timing of this, the federal government had basically abandoned the reconstruction project, which was the project of trying to newly enfranchised, African Americans in the United States. The Supreme Court had just issued the decision, Plessy versus Ferguson, which basically legitimated the idea that, we can have separate, but equal, as a doctrine of rights. So it was a nation that was newly hostile to the goals of the Reconstruction Congress, and so they had this case come before them, whereas we heard [00:21:00] from Norman, we have his great-grandfather born in San Francisco, Chinatown, traveling back and forth to China. His parents having actually left the United States. And this was basically presented as a test case to the Supreme Court. Where the government tried to argue, similar to what the Trump administration is arguing today, that birthright citizenship, that clause does not guarantee universal birthright citizenship saying that children of immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because their parents are also not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The Supreme Court took over a year to decide the case. They knew that it would be controversial, and the majority of the court said, this provision is clear. It uses universal language. It's intended to apply to children of all immigrants. One of the things that's interesting about [00:22:00] what the, well I'll let Chris actually talk about what the Trump administration, is trying to do, but let me just say that in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court makes very clear there only three narrow exceptions to who is covered by the 14th Amendment. They're children of diplomats. So for example, if the Ambassador of Germany is in the United States, and, she has a daughter, like her daughter should not become a birthright citizen, right? This is why there's diplomatic immunity. Why, for example, in New York City, there are millions of dollars apparently owed to the city, in parking tickets by ambassadors who don't bother to pay them because they're not actually subject to the jurisdiction in the United States. Okay? Second category, children of Native Americans who are seen as having a sovereign relationship of their own, where it's like a nation within a nation, kind of dynamic, a country within a country. And there were detailed conversations in the congressional debate about the [00:23:00] 14th Amendment, about both of these categories of people. The third category, were children born to a hostile invading army. Okay? So one argument you may have heard people talk about is oh, I think of undocumented immigrants as an invading army. Okay? If you look at the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is very clear that what was intended, by this category of people were a context where the hostile invading army is actually in control of that jurisdiction, right? So that the United States government is not actually governing that space so that the people living in it don't have to be obedient, to the United States. They're obedient to this foreign power. Okay? So the thread between all three of these exceptions is about are you having to be obedient to the laws of the United States? So for example, if you're an undocumented immigrant, you are subject to being criminally prosecuted if you commit a crime, right? Or [00:24:00] you are potentially subjected to deportation, right? You have to obey the law of the United States, right? You are still subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Okay? But the Trump administration, as we're about to hear, is making different arguments. Annie Lee: Thank you so much, Leti for that historical context, which I think is so important because, so many different communities of color have contributed to the rights that we have today. And so what Leti is saying here is that birthright citizenship is a direct result of black liberation and fighting for freedom in the Civil War and making sure that they were then recognized as full citizens. And then reinforced, expanded, by Wong Kim Ark. And now we are all beneficiaries and the vast majority of Americans get our citizenship through birth. Okay? That is true for white people, black people. If you're born here, you get your ci. You don't have to do anything. You don't have to go to court. You don't have to say anything. You are a US citizen. And now as Leti referenced, there's this fringe legal theory that, thankfully we've got lawyers like [00:25:00] Chris who are fighting this. So Chris, you're on the ALC team, one of many lawsuits against the Trump administration regarding this unlawful executive order. Can you tell us a little bit about the litigation and the arguments, but I actually really want you to focus on what are the harms of this executive order? Sometimes I think particularly if you are a citizen, and I am one, sometimes we take what we have for granted and you don't even realize what citizenship means or confers. So Chris, can you talk about the harms if this executive order were to go through? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. As Professor Volpp sort of explained this executive order really is an assault on a fundamental constitutional right that has existed for more than a hundred years at this point, or, well, about 125 years. And if it is allowed to be implemented, the harms would really be devastating and far reach. So first, you know, children born in the us, the [00:26:00] parents without permanent status, as permissible said, would be rendered effectively stateless, in many cases. And these are of course, children, babies who have never known any other home, yet they would be denied the basic rights of citizen. And so the order targets a vast range of families, and not just undocument immigrants, but also those with work visas, student visas, humanitarian productions like TPS, asylum seekers, fleeing persecution, DACA recipients as well. And a lot of these communities have deep ties to Asian American community. To our history, and of course are, essential part, of our social fabric. In practical terms, children born without birthright citizenship would be denied access to healthcare through Medicaid, through denied access to snap nutritional assistance, even basic IDs like social security numbers, passports. And then as they grow older, they'd be barred from voting, serving on juries and even [00:27:00] working. And then later on in life, they might be, if they, are convicted of a crime and make them deportable, they could face deportation to countries that they never stepped, foot off basically. And so this basically is this executive order threatened at risk, creating exactly what the drafters of the 14th Amendment wanted to prevent the creation of a permanent underclass of people in the United States. It'll just get amplified over time. If you can imagine if there's one generation of people born without citizenship, there will be a second generation born and a third and fourth, and it'll just get amplified over time. And so it truly is just, hard to get your mind around exactly what the impact of this EO would be. Annie Lee: Thanks, Chris. And where are we in the litigation right now? Harvey referenced, a hearing at the Supreme Court on May 15th, but, tell us a little bit about the injunction and the arguments on the merits and when that can, when we can expect [00:28:00] that. Christopher Lapinig: Yeah, so there were a number of lawsuits filed immediately after, the administration issued its exec order on January 20th. Asian Law Caucus we filed with the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project. Literally we were the first lawsuit, literally hours after the executive order was issued. By early February, federal judges across the country had issued nationwide preliminary injunctions blocking implementation of the order. Our case is actually not a nationwide injunction. And so there're basically, I believe three cases that are going up to the Supreme Court. And, the Trump administration appealed to various circuit courts to try to undo these injunctions. But all circuit courts upheld the injunctive relief and and so now the Supreme Court is going to be hearing arguments on May 15th. And so it has not actually ruled on whether or not the executive order is constitutional, but it's going to. I mean, it remains to be seen exactly what they're going to decide but may [00:29:00] 15th is the next date is the big date on our calendar. Annie Lee: Yeah. So the Trump administration is arguing that these judges in a particular district, it's not fair if they get to say that the entire country, is barred from receiving this executive order. Is that procedurally correct. Judges, in order to consider whether to grants an injunction, they have a whole battery of factors that they look at, including one, which is like likelihood of winning on the merits. Because if something is unconstitutional, it's not really great to say, yeah, you can let this executive order go through. And then like later when the court cases finally worked their way, like a year later, pull back from that. And so that's, it's very frustrating to see this argument. And it's also unfair and would be very messy if the states that had republican Attorneys General who did not litigate, why would you allow the executive order to go forward in those red states and not in these blue state? It really, I would say federalism run terribly amuck. Swati Rayasam: [00:30:00] You are tuned in to APEX Express on 94.1 KPFA, 89.3 KPFB in Berkeley,. 88.1. KFCF in Fresno and online@kpfa.org. Annie Lee: But anyway, let's see back off from the actual case because I think what we're really talking about and what Chris has alluded to is, these cases about birthright citizenship, all the immigration policy is essentially determining who belongs here. Who belongs here. That's what immigration policy is at its heart. And we see that the right wing is weaponizing that question, who belongs here? And they are going after very vulnerable populations, undocumented people, people who are formerly incarcerated. So Bun if you can talk about how, is the formerly incarcerated community, like targeted immigrants, targeted for deportation? What is going on with this community that I feel like most people might not know about? Thank [00:31:00] you. Bun: Yes. For our folks that are incarcerated and former incarcerated, we are the easiest target for deportation because we are in custody and in California, CDCR colludes with ICE and on the day that we are to be paroled they're at the door, cuffing us up and taking us to detention. I'm glad to hear Harvey say, this is a time of fear for us and also opportunity. Right now, our whole community, the Southeast Asian community, mainly are very effective with immigration. In the past 25 years, mostly it was the Cambodian community that was being targeted and deported. At this moment, they are targeting, all of the Southeast Asian community, which historically was never deported because of the politics and agreements, of the Vietnamese community. And now the Laos community thats more concerning, that are being targeted for deportation. Trump have opened a new opportunity for us as a community to join [00:32:00] together and understand each other's story, and understand each other's fear. Understand where we're going about immigration. From birthright to crimmagration. A lot of times folks that are under crimmigration are often not spoken about because of our cultural shame, within our own family and also some of our community member felt safe because the political agreements. Now that everybody's in danger, we could stand together and understand each other's issue and support each other because now we could see that history has repeated itself. Again, we are the scapegoat. We are here together fighting the same issue in different circumstances, but the same issue. Annie Lee: But let me follow up. What are these, historical agreements that you're talking about that used to feel like used to at least shield the community that now aren't in place anymore? Bun: Yeah. After the Clinton administration, uh, passed the IRA [immigration reform act] a lot of Southeast Asian nations were asked to [00:33:00] take their nationals back. Even though we as 1.5 generation, which are the one that's mostly impacted by this, had never even stepped into the country. Most of us were born in a refugee camp or we're too young to even remember where they came from. Countries like Cambodian folded right away because they needed the financial aid and whatever, was offering them and immediately a three with a MOU that they will take their citizens since the early two thousands. Vietnam had a stronger agreement, which, they would agree to only take folks that immigrated here after 1995 and anybody before 1995, they would not take, and Laos have just said no until just a few months ago. Laos has said no from when the, uh, the act was passed in 1995, the IRRIRA. Mm-hmm. So the big change we have now is Vietnam had signed a new MOU saying that they will take folks after 1995 [00:34:00] in the first administration and more recently, something that we never thought, happened so fast, was Laos agreeing to take their citizen back. And then the bigger issue about our Laos community is, it's not just Laos folks. It's the Hmong folks, the Myan folks, folks, folks that are still in danger of being returned back 'cause in the Vietnam War, they colluded and supported the Americans in the Vietnam War and were exiled out and kicked out, and were hunted down because of that. So, at this moment, our folks are very in fear, especially our loud folks, not knowing what's gonna happen to 'em. Ke Lam: So for folks that don't know what IRR means it means, illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It actually happened after the Oklahoma bombing, which was caused by a US citizen, a white US citizen. Yeah. But immigration law came out of it. That's what's crazy about it. Annie Lee: Can you tell us, how is APSC advocating to protect the community right now because you [00:35:00] are vulnerable? Ke Lam: So we had to censor a lot of our strategies. At first we used to use social media as a platform to show our work and then to support our community. But the government use that as a target to capture our people. So we stopped using social media. So we've been doing a lot of on the ground movement, such as trying to get local officials to do resolutions to push Governor Newsom to party more of our community members. The other thing is we hold pardon workshops, so try and get folks to get, either get a pardon or vacate their sentence. So commute their sentence to where it become misdemeanor is not deportable anymore. Support letters for our folks writing support letters to send to the governor and also to city official, to say, Hey, please help pardon our community. I think the other thing we are actually doing is solidarity work with other organizations, African American community as well as Latin communities because we've been siloed for so long and we've been banned against each other, where people kept saying like, they've taken all our job when I grew up. That's what they told us, right? [00:36:00] But we, reality that's not even true. It was just a wedge against our community. And then so it became the good versus bad narrative. So our advocacy is trying to change it it's called re-storying you know, so retelling our story from people that are impacted, not from people, not from the one percenters in our own community. Let's say like we're all good, do you, are there's parts of our community that like that's the bad people, right? But in reality, it affects us all. And so advocacy work is a lot of different, it comes in a lot of different shapes and forms, but definitely it comes from the community. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. You teed me up perfectly because there is such a good versus bad immigrant narrative that takes root and is really hard to fight against. And that's why this administration is targeting incarcerated and formerly incarcerated folks and another group that, are being targeted as people who are accused of crimes, including Venezuelan immigrants who are allegedly part of a gang. So, Leti how is the government deporting [00:37:00] people by simply accusing them of being a part of a gang? Like how is that even possible? Leti Volpp: Yeah, so one thing to think about is there is this thing called due process, right? It's guaranteed under the constitution to all persons. It's not just guaranteed to citizens. What does it mean? Procedural due process means there should be notice, there should be a hearing, there should be an impartial judge. You should have the opportunity to present evidence. You should have the opportunity to cross examinee. You should have the opportunity to provide witnesses. Right? And basically Trump and his advisors are in real time actively trying to completely eviscerate due process for everybody, right? So Trump recently said, I'm doing what I was elected to do, remove criminals from our country. But the courts don't seem to want me to do that. We cannot give everyone a trial because to do so would take without exaggeration, 200 years. And then Stephen Miller said the judicial process is for Americans. [00:38:00] Immediate deportation is for illegal aliens. Okay. Quote unquote. Right. So I think one thing to notice is, as we're hearing from all of our speakers are like the boxes, the categories into which people are put. And what's really disturbing is to witness how once somebody's put in the box of being quote unquote criminal gang banger terrorists, like the American public seems to be like, oh, okay you can do what you want to this person. There's a whole history of due process, which exists in the laws which was created. And all of these early cases actually involved Asian immigrants, right? And so first they were saying there's no due process. And then in a case called Yata versus Fisher, they said actually there is due process in deportation cases, there's regular immigration court proceedings, which accord with all of these measures of due process. There's also a procedure called expedited removal, [00:39:00] which Congress invented in the nineties where they wanted to come up with some kind of very quick way to summarily exclude people. It was motivated by a 60 Minutes episode where they showed people coming to Kennedy Airport, who didn't have any ID or visa or they had what seemed to be fake visas and they were let into the United States. And then they disappeared, right? According to the 60 Minutes episode. So basically Congress invented this procedure of, if you appear in the United States and you have no documents, or you have what an immigration inspector thinks are false documents, they can basically tell you, you can leave without this court hearing. And the only fail safe is what's called a credible fear screening. Where if you say, I want asylum, I fear persecution, I'm worried I might be tortured, then they're supposed to have the screening. And if you pass that screening, you get put in regular removal [00:40:00] proceedings. So before the Trump administration took office, these expedited removal proceedings were happening within a hundred miles of the border against people who could not show that they had been in the United States for more than two weeks. In one of his first executive orders. Trump extended this anywhere in the United States against people who cannot show they've been in the United States for more than two years. So people are recommending that people who potentially are in this situation to carry documentation, showing they've been physically in the United States for over two years. Trump is also using this Alien Enemies Act, which was basically a law Congress passed in 1798. It's only been used three times in US history it's a wartime law, right? So it was used in 1812, World War I, and World War II, and there's supposed to be a declared war between the United States and a foreign nation or government, or [00:41:00] there's an incursion threatened by a foreign nation or government, and the president makes public proclamation that all natives of this hostile nation, 14 and up shall be liable to be restrained and removed as alien enemies. Okay? So we're obviously not at war with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, right? They have not engaged in some kind of invasion or predatory incursion into the United States, but the Trump administration is claiming that they have and saying things like, oh, they're secretly a paramilitary wing of the Venezuelan government, even as the Venezuelan government is like cracking down on them. It's not a quasi sovereign, entity. There's no diplomatic relationships between Tren de Aragua and any other government. So these are legally and factually baseless arguments. Nonetheless, the administration has been basically taking people from Venezuela on the basis of tattoos. A tattoo of a crown of a [00:42:00] rose, right? Even when experts have said there's no relationship between what Tren de Aragua does and tattoos, right? And basically just kidnapping people and shipping them to the torture prison in El Salvador. As I'm sure you know of the case of Kimber Abrego Garcia, I'm sure we'll hear more about this from Christopher. There's a very small fraction of the persons that have been sent to this prison in El Salvador who actually have any criminal history. And I will say, even if they had a criminal history, nobody should be treated in this manner and sent to this prison, right? I mean, it's unbelievable that they've been sent to this prison allegedly indefinitely. They're paying $6 million a year to hold people there. And then the United States government is saying, oh, we don't have any power to facilitate or effectuate their return. And I think there's a struggle as to what to call this. It's not just deportation. This is like kidnapping. It's rendition. And there are people, there's like a particular person like who's completely [00:43:00] disappeared. Nobody knows if they're alive or dead. There are many people in that prison. People don't know if they're alive or dead. And I'm sure you've heard the stories of people who are gay asylum seekers, right? Who are now in this situation. There are also people that have been sent to Guantanamo, people were sent to Panama, right? And so I think there questions for us to think about like, what is this administration doing? How are they trying to do this in a spectacular fashion to instill fear? As we know as well, Trump had said oh, like I think it would be great when he met with Bukele if you build four more or five more facilities. I wanna house homegrown people in El Salvador, right? So this is all the more importance that we stick together, fight together, don't, as key was saying, don't let ourselves be split apart. Like we need a big mass coalition right? Of people working together on this. Annie Lee: So thank you leti and I think you're absolutely right. These Venezuelans were kidnapped [00:44:00] in the middle of the night. I mean, 2:00 AM 3:00 AM pulled out of bed, forced to sign documents they did not understand because these documents were only available in English and they speak Spanish, put on planes sent to El Salvador, a country they've never been to. The government didn't even have to prove anything. They did not have to prove anything, and they just snatch these people and now they're disappeared. We do have, for now the rule of law. And so Chris, there are judges saying that, Kimber Abrego Garcia has to be returned. And despite these court orders, the administration is not complying. So where does that leave us, Chris, in terms of rule of law and law in general? Christopher Lapinig: Yeah. So, I'm gonna make a little personal. So I graduated from Yale Law School in 2013, and you might know some of my classmates. One of my classmates is actually now the Vice President of the United States. Oh man. [00:45:00] Bless you. As well as the second lady, Usha Vance. And a classmate of mine, a good friend Sophia Nelson, who's a trans and queer, was recently on, I believe CNN answering a question about, I believe JD Vice President Vance, was asked about the administration's sort of refusal to comply with usual orders. Yeah. As we're talking about here and JD had said something like, well, courts, judges can't tell the president what he can't do, and sophia, to their credit, said, you know, I took constitutional law with JD, and, we definitely read Marbury Versus Madison together, and that is the semial sort of Supreme Court case that established that the US Supreme Court is the ultimate decider, arbiter, interpreter, of the US Constitution. And so is basically saying, I know JD knows better. He's lying essentially, in all of his [00:46:00] communications about, judicial orders and whether or not a presidential administration has to comply , with these orders. So, to get to your question though, it is of course unprecedented. Really. It is essentially, you know, it's not, if we not already reached. The point of a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional crisis. I think it's become clear to many of us that, democracy in the US has operated in large part, and has relied on, on, on the good faith in norms, that people are operating good faith and that presidents will comply when, a federal judge issues an injunction or a decision. It kind of leaves us in an interesting, unprecedented situation. And it means that, lawyers, we will continue to litigate and, go to court, but we can't, lawyers will not save the country or, immigrants or communities. We need to think extensively and creatively. [00:47:00] About how to ensure, that the rule of law is preserved because, this administration is not, abiding by the longstanding norms of compliance and so we have to think about, protests, advocacy, legislatively. I don't have the answers necessarily, but we can't rely on the courts to fix these problems really. Annie Lee: Oof. That was very real, Chris. Thank you. But I will say that when there is resistance, and we've seen it from students who are speaking up and advocating for what they believe is right and just including Palestinian Liberation, that there is swift retaliation. And I think that's partly because they are scared of student speech and movement and organizing. But this is a question to all of you. So if not the courts and if the administration is being incredibly retaliatory, and discriminatory in terms of viewpoint discrimination, in people and what people are saying and they're scouring our social [00:48:00] media like, Ke warns, like what can everyday people do to fight back? That's for all of you. So I don't know who, which of you wants to take it first? Ke Lam: Oh man. I say look at history, right? Even while this new president, I wanna say like, this dude is a convicted felon, right? Don't be surprised at why we country is in the way it is, because this dude's a convicted felon, a bad business person, right? And only care about the billionaires, you know? So I'm not surprised how this country's ending up the way it is 'cause it is all about money. One way that we can stand up is definitely band together, marched on the streets. It's been effective. You look at the civil right movement, that's the greatest example. Now you don't have to look too far. We can actually, when we come together, they can't fight us all. Right? It is, and this, it's like you look at even nature in the cell. When things band together, the predators cannot attack everyone. Right? They probably could hit a few of us, but in the [00:49:00] long run, we could change the law. I think another thing is we, we, as the people can march to the courts and push the courts to do the job right, despite what's going on., We had judges that been arrested for doing the right thing, right? And so, no matter what, we have to stand strong just despite the pressure and just push back. Annie Lee: Thanks, Ke. Chris? Christopher Lapinig: What this administration is doing is you know, straight out of the fascist playbook. They're working to, as we all know, shock and awe everyone, and make Americans feel powerless. Make them feel like they have no control, make them feel overwhelmed. And so I think first and foremost, take care of yourself , in terms of your health, in terms of your physical health, your mental health. Do what you can to keep yourself safe and healthy and happy. And do the same for your community, for your loved ones, your friends and family. And then once you've done that do what you can in terms of your time, treasure, [00:50:00] talent to, to fight back. Everyone has different talents, different levels of time that they can afford. But recognize that this is a marathon and not necessarily a sprint because we need everyone, in this resistance that we can get. Annie Lee: Thank you, Chris. Leti Volpp: There was a New Yorker article called, I think it was How to Be a Dissident which said, before recently many Americans, when you ask them about dissidents, they would think of far off countries. But they interviewed a lot of people who'd been dissidents in authoritarian regimes. And there were two, two things in that article that I'm taking with me among others. One of them said that in surveying like how authoritarian regimes are broken apart, like only 3.5% of the population has to oppose what's going on. The other thing was that you should find yourself a political home where you can return to frequently. It's almost like a religious or [00:51:00] spiritual practice where you go and you get refreshed and you're with like-minded people. And so I see this event, for example as doing that, and that we all need to find and nurture and foster spaces like this. Thank you. Annie Lee: Bun, do you have any parting words? Bun: Yeah. Like Ke said, to fight back, getting together, understanding issues and really uplifting, supporting, urging our own communities, to speak Up. You know, there's folks that can't speak out right now because of fear and danger, but there are folks here that can speak out and coming here learning all our situation really give the knowledge and the power to speak out for folks that can't speak down [unclear] right now. So I appreciate y'all Annie Lee: love that bun. I was gonna say the same thing. I feel like there is a special obligation for those of us who are citizens, citizens cannot be deported. Okay? Citizens have special rights based [00:52:00] on that status. And so there's a special responsibility on those of us who can speak, and not be afraid of retaliation from this government. I would also urge you all even though it's bleak at the federal level, we have state governments, we have local governments. You have a university here who is very powerful. And you have seen, we've seen that the uni that the administration backs down, sometimes when Harvard hit back, they back down and that means that there is a way to push the administration, but it does require you all putting pressure on your schools, on your local leaders, on your state leaders to fight back. My boss actually, Vin taught me this. You know, you think that politicians, lead, politicians do not lead politicians follow. Politicians follow and you all lead when you go out further, you give them cover to do the right thing. And so the farther you push and the more you speak out against this administration, the more you give them courage to do the right thing. And so you absolutely have to do that. A pardon [00:53:00] is critical. It is critical for people who are formerly incarcerated to avoid the immigration system and deportation. And so do that. Talk to your family, talk to your friends. My parents, despite being immigrants, they're kinda old school. Okay guys, they're like, you know, birthright citizenship does seem kind of like a loophole. Why should people like get like citizenship? I'm like, mom, we, I am a birthright citizen. Like, um, And I think for Asian Americans in particular, there is such a rich history of Asian American civil rights activism that we don't talk about enough, and maybe you do at Berkeley with ethnic studies and professors like Mike Chang. But, this is totally an interracial solidarity movement. We helped bring about Wong Kim Ark and there are beneficiaries of every shade of person. There's Yik wo, and I think about this all the time, which is another part of the 14th Amendment equal protection. Which black Americans fought for that in San Francisco. [00:54:00] Chinatown made real what? What does equal protection of the laws even mean? And that case was Seminole. You've got Lao versus Nichols. Another case coming out of San Francisco. Chinatown about English learner rights, the greatest beneficiary of Lao v Nichols, our Spanish speakers, they're Spanish speaking children in schools who get access to their education regardless of the language they speak. And so there are so many moments in Asian American history that we should be talking about, that we should educate our parents and our families about, because this is our moment. Now, this is another one of those times I wanna pass it to Mike and Harvey for questions, and I'm so excited to hear about them. Mike and Harvey: Wow, thank you so much. That's a amazing, panel and thank you for facilitating annie's wanna give it of a great value in terms of that spiritual home aspect. Norm how does your great grandfather's , experience in resistance, provide help for us [00:55:00] today? Norman Wong: Well, I think he was willing to do it. It only took one, if no one did it, this, we wouldn't be having the discussion because most of us would've never been here. And we need to come together on our common interests and put aside our differences because we all have differences. And if we tried, to have it our way for everything, we'll have it no way for us. We really need to, to bond and bind together and become strong as a people. And I don't mean as a racial or a national group. Mm-hmm. I mean, we're Americans now. We're Americans here think of us as joining with all Americans to make this country the way it's supposed to be. The way [00:56:00] we grew up, the one that we remember, this is not the America I grew up believing in. I'm glad he stood up. I'm proud that he did that. He did that. Him doing that gave me something that I've never had before. A validation of my own life. And so yes, I'm proud of him. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. It's not for me to own. Yeah. Wow. Really not. Thank you so much. Wong Kim Ark is for all of us. And, and , talking about the good , that we have here and, the optimism that Harvey spoke about, the opportunity, even in a moment of substantial danger. Thank you so much everybody. Mike and Harvey: This was amazing and really appreciate sharing this space with you and, building community and solidarity. Ke Lam: But is there any, can I leave with a chant before we close off? Oh yeah. Oh yeah. Yeah. Thank you so much. So this is a chant that we use on the ground all the time. You guys probably heard it. When I said when we fight, you guys said we [00:57:00] win when we fight. We win when we fight, we win. When we fight, we win up. Swati Rayasam: Thanks so much for tuning into APEX Express. Please check out our website at kpfa.org/program/apexexpress to find out more about the show tonight and to find out how you can take direct action. We thank all of you listeners out there. Keep resisting, keep organizing, keep creating, and sharing your visions with the world. Your voices are important. APEX Express is produced by Miko Lee, along with Jalena Keene-Lee, Ayame Keene-Lee, Preeti Mangala Shekar, Anuj Vaida, Cheryl Truong, Isabel Li, Ravi Grover, and me Swati Rayasam. Thank you so much to the team at KPFA for their support, and have a good [00:58:00] night.   The post APEX Express – 6.26.25-Deport. Exclude. Revoke. Imprison – Wong Kim Ark is for All of Us appeared first on KPFA.

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

Thank you to everyone who tuned into my live video! Join me for my next live video in the app.* Trump's One Big Beautiful (Ugly) Bill Versus an Unsung Hero: An unlikely hero blocked a provision that amounted to an assault on the Constitution: the Senate parliamentarian. Will her ruling stick? [More]* After Mamdani Victory, Progressives Call for Primary Chal… To hear more, visit egberto.substack.com

Between May 21 and June 16, 1791, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison went on a trip together through Upstate New York and parts of New England on horseback. This "northern journey" came at a moment of tension for the new nation, one in whose founding these Virginians and political allies had played key roles. The Constitution was ratified and President Washington was in his first term of office. Whether the country could overcome regional and political differences and remain unified, however, was still very much in question. Hence why some observers at the time wondered whether this excursion into Federalist New England by the two most prominent southern Democratic-Republicans, both future presidents, had an ulterior motive. Madison, maintained that the journey was for "health, recreation, and curiosity." He and Jefferson needed a break from their public responsibilities, so off they set. Along the way, they took notes on the ravages of the Hessian Fly, an insect that had been devastating wheat crops. While in Vermont, they focused on the sugar maple tree, which many hoped might offer a domestic alternative to slave-grown sugar cane imports. An encounter with a free Black farmer at Fort George resulted in a journal entry that illuminates their attitudes toward slavery and race. A meeting with members of the Unkechaug tribe on Long Island led to a vocabulary project that preoccupied Jefferson for decades, and which remains relevant today. The northern journey was also about friendship. Madison later recalled that the trip made Jefferson and him "immediate companions," solidifying a bond with almost no peer in the annals of American history, one that thrived for fifty years. Jefferson declared at the end of his life, that his friendship with Madison had been "a source of constant happiness" to him. A Journey North: Jefferson, Madison, and the Forging of a Friendship (Oxford University Press, 2025) reveals the moment when it took hold. Louis P. Masur is Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at Rutgers University. Caleb Zakarin is editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

PREVIEW: Colleague Rob Natelson comments on the question can Congress delegate to POTUS the trade power delegated to Congress by the Constitution? More. 1922 DC

When news broke that the United States had bombed Iran, members of Congress—the only people who can authorize war according to the Constitution—found out at the same time as the rest of us. What can they do to wrest this authority back; and where is this war with Iran headed now? Guest:  Mark Warner, Democratic Senator from Virginia and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Want more What Next? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening to the whole What Next family and across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Sign up now at slate.com/whatnextplus to get access wherever you listen. Podcast production by Ethan Oberman, Elena Schwartz, Paige Osburn, Anna Phillips, Madeline Ducharme, and Rob Gunther. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

‘TREASONOUS': Intel Leaker Under Investigation.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the arguments of the Anti-Federalists before introducing Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto. In a republic, every citizen has a duty to understand their government. The Federalist is the greatest exposition of representative government and the institutional structure of the Constitution. It explains how the Constitution established a government strong enough to secure the rights of citizens and safe enough to wield that power. This course will examine how Publius understood human nature and good government, and why he argued that the only true safeguard of liberty lies in the vigilance of the American people. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution because they feared a large, centralized government. They lost the immediate debate but succeeded in securing a Bill of Rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this episode of The Hillsdale College Online Courses Podcast, Jeremiah and Juan discuss the arguments of the Anti-Federalists before introducing Dr. Ronald J. Pestritto. In a republic, every citizen has a duty to understand their government. The Federalist is the greatest exposition of representative government and the institutional structure of the Constitution. It explains how the Constitution established a government strong enough to secure the rights of citizens and safe enough to wield that power. This course will examine how Publius understood human nature and good government, and why he argued that the only true safeguard of liberty lies in the vigilance of the American people. The Anti-Federalists opposed ratification of the Constitution because they feared a large, centralized government. They lost the immediate debate but succeeded in securing a Bill of Rights.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

     Buckle up, patriots—Jeff (@intheMatrixxx) and Shannon (@shadygrooove) are diving into Season 7, Episode 119, “President Trump at NATO; Fake News Lying About Iran Damage,” airing June 25, 2025, at 12:05 PM Eastern! The dynamic duo exposes the mainstream media's desperate spin, with CNN and The New York Times pushing a leaked intel report claiming U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites only caused “limited damage.” Trump, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, calls it “FAKE NEWS,” insisting the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sites were “completely obliterated” by bunker-buster bombs in Operation Midnight Hammer. Jeff and Shannon break down Trump's fiery NATO Summit presser in The Hague, where he doubled down on “total obliteration” and slammed media as “scum,” backed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt's truth-telling. Expect real-time X post analysis, showcasing public support for Trump's leadership and distrust of MSM narratives. The truth is learned, never told—use the Constitution as your weapon and tune in at noon-0-five Eastern LIVE to stand with Trump! Keywords Trump, Iran strikes, NATO Summit, fake news, CNN, New York Times, Karoline Leavitt, @intheMatrixxx, @shadygrooove, America First, Operation Midnight Hammer, nuclear sites Filename mgshow_s7e119_trump_nato_iran_fake_news Tune in weekdays at 12pm ET / 9am PST, hosted by @InTheMatrixxx and @Shadygrooove. Catch up on-demand on https://rumble.com/mgshow or via your favorite podcast platform. Where to Watch & Listen Live on https://rumble.com/mgshow https://mgshow.link/redstate X: https://x.com/inthematrixxx Backup: https://kick.com/mgshow PODCASTS: Available on PodBean, Apple, Pandora, and Amazon Music. Search for "MG Show" to listen. Engage with Us Join the conversation on https://t.me/mgshowchannel and participate in live voice chats at https://t.me/MGShow. Social & Support Follow us on X: @intheMatrixxx and @ShadyGrooove Join our listener group on X: https://mgshow.link/xgroup Support the show: Fundraiser: https://givesendgo.com/helpmgshow Donate: https://mg.show/support Merch: https://merch.mg.show MyPillow Special: Use code MGSHOW at https://mypillow.com/mgshow for savings! Crypto donations: Bitcoin: bc1qtl2mftxzv8cxnzenmpav6t72a95yudtkq9dsuf Ethereum: 0xA11f0d2A68193cC57FAF9787F6Db1d3c98cf0b4D ADA: addr1q9z3urhje7jp2g85m3d4avfegrxapdhp726qpcf7czekeuayrlwx4lrzcfxzvupnlqqjjfl0rw08z0fmgzdk7z4zzgnqujqzsf XLM: GAWJ55N3QFYPFA2IC6HBEQ3OTGJGDG6OMY6RHP4ZIDFJLQPEUS5RAMO7 LTC: ltc1qapwe55ljayyav8hgg2f9dx2y0dxy73u0tya0pu All Links Find everything on https://linktr.ee/mgshow

Send us a textBe it resolved: America's founders established a secular government with provision for a religious people. When the delegates met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, they deliberately prevented the government from favoring any religion. Then when the Bill of Rights were added, freedom of religious expression was guaranteed. Those who wanted a Christian government at the time were upset at what they called the religious defect in the Constitution. They were honest enough to admit what today's Christian nationalists often cover up: The Constitution is not a Christian document and the nation was not founded on the basis of Christianity. The Christian myths surrounding the Constitutional Convention and Constitution came out later. At the time, most people recognized that the founding was secular. This is a bonus episode with regular segments to return in July. Music provided by Earl's Taco Shack. Segment written by Warren Throckmorton

Indira Gandhi did not need to introduce new laws to give the Emergency teeth; such provisions already existed.  

Almost immediately after President Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, both countries began attacking again. Will a ceasefire ever be possible? Host of “Bannon's War Room” Steve Bannon joins to discuss how President Trump can move forward from this. Glenn and Steve also discuss how the MAGA movement can broker its own ceasefire. Are we in the kinetic part of World War III? Glenn brings up the dangers of sleeper-cell agents in America, brought in under Biden's abysmal border policy. Glenn reveals how he reacted when he first heard the news of a potential ceasefire between Israel and Iran and how it quickly fell apart. Glenn and Stu discuss the impossible task President Trump is facing and whether the Israel-Iran conflict is too far gone to be saved. Glenn reacts to the claim that Trump violated the Constitution by striking Iran. The guys discuss Israel's expert tactics so far in this war, as Stu reveals the part of the ceasefire he didn't understand. Glenn reacts to a heartwarming message from a World War II veteran. Glenn and Stu break down the nuance of “Make America Great Again” and where the Israel-Iran conflict fits in that vision.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/23/2025): 3:05pm- On Saturday night, seven U.S. B-2 bombers dropped a total of fourteen 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan. In a press conference following the strategic strike, President Donald Trump called the mission a “spectacular military success.” 3:10pm- On Monday, Iran responded to U.S. strikes on key nuclear development facilities by launching missiles at an American base in Qatar—the largest American military installation in the Middle East. The Defense Department has said the air defense systems intercepted the missiles and there were no U.S. casualties. 3:20pm- During a press conference Sunday night, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Dan Caine revealed that Iranian air defense never spotted the American B-2 bombers over Iranian airspace and, consequently, never fired a single shot during Saturday night's strategic bombing. 3:30pm- Deputy Head of Russian President Vladimir Putin's Security Council Dmitry Medvedev called America's strike on Iranian nuclear facilities a “dangerous escalation” and suggested other countries may supply Iran with a nuclear weapon—though, he did not say which nations. 3:40pm- Secretary of State Marco Rubio has warned Iran not to shut down the Strait of Hormuz with mines. China, an ally of Iran, has echoed a similar sentiment. According to estimates 84% of the crude oil that moves through the Strait goes to Asian markets. 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war. 5:00pm- Dr. EJ Antoni—Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to breakdown potential financial repercussions related to the strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. Could Iran respond by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and what would that mean for oil prices globally? 5:20pm- While appearing on Fox News, Trump Administration Border Czar Tom Homan discussed potential Iranian sleeper cells in the United States—explaining that the Biden Administration's relaxed border security policies resulted in “1,272 nationals of Iran released” into the U.S. 5:40pm- Breaking News: The Supreme Court has stayed a lower court order and will allow the Trump Administration to deport illegal migrants swiftly to countries where they don't have citizenship. 5:50pm- Did Mel Gibson and Pierce Brosnan turn down the role of Batman? 6:05pm- Dr. Victoria Coates—Former Deputy National Security Advisor & the Vice President of the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and reacts to the United States's strategic strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Plus, BREAKING NEWS: Israel and Iran have agreed to a ceasefire. Dr. Coates is the author of the book: “The Battle for the Jewish State: How Israel—and America—Can Win.” 6:30pm- In a post to Truth Social, Preside Donald Trump wrote: “CONGRATULATIONS TO EVERYONE! It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, E ...

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 2: 4:05pm- Listeners react to the Trump Administration's decision to strike Iranian nuclear facilities. Is there concern that Iran and its allies—China, Russia, and terror organizations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis—could retaliate? 4:30pm- John Yoo—The Emanuel Heller Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley—joins The Rich Zeoli Show and dismisses Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez's (D-NY) suggestion that President Donald Trump violated Article II of the Constitution and should be impeached for authorizing strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. 4:50pm- While appearing on Fox News, Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) praised the U.S. military's strikes on Iran and President Trump's decision—explaining “it was a very limited military exercise” and did not amount to a declaration of war.

Trump's Furious Phone Call with Netanyahu.

The Cult of the Omnipotent State (01:00:44 – 01:24:01)A 1999 article is used to explore how political movements adopt cult-like behavior, with criticism directed at both leftist ideologies and MAGA. The discussion links bureaucracies, education, taxation, and political idolatry to a broader pattern of state worship. MAGA as a Political Cult and the Attack on Thomas Massie (01:14:43 – 01:26:02)The MAGA movement is described as exhibiting extreme cult dynamics, exemplified by attacks on Thomas Massie for dissenting from Trump-era spending and war policy. Loyalty to political figures is shown to override constitutional principles.Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Christian Complicity (01:21:16 – 01:22:17)Historic government actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco are used to illustrate how public indifference—particularly among Christians—enabled state violence. The moral danger of ignoring civil liberty violations is emphasized.Government Worship vs. Christian Liberty (01:13:13 – 01:14:26)Taxation is contrasted with biblical charity, arguing that compulsory redistribution has supplanted voluntary giving. The segment questions how civic compliance is treated as virtuous despite funding immoral policies.Commentary on False Religious Leaders in Politics (01:09:28 – 01:10:04)Political figures who invoke divine authority or use moral language to justify policy are criticized. Spiritual and moral issues are argued to require non-political solutions, and the dangers of state-sanctioned morality are highlighted.Criticism of Euphemistic Framing of Military Strikes (01:50:49 – 01:54:56)Explores how political leaders use euphemisms like “war on Iran's nuclear program” to rebrand acts of war, while celebrating precision bombing and avoiding acknowledgment of civilian deaths.Congressional Criticism of Unauthorized War Powers (02:00:03 – 02:04:42)Multiple Democrats and Thomas Massie condemn Trump's strikes on Iran as unconstitutional and dangerous, with calls to pass a War Powers Resolution and prevent further escalation.Accusations of Republican Compliance for Profit (02:06:58 – 02:08:00)Critiques Republican lawmakers for falling in line with war decisions due to fear of Trump and financial incentives tied to the military-industrial complex.Historical Context for Anti-American Sentiment in Iran (02:10:44 – 02:14:15)Describes Operation Ajax, regime change, and decades of U.S. policy as root causes of Iranian hostility, arguing that longstanding grievances—not irrational hatred—explain tensions.Trump Calls for Regime Change While Denying It (02:23:36 – 02:24:27)Trump mocks the phrase “regime change” while suggesting Iran should be bombed into becoming “great again,” contradicting claims by his administration that the strike wasn't about regime change.Trump and MAGA Attack Massey Over Israel Dissent (02:55:17 – 03:01:27) Discussion of Trump's effort to politically destroy Rep. Thomas Massey for opposing military support for Israel, with accusations of MAGA cultism and blind allegiance to foreign policy agendas.Ted Cruz Reveals U.S. Involvement in Israeli Strikes (03:01:30 – 03:06:12) Ted Cruz appears to accidentally confirm U.S. support for Israeli attacks on Iran during a tense interview, triggering debate over foreign entanglements and false theological justifications.Critique of Misapplied Scripture in U.S.-Israel Policy (03:12:01 – 03:13:34)Pushes back against common Christian Zionist theology, arguing that blessings promised to Abraham do not apply to modern states, and questions what benefits the U.S. has received for supporting Israel.Charlie Kirk Criticized for Exploiting Christian Sentiment (03:20:56 – 03:21:32)Charlie Kirk is accused of manipulating Christian audiences with shallow biblical appeals to justify support for Israeli militarism and territorial expansion.Grace Schara Case: Legal System Shields Hospital Misconduct (03:34:05 – 03:47:00)Grace's family expresses heartbreak after losing their medical wrongful death suit, highlighting how tort caps, insurance favoritism, and anti-companionship statutes insulate hospitals from accountability.End-of-Life Meds and Systemic Abuse in U.S. Hospitals (03:47:01 – 03:58:35)Family testimony and commentary allege Grace was euthanized under COVID-era protocols, implicating morphine use, undisclosed sedatives, and hospital incentives for causing avoidable deaths. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.

The Cult of the Omnipotent State (01:00:44 – 01:24:01)A 1999 article is used to explore how political movements adopt cult-like behavior, with criticism directed at both leftist ideologies and MAGA. The discussion links bureaucracies, education, taxation, and political idolatry to a broader pattern of state worship. MAGA as a Political Cult and the Attack on Thomas Massie (01:14:43 – 01:26:02)The MAGA movement is described as exhibiting extreme cult dynamics, exemplified by attacks on Thomas Massie for dissenting from Trump-era spending and war policy. Loyalty to political figures is shown to override constitutional principles.Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Christian Complicity (01:21:16 – 01:22:17)Historic government actions at Ruby Ridge and Waco are used to illustrate how public indifference—particularly among Christians—enabled state violence. The moral danger of ignoring civil liberty violations is emphasized.Government Worship vs. Christian Liberty (01:13:13 – 01:14:26)Taxation is contrasted with biblical charity, arguing that compulsory redistribution has supplanted voluntary giving. The segment questions how civic compliance is treated as virtuous despite funding immoral policies.Commentary on False Religious Leaders in Politics (01:09:28 – 01:10:04)Political figures who invoke divine authority or use moral language to justify policy are criticized. Spiritual and moral issues are argued to require non-political solutions, and the dangers of state-sanctioned morality are highlighted.Criticism of Euphemistic Framing of Military Strikes (01:50:49 – 01:54:56)Explores how political leaders use euphemisms like “war on Iran's nuclear program” to rebrand acts of war, while celebrating precision bombing and avoiding acknowledgment of civilian deaths.Congressional Criticism of Unauthorized War Powers (02:00:03 – 02:04:42)Multiple Democrats and Thomas Massie condemn Trump's strikes on Iran as unconstitutional and dangerous, with calls to pass a War Powers Resolution and prevent further escalation.Accusations of Republican Compliance for Profit (02:06:58 – 02:08:00)Critiques Republican lawmakers for falling in line with war decisions due to fear of Trump and financial incentives tied to the military-industrial complex.Historical Context for Anti-American Sentiment in Iran (02:10:44 – 02:14:15)Describes Operation Ajax, regime change, and decades of U.S. policy as root causes of Iranian hostility, arguing that longstanding grievances—not irrational hatred—explain tensions.Trump Calls for Regime Change While Denying It (02:23:36 – 02:24:27)Trump mocks the phrase “regime change” while suggesting Iran should be bombed into becoming “great again,” contradicting claims by his administration that the strike wasn't about regime change.Trump and MAGA Attack Massey Over Israel Dissent (02:55:17 – 03:01:27) Discussion of Trump's effort to politically destroy Rep. Thomas Massey for opposing military support for Israel, with accusations of MAGA cultism and blind allegiance to foreign policy agendas.Ted Cruz Reveals U.S. Involvement in Israeli Strikes (03:01:30 – 03:06:12) Ted Cruz appears to accidentally confirm U.S. support for Israeli attacks on Iran during a tense interview, triggering debate over foreign entanglements and false theological justifications.Critique of Misapplied Scripture in U.S.-Israel Policy (03:12:01 – 03:13:34)Pushes back against common Christian Zionist theology, arguing that blessings promised to Abraham do not apply to modern states, and questions what benefits the U.S. has received for supporting Israel.Charlie Kirk Criticized for Exploiting Christian Sentiment (03:20:56 – 03:21:32)Charlie Kirk is accused of manipulating Christian audiences with shallow biblical appeals to justify support for Israeli militarism and territorial expansion.Grace Schara Case: Legal System Shields Hospital Misconduct (03:34:05 – 03:47:00)Grace's family expresses heartbreak after losing their medical wrongful death suit, highlighting how tort caps, insurance favoritism, and anti-companionship statutes insulate hospitals from accountability.End-of-Life Meds and Systemic Abuse in U.S. Hospitals (03:47:01 – 03:58:35)Family testimony and commentary allege Grace was euthanized under COVID-era protocols, implicating morphine use, undisclosed sedatives, and hospital incentives for causing avoidable deaths. Follow the show on Kick and watch live every weekday 9:00am EST – 12:00pm EST https://kick.com/davidknightshow Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code KNIGHT Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica Levinson unpacks two pressing legal issues. First, she explores whether the President can legally bomb Iran, looking at the balance of war powers between Congress and the President, the War Powers Resolution, and recent historical precedents. Then, Jessica provides an update on the legal showdown between California Governor Newsom and the Trump administration over federalizing the National Guard, analyzing a recent Ninth Circuit decision and the role of the Posse Comitatus Act. Tune in as Jessica breaks down these timely constitutional questions and their real-world implications.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Presidential War Powers Are Limited—But Vague: Under Article 2 of the Constitution, the President can order military action in response to imminent threats or sudden attacks, but only Congress can declare war. The limits of what constitutes “imminent threat” or “war in the constitutional sense” are not clearly defined, leading to ongoing legal gray areas.Congressional Oversight Remains Weak: While laws like the War Powers Resolution were intended to check the President's power, in practice Congress often cedes authority, rarely using funding powers to halt military action even in constitutionally questionable situations.Judicial Review Is Highly Deferential: Courts are reluctant to second-guess military decisions, frequently relying on the political questions doctrine and issues of legal standing. This means even if constitutional boundaries are tested, legal recourse is rare.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

After reviewing why the impromptu bombing of Iran violates the U.S. Constitution, we delve into the semantics of war, the optics of the post-bombing Presidential address, and various possible motivations, as well as potential outcomes. Then, how Trump continues to bring shame upon these lands by made sure to advocate for his dear friend, Vladimir, at the recent G7 meeting, all while our Vice President, JD "I'm a never Trump guy" Bowman, follows the ill-fitting suit by calling our former Presidents "dumb" while singing the praises of the grifting man he once warned people about. Recent NO KINGS protests exceeded the all important 3.5% mark, and made it clear that American citizens do not support the hateful mess in the White House. Lastly, and most importantly, we acknowledge the wave of senseless violence against peaceful protestors and politicians alike. BONUS: The importance of The Strait of Hormuz and antimonyAll opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. This podcast is hosted by a United States citizen, born and raised in a military family that is so very proud of this country's commitment to free speech. Information shared is cited via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, executive orders, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity and presented in layman's terms.Find your elected officials at: https://www.usa.gov/elected-officials/ or via the "5 Calls" app and contact them, often. “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.” - James BaldwinWanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Donald Trump's new Commission on Religious Liberty met last week for the first time.When Trump signed the executive order in May establishing the group, he marked the occasion by saying, "We're bringing religion back to our country, and it's a big deal."But isn't the separation of church and state guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution? Can the president just "forget about it" even once? We discuss the complicated answer.Want to support 1A? Give to your local public radio station and subscribe to this podcast. Have questions? Connect with us. Listen to 1A sponsor-free by signing up for 1A+ at plus.npr.org/the1a.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

President Donald Trump's Operation Midnight Hammer decisively destroyed Iran's nuclear weapon facilities and signaled strong U.S. support for Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump also posted on Truth Social the need for a "Regime Change" in Iran. The Sekulow team discusses the Trump Administration's strategic bombing of Iran (the roles that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio played), Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response, whether Russia or China will get involved, the ACLJ's legal work – and much more.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, there's the horseshoe theory against Israel on Iran, which says that the radical left and right political ideologies, such as radical leftists (e.g., Communists, Islamists) and far-right groups (e.g., Klansmen, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, isolationists), converge in their views and actions, forming an alliance despite apparent differences. That's why we see Bernie Sanders agree with Chatsworth Qatarlson (Tucker Carlson) and Steve Bannon. Bannon claims Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Kayleigh McEnany, and Fox News should be investigated for supporting Israel. One would think he would be careful about saying who should be investigated after his past. Matt Gaetz is back saying that Israel doesn't allow Arabs to vote, which is a flat-out lie.  As time goes on these people all reveal themselves as the crazy people they are with no loyalty to President Trump or MAGA. Also, Trump is a historic figure leading efforts to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Israel's military actions, including destroying Iranian radar and weakening their defenses, make it easier for U.S. or Israeli forces to strike nuclear sites like Fordo. Americans are not warmongers or neo-cons. The American public supports these actions, rejects isolationism, and opposes being labeled warmongers by “fake MAGA” critics. Later, Gov Ron DeSantis calls in to explain Florida's efforts to evacuate Americans in Israel. The state evacuated 1,500 people, including college students and families, with two planeloads of 160-170 passengers already returned to Tampa. He emphasized the emotional relief of families, particularly those with young children, and Florida's commitment to continue the mission, utilizing resources like cruise ships to Cyprus for safe transport. DeSantis also discusses his push to reform property taxes in Florida, focusing on exempting primary residences (homesteaded properties) from property taxes. Homeowners don't truly own their homes if they must continuously pay property taxes, as failure to pay could result in government seizure. Finally, Alexander Hamilton's view of liberty and government contrasted sharply with that of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, favoring a stronger, more centralized federal authority. While Madison, in Federalist No. 45, emphasized that the Constitution granted the federal government limited, defined powers—primarily over external affairs like war and foreign commerce—leaving broad authority to the states, Hamilton advocated for a more robust national government. At the Constitutional Convention, he proposed a powerful executive and legislature with lifelong terms, reflecting his preference for centralized control, though these ideas were swiftly rejected. Despite his role in co-authoring the Federalist Papers to support the Constitution's ratification, Hamilton's vision aligns with modern proponents of an activist government, contributing to his popularity among contemporary elites in media, politics, and academia, as evidenced by Hamilton the musical. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices