Podcasts about defended

“Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” – Matt 28:16-20 NIV COMMISSION: • a formal written warrant granting the power to perform various acts or duties • an authorization or command to act in a prescribed manner or to perform prescribed acts • authority to act for, on behalf of, or in place of another • a task or matter entrusted to one as an agent for another Jesus led with his actions, often before ever preaching to people: Fed them (Matthew 14:13-21) Healed them (Matt 9:1-8) Served them (John 2:1-11, John 13:1-17) Spent time and broke bread with them (Matthew 9, Mark 2, Luke 5) Encouraged them (Matthew 11:28 and John 16:33) Defended them (John 8:1-11) Prayed for them (John 17:1-26)  “One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” – Matt 22:35-40 NIV Truth and accountability without a genuine relationship is transactional. It can appear critical and can cause defensiveness. Relationship without truth and accountability is superficial and temporal. It lacks real depth and can lead to the degradation of biblical values, having eternal consequences. “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.” – 1 Cor 13:1 NIV

THE PROSECUTION OF VERRES Colleague Josiah Osgood. Cicero takes on the corruption trial of Gaius Verres, the governor of Sicily who looted art and money from the province. Although Cicero usually defended clients to earn favors, he prosecuted Verres to align with political shifts demanding reform. Verres was backed by the Senateestablishment and Sulla's followers, making Cicero's move a bold attack by an outsider against a "crooked establishment" to cleanse the government. NUMBER 2 1464 YOUNG CICERO

THE TRIAL OF RUFUS AND CICERO'S MISOGYNY Colleague Douglas Boin. Boin describes a trial where Clodia accused her ex-lover Rufus of poisoning. Cicero defended Rufus by launching misogynistic attacks on Clodia, calling her "cow-eyed" and alleging incest. Boin argues this famous speech unfairly solidified Clodia's negative historical reputation while obscuring the political power she wielded. NUMBER 15

Today, I'm joined with Chinasa, who has been featured on many of the episodes of the Dr. Daf show debating with other women from different religions. We sit down together to talk about how  it was like being on the show defending christianity, her faith journey, what drove her into christian apologetics and tips on how to navigate conversations with muslims, Jews, atheists, etc. There are so many gems in this one conversation. I know you will be blessed by it!Just 2 Girls' Youtube: https://youtube.com/@just-two-girls-pod?si=Mpxsy6-9oWufGHzn Instagram: @Just2girlsJ2gConnect with Victoria on Instagram:https://www.instagram.com/vickoadeoye/Podcast YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@thegospelalone

In this episode, Bryan Dawson applies the “Dutton Principle” to immigration and explains why anything worth having must be defended—or it will be lost. Dawson connects faith, history, and current events to argue that immigration is the most urgent political issue facing America today. Building on themes from recent episodes, he explains why immigration without assimilation is not compassion, but invasion, and how it fits into a broader cultural and ideological struggle. Dawson frames America as an inherited garden, built through sacrifice and faith, and warns that stewardship requires the courage to protect what previous generations handed down. From overwhelmed hospitals and public schools to rising housing costs, infrastructure strain, public safety concerns, and compromised elections, he lays out how mass legal and illegal immigration is reshaping the nation's economy, culture, and future. In a viral personal story sparked by a routine trip to buy stamps, Dawson exposes what he calls “toxic empathy”—a mindset that prioritizes the feelings of lawbreakers over responsibility to citizens and future generations. The backlash he received online, filled with accusations of racism and fascism, becomes a case study in how dissent is silenced and resistance discouraged. The episode also addresses a controversial but direct claim: while abortion remains a grave moral evil, a nation must exist in order to outlaw it. Without borders, assimilation, and moral clarity, no long-term political victories are possible. Dawson closes with a call to reject propaganda, embrace courage, and accept that defending something worth having always comes at a cost.

In this episode, Bryan Dawson applies the “Dutton Principle” to immigration and explains why anything worth having must be defended—or it will be lost. Dawson connects faith, history, and current events to argue that immigration is the most urgent political issue facing America today. Building on themes from recent episodes, he explains why immigration without assimilation is not compassion, but invasion, and how it fits into a broader cultural and ideological struggle. Dawson frames America as an inherited garden, built through sacrifice and faith, and warns that stewardship requires the courage to protect what previous generations handed down. From overwhelmed hospitals and public schools to rising housing costs, infrastructure strain, public safety concerns, and compromised elections, he lays out how mass legal and illegal immigration is reshaping the nation's economy, culture, and future. In a viral personal story sparked by a routine trip to buy stamps, Dawson exposes what he calls “toxic empathy”—a mindset that prioritizes the feelings of lawbreakers over responsibility to citizens and future generations. The backlash he received online, filled with accusations of racism and fascism, becomes a case study in how dissent is silenced and resistance discouraged. The episode also addresses a controversial but direct claim: while abortion remains a grave moral evil, a nation must exist in order to outlaw it. Without borders, assimilation, and moral clarity, no long-term political victories are possible. Dawson closes with a call to reject propaganda, embrace courage, and accept that defending something worth having always comes at a cost.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a sworn affidavit filed in 2017, Marie Villafaña, a Department of Justice official, laid out the government's formal defense of how federal prosecutors handled the Crime Victims' Rights Act during the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement. Her core argument was that the CVRA's notice and participation requirements did not apply because Epstein had not been federally charged at the time the deal was negotiated, framing the agreement as a pre-charge exercise of prosecutorial discretion rather than a criminal proceeding triggering victims' rights. Villafaña asserted that prosecutors were operating within long-standing DOJ interpretations of the law, emphasizing that the CVRA was never intended to require victim notification during confidential plea negotiations or before formal charges were filed. She presented the government's position as legally cautious rather than deceptive, insisting that secrecy was necessary to preserve the integrity of negotiations and avoid jeopardizing a potential federal case.Villafaña also used the affidavit to push back against allegations that prosecutors intentionally misled Epstein's victims or acted in bad faith, repeatedly stressing that DOJ personnel believed they were complying with the law as it was understood at the time. She argued that internal DOJ guidance supported limiting disclosure to victims before charges, and that there was no clear judicial precedent then requiring broader notification under the CVRA in pre-indictment settings. Framed this way, the affidavit portrayed the Epstein deal not as a calculated effort to sidestep victims' rights, but as a legally defensible—if controversial—exercise of prosecutorial judgment. That position would later come under severe criticism from courts and victims' advocates, but in 2017 Villafaña's filing stood as the DOJ's most explicit attempt to justify its handling of the Epstein case under the CVRA.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.flsd.317867.403.19.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

 Conflict of Interest: Some of the DOJ officials who could authorize the payout previously defended Trump in related cases, raising serious ethical concerns.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-crime-stories--4814524/support.

On the latest Morning Tide, we go over San Jose's big win over Utah Monday night at SAP Center

Jubal Early's Near-Capture of Washington and Mosby's Influence — Patrick K. O'Donnell — General Jubal Earlymarched on poorly defended Washington in summer 1864, aiming to capture the capital and liberate prisoners at Point Lookout. Early and Mosby disliked each other, hindering coordination. President Lincoln fearlessly stood on the parapet at Fort Stevens. Mosby's concurrent Calico raid severed B&O rail lines, cutting off Union reinforcements. Mosby conducted disciplined close-range engagements.

Norm Pattis is one of America's most fearless and outspoken trial lawyers — a champion of the marginalized who has built his career defending clients in some of the highest-stakes criminal and civil rights cases in the country. With over 150 jury trials and admissions to federal courts including the U.S. Supreme Court, he's earned a reputation as one of the fiercest defenders of the Constitution and free speech. Known for taking on controversial cases and clients that others refuse to touch, Norm has spent over 30 years fighting against government overreach and injustice. In this conversation, he opens up about the realities of the criminal justice system, what it truly means to defend the guilty and the innocent, and the personal toll of standing up for what's right in a system built to break you. #LockedInWithIanBick #TrueCrime #CriminalJustice #DefenseAttorney #LawAndOrder #CourtroomStories #JusticeSystem #realstories Thank you to BLUECHEW & K9S.ORG for sponsoring this episode: BlueChew: Visit https://bluechew.com/ and use promo code LOCKEDIN at checkout to get your first month of BlueChew & pay five bucks for shipping. K9s.org: Donate anytime at https://k9s.org/ Connect with Norm Pattis: https://www.pattispazlaw.com/ Hosted, Executive Produced & Edited By Ian Bick: https://www.instagram.com/ian_bick/?hl=en https://ianbick.com/ Shop Locked In Merch: http://www.ianbick.com/shop Timestamps: 00:00 – Intro: Who Is Norm Pattis? What Makes a Trial Lawyer Great 03:10 – Norm Pattis: Early Life, Background & Career Start 07:11 – College to Law School: How Norm Found His Calling 11:25 – Discovering Criminal Defense & Why It Hooked Him 13:50 – How Trial Lawyers Choose Clients & Case Strategy 17:37 – Social Media, Jury Pools & Modern High-Profile Cases 21:09 – The Media, Public Opinion & How It Impacts Trials 25:01 – Going to Trial: Tough Cases, Strategy & Client Decisions 31:05 – Juries Explained: Psychology, Testimony & Mirroring 36:26 – Federal vs State Court: Public Defenders, CJA & Differences 42:00 – Losing Cases, The Justice System & Prison Sentences 47:00 – The “Trial Tax,” Plea Deals & Sentencing Realities 52:21 – Pro Bono Work, Crowdfunding & Taking the Right Cases 55:55 – AI in Law: Helpful Tools, Risks & Hallucinations 01:00:00 – Sentencing, Pre-Sentence Reports & What Judges Consider 01:05:00 – Norm Pattis: Biggest Lessons After 30 Years in the Courtroom Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michelle Beadle Takes a Brutal Shot at Josh Giddey Over His Case Involving a Minor, Chauncey Billups Hires the Lawyer Who Defended Donald Trump to Fight FBI Prosecutors, New Report Claims Billups Was the NBA Coach Leaking Inside Information Download the PrizePicks app today and use code CLNS and get $50 instantly when you play $5! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us as we study through the Epistle to the Galatians in our sermon series, "The Gospel of Grace."In today's podcast, we will be focusing on Galatians 2:11-16.If you have any questions or would like to leave a comment, please feel free to email us at info@ravenswoodbaptist.org

In today's episode, we dive into some incredible hospitality industry tales. From a bizarre encounter with a DoorDash driver at a hotel restroom to a guest who just can't stand an overzealous bellman, and a night auditor's clash with persistent late-night visitors. Plus, we explore the challenges of outdated tech in the hotel industry and its impact on guest satisfaction. Don't miss these jaw-dropping stories!

The Trinity may be the most challenged doctrine in Christianity, and for good reason. It's unique to the Christian faith and central to what Christians believe about God. If the Trinity falls, Christianity collapses. Join the live debate and bring your best objections to the table. Today's book giveaway is "What's Your Worldview?: An Interactive Approach to Life's Big Questions" by James N. Anderson - https://think-well-shop.fourthwall.com/products/whats-your-worldview-by-james-anderson Register for a Summit Ministries summer conference before March 31st and use the discount code THINKWELL26 to save $500! - https://www.summit.org/promotions/think-well/

Seth and Sean celebrate the anniversary of Jerry Burns defending his OC in a profanity-laden rant after a win, and would it be so bad to hear DeMeco defend Nick Caley in that way?

Seth and Sean discuss the challenges the Jags present this Sunday, the Cowboys' ridiculous national TV schedule, and what if DeMeco defended his OC in the same manner as Jerry Burns did back in the day.

Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening

Did you know that disease has been used to help people? In this episode we're going to discuss several cases in which disease, or disease research, was utilized to protect people from great harm. All of these cases occurred during World War 2, and were carried out by physicians doing their best to protect those targeted by The Third Reich, also known as the Nazis.

I Almost Died From A Heart Attack When Found Out My Wife Was Cheating, But My Kids Defended HerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-cheating-wives-and-girlfriends-stories-2025-true-cheating-stories-podcast--5689182/support.

I Almost Died From A Heart Attack When Found Out My Wife Was Cheating, But My Kids Defended HerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-cheating-wives-and-girlfriends-stories-2025-true-cheating-stories-podcast--5689182/support.

I Almost Died From A Heart Attack When Found Out My Wife Was Cheating, But My Kids Defended HerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-cheating-wives-and-girlfriends-stories-2025-true-cheating-stories-podcast--5689182/support.

I Almost Died From A Heart Attack When Found Out My Wife Was Cheating, But My Kids Defended HerBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/true-cheating-wives-and-girlfriends-stories-2025-true-cheating-stories-podcast--5689182/support.

In the year 1870, Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck engineers a war to cut France down to size. French Emperor Napoleon III is willing to oblige, and bungles his way into a war against all of Germany. The Franco-Prussian War proves to be more than he – or anyone else – bargained for. Within a few months, Paris will be under siege, proto-Communist rebels will threaten to take over France, and the Italians will invade Rome. And Bismarck, ever the opportunist, will grasp at the opportunity to unify Germany once and for all.   TABLE OF CONTENTS: Chapter One: The Twilight of the French Empire – 00:01:56 Chapter Two: The Ems Dispatch – 00:26:26 Chapter Three: A Blueprint for the Great War – 00:46:34 Chapter Four: Unstoppable Force Meets Immovable Object – 01:13:48 Chapter Five: The Great Right Turn – 01:55:15 Chapter Six: The Last Bonaparte – 02:21:16 Chapter Seven: The Government of National Defense – 02:47:44 Chapter Eight: The Last Stand of the Papal States – 03:13:36 Chapter Nine: The Defense of the French Republic – 03:35:42 Chapter Ten: The Siege of Paris – 04:02:27 Chapter Eleven: The Dawn of the German Empire – 04:34:01 Chapter Twelve: The Paris Commune – 04:50:50 Chapter Thirteen: The Belle Époque – 05:20:22 Chapter Fourteen: The Future of Italy – 05:47:14 Chapter Fifteen: The Age of Bismarck – 06:08:22   SUBSCRIBE TO RELEVANT HISTORY, AND NEVER MISS AN EPISODE! Relevant History Patreon: https://bit.ly/3vLeSpF Subscribe on Spotify: https://spoti.fi/38bzOvo Subscribe on Apple Music (iTunes): https://apple.co/2SQnw4q Subscribe on Any Platform: https://bit.ly/RelHistSub Relevant History on Twitter/X: https://bit.ly/3eRhdtk Relevant History on Facebook: https://bit.ly/2Qk05mm Official website: https://bit.ly/3btvha4 Episode transcript (90% accurate): https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRspp9A68aYB2E7iR3qY3fDucuy0qfPuhR1d-8urumVxitiYMennSxDiu36RmCS-J4S7ahF4PRw5ENq/pub Music credit: Sergey Cheremisinov - Black Swan   SOURCES: Graham Allison, Thucydides's Trap Case File - https://www.belfercenter.org/programs/thucydidess-trap/thucydidess-trap-case-file/ Robert Baldick, The Siege of Paris Quintin Barry, The Franco-Prussian War: 1870-71 Derek Beales and Eugenio F. Biagini, The Risorgimento and the Unification of Italy David Blackbourn, The Long Nineteenth Century: A History of Germany 1780-1918 Georges Bonnin, Bismarck and the Hohenzollern Candidature for the Spanish Throne: The Documents in the German Diplomatic Archives Fenton Bresler, Napoleon III: A Life John Breuilly, The Formation of the First German Nation-State, 1800–1871 Tim Chapman, The Risorgimento: Italy 1815-71 Charles A. Coulombe, The Pope's Legion: The Multinational Fighting Force that Defended the Vatican Gordon A. Craig, Germany 1866-1945 Paul K. Davis, 100 Decisive Battles: From Ancient Times to the Present William Dawson, History of the German Empire Carolyn J. Eichner, The Paris Commune: A Brief History Erich Eyck, Bismarck and the German Empire Giuseppe Garibaldi, Autobiography of Giuseppe Garibaldi (With Supplement by Jesse White Mario) E.E.Y. Hales, Pio Nono: A Masterful Study of Pius IX and His Role in Nineteenth-Century European Politics and Religion Lucius Hudson Holt and Alexander Wheeler Chilton, The History of Europe From 1862 to 1914: From the Accession of Bismarck to the Outbreak of the Great War Michael Howard, The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France, 1870-1871 David I. Kertzer, Prisoner of the Vatican: The Popes, the Kings, and Garibaldi's Rebels in the Struggle to Rule Modern Italy Melvin Kranzberg, The Siege of Paris, 1870-1871: A Political and Social History Denis Mack Smith, The Making of Italy, 1796-1870 Denis Mack Smith, Mazzini Denis Mack Smith, Modern Italy: A Political History Helmuth von Moltke, The Franco-German War of 1870-71 Arthur E. Monroe, The French Indemnity of 1871 and its Effects - https://www.jstor.org/stable/1928688?seq=1 Robin Okey, The Habsburg Monarchy: From Enlightenment to Eclipse Jürgen Osterhammel, The Transformation of the World, A Global History of the Nineteenth Century Alan Palmer, Twilight of the Habsburgs: The Life and Times of Emperor Francis Joseph Dennis Showalter, The Wars of German Unification Jonathan Steinberg, Bismarck: A Life A.J.P. Taylor, Bismarck: The Man and the Statesman Geoffrey Wawro, The Franco-Prussian War: The German Conquest of France in 1870-1871

Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening

Keith Urban's Rumored New Love Interest Maggie Baugh Defended by Fellow Country Artist Who Reveals New Twist in Relationship Saga - 'She's Very Happy'Advertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening

Penn State players are defending James Franklin after the firing. How much credit does he deserve for helping Penn State out of the depths following the Joe Paterno sanction years? Bill O'Brien was the first coach out of that scandal, but Franklin carried the ball much further down the field. What made it so ugly in State College? Did Franklin get a raw deal? Rich Rodriguez believes he did. Was it the right time for James Franklin to go? Tomlin Tidbit – Is Joey Porter Jr. ready to see Tee Higgins again?

Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening

Pastor Steven Henry Wednesday Evening

The Yankees are drawing Steelers comparisons—regular season warriors, playoff question marks—as Judge's prime ticks by without a ring. Boomer and Gio stayed optimistic, insisting tonight's lefty-heavy lineup will spark an offensive breakout, though Gio admitted it feels like another “here we go again” October. Jerry's update had Boone defending Weaver, Morash raging against analytics, and elsewhere the Dodgers, Cubs, and Tigers all flexed in Game 1s. Joe Benigno even lit up Goodell for picking Bad Bunny at halftime.

On this episode of Questions with Father, we address one of the most contested documents of the Second Vatican Council: Dignitatis Humanae. Fr. Paul Robinson joins us to ask the hard question: can this declaration on religious liberty be reconciled with the traditional teaching of the Church? We will explore the Society of Saint Pius X's objections to this declaration, the pre-conciliar magisterium, and the post-conciliar attempts to reinterpret this controversial document. From Fr. Bernard Lucien's modern defense to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's 1987 reply to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, this episode critically examines religious liberty, human dignity, and the nature of truth in public life. Abp. Lefebvre's dubia on Religious Liberty: https://angeluspress.org/products/religious-liberty-questioned-dubia Reply of the CDF to the dubia of Abp. Lefebvre: https://laportelatine.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/reponses_dubia.pdf Abp. Lefebvre and the Vatican: https://angeluspress.org/products/lefebvre-vatican Catechism of the Crisis of the Church: https://angeluspress.org/products/catechism-crisis See all the episodes: https://sspxpodcast.com/questions/ We'd love your feedback on this series! podcast@sspx.org – – – – – – View this episode on YouTube: – – – – – – – The Society of Saint Pius X offers this series and all of its content free of charge. If you are able to offer a one time or a small monthly recurring donation, it will assist us greatly in continuing to provide these videos for the good of the Church and Catholic Tradition. Please Support this Apostolate with 1-time or Monthly Donation >> – – – – – – – Explore more: Subscribe to this Podcast to receive this and all our audio episodesSubscribe to the SSPX YouTube channel for video versions of our podcast series and SermonsFSSPX News Website: https://fsspx.newsVisit the US District website: https://sspx.org/ – – – – – What is the SSPX Podcast? The SSPX Podcast is produced by Angelus Press, which has as its mission the fortification of traditional Catholics so that they can defend the Faith, and reaching out to those who have not yet found Tradition.  – – – – – – What is the SSPX? The main goal of the Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic Faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues, especially through the Roman Catholic priesthood. Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls. Although the traditional Latin Mass is the most visible and public expression of the work of the Society, we are committed to defending Catholic Tradition in its entirety: all of...

Jimmy Kimmel is back on his late-night stage — and full of emotion. After a nearly week-long suspension, the ABC star taped a new episode on Tuesday evening, and he spoke at length about the controversy that enveloped the show, according to audience members who spoke with CNN afterward. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Pastor Steven Henry, Wednesday Evening

Did you know that disease has been used to help people? In this episode we're going to discuss several cases in which disease, or disease research, was utilized to protect people from great harm. All of these cases occurred during World War 2, and were carried out by physicians doing their best to protect those targeted by The Third Reich, also known as the Nazis.

Grassroots protesters defy MAGA intimidation while resisting Kirk's divisive legacy and the 1776 Project's dangerous campaign against educators.Subscribe to our Newsletter:https://politicsdoneright.com/newsletterPurchase our Books: As I See It: https://amzn.to/3XpvW5o How To Make AmericaUtopia: https://amzn.to/3VKVFnG It's Worth It: https://amzn.to/3VFByXP Lose Weight And BeFit Now: https://amzn.to/3xiQK3K Tribulations of anAfro-Latino Caribbean man: https://amzn.to/4c09rbE

Glory Unveiled | Week 3 | Misty Denman--Paul calls the Corinthians to rely on the truth of the Gospel so that their lives reflect God's character, especially his forgiveness and faithfulness.--Outline

Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Over the past thirty years, Governor Inslee has provided bold leadership at the local, state and federal levels that has demonstrated the powers of innovation and inspiration to move our communities forward. More recently, his leadership as the three-term governor of Washington State has led to unprecedented success in building a clean energy economy, fighting climate change, improving opportunities for working families and advancing progressive values of Washingtonians. Under Governor Inslee's leadership, Washington has consistently ranked as one of the best states for both working families and business growth. Washington's policies of constant innovation, openness to new ideas and a deep commitment to equity and inclusion are mutually supportive and demonstrably successful. Governor Inslee's leadership is deeply rooted in the values of Washington State. As a fifth-generation Washingtonian, who grew up in the Seattle area, he developed his environmental ethic hiking in the Cascade mountains and exploring tidepools with his parents. He worked his way through college operating bulldozers, married his high school sweetheart Trudi and graduated from Willamette Law School. He then established a successful law practice in the Central Washington town of Selah in 1976 where he and Trudi raised three sons and four acres of hay. After twelve years practicing trial law and prosecuting criminal cases, Governor Inslee's desire to make a difference was whetted by his co-chairing a campaign to build a new high school, which led him to serve in the Washington State House of Representatives for the 14th district, after an upset victory, one of several in his political career. Governor Inslee served in the U.S. House of Representatives representing Central Washington until his defeat in 1994, largely attributable to his vote to ban assault weapons. Following stints practicing law and serving as Director for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the northwest, the Governor returned to Congress in 1999 representing the 1st District, becoming one of four people ever to represent two separate congressional districts. There he became notable as a leader of climate change issues and tech economic development matters and was a leading opponent of the Iraq war. During his term, he coauthored Apollo's Fire: Igniting America's Clean Energy Economy, a template for economic growth. Governor Inslee carried this vision into his unsuccessful but influential run for the presidency in 2019. His ideas became the basis of groundbreaking federal climate laws during the Biden administration. Throughout his three terms, Governor Inslee established Washington as a leading state for climate action and a beacon of progress: Created the Climate Commitment Act and successfully defeated an initiative to repeal it. Launched nation-leading policies related to 100% clean energy, clean buildings and clean transportation. The governor's climate efforts also support innovation through the launch of the Washington Clean Energy Fund, a Clean Energy Institute at the University of Washington, and the Institute for Northwest Futures at Washington State University. Promoted a more equal and just justice system. Governor Inslee placed a moratorium on Washington's death penalty, which was ultimately affirmed by the state Supreme Court due to its unequal and racially biased application, and it was subsequently struck from state law. He also enacted several justice system reforms such as the Marijuana Justice Initiative and Community Reinvestment Fund and has been recognized for his leadership on clemency and reentry. Led efforts to fully fund Washington's K-12 education system and a historic expansion of early learning. Led the transformation of Washington's behavioral health system with a significant expansion of community-based facilities, a new teaching hospital at the University of Washington and a new forensic hospital on the grounds of Western State Hospital. Defended access to reproductive health and gender-affirming care. Join us Monday and Thursday's at 8EST for our  Bi Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift

Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch faced off in the first Prime Minister's Questions following summer recess. With the date of the Budget announced that morning, the economy was expected to dominate – which it did, to the surprise of most MPs, who expected Badenoch to attack over the Angela Rayner tax row. The deputy prime minister had admitted that morning she underpaid stamp duty on her flat in Hove. The leader of the opposition did question Starmer on it initially, but as political editor Tim Shipman says she more than missed an open goal. Tim joins Isabel Hardman and Lucy Dunn to discuss how damaging the row is for Rayner – and how damaging PMQs was for Badenoch.Produced by Patrick Gibbons.Become a Spectator subscriber today to access this podcast without adverts. Go to spectator.co.uk/adfree to find out more.For more Spectator podcasts, go to spectator.co.uk/podcasts.Contact us: podcast@spectator.co.uk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ebro, Laura, and Rosenberg host HOT 97's flagship program "Ebro In The Morning!" on today's episode 8/21/25 - Alligator Alcatraz, Howard Stern Vs. MAGA, Lil Nas X in trouble, Freedom Friday, DJ John is Defended, the Dingleberry Woman Calls Back and much more! All that and more on Ebro In The Morning! To be a part of the Gurus email theguru@ebrointhemorning.com To be a part of Freedom Friday email info@ebrointhemorning.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.