POPULARITY
59 episodes with dissenting
6 episodes with dissenting
3 episodes with dissenting
3 episodes with dissenting
2 episodes with dissenting
5 episodes with dissenting
2 episodes with dissenting
2 episodes with dissenting
2 episodes with dissenting
Thierry Wizman says “the most significant thing” we might see from the FOMC meeting tomorrow is dissent in the ranks. “The doves are not in the majority…but there will still be a robust debate.” While he doesn't expect a rate cut this week, he thinks this meeting could set the stage for cuts later this year. Thierry expects Powell's comments to emphasize Fed independence as he nears the end of his term and considers his legacy.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Before trading, read the Options Disclosure Document. http://bit.ly/2v9tH6DSubscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about
On Episode 642 of The Core Report, financial journalist Govindraj Ethiraj talks to Rahul Jain, Director at Dolat Capital.SHOW NOTES(00:00) Stories of the Day(01:09) A Short Take(04:20) The markets reverse three day losing streak(06:02) Indian IT companies are downsizing, does that make them more attractive as investments?(16:19) India is set to overtake the US in clean energy generation(17:30) Dissenting voices have begun in the US-EU deal, what is the future of all such deals?(18:37) A DeepSeek competitor emerges from China again(19:44) Shailesh Jejurikar to take over as Procter & Gamble global CEO from January 1(20:08) Tesla's amazing financial engineering and the shocking revenue breakuphttps://www.investing-referral.com/aff303Subscribe to our NewsletterFollow us on:Twitter | Instagram | Facebook | Linkedin | Youtube
This Day in Legal History: Fourteenth Amendment RatifiedOn July 28, 1868, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially adopted, reshaping the legal and constitutional landscape of the nation. Ratified in the wake of the Civil War, it was one of the Reconstruction Amendments designed to integrate formerly enslaved people into American civic life. Section 1 of the amendment granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," effectively nullifying the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Black people could not be citizens.The amendment also introduced two foundational legal principles: the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. These clauses placed new limitations on state governments, barring them from infringing on individual rights and mandating that laws be applied equally to all people. The Due Process Clause would later become a cornerstone in expanding civil liberties, providing the basis for numerous Supreme Court decisions involving privacy, marriage, and bodily autonomy. The Equal Protection Clause became instrumental in the fight against racial segregation and discrimination, notably underpinning Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which dismantled “separate but equal” doctrine in public education.Initially resisted by many Southern states, the amendment's ratification was made a condition for reentry into the Union. Over time, its scope grew far beyond the post-Civil War context, influencing legal battles on gender equality, LGBTQ+ rights, and immigration. It also played a critical role in the doctrine of incorporation, through which many protections in the Bill of Rights became applicable to state governments. The Fourteenth Amendment remains one of the most litigated and interpreted sections of the Constitution, central to the American concept of civil rights and liberties.A&O Shearman has postponed the start date for some of its incoming associates until January, according to a source familiar with the matter. The firm typically offers new associates a choice between two start dates and provides a salary advance to those opting for the later one. The decision comes amid broader industry trends of delaying associate onboarding as a cost-management strategy in response to uneven client demand, despite overall revenue growth among top firms.Formed through the May 2024 merger of Shearman & Sterling and Allen & Overy, A&O Shearman is now the fourth-largest law firm by revenue. While the firm's revenue has benefited from broader sector gains, it faces challenges tied to economic uncertainty and trade tensions. Internally, a cohort of associates had reportedly resisted leadership shortly before the firm joined other legal powerhouses in agreements involving legal services to President Trump—moves seen as efforts to fend off sanctions and settle federal investigations into workplace diversity practices. The firm also experienced a recent exodus in its London office, with nine lawyers, including eight associates, departing in June.A&O Shearman Pushes Start Date to January for Some AssociatesA New York state appeals court has ruled that social media companies cannot be held legally responsible for the 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo that left 10 people dead. The court reversed a lower court's decision, finding that platforms like Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Reddit are shielded by Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act, which grants online platforms immunity from liability for user-generated content. The lawsuit alleged that these platforms were designed to addict and radicalize users, including the shooter, Payton Gendron.Justice Stephen Lindley, writing for the 3-2 majority, argued that holding platforms liable would threaten the open nature of the internet and contradict Congress's intent to foster innovation and limit government interference. He acknowledged the horrific nature of the shooting and the hateful content that influenced it but warned that allowing liability would cause the internet to collapse into tightly restricted message boards.Dissenting justices contended that the platforms actively pushed extremist content through targeted algorithms, suggesting that this behavior went beyond neutral hosting. Other platforms used by Gendron, including Amazon, Discord, 4chan, Snap, and Twitch, were also named in the lawsuit. Gendron is currently serving a life sentence without parole after pleading guilty to state charges, and he still faces federal charges that may lead to the death penalty.Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules | ReutersA federal judge in Massachusetts has reaffirmed a nationwide injunction blocking President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to limit birthright citizenship. Judge Leo Sorokin ruled that only a nationwide halt could fully protect the coalition of 22 Democratic-led states challenging the policy, rejecting arguments from the Trump administration that a narrower ruling would suffice following a recent Supreme Court decision. The executive order, signed on Trump's first day back in office in January, directed federal agencies to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children unless at least one parent was a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.Judge Sorokin found that allowing the policy to take effect even in some states would harm immigrant families and disrupt federal benefits programs like Medicaid. Plaintiffs argued it would create a confusing and unfair patchwork of citizenship rules and overwhelm states not enforcing the order. The Trump administration maintained that the Constitution was being misinterpreted, and signaled plans to appeal.Although the Supreme Court recently limited the use of nationwide injunctions, it allowed exceptions under certain conditions—exceptions Sorokin found applicable here. Meanwhile, a separate federal appeals court in California also ruled that Trump's executive order violated the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause and blocked it nationwide.US judge reaffirms nationwide injunction blocking Trump executive order on birthright citizenship | ReutersCalifornia has dropped plans to require Internet service providers (ISPs) to offer $15-per-month broadband plans to low-income residents, following pressure from both the Trump administration and major telecom companies. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, who led the effort, said her office was warned that enforcing such a law could jeopardize California's access to $1.86 billion in federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) funding. The administration's revised BEAD rules prohibit states from setting explicit or implicit broadband pricing requirements.Despite earlier court wins by New York upholding a similar law, Boerner chose to pull the bill after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) confirmed that even applying for BEAD funds could exempt ISPs from state pricing rules. Advocates and lawmakers criticized the move as a giveaway to large corporations, arguing it undermines efforts to ensure affordable internet access. Boerner had already watered down the bill in negotiations with ISPs, reducing required speeds and allowing ISPs to handle eligibility verification—both points that drew backlash from digital equity groups.Advocates argued the BEAD funding was intended for new broadband infrastructure, while the California bill focused on existing networks, meaning the NTIA's restrictions shouldn't apply. Critics also pointed out that the proposed speed standards were below the federal definition of broadband, and that delegating verification to ISPs risked privacy and access issues. While Boerner acknowledged the need for affordable broadband, she said the risk of losing billions in federal funds wasn't worth pushing the mandate. A separate Senate bill aims to encourage, but not require, ISPs to offer low-cost plans by linking them to subsidies.California backs down to Trump admin, won't force ISPs to offer $15 broadband - Ars Technica 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
Unsafe space. 100s of current and former NASA employees -- including our guest -- are warning the agency's leadership against budget cuts they say will compromise human safety and undermine NASA's core mission.A big ask. An Inuit leader tells us Prime Minister Mark Carney has reassured him the government will consult Indigenous communities about projects governed by the controversial "Building Canada Act." But not everyone's as convinced.Worth a shot. Amid a rise in measles in Alberta, the province's former head doctor tells us why he wants to see more parents vaccinate their kids early -- and why he thinks the Province should be doing more to tackle the outbreak.Top Brass. We pay tribute to Chuck Mangione -- the American flugelhorn player who won over fans with his smooth fashion sense… and his talent for smooth jazz. The picture of fashion. New York Times photographer Bill Cunningham dedicated his life to documenting fashion trends on the city's streets. Now his archives will soon be available for others to look through the many looks he captured.High roller. A Canadian woman retakes her world record title after racing a Victorian-era bicycle, known as the penny farthing, at speeds of more than 41 kilometres an hour. As It Happens, the Friday Edition. Radio that's glad her story came full circle.
Take your personal data back with Incogni! Use code elev8 at the link below and get 60% off an annual plan: https://incogni.com/elev8CBC FABRICATES Entire Narrative—BLASTED for Trying to DESTROY Free Speech!Send a one-time contribution to the show - https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=XARF5X38AMZULListen to our Podcast on the go: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/elev8podcastTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@elev8podcast X: https://twitter.com/TheElev8Podcast
Chief Justice Roberts argued that the “five lawyers” in the slim majority essentially rescinded natural marriage and declared it “wrong.” 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.
This Day in Legal History: George Carlin's Seven Dirty WordsOn July 3, 1978, the United States Supreme Court issued a landmark First Amendment decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, ruling 5-4 that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could reprimand a radio station for airing George Carlin's infamous “Seven Dirty Words” comedy routine. The case arose after WBAI, a New York radio station, broadcast Carlin's monologue during afternoon hours, prompting a listener complaint to the FCC. The FCC responded with a formal reprimand, sparking a legal battle over the boundaries of free speech and government regulation.The Court held that the FCC had the authority to regulate indecent content on public airwaves, particularly during hours when children were likely to be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized the unique pervasiveness of broadcast media and its accessibility to minors as justification for the ruling. The decision marked one of the first times the Supreme Court allowed government regulation of speech based on content, outside of traditional obscenity laws.Dissenting justices, including William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, warned that the decision posed a threat to free expression and could chill controversial or creative speech. The ruling did not criminalize Carlin's routine or ban such speech outright, but it set a precedent that the government could impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters without violating the First Amendment.This case would come to define the limits of “indecent” speech in broadcast media for decades, reinforcing the idea that First Amendment protections are not absolute in all contexts. The decision became a cornerstone in the ongoing tension between free speech rights and government regulation of media.Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to regain influence over the Supreme Court this term, joining the majority in 96% of argued cases—dissenting in only two of 58 decisions. Legal scholars, however, caution that this high rate doesn't definitively prove Roberts is steering outcomes. Some suggest that his tendency to vote with the majority might reflect a strategic desire to maintain influence or unity, rather than genuine agreement.Roberts, along with Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, now forms a pivotal center bloc on the ideologically divided court, often determining case outcomes between the court's conservative and liberal wings. These three justices were all in the majority for the ten most contentious 6-3 rulings this term, shaping major decisions on issues like LGBTQ curriculum, gender-affirming care, and administrative power.Observers note that Roberts' leadership this term was marked by a careful assignment of majority opinions, often to maintain consensus among conservatives. For example, he gave the opinion in Trump v. CASA to Barrett, whose more moderate reasoning helped avoid a fractured ruling. Notably, Roberts wrote no separate concurrences or dissents, reinforcing the view that he is trying to project cohesion.However, consensus was not the norm this term. The court split significantly in one-third of its cases, and unanimous rulings fell to 43%. Many of the most ideologically charged outcomes favored conservatives, suggesting that even with Roberts at the center, the court remains deeply right-leaning. Additionally, significant decisions from the court's emergency docket further indicate the direction of future jurisprudence.Votes Suggest Chief Justice Regains Control of ‘Roberts Court'A federal judge has blocked parts of a major restructuring of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) initiated by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., but the ruling does not require the reinstatement of fired workers. The decision in New York v. Kennedy found that 19 states and Washington, D.C. are likely to succeed in their claims that Kennedy's reduction-in-force and reorganization—part of his “Make America Healthy Again” plan—were unlawful. The injunction halts further implementation but stops short of restoring the affected employees, leaving unresolved the harms states allege, including disrupted services and surveillance functions.Legal experts point out the ambiguity in the ruling, noting it restricts further actions by HHS but does not mandate concrete remedies such as bringing employees back. Some warn that continuing to keep workers off the job could itself violate the injunction. The injunction is limited to four HHS divisions, not the full federal workforce affected.The ruling requires HHS to file a compliance update by July 11 and address how the recent Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA—which limits the scope of national injunctions—may influence the outcome. HHS has multiple potential responses: appealing the ruling, waiting for developments in a related Supreme Court case, or restarting the process through proper legislative and budgetary channels.RFK Jr.'s Overhaul of HHS Blocked But Workers Won't Return NowA federal judge has blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping asylum ban at the U.S.-Mexico border, ruling that Trump exceeded his legal authority. U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss found that Trump's January 2025 proclamation, which barred migrants deemed part of an “invasion” from seeking asylum, violated both federal immigration law and the Constitution. The 128-page opinion emphasized that neither Congress nor the Constitution gave the president power to bypass existing asylum laws, even in the face of immigration challenges.The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit on behalf of advocacy groups and asylum seekers, arguing the ban contradicted U.S. and international legal standards. Moss's ruling temporarily blocks enforcement of the policy and allows 14 days for the Trump administration to appeal. The decision applies broadly to a certified class of affected migrants, sidestepping recent Supreme Court limitations on national injunctions.Trump's policy built on but exceeded a similar effort by President Biden in 2024, which also faced judicial setbacks. The ruling marks another legal rebuke to Trump's aggressive immigration stance since returning to office. The administration maintains the judge overstepped and vows to appeal. Meanwhile, civil liberties groups hail the decision as a necessary check on executive overreach and a reaffirmation of asylum protections.US judge blocks Trump asylum ban at US-Mexico border, says he exceeded authority | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in his effort to remove three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), challenging a lower court's ruling that blocked their dismissal. The commissioners—Mary Boyle, Alexander Hoehn-Saric, and Richard Trumka Jr.—were appointed by President Biden and make up the majority of the five-member board. They were fired in May, prompting a lawsuit that argued the president lacks authority to remove commissioners of independent agencies without cause.A federal judge, Matthew Maddox, sided with the commissioners, stating Trump had overstepped his authority and finding no misconduct to justify their termination. The Justice Department claims Trump acted within his constitutional powers, asserting that the commissioners were obstructing his policy agenda. The administration is seeking to pause the reinstatement order while the case proceeds.The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to halt the lower court ruling, emphasizing that Congress lawfully limited presidential removal powers in this context. Trump's team now wants the Supreme Court to override that decision, citing a recent high court ruling that allowed Trump to temporarily remove members of a federal labor board in a similar dispute.This case adds to a growing list of legal battles testing the limits of executive power since Trump returned to office. It also raises broader constitutional questions about the balance of power between the president and independent regulatory agencies.Trump asks Supreme Court to allow removal of consumer product safety commissioners | Reuters 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
In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica
Lutheran Preaching and Teaching from St. John Random Lake, Wisconsin
June 29, 2025
Southern Baptists are set to return to Dallas June 8-11 for their annual meeting. The Kay Bailey Hutchison Convention Center is expecting 18,000 to 20,000 visitors at this year's convention. In other news, Texas colleges could soon pay their student athletes. With the NCAA expected to end its decades-old prohibition on universities paying players directly, Texas lawmakers authored a bill to change state law and allow schools to do so. Under House Bill 126, which is awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott's signature, colleges could enter into name, image and likeness agreements with their athletes; Dallas officials estimate they need an additional $178.5 million to build a 20-acre police academy at the University of North Texas at Dallas; and Richardson's Nathan Liu won the 2025 RTX MATHCOUNTS National Competition. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Dissenting shareholder disputes occur when minority shareholders believe their shares are undervalued in a company transaction, leading to legal dissent. There is a difference between dissenting and oppressed shareholder matters which our expert, Hubert Klein, will explain as well as the legal and valuation standards that are used. Klein highlights the importance of transparency and professional skepticism and thorough understanding of both sides' perspectives, such as: Common triggers for dissenting shareholder actions Preventing dissenting shareholder issues Reconciling valuation differences Continue reading to learn about key resources available at AICPA-CIMA.com to improve your valuation analyses. Guest: Hubert Klein, CPA/ABV/CFF, Partner and Practice Leader, Eisner Advisory Group LLC Host: Alex Partin, CPA/ABV, Mueller & Partin Please share your thoughts about the episode - click here to leave us a review Want to get involved with future FVS conferences, committees, task forces, or the standing ovation program? Send a message to infoFVS@aicpa-cima.com RESOURCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION If you're using a podcast app that does not hyperlink to the resources, please visit our podcast platform to access the show notes with direct links. 2025 AICPA & CIMA Forensic & Valuation Services Conference check out early bird and special discounts for AICPA and FVS Section members, and ABV, CFF and CVFI credential holders Emerging Partners Toolkit – Section 6 Ownership/buy-sell agreements Exclusive content available with AICPA FVS Section membership: Click here to join this active community of your FVS peers. You will get 16 credits of complimentary CPE and access to rich technical content AICPA Quick Reference Guide: Standards and Premises of Value (refer to page 7) The FVS Valuation Podcast archives Valuation Case Law Update Insights for Navigating Common Issues in Business Valuation The Forensic Accountant's Role in M&A Disputes LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING AICPA CREDENTIALS: Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV®) – Visit the home page and check out the ABV infographic Certified in the Valuation of Financial Instruments (CVFI®) – Visit the home page and check out the CVFI infographic Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF®) - Visit the home page and check out the CFF infographic This is a podcast from AICPA & CIMA, together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. To enjoy more conversations from our global community of accounting and finance professionals, explore our network of free shows here. Your feedback and comments are welcomed at podcast@aicpa-cima.com
Dissenting shareholder disputes occur when minority shareholders believe their shares are undervalued in a company transaction, leading to legal dissent. There is a difference between dissenting and oppressed shareholder matters which our expert, Hubert Klein, will explain as well as the legal and valuation standards that are used. Klein highlights the importance of transparency and professional skepticism and thorough understanding of both sides' perspectives, such as: Common triggers for dissenting shareholder actions Preventing dissenting shareholder issues Reconciling valuation differences Continue reading to learn about key resources available at AICPA-CIMA.com to improve your valuation analyses. Guest: Hubert Klein, CPA/ABV/CFF, Partner and Practice Leader, Eisner Advisory Group LLC Host: Alex Partin, CPA/ABV, Mueller & Partin Please share your thoughts about the episode - click here to leave us a review Want to get involved with future FVS conferences, committees, task forces, or the standing ovation program? Send a message to infoFVS@aicpa-cima.com RESOURCES FOR FURTHER EXPLORATION If you're using a podcast app that does not hyperlink to the resources, please visit our podcast platform to access the show notes with direct links. 2025 AICPA & CIMA Forensic & Valuation Services Conference check out early bird and special discounts for AICPA and FVS Section members, and ABV, CFF and CVFI credential holders Emerging Partners Toolkit – Section 6 Ownership/buy-sell agreements Exclusive content available with AICPA FVS Section membership: Click here to join this active community of your FVS peers. You will get 16 credits of complimentary CPE and access to rich technical content AICPA Quick Reference Guide: Standards and Premises of Value (refer to page 7) The FVS Valuation Podcast archives Valuation Case Law Update Insights for Navigating Common Issues in Business Valuation The Forensic Accountant's Role in M&A Disputes LEARN MORE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING AICPA CREDENTIALS: Accredited in Business Valuation (ABV®) – Visit the home page and check out the ABV infographic Certified in the Valuation of Financial Instruments (CVFI®) – Visit the home page and check out the CVFI infographic Certified in Financial Forensics (CFF®) - Visit the home page and check out the CFF infographic This is a podcast from AICPA & CIMA, together as the Association of International Certified Professional Accountants. To enjoy more conversations from our global community of accounting and finance professionals, explore our network of free shows here. Your feedback and comments are welcomed at podcast@aicpa-cima.com
John Collett Ryland played an important role in English nonconformist education for forty years. Dissenting academies, as they were called, were necessitated by the reestablishment of the monarchy and state church in 1660. Subsequent legislation made it impossible for conscientious dissenters to gain entrance to English universities. Pre-university education was also difficult because any school had to be licensed by the local bishop. But after the 1720s, non-conformist education began to be recognized and even monetarily subsidized by the government. And so by the time Ryland began to teach, he was generally able to freely run his schools. For more information about CBTS, visit CBTSeminary.org
John Collett Ryland played an important role in English nonconformist education for forty years. Dissenting academies, as they were called, were necessitated by the reestablishment of the monarchy and state church in 1660. Subsequent legislation made it impossible for conscientious dissenters to gain entrance to English universities. Pre-university education was also difficult because any school had to be licensed by the local bishop. But after the 1720s, non-conformist education began to be recognized and even monetarily subsidized by the government. And so by the time Ryland began to teach, he was generally able to freely run his schools.For more information about CBTS, visit CBTSeminary.org
John Collett Ryland played an important role in English nonconformist education for forty years. Dissenting academies, as they were called, were necessitated by the reestablishment of the monarchy and state church in 1660. Subsequent legislation made it impossible for conscientious dissenters to gain entrance to English universities. Pre-university education was also difficult because any school had to be licensed by the local bishop. But after the 1720s, non-conformist education began to be recognized and even monetarily subsidized by the government. And so by the time Ryland began to teach, he was generally able to freely run his schools. For more information about CBTS, visit CBTSeminary.org
Readers, we often receive questions from you about our Modern Mrs Darcy Book Club and what actually goes on in our online reading community, and today's guest is here to help Anne take you behind the scenes! You may already know Ginger Horton, our MMD Book Club Community Manager, from her prior appearances here on the podcast or because you interact with her all the time in book club. Today, Ginger and Anne dive into all things book club, like the nitty-gritty details of our approach to choosing the titles, which we have a finely honed philosophy for, to what kinds of books we hear that our readers love the most. Along the way Anne and Ginger talk about specific books that really stand out to Ginger from her own book club experience over the years, plus some perks that our book club members enjoy, like access to our upcoming Summer Reading Guide and live unboxing experience. Whether you're curious about book club or you're honestly not interested at all, we think you'll really enjoy today's conversation. Find the titles and other resources mentioned today at our show notes page at whatshouldireadnextpodcast.com/469. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Dem Removed For Disrupting Trump's Address To Congress. Repubs Accuse Dem Mayors Of Having Blood On Their Hands. Alina Habba Says Fired Veterans Are “Not Fit To Have A Job.” Supreme Court Deals Trump A Blow On Foreign Aid Freeze. Hosts: Ana Kasparian SUBSCRIBE on YOUTUBE ☞ https://www.youtube.com/@TheYoungTurks FOLLOW US ON: FACEBOOK ☞ https://www.facebook.com/theyoungturks TWITTER ☞ https://twitter.com/TheYoungTurks INSTAGRAM ☞ https://www.instagram.com/theyoungturks TIKTOK ☞ https://www.tiktok.com/@theyoungturks
This Day in Legal History: Permanent Court of Arbitration EstablishedOn February 6, 1900, the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was officially established following the ratification of the 1899 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. This marked a major step toward institutionalizing peaceful dispute resolution between nations. The PCA, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, became the first international tribunal designed to arbitrate conflicts between states, offering an alternative to war. While not a court in the traditional sense, the PCA provides administrative support for arbitral tribunals, helping resolve territorial, trade, and investment disputes. Recognizing the need for improvement, the 1907 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes refined its procedures, further solidifying arbitration as a legitimate mechanism for international law. Over the years, the PCA's role expanded beyond state-to-state disputes to include cases involving international organizations, corporations, and even individuals. Today, it operates out of the Peace Palace, home to other key legal institutions like the International Court of Justice. With 109 member states, the PCA continues to handle complex cases, from border conflicts to environmental agreements. Its existence laid the groundwork for later international legal bodies, such as the International Criminal Court and various UN tribunals. By promoting arbitration over conflict, the PCA has helped shape a more structured and rule-based international legal order.Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a major shift in the Justice Department's white-collar enforcement priorities, scaling back efforts in foreign lobbying transparency and foreign bribery cases. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) unit will now focus on bribery cases tied to transnational crime, such as those facilitating human smuggling, drug trafficking, and arms dealing. Other FCPA investigations with no such connection will be deprioritized.Similarly, Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) enforcement will be limited to cases resembling traditional espionage by foreign government actors. The Justice Department's Counterintelligence and Export Control Section will focus more on civil enforcement and regulatory guidance rather than aggressive criminal prosecutions. These changes mark a significant pullback from the increased enforcement seen over the past decade, particularly under Special Counsel Robert Mueller.Bondi also disbanded the National Security Division's corporate enforcement unit, an initiative championed by Biden-era Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco. It's unclear if the division will continue prioritizing corporate crime linked to adversarial nations like China and Iran. These policy shifts were part of a broader series of announcements as Bondi took charge as the nation's top law enforcement official following her confirmation on Tuesday night.Bondi Diminishes Justice Department White Collar Enforcement (1)Google is ending its diversity-based hiring targets and reviewing its broader diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, aligning with a broader corporate trend of scaling back such efforts. The company previously set a goal in 2020 to increase leadership representation from underrepresented groups by 30% by 2025, but Chief People Officer Fiona Cicconi told employees that Google would no longer pursue aspirational hiring goals.This shift follows years of public DEI commitments, especially after the 2020 protests over police killings of George Floyd and other Black Americans. Google had also begun evaluating executives on diversity metrics, but recent SEC filings show it removed language reaffirming its DEI commitments.The Alphabet Workers Union (AWU) criticized the move, calling it part of a broader anti-worker trend in the tech industry. Meanwhile, Google cited legal considerations as a federal contractor, stating it is reviewing compliance with court decisions and executive orders affecting DEI policies.Google will maintain internal employee groups such as “Black Googler Network” and “Trans at Google.” The company's decision follows similar DEI cutbacks at Meta and Amazon, amid increasing conservative pushback and legal challenges after the Supreme Court's 2023 affirmative action ruling.Google scraps diversity-based hiring targets | ReutersMore than 40,000 federal employees have signed up for the Trump administration's buyout offer, which promises pay through September if they resign by the end of February. This represents about 2% of the federal civilian workforce, with officials expecting a surge in applications before the Thursday deadline.The initiative is part of President Trump's second-term effort to reduce the size of the federal government, led by Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, who heads the Department of Government Efficiency. The White House initially projected that 5% to 10% of federal workers might accept the offer.Federal employee unions oppose the plan, questioning its legality and enforceability. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has warned workers that job cuts are likely, with agency restructurings and layoffs expected. However, key employees in defense, immigration, law enforcement, and postal services are exempt from the deal.With nearly 298,000 federal employees eligible for retirement in the next two years, the administration's strategy could significantly reshape the workforce. Union leaders, like Everett Kelley of the American Federation of Government Employees, have urged workers to reject the offer, calling it misleading and driven by unelected billionaires.Musk ‘Buyout' Taken by 40,000 Federal Workers as Deadline Nears - BloombergOn her first day as U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi issued a directive stating that Justice Department lawyers who refuse to advance legal arguments on behalf of the Trump administration could face termination. The memo warns that attorneys who decline to sign briefs, delay cases, or impede the department's mission may be disciplined or fired.The move is part of a broader effort by Trump appointees to assert control over the Justice Department, which has already seen firings and reassignments of career lawyers. Bondi also announced a review of criminal and civil cases brought against Trump and his supporters, including prosecutions related to the January 6 Capitol attack. This "Weaponization Working Group" will scrutinize cases Republicans claim were politically motivated under the Biden administration.Additionally, Bondi scaled back enforcement of foreign influence laws, stating that criminal cases will only be pursued in instances resembling “traditional espionage”, shifting the focus to civil enforcement. These laws, which require individuals lobbying for foreign governments to register as foreign agents, were previously used to prosecute several Trump associates.Bondi's directive reflects Trump allies' long-standing complaints that career DOJ attorneys obstructed his policies, such as resisting lawsuits against Yale's admissions practices and refusing to defend the 2017 travel ban. The memo asserts that DOJ lawyers cannot substitute their personal views for the administration's legal agenda.Trump's attorney general says lawyers who refuse orders could be fired | Reuters 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
https://thecommunists.org/2024/12/02/news/all-eyes-on-the-enemy-within-prevent-scheme-targets-dissenting-children/
“How did you become a voice of reason on Fox News?” Kanew talks to Jessica Tarlov about being a dissenting voice on Fox News, especially at a time when so many are giving up on talking to people they disagree with — and why Dems should go outside their comfort zones more.
Last week, the FTC, by a 3-2 vote along party lines, adopted its click-to-cancel rule, which purports to make it easier to cancel gym memberships, streaming services, and the like. [We wrote about it here.] The final rule will apply across the economy to any business that offers negative option plans (e.g., subscriptions) and would provide the Commission with the ability to obtain civil penalties from covered entities for any misrepresentation about the underlying product or service. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/why-dissenting-statements-by-ftc-commissioners-matter John Villafranco jvillafranco@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8423 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/john-e-villafranco Kate White kwhite@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8855 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/katherine-white Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach
Send us a textJohn LaSpina is a returning guest on our show! Be sure to check out his appearances on episode 575, episode 582, and episode 606 of Boundless Body Radio!John LaSpina is a 59-year-old retired middle school teacher of 34 years. John taught Language Arts, Social Studies, Civics, and Video Production. John is a perpetual student, & most of his nutrition education comes from experts in the field of low carbohydrate nutrition.He became fat-adapted about 4 years ago when he started eating ketogenic. Currently, he identifies as a carnivore and claims to have never felt more alive, or more healthy. His YouTube videos serve the purpose of informing and educating viewers about the proper way of eating real, whole foods and the potential benefits that can be experienced through this approach.John encourages viewers to leave comments and questions, assuring them that he will respond to everyone. John creates these YouTube videos for free, offering them to anyone who wants to learn, as he believes knowledge is power. His ultimate goal is to help individuals become the optimized versions of themselves by learning to eat well in order to feel and look well.Find John at-YT- @Carnivore TeacherIG- @carnivoreteacherjohnLK- @Carnivore TeacherFind Boundless Body at- myboundlessbody.com Book a session with us here!
#LondonCalling: @JosephSternberg @WSJOpinion: The rarely dissenting Fed. Joseph Sternberg, WSJ 1914 Federal Reserve Board
#NewWorldReport: Brazil forces Musk to remove dissenting voices from X. Joseph Humire @JMHumire @SecureFreeSoc. Ernesto Araujo, Former Foreign Minister Republic of Brazil. #NewWorldReportHumire 1900 Caracas
The Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision granting Donald Trump partial immunity from special counsel Jack Smith's election subversion case, handing the former president a significant win during his reelection bid. Dissenting justices ripped the ruling as “antithetical” to the constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
According to the Associated Press, on Friday, June 28 the US Supreme Court overturned the decades old Chevron decision. The Supreme Court overturned the Chevron decision, which allowed federal agencies to interpret unclear laws, thereby empowering them in regulatory matters. The Chevron decision, established in 1984, outlines a principle of judicial deference to administrative agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes that they administer. It holds that courts should defer to these agency interpretations as long as they are reasonable and not contrary to the clear intent of Congress. This doctrine has been pivotal in shaping the balance of power between regulatory agencies and the judiciary in the United States. This decision to overturn Chevron is seen as a major win for business interests, potentially affecting regulations across environment, public health, workplace safety, and consumer protections. It impacts regulatory agencies by diminishing their discretion and authority in interpreting and implementing ambiguous statutes. It shifts more decision-making power to the judiciary, requiring courts to independently assess the legality and scope of agency actions without automatically deferring to agency interpretations from subject matter experts. This change potentially complicates the regulatory process, making it harder for agencies to enact and enforce regulations without facing greater scrutiny and challenges in court. The judiciary or the court now has the ability to veto and edit regulations that typically would be deferred to experts like those at the EPA, FDA, OSHA, and other agencies. Instead, judges are now able to make decisions based on their economic interests and personal beliefs surrounding the proposed and enacted regulations. The court's conservative majority, aligned with Justice John Roberts, reinforced the role of courts over agency experts in interpreting statutes, limiting agency discretion. The ruling could lead to challenges worth billions, impacting regulations like the National Marine Fisheries Service's fee requirements for herring fishermen. It also reflects broader conservative efforts to curtail the regulatory state, aligning with previous rulings under the Trump-appointed justices. Dissenting justices, including Kagan, criticized the decision as undermining agency authority and legislative intent, with implications for future regulatory oversight. Industry groups supported the decision for economic reasons, while advocacy groups warned of threats to public safety and environmental protections. A lawyer from Earthjustice stated after the ruling that: “The Supreme Court is pushing the nation into uncharted waters as it seizes power from our elected branches of government to advance its deregulatory agenda. The conservative justices are aggressively reshaping the foundations of our government so that the President and Congress have less power to protect the public, and corporations have more power to challenge regulations in search of profits. This ruling threatens the legitimacy of hundreds of regulations that keep us safe, protect our homes and environment, and create a level playing field for businesses to compete on.” The ruling shifts power dynamics away from federal agencies toward courts, potentially influencing future regulatory frameworks and major legal challenges. In short, things will now be decided by 9 bureaucrats in robes rather than the public and subject matter experts. Source: https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-5173bc83d3961a7aaabe415ceaf8d665 --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/outdoor-minimalist/support
Chiefs Head to White House on Heels of Trump Verdict, Plus Dissenting Callers on KCMO | Mundo Clip 5-31-24See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Today's Op-Ed discusses the inherent risk posed by Microsoft's new Copilot+ PCs and the Recall feature. Needless to say, I have thoughts! Give a listen, tell a friend. Dissenting opinions are ALWAYS welcome at darren@thecyburguy.com or at www.linkedin.com/in/darrenmott The article mentioned in this podcast: https://www.techradar.com/computing/windows/microsofts-controversial-recall-feature-for-windows-11-could-already-be-in-legal-hot-water
Welcome to Walking the Way as we continue our journey through the Bible. My name is Ray and I really want to say thank you to everyone for listening in as we share in a regular rhythm of worship and devotion together. Credits Opening Prayer https://www.faithandworship.com/ Bible verse 1 Kings 22:29 Thought for the day Ray Borrett Bible Passage 1 Kings 22 New Revised Standard Version, Updated Edition. Copyright © 2021 National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved worldwide. Prayer Handbook Click here to download it Download the Script https://1drv.ms/b/s!AnHHJxf-hxXpuuFNi5cdMfjGOWdG0w?e=ydIi1o Supporting Walking the Way If you want to support Walking the Way, please go to: https://ko-fi.com/S6S4WXLBB or you can subscribe to the channel: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/walkingtheway/subscribe To contact Ray: Please leave a comment or a review. I want to find out what people think and how we make it better. www.rayborrett.co.uk ray.borrett@outlook.com @raybrrtt https://fb.me/walkingthewaypodcast --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/walkingtheway/message
The 700-plus attendees at the 2024 Principles First Summit in Washington DC come from various locations and backgrounds yet attended this event for similar political reasons: all are concerned about authoritarian trends within today's GOP. Blaire Egan, for example, had been questioning her GOP political orientation since interning on Capitol Hill for a Republican legislator. Jeff Mayhew points to congressional gridlock, especially within the US House, as a major obstacle to functional, representative government. Mike Cantwell has long been a politically engaged military veteran working on election reform, among other issues, from an independent perspective. These are a few of the many attendees Producer Alex Couraud interviewed at this year's Summit, held the same weekend as the Trump-dominated CPAC. Tune in to this season four episode to move beyond simplistic labels of red vs. blue, Republican vs. Democrat, and learn about various efforts looking to shore up American democracy at this difficult time. The Purple Principle is a Fluent Knowledge production—original music by Ryan Adair Rooney. SHOW NOTES Our Guests: Jeff Mayhugh, Blair Egan, Liam Kerr, and Mike Cantwell Join Us for Premium Content: Apple: https://link.chtbl.com/PurpleApple Patreon: patreon.com/purpleprinciplepodcast Find us online! Twitter: @purpleprincipl Facebook: @thepurpleprinciplepodcast Youtube: @thepurpleprinciple Our website: https://bit.ly/2ZCpFaQ Sign up for our newsletter: https://bit.ly/2UfFSja
With the RSA conference coming in about 10-days, I bring back a topic I mentioned about 7 months ago as it pertains to Cyber Conferences to today's Op-Ed. Are they solving anything? I have thoughts. Give a listen, tell a friend. Dissenting opinions are welcome at darren@thecyburguy.com
Have you ever wondered why scandals slide off certain politicians like water? Jessica Tarlov, co-host of Fox News Channel's The Five, cable's highest-rated program, actually did her PHD dissertation examining how scandals impact politicians' careers. As the lone, democratic voice on The Five, Jessica shares how she handles the daily debates and how she decides to pick her battles. Given our upcoming elections, Jessica has a lot of thoughts on this topic including the phenomena of teflon Don. Jessica loves her job on The Five and feels fortunate for the opportunity to bring alternative opinions and analysis to the most important news stories. Topics Discussed (04:10) Political economy professor says none of Trump's scandals have affected his popularity (10:32) People reject the direction that the Democratic Party is going (19:29) 40% of Americans now identify as an independent (21:00) Thoughts on how Fox is covering the Israel war compared to other networks (24:49) What's going on on college campuses (40:25) What it's like to work on The Five SIGN UP FOR OUR newsletter here Connect with us on Instagram @meantforit and reach out via email at contact@meantforit.com with your thoughts or suggestions for future episodes. Visit www.meantforit.com for more inspiring stories, and if you leave us a review on iTunes, we'll do a little dance of joy.
In this conversation, AJ Kay discusses her early experiences with writing about COVID-19 and the backlash she faced for challenging the mainstream narrative. She shares how her essay on Medium, titled 'The Curve is Already Flat,' was censored and demonetized, leading to the formation of the Rational Ground group. AJ also talks about the impact of school closures on her children, particularly her daughter with autism and her other daughter with special needs. She highlights the loss of services and support that these children relied on and the detrimental effects of isolation and disrupted routines. The conversation highlights the importance of early intervention and support for children with special needs. They express concern for children diagnosed in 2020 who did not receive in-person help for three years, emphasizing the critical period of neuroplasticity in early childhood.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background01:16 Early COVID Essays06:37 Censorship on Medium08:03 Formation of Rational Ground22:30 Motivation to Speak Out25:49 Transition to Zoom School31:32 Impact on Children with Special Needs34:16 Lack of In-Person Help for Children with Special Needs39:51 The Effect on College Students45:36 The Purpose of Life and the Importance of Relationships52:55 The Great Barrington Declaration and Consent58:29The Critique of the Great Barrington Declaration01:00:54 The Inhumane Treatment in Nursing HomeTakeaways* AJ K. faced censorship and deplatforming for challenging the mainstream narrative on COVID-19.* The Rational Ground group was formed as a response to the censorship and aimed to provide a platform for independent writers and researchers.* School closures had a significant impact on children with special needs, depriving them of essential services and support.* The isolation and disrupted routines caused by the pandemic had detrimental effects on the mental health and well-being of children. Early intervention and support are crucial for the development of children with special needs.* The period of neuroplasticity in early childhood is finite, and the lack of in-person help during the pandemic may have long-term consequences for children's outcomes.* College closures and isolation measures have had negative effects on young adults' socialization and well-being.* The trade-off between safety and the loss of important relationships and experiences raises questions about the purpose of protection. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe
Since Tunisian President Kais Saied seized full governing powers in July 2021, concern has been growing about a crackdown on free speech and dissent in the country. In the last year, about 50 political opponents have been in jail in various cases. Some have been awaiting trial for more than a year. Meanwhile, judges fired by the president have not been reinstated, despite a ruling in their favour. While some Tunisians are speaking out, others feel resigned to their fate. Our correspondents report.
The Trump v. Anderson lead balloon continues to smolder. This episode looks at the areas wherein the concurring Justices took issue with the per curiam, and they are many. Indeed, the three Justices who concurred only in the judgment disagree with the scope of the per curiam as well as its particulars, and their concurrence reads more like a dissent. Can we find areas of agreement with ourselves and the concurrences? What can we learn from all this? CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.
Pastor JD provides a Biblical and practical template to use in discerning what's true or false concerning all the different dissenting and dividing voices teaching Bible prophecy The post Bible Prophecy Update, The Dissenting Voices Teaching Bible Prophecy – Sunday, March 17th 2024 appeared first on Calvary Chapel Kaneohe.
Pastor JD provides a Biblical and practical template to use in discerning what's true or false concerning all the different dissenting and dividing voices teaching Bible prophecy.Social MediaProphecy Website: http://jdfarag.orgMobile/TV Apps: https://subsplash.com/calvarychapelkaneohe/app Church Website: http://www.calvarychapelkaneohe.comTwitter: https://twitter.com/JDFaragFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/JDFaragInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/JDFarag
This Friday Op-Ed deals with the Congressional vote on Tik Tok. After spending 20 years dealing with Chinese-centric cyber and counterintelligence matters with the FBI, I think I have some thoughts. Dissenting views are always welcome at darren@thecyburguy.com
Alito, joined by Thomas, dissenting from denial of certiorari in Coalition for TJ v. Fairfax County School Board, decided Feb 20, 2024.
The Rebel News podcasts features free audio-only versions of select RebelNews+ content and other Rebel News long-form videos, livestreams, and interviews. Monday to Friday enjoy the audio version of Ezra Levant's daily TV-style show, The Ezra Levant Show, where Ezra gives you his contrarian and conservative take on free speech, politics, and foreign policy through in-depth commentary and interviews. Wednesday evenings you can listen to the audio version of The Gunn Show with Sheila Gunn Reid the Chief Reporter of Rebel News. Sheila brings a western sensibility to Canadian news. With one foot in the oil patch and one foot in agriculture, Sheila challenges mainstream media narratives and stands up for Albertans. If you want to watch the video versions of these podcasts, make sure to begin your free RebelNewsPlus trial by subscribing at http://www.RebelNewsPlus.com
Justice Sotomayor, dissenting from the denial of application for stay and denial of certiorari in Smith v. Hamm (January 25, 2024). Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts
As I discuss with Tucker, just how far did government-private partnerships go to suppress dissenting voices like mine? This is how far. --
Today I'll be reading two very brief opinions dissenting from the denial of certiorari in Tingley v. Ferguson, issued back on December 11th, 2023. The first dissent is from Justice Thomas and is only around 4 pages long; the second is Justice Alito's dissent, which is only a few paragraphs long and is written as if it were meant to be read at the end of Thomas' dissent - so, that's what I'm going to do. Enjoy. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-942_kh6o.pdf Listen to What SCOTUS Wrote Us anywhere you get your podcasts, or stream directly from your browser at whatscotuswroteus.com
Welcome to the Friday Op-Ed. Today I use the recent JAXA breach and intrusions into municipal water systems in the US to bring to the forefront the threat that is nation-state actors, and why you need to include them in your cybersecurity strategy. Dissenting opinions are encouraged (if you think I am right, that is good to know also!) Give a listen, tell a friend. #knowledgeisprotection
In this riveting interview, Kerry Lutz sits down with Mark Shaw, a prominent JFK assassination investigator, to delve into his groundbreaking research that challenges the official narrative of the JFK assassination and sheds light on the enigmatic death of journalist Dorothy Kilgallen. 1. Dorothy Kilgallen's Career and Involvement: Mark Shaw provides a comprehensive overview of Dorothy Kilgallen's illustrious career as a journalist and her significant role in investigating JFK's assassination. Kilgallen's relentless pursuit of the truth led her into a complex web of conspiracy and intrigue. 2. New Revelations and Corruption within the Warren Commission: Shaw exposes startling new revelations and government corruption surrounding the Warren Commission's investigation into JFK's assassination. He uncovers how key commission members were handpicked by President Lyndon B. Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to support the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. Dissenting opinions were systematically ignored and destroyed. 3. Dorothy Kilgallen's Connection to Carlos Marcello: Shaw delves into Kilgallen's investigation into JFK's assassination and her connection to Carlos Marcello, a powerful mafia figure with a motive to eliminate JFK due to his brother Bobby Kennedy's relentless pursuit of organized crime. The interview unveils new information from Morris Wolfe, who knew Kilgallen, providing further evidence that her knowledge may have cost her life. 4. Government Cover-Up and Destruction of Evidence: Shaw discusses the alarming concerns of Senator Richard Russell and Senator John Sherman Cooper, both disturbed by the cover-up and destruction of crucial evidence during the Warren Commission's investigation. The interview underscores the extent of government corruption that plagued the probe. 5. Reopening the Case of Dorothy Kilgallen: In a thought-provoking conclusion, Lutz and Shaw ponder the possibility of reopening the case of Dorothy Kilgallen, believing that her untimely demise was a result of her relentless pursuit of the truth surrounding JFK's assassination. This discussion leaves viewers with haunting questions about the hidden depths of this enduring mystery. Mark Shaw's research challenges the official narrative of JFK's assassination and brings to light a dark world of government corruption and intrigue. This interview is a must-watch for anyone interested in uncovering the truth behind one of the most significant events in American history and the mysterious death of Dorothy Kilgallen. Visit Mark's site to find out more: Mark Shaw Books Visit Kerry here: FSN
Welcome to the Friday Op-Ed. Today, I discuss the gap in the cybersecurity realm that is cyber leadership. Dissenting opinions are always welcome at darren@thecyburguy.com or at linkedin.com/in/darremott. Have a great weekend.
In this special episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Joyce Vance interviews Michael Dreeben, while Preet is out. Dreeben served in the Solicitor General's office for over 30 years, including 24 years as the Deputy Solicitor General in charge of the federal government's criminal docket. He is one of only eight people to have ever argued over 100 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. In this excerpt from the show, Dreeben discusses the rightward shift of the Supreme Court and the justices' high-profile rulings from the 2022-2023 term on issues including race, LGBTQ+ rights, and student loans. In the full episode, Dreeben breaks down: – Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's impact during her first term on the Court; – Dissenting opinions written by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, which they read aloud from the bench; and – Cases on the Court's docket for next term. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, become a member of CAFE Insider. Get 40% for the first year with discount code JUSTICE. Head to: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive content. Discount valid through July 2023. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network. Check out other CAFE podcasts: Now & Then, Up Against The Mob Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
In this week's ASK ME ANYTHING, Ryan Michler takes on your questions from Instagram. Hit Ryan up on Instagram at @ryanmichler and share what's working in your life. ⠀ SHOW HIGHLIGHTS (0:00) Episode intro⠀ (3:20) When you have a lot on your plate, how do you keep your sanity and your family in tact? (8:20) Will I ever see you again on the mats in Maine? (9:20) Is there a book you would recommend, along with the Bible, to help with your walk as a Christian? (10:25) How is sobriety and how can I support your journey? (13:30) How do you think people build community when people tend to keep opposing views as far away as possible? (19:00) How do you start a t-shirt printing business without using amazon or bulk ordering? (23:40) How are you dealing with losing your marriage at this early stage? (32:50) How do I allow myself grace when trying to start something new? (40:00) Do you ever find it hard to find motivation? Do you ever want to quit doing your podcast? (42:00) How did you get your son into lifting? (46:00) How do you cope with the “I'm to old to start over” thoughts? Battle Planners are back in stock. Pick yours up today! Get your signed copy of Ryan's new book, The Masculinity Manifesto For more information on the Iron Council brotherhood. Want maximum health, wealth, relationships, and abundance in your life? Sign up for our free course, 30 Days to Battle Ready
Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #LondonCalling: Dissenting the Coronation. @JosephSternberg @WSJOpinion https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sunak-backs-police-after-criticism-of-heavy-handed-coronation-arrests-tl2g0skc0
Florida Congresswoman Kat Cammack details committee testimony yesterday showing emails between then CDC Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, and Director of the NIH Dr. Francis Collins, calling for the quick and “devastating takedown” of Doctors who signed on to the Great Barrington Declaration, which dissented from official government COVID protocol and recommendations in 2020. The NIH Director saying in the emails, that these doctors were “getting out of control, and getting too much traction.” The Declaration was signed onto by “a Nobel Prize winner.” As well, as “thousands and thousands of epidemiologists, doctors, and scientists… and the fact that you have not only proof of this communication, where [Fauci and Collins] say there needs to be a quick and devastating takedown of this group, but then that same language pops up months later on March 8, 2021 in communications between the Biden administration and Twitter executives. That right there is the connection of why it is so dangerous, this collusion between big government and big tech, and how then this became the premises, the pretext for the takedown and suppression of dissenting opinions on social media platforms.” The Congresswoman explaining that she “guarantees there are people out there who would have thought twice about succumbing to pressure when it came to vaccines, or would have been better prepared and a little bit more knowledgeable had they had access to this. But instead, that information was suppressed.”See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
