Podcasts about James Madison

Peter Berkowitz. Peter Berkowitz explores Vice President JD Vance's journey from atheism to Catholicism. He highlights Vance's ambiguity regarding the state's role in promoting Christianity. Drawing on James Madison, Berkowitz emphasizes the constitutional necessity of separating church and state to protect religious freedom and institutional integrity. (3)NEW AMSTERDAM

SCHEDUKE JBS 7-21-26Elizabeth Peek joins John Batchelor to discuss how rising gasoline prices act as a talisman for consumer sentiment and presidential approval. Despite low unemployment and rising real wages, the public remains fixated on energy costs. Peek criticizes Republican messaging and highlights the massive AI-driven investment boom currently occurring. (1)Elizabeth Peek discusses New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's inability to define the "working class." She argues the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) primarily represent white, college-educated liberals rather than manual laborers. They also discuss Kevin Warsh as a potential Fed chairman and the independence of interest rate decisions. (2)Peter Berkowitz examines Vice President JD Vance's views on restoring Christianity in America. Berkowitz highlights the ambiguity in Vance's stance regarding government involvement in religion. They contrast Vance's rhetoric with James Madison's historical opposition to state-funded religion, emphasizing the constitutional separation of church and state. (3)Ahmad Sharawi reports on Syria's interception of sophisticated Iranian weapons—including cruise missile components—destined for Hezbollah. The weapons were concealed in Iraqi oil tankers. This move is seen as Al-Shara's attempt to gain international trust and investment by demonstrating a commitment to containing Hezbollah's rearmament. (4)Mary Kissel discusses the ongoing conflict with Iran in the Strait of Hormuz. She argues there is no diplomatic overlap because Iran views nuclear weapons as essential for survival. Kissel notes the lack of a broad international coalition and warns that regional allies might seek accommodation with Tehran. (5)Mary Kissel turns to NATO's lack of unity regarding the Ukraine war. Kissel argues that while Eastern Europeannations feel the threat, Western Europe focuses on domestic politics. She highlights the emergence of a "new alliance" of Russia, Iran, and China, which poses a significant hybrid threat. (6)Joseph Sternberg analyzes China's struggling economy, noting that official growth targets are likely overstated. Facing a real estate crater and demographic decline, China is reverting to an export-heavy model. Unlike Japan's past recovery, China's adversarial stance makes trading partners less willing to absorb its gluts. (7)Joseph Sternberg discusses the transition to Prime Minister Andy Burnham in the UK. Burnham, who took office without an election mandate, faces a heavily taxed economy and bond market skepticism. Sternberg critiques Burnham's big-government agenda and resistance to market reforms, suggesting it may drive away wealth. (8)Gregory Copley evaluates Prime Minister Andy Burnham's new cabinet, specifically John Healey as Chancellor and Wes Streeting as Defense Secretary. While the government aims to boost defense spending and support Ukraine, Copley questions its legitimacy without a fresh mandate and notes a lack of long-term global strategic planning. (9)Gregory Copley covers the alienation of Canada under the Trump administration. Copley explains how Canada is diversifying its defense procurement—buying Swedish aircraft and Australian radar—rather than relying on the US. This shift threatens the NORAD partnership and results in billions of dollars lost for US aerospace industries. (10)Gregory Copley explores the "balance of ignorance," where declining literacy and social media lead to a loss of national identity. He argues that governments make poor strategic decisions because they no longer understand their own history or adversaries, citing the current US conflict with Iran as a primary example. (11)Gregory Copley explains King Charles III's role in forming Andy Burnham's government. The King's "blessing" provides constitutional legitimacy to the transition. Copley notes Burnham is the first practicing Roman Catholic Prime Minister and highlights the King's departure to Glasgow to open the Commonwealth Games. (12)Former Congressman Thaddeus McCotter discusses how rising gas prices and inflation hurt Republicans in swing states. They also examine the Trump administration's use of the Smoot-Hawley Act to threaten tariffs on Canada. McCotter views these as punitive measures that weaken the broader argument for necessary trade protections. (13)Thaddeus McCotter comments on a recent presidential address regarding the 2020 election. He argues that claiming the system is "rigged" is counterproductive for Republican turnout. McCotter suggests that voters care far more about the "price of gas" and groceries than relitigating past elections that the party lost. (14)John Batchelor and Peter Huessy review classic nuclear war films like Godzilla, On the Beach, and Dr. Strangelove. Huessy argues that while these films highlight the horrors of nuclear use, real-world focus has evolved toward deterrence and sophisticated safety systems designed to prevent accidental or unauthorized missile launches. (15)Peter Huessy continues the discussion of nuclear films like Fail Safe and The Day After. Huessy disputes claims that The Day After motivated Ronald Reagan's arms control efforts, noting Reagan was a committed advocate for nuclear reductions long before the movie's massive 1983 television broadcast. (16)Corrections applied silently: Ahmad Sharawi (4) and Thaddeus McCotter (13, 14) per the log.

Lindsey Graham's death last week at 71 was as remarkable for the senator's relative "youth" as its possible political and electoral consequences, so much so that it actually prompted conspiracy theories about the precise nature of his passing. Meanwhile, 84-year old Mitch McConnell's status as among the living remains shrouded in mystery, and former president 83-year old former president Joe Biden announced that his memoir would be published in November via his cadaver-esque presence in a promotional video. In short, everywhere we look the signs of our decline into a sclerotic gerontocracy are present, and perhaps no one has approached this problem as comprehensively as Samuel Moyn in his new book, Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It. In this episode we talk with Sam about the historical precedents for our gerontocracy; the nature, extent, and causes of it; why his book is not an attack on the elderly; and possibilities for creatively rewriting our society's intergenerational contract; and more. Sources: Samuel Moyn, Gerontocracy in America: How the Old Are Hoarding Power and Wealth—and What to Do About It (2026) Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Sept 6, 1789 James Madison, Federalist 49, Feb 5, 1788 James Ceaser, "The Constitution: Sweet as Honey," First Things, Sept 20, 2009 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America (1835) ...and don't forget to subscribe to Know Your Enemy on Patreon for access to all of our bonus episodes!

Were the foundations of American governance engineered to protect the wealthy? Harvard Law professor Michael Klarman argues that the US Constitution was actually a counter-revolutionary coup to constrain democracy rather than protect it.  This episode explores how debt, taxes, and money influenced the drafting of America's founding document. And whether a wealthy elite bypassed democratic institutions to secure their own financial interests and reduce populist power. Connect with us:

Alvin Kamara's restructured contact, Billy Napier's return to Sun Belt Media Days with James Madison and college sports reform were on the docket.

In Federalist 10, James Madison identified what he saw as one of the greatest dangers to popular government: factions. How did he define and understand them? Do his definition and his argument still stand up today? How can understanding the view on this issue at the Founding better understand our current politics? Read Federalist 10: […]

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison agreed on almost everything when it came to religious freedom. But they talked about it in completely different ways. Historian Dr. John Ragosta joins Dr. Katie Crawford-Lackey to unpack that difference — Jefferson's intellectual, almost deistic case for separating church and state, and Madison's surprisingly reverential, scripture-laced language defending the same principle. Ragosta walks through the Memorial and Remonstrance, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and Madison's presidential vetoes on church matters, showing how two founders reached identical conclusions from very different starting points. The conversation closes on why that distinction still matters — and why separation of church and state was never, for either man, an attack on religion itself. 

Alex Jones and Sneako recently engaged in a religious-slop production that successfully painted, because of Sneako, Muslims as stupid, and because of Alex, Muslim detractors as ignorant bigots obsessed with their own religious biases. Nearly every talking point was an inversion of what the Quran and Hadiths actually say, though most Americans are uninterested in context due to a multi-decades long Judeo-Christian propaganda campaign relegating Muslims to caves with a holy book considered more useless than used toilet paper. Accusations against Islam are most often projections of Jewish or Christian guilt, if they're not outright entirely fabricated. Overall, they are un-unique in the long annals of human history. Furthermore, most would be surprised to learn that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Benjamin Franklin--respectively the fathers of the Declaration of Independence, US Constitution, and American citizens--were not Christians by any modern standard. They were primarily rational theists who rejected the divinity of Jesus.*The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, subscribe below.

This episode highlights an often-missed story: the Declaration of Independence didn't just shape the U.S. Constitution—it directly shaped state constitutions, many of which echo its natural-rights language more explicitly than the federal charter. Arizona Supreme Court Justice Clint Bolick argues that reading state constitutional provisions through the Declaration can strengthen enforceable limits on government power. The conversation reframes the Declaration from anniversary rhetoric into a practical interpretive tool in living state constitutional law. Bolick traces a two-way influence between the Declaration and early state charters, pointing to founding-era texts like Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights as a roadmap for Jefferson's phrasing—and noting that later state constitutions continued to incorporate Declaration principles such as equality, popular sovereignty, and inalienable rights. He then connects those ideas to modern doctrine, arguing that state courts can treat natural-rights provisions as meaningful constraints (or interpretive “prisms”) rather than mere preambles, with recent state supreme court decisions illustrating how the Declaration's ideals can translate into concrete protections today. Connect: Episode Transcripts >>> Stanford Legal Podcast Website Stanford Legal Podcast >>> LinkedIn Page Stanford Constitutional Law Center >> Website Stanford Law School >>> Twitter/X Stanford Lawyer Magazine >>> Twitter/X Chapters: [00:00:26] Chapter 1 — McConnell's framing: the “hidden” constitutional story in state charters The host introduces how state constitutions borrow explicitly from the Declaration and why that matters for modern rights protection. [00:05:59] Chapter 2 — Bolick's thesis: an “enduring symbiosis” between the Declaration and state constitutions Bolick argues the Declaration's influence on state constitutional text and interpretation is deeper and more direct than its influence on the U.S. Constitution. [00:10:46] Chapter 3 — Origins and transmission: Virginia's 1776 rights language and state constitution “laboratories” Bolick explains the two-way borrowing between early state constitutions and the Declaration, including George Mason's Virginia Declaration of Rights. [00:27:57] Chapter 4 — From principles to doctrine: natural-rights clauses as enforceable limits (with cases) Bolick lays out how courts have used natural-rights provisions as substantive protections or interpretive tools, citing key state cases and modern disputes. [00:46:34] Chapter 5 — Ford's recorded response + Bolick rebuttal: state power, natural rights, and the limits of the frame Ford praises state constitutionalism but complicates the natural-rights narrative; Bolick responds, emphasizing both self-government and enforceable individual rights. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Day in Legal History: The Sedition Act of 1798On July 14, 1798, Congress passed the Sedition Act, the most notorious of the four laws known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The Sedition Act made it a federal crime to write, print, utter, or publish “any false, scandalous and malicious writing” against the government of the United States, the Congress, or the President—with the intent to defame them or bring them into disrepute. In plain terms, it criminalized criticism of the government.The context was a Federalist administration, under President John Adams, gripped by fear of France and of domestic dissent, and eager to silence the opposition press aligned with Thomas Jefferson's Republicans. And that's exactly how it was used. Federal prosecutors went after Republican newspaper editors and even a sitting congressman, securing convictions for the crime of harsh political speech. Notably, the Act was written to expire in 1801—conveniently, the moment Adams's term would end—so that it could be wielded against his critics but would not outlive his own hold on power.The reaction was fierce and consequential. Jefferson and James Madison drafted the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions arguing the Act was unconstitutional, and the ensuing backlash helped sweep Jefferson into the presidency in 1800; once in office, he pardoned those convicted under it. The Sedition Act was never tested at the Supreme Court, but history rendered its verdict. More than a century and a half later, in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Court looked back and declared that the Act's assault on free expression had been repudiated “in the court of history,” using it as a touchstone for modern First Amendment law. The lesson of July 14, 1798 endures: laws that punish criticism of the government are almost always tools of the powerful against their critics—and a free press is most necessary precisely when the state would prefer it silent.Federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas seeking to compel four New York Times journalists to testify before a Manhattan grand jury, part of a leak investigation into the paper's reporting on security concerns surrounding President Trump's flight on the new Qatari-donated Air Force One. Federal agents delivered some of the subpoenas to the reporters' homes. Here's the legal terrain. There is no absolute federal reporter's privilege—the Supreme Court held decades ago that the First Amendment doesn't categorically shield journalists from grand jury subpoenas—but the Justice Department has long operated under internal guidelines that made going after reporters a last resort. Those guardrails matter here, because in 2025 Attorney General Pam Bondi rescinded the Biden-era policy that had sharply limited subpoenas against journalists, restoring broader authority to pursue them. The Times says it will fight, and can ask a court to quash the subpoenas as overbroad, issued in bad faith, or violating the First Amendment. The significance is the pressure this puts on newsgathering: when the government can subpoena reporters to unmask their sources, sources stop talking, and the kind of national-security reporting at issue here gets harder to do. Press-freedom groups warn this administration has reached for subpoenas and search warrants against journalists—at the Times, the Post, and the Wall Street Journal—more freely than its predecessors.Explainer: Can prosecutors compel New York Times journalists to testify in leak probe? | ReutersA federal judge has voided President Trump's roughly $1.78 billion settlement with the IRS, delivering a scathing rebuke and referring his lawyers for possible discipline. The backstory is unusual. Trump sued his own administration in January over the leak of his tax returns, and by late May had reached a deal with the IRS to create an “anti-weaponization” fund and to “forever bar” the government from any action related to his past tax returns—protection extending to his family and businesses. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams found the whole thing was a setup. The core legal defect is the absence of what courts call adverseness. Federal courts can only decide genuine “cases or controversies”—real disputes between opposing parties. Here, Judge Williams wrote, “there was never adverseness between the Parties; there was never a case or controversy; and there was never a question as to who would prevail,” because Trump was effectively suing himself, with his own Justice Department on the other side agreeing to lose. She found the case was brought for an improper purpose: to get a court's stamp of legitimacy on a settlement with no basis in law or fact. She sanctioned Trump's attorneys and referred one, Alejandro Brito, to the Florida bar, and suggested Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche should face discipline too. The significance is a court refusing to be used as a rubber stamp—insisting that its legitimacy can't be borrowed to bless a collusive deal dressed up as litigation.US judge voids Trump's settlement with IRS | ReutersA federal appeals court has revived more than 500 private lawsuits against Kenvue, the maker of Tylenol, alleging that acetaminophen use during pregnancy caused autism and ADHD in children—and here it's worth being clear about the science before the law. There is no firm scientific evidence that Tylenol causes autism or ADHD. The most rigorous recent research, including a large Swedish sibling-comparison study of millions of children, found no causal link once you control for genetic and environmental factors shared within families; mainstream medical bodies continue to regard acetaminophen as one of the safer pain and fever options in pregnancy, and untreated high fevers carry their own real risks. So this ruling is not a finding that Tylenol is dangerous. What the Second Circuit actually decided was narrower and procedural: that the trial judge had wrongly excluded the plaintiffs' expert witnesses. Under the rules governing expert testimony, judges act as “gatekeepers,” admitting expert opinion only if it rests on reliable methodology. The district court had tossed the plaintiffs' experts as unreliable; the appeals court, per Judge Guido Calabresi, said their methods reflected approaches other scientists use and amounted to “acceptable interpretations of scientific evidence where scientists may, and in fact do, disagree.” Crucially, the court stressed it was not deciding whether Tylenol actually causes these conditions. The significance is about who weighs contested science—the ruling lets juries, not just judges, hear the dispute, which is a real win for the plaintiffs procedurally even though the underlying causation case remains, on the current evidence, weak.US appeals court revives private lawsuits linking Tylenol to autism, ADHD | ReutersAnd finally, in my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on a counterintuitive idea: that big corporate taxpayers may come to miss the boring, predictable world of administrative tax law now that the Supreme Court has overruled Chevron deference. My argument, in short, is that a weaker IRS and Treasury is not the unalloyed win a lot of multinationals assume it is.Here's the setup. For forty years, under Chevron, courts deferred to a federal agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. With Chevron gone, courts no longer have to defer to Treasury's reading of the tax code just because the statute is vague and the agency has expertise. A lot of corporate taxpayers cheered that—less agency power sounds like more freedom. But my point is that killing Chevron did nothing to remove the underlying ambiguity in the tax code; it just moved the job of resolving that ambiguity to a different desk. And there are only two other desks it can land on, and I don't love either one for a company that wants predictability.The first desk belongs to the courts. If Treasury can't issue as many binding, prospective rules, then more of these questions get resolved through litigation—case by case, on particular records, often years after the transactions are done. Courts are built to handle controversies, not to administer a global corporate tax system. The Coca-Cola transfer-pricing fight is the stress test I point to: a company may win a great refund that way, but you can't organize a multinational's affairs around the hope that every ambiguous question turns into a bespoke judicial adventure. The second desk belongs to Congress, which is the more democratically satisfying answer—Congress writes the code and is politically accountable. But in practice Congress moves slowly and episodically, usually only when tax changes ride along on some bigger budget deal. By the time Congress fixes an international tax problem, the business model that created it has been reorganized twice and pivoted to something involving AI.So the core of my argument is that corporate taxpayers need to distinguish between a useful litigation win and a stable legal environment—those two things don't always travel together. A bad but clear rule can be modeled and planned around; an ambiguous rule, as I put it, isn't really a rule, it's a threat in the shape of a Treasury notice. My prescription is that Congress should make clearer, more deliberate delegations where technical administration is unavoidable—transfer pricing, international tax, anti-abuse rules—and that Treasury should do a post-Chevron audit of its own regulations to flag where the code is asking too much of administration and too little of legislation. Because the real choice here isn't between IRS power and taxpayer freedom. It's between prospective administration and retroactive improvisation—and multinationals may get their wish, see the IRS diminished, and then find themselves stuck with rules everyone knows are broken but no one can fix.Big Corporate Taxpayers Need More Clarity in a Post-Chevron World | Bloomberg Tax 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

Devin Young, Senior Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach at the University of Pittsburgh, did not take a straight path into the profession. He grew up chasing a hockey career through the junior ranks, walked on at Fitchburg State, and did not make the team. That setback pushed him into exercise science and a string of internships at UMass Lowell, Eastern Michigan, Princeton, St. Francis, and James Madison before he landed his first full time job at North Carolina A&T.Young was the department's director during COVID, running a football strength program with roughly 100 athletes, five platforms, a fraction of the normal equipment, and a single part time, uncertified assistant. He walks Connor Agnew through the daily problem solving that era demanded and how it shaped the coach and communicator he is today.The conversation centers on what Young says has done more for his growth than any book: investing directly in mentors through site visits, cohorts, and phone calls, because a mentor can answer the follow up question a book cannot. He connects that philosophy to Pitt's staff culture, weekly continuing education, and the summer internship program he now runs, where he is trying to give young coaches the same head start his own mentors gave him.Young's fastest growth as a coach came from investing in mentors and site visits rather than books alone, calling it the difference between reading about a problem and actually getting it answered.Directing a strength program during COVID with no staff and constantly rotating athlete pods forced Young to build rapid problem solving and communication skills that still define how he coaches today.Pitt's staff runs weekly continuing education and full peer reviewed program audits, using force plate data and KPIs to catch blind spots without turning it into a competition.Posting workouts and running a handwritten whiteboard series forces him to be certain of what he is teaching before it goes public, sharpening his own knowledge in the process.Pitt's summer internship runs on daily meetings, a full 15 week programming project, guest round tables with outside coaches, and live coaching drills that get progressively harder, built to give interns the same mentorship head start he got."I'm a big believer in finding people who are doing what you believe in and reaching out to them. Go intern for them. That's the best way to learn, because now you're hands-on, learning and doing at the same time."Guest: Devin Young, Senior Assistant Strength and Conditioning Coach, University of PittsburghInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/devin_sc_coach/Versatile Training Academy, Devin's side company (Instagram): https://www.instagram.com/vta_sports_performance_/ | linktr.ee/VTAcademyUniversity of Pittsburgh Strength & Conditioning (Instagram): https://www.instagram.com/pitt_sportsperformance/Devin's staff bio, Pitt Athletics: https://pittsburghpanthers.com/staff-directory/devin-young/3836Talkin' Pitt Podcast: Spotify | Apple PodcastsKeywords: Devin Young, University of Pittsburgh, Pitt strength and conditioning, strength coach mentorship, COVID training protocols, program audits, continuing education, Talkin' Pitt podcast, internship program, Connor Agnew, Samson Strength Coach Collective

In this episode, we kick off our 2026 conference preview series with Part 1 of our Group of Six rundown, covering the American, Sun Belt and MAC. With coaching changes, transfer portal churn, new coordinators and a whole lot of roster turnover, we try to figure out which teams are actually built to contend and which ones are more mystery box than finished product. We start in the American, where UTSA, Navy, Memphis, Army, FAU, USF and ECU all have some version of a case, even if nearly every team comes with one glaring question. Then we move to the Sun Belt, where James Madison enters a new era with Billy Napier, Old Dominion has real intrigue, Louisiana and Troy headline the West, and nobody feels quite as loaded as last year. Finally, we close with the MAC, where Miami (Ohio) and Western Michigan appear to be the class of the conference, while Toledo, Buffalo, Central Michigan, Bowling Green, Ohio and Eastern Michigan crowd into a very meaty middle. Plus: Dan’s questionable subtitle, a punny new vehicle at Coastal Carolina, Lunch Winfield, Goose Crowder, Sacramento State’s strange MAC arrival, Keldric Luster, and the looming joy of the Ball-Sac rivalry. Timestamps:0:00 - Intro6:37 - American Conference Preview46:40 - Sun Belt Conference Preview1:11:00 - MAC PreviewSupport the show!: https://www.patreon.com/solidverbalSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comWas America founded as a Christian nation, or is that question usually about today's politics more than the eighteenth century? John Fea, historian of early America and American religion, joins Will Wright and Pastor Josh Burtram to slow the conversation down. Fea explains why many Americans historically believed they lived in a Christian nation, while also showing why that does not settle what the founders intended. The discussion moves through state constitutions, religious tests, the First Amendment, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, the Constitutional Convention, anti-Federalist objections, and the difference between religious freedom and religious toleration. Fea argues that Christianity clearly mattered in the founding era, but the federal Constitution did not create a Christian republic. The episode also asks what America's 250th should mean if we want better history, better citizenship, and a more honest public conversation about faith and democracy.Guest BioJohn Fea, PhD, is a historian of early America, American religion, and the founding era. He is Senior Fellow at the Lumen Center for the Study of Christianity and Culture in Madison, Wisconsin, and taught U.S. history at Messiah University for more than two decades. He is the author or editor of several books, including Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?, Why Study History?, Believe Me: The Evangelical Road to Donald Trump, and the forthcoming In God We Trust: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? His work helps listeners think historically about the founders, religious liberty, the Constitution, Christian nationalism, and the difference between using the past responsibly and using it for present-day political agendas.Book MentionedIn God We Trust: Was America Founded as a Christian Nation? by John FeaPublisher: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9780664269579 Support Sarah Stankorb's work and preorder Damned If She Does: Why Women Quit Church and What It Means for the Future of Religion, Releases September 15, 2026.  Bookshop.org: https://bookshop.org/a/112456/9798889837091Website: https://www.sarahstankorb.com/Support the showKeep the conversation going.Want to learn more about Faithful Politics, suggest a future guest, or connect with us directly?Visit our website:faithfulpoliticspodcast.comBrowse our bookstore, featuring books from many of our guests:faithfulpoliticspodcast.com/bookstoreSupport the show and help us keep these conversations going:patreon.com/cw/FaithfulPoliticsSubscribe for behind-the-scenes content, reflections, and updates:faithfulpolitics.substack.comContact the hosts:Josh Burtram, Faithful Host: Josh@faithfulpolitics.comWill Wright, Political Host: Will@faithfulpolitics.comFollow Faithful Politics:Instagram: faithful_politicsFacebook: FaithfulPoliticsPodcast

How do we honor people who were enslaved when the enslavers are at the center of so much of our history?For generations, Nashville's portrayals of its Black history has lacked accuracy, as institutions have shied away from the legacy of American slavery.Today, we look at three well-known historical sites in Middle Tennessee: The Hermitage, Fort Negley and Travellers Rest. All have made recent efforts to adjust how they portray their history — but not everyone is satisfied with the approach.This episode was produced by Cynthia Abrams.Guests: Jamel Campbell-Gooch, community organizer and descendant of Esquire Hayes, who was enslaved at The Hermitage Dr. Aisha Francis, president of Franklin Cummings Tech and descendant of Hiram and Eveline Overton, who were enslaved at Travellers Rest Dr. Angela Sutton, Vanderbilt historian who studies Fort Negley Eola Lewis Dance, ethnohistorian and former CEO of James Madison's Montpelier

Karl Bastian Podcast #233 – Faith & Freedom #2: A Judge, a Spy, and a PastorAs America celebrates her 250th Anniversary, Karl continues the Faith & Freedom series by exploring three remarkable men whose names are often forgotten—but whose influence helped shape the United States.Meet John Jay, the brilliant judge who helped establish the rule of law for a new nation. Discover Nathan Hale, the young schoolteacher turned patriot whose final words became legendary after giving his life for the cause of liberty. And meet John Witherspoon, the Scottish pastor and college president whose faith and leadership shaped a generation of America's founders, including James Madison.Three men. Three different callings. One shared conviction that faith, character, and freedom were worth serving—and sacrificing—for.More than a history lesson, this episode reminds us that God doesn't change history through one famous leader alone. He works through judges, teachers, pastors, parents, and ordinary people who faithfully answer His call. And perhaps... the next world-changer is already sitting in your classroom.Share with Kidology.org/podcast233THE KARL BASTIAN PODCAST (Formerly KidminTalk) is the Podcast of "Kidologist" Karl Bastian, founder of Kidology.org and host of The Karl Bastian Podcast. He is a children's pastor, speaker and entertainer. His life mission is to Equip and Encourage those who minister to children.KarlBastian.club is home to Karl's coaching - check it out today!Listen to past editions of this podcast at KarlBastianPodcast.comSend Support via: Kidology.org/donatePLEASE SUBSCRIBE and HIT THAT ALERT BUTTON TOO!Follow Karl: Subscribe at KarlBastian.club Blog: Kidologist.com Facebook: Facebook.com/karl.bastian Twitter: @Kidologist Instagram: @KarlBastian or @KidologyorgSupport the show

The Constitution isn't a secular contract—it's a covenant rooted in Scripture.In this episode, Pastors Stephen Martin and Daniel Hayworth trace the Constitution back to the pulpit—from John Witherspoon and James Madison to the doctrine of human nature that shaped every check and balance. Perfect for the commute, the gym, or the morning drive, this America 250 (Part 6) conversation walks through covenant vs. contract, Federalist 51, and the documented evidence that the Constitution grew from a Christian founding. If you've ever wondered whether America was truly a Christian nation, this Constitution deep-dive gives you the biblical and historical answer.You'll Learn:✅ Why the Constitution is a covenant, not a contract✅ How human depravity shaped checks, balances, and the Bill of Rights✅ The evidence behind America's Christian founding

BIL LEWIS describes himself as just a guy who is obsessed with doing his best to build a better world.  He walks his talk so he became one of the first young people to join the Peace Corps and spending years as a tribute player depicting President James Madison.  His advice for today is simple but definite - Be involved! He believes we all have something important to do,   Bil is funny and inspiring - you pronounce that "irresistible."    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 297- SCOTUS Win on Assault Firearms Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode Transcript Page – 1 – of 15 Gun Lawyer — Episode 297 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Supreme Court, assault weapons, Second Amendment, gun rights, New Jersey, NRA, firearm laws, Heller decision, McDonald, Bruen, reparations, gun control, concealed carry, Thomas Jefferson, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Speaker 3, Teddy Nappen, Evan Nappen, Speaker 1 Speaker 1 00:11 Lawyer, Evan Nappen 00:17 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:19 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:22 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. Well, my friends, I have to tell you, this is just one of the greatest moments in what I would have to say in our fight to destroy gun rights suppression. It is just a banner time right now. Absolutely, a crescendo at a moment here that I’m just so excited about. Truly, truly excited, no joke. The Supreme Court of the United States has granted certiorari, meaning accepted the case, so that it means there will be an opinion, a decision, a rule made by the Court finally on so-called “assault weapons”. (https://thereload.com/supreme-court-to-decide-constitutionality-of-ar-15-bans/) Evan Nappen 01:27 Yes, we’ve done it. We have finally gotten to where the U.S. Supreme Court is going to look at the impact of the Second Amendment on this issue. I can tell you that I’ve personally been battling and fighting in the state of New Jersey since it was first enacted in May of 1990. Looking back to those days, I remember just thinking, man, hopefully we’ll one day get the United States Supreme Court to deal with this issue. But back then there was no Heller decision. There was no Supreme Court decision that even said that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right. We didn’t even have that back then. And when the anti-gun rights crowd embarked on this brand new approach, which it was at the time. Evan Nappen 02:38 To understand the history and where we are right now, why it just is so meaningful, you need to understand that the gun rights attack, the effort by our adversaries, to destroy our right to keep and bear arms, basically, in modern times, started after World War One. It was essentially imported here Page – 2 – of 15 from the U.K., from Great Britain. It had gotten its roots there, and it came across the pond like a cancer. It percolated to the point where by 1934 we ended up with the first National Firearms Act. Prior to ’34 but after World War One, you saw states passing state laws of what we commonly call gun control laws. And the gun control laws of those days first initiated through the ’20s, and we still have remnants of those laws still on the books, by the way, in New Jersey and other places. They were put forward by state legislatures and enacted, and those gun laws were mirrored and influenced and encouraged by what was taking place originally in Great Britain. Evan Nappen 04:22 These laws in America at that time period, and you may find this surprising, and it’s not meant to be bashing in any way of NRA. But they were even supported and promoted by the NRA at that time. The NRA had even put forward what were called the “model firearm laws”. They put model laws together that they wanted states to pass. The NRA saw its mission then in a naive, unfortunately, you know, very naive, as certain gun laws and such, that they would support. Now, since then, that’s not their position, and they’ve learned from this naive mistake. But it led to the 1934 Act, and we’ve suffered under that this entire time. It became the first national gun rights oppression law. Even at the time in the “American Rifleman”, you could read it, and they even praised it. They said, “Ah, and this is how they viewed it. You’ve got to understand, put yourself in the time. They said, “Ah, we’ve solved the gun problem in America.” We’ve passed this great national law, and now we’ve resolved it. We’ve solved it. We’ve addressed it. It’s done. And, of course, it was far from done. But for approximately 30 plus years, that was about it for our national laws on guns being passed. Evan Nappen 06:00 Then along comes the ’68 Gun Control Act, which built upon, to a certain degree, of course, built upon the NFA. We already had that national law and then the ’68 law. Then ’72 and then ’80s and ’90s, and etc. So that foundation got laid. And in between all this, what you mainly saw the fight as being, though, where the modern day focus, the modern day focus was handguns. I remember through the ’80s, before the invention, and that’s what it was, the invention of the “assault weapon” issue. It hadn’t been invented yet. Everything was, we only want to ban handguns. Handguns were the symbol of crime. Every news show on the major controlled networks, there weren’t any cables, you know. You just had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and you had their nightly news. And anytime they talked about crime, whether there was a gun involved or not, they always showed a handgun on the news screen anytime they talked about crime. So the propaganda was put there. Everything was about banning handguns, and the main gun rights oppression group of the day was known as Handgun Control. Handgun Control was a big group. You had players at the time like Pete Shields and others, and this is where the push was. Then along comes Josh Sugarman, who puts out his manifesto. Teddy Nappen 07:50 Closet hoplosexual. Evan Nappen 07:52 Right. His manifesto of the assault weapons and their accessories. And even in his manifesto, he writes that the American public will be fooled by this, because they don’t know the difference between machine guns and semi-autos. This lays the groundwork for this. And lo and behold, we have California Page – 3 – of 15 with Patrick Purdy and the massacre that occurred in that incident, and that’s all the blood they needed to dance in. Then the assault weapon laws became the biggest threat to our Second Amendment rights, and everything weirdly shifted, weirdly shifted, so that handguns, with the growth of concealed carry, which has been an amazing success for gun rights support. Handguns are not the big issue for banning, except for, of course, a modern day focus on Glocks, because they’re easily convertible, right? Except for that. You don’t see the push like you used to ban handguns. Evan Nappen 09:00 Of course, Heller took care of that as well. Saying you can’t. It’s unconstitutional to ban handguns, too. But the push on semi-automatic rifles under the contrived created term of “assault weapon”. They took the German of Sturmgewehr, which was the true original assault weapon, a medium power round in a long arm that’s designed for urban settings. It is select fire, both full auto and semi-auto. And causing this, creating this, and putting it with that scary “assault weapon” moniker to scare the public and sell it. And it was to their credit, to a certain degree successful. It was successful in a number of states that passed state laws, including New Jersey. They passed one of the one worst, most destructive, horrible gun laws that have ruined good people. We’ll talk more about that in a little bit. Evan Nappen 10:06 And even a federal law at one point through the 1994 bill that was a crime, which they call the Crime Bill, but I call the bill that was a crime. We had the first national assault weapon ban. That law sunset and went away in 10 years, which was 2004, and they’ve not been able to reenact another federal ban since. But that ban did end up living on, by the way, in the state of New Jersey, because New Jersey adopted the language of that to save New Jersey’s assault firearm ban from being declared unconstitutionally vague. Now that was started by a case that I did, State v. Merrill, where I had the law declared unconstitutional for vagueness because of the term “substantially identical”, which was undefined. What does “substantially identical” even mean? How can something be substantially and identical at the same time? It’s like saying almost exact. Nothing is almost exact. It’s either exact or it isn’t. And because of the vagueness of that term, it was found unconstitutional by Judge Michael Farron, Monmouth County. We knocked out the case. Evan Nappen 11:21 That case was then brought into federal court by the gun rights groups, and that’s where the Attorney General, in order to save it, adopted the 1994 federal crime bill standard that was feature specific. We still live by that today in New Jersey, as to what makes a compliant gun or not, as to the definition of “substantially identical”. The court said, well, now that you know the definition, it’s no longer vague, and therefore it’s constitutional, which is, of course, a judicial lie, a fallacy, a falsehood. Because what that means is that somehow in 1990 our legislators passed an unconstitutionally vague law that did not have definition and somehow knew that in 1994 the federal government would pass a law that defines the undefined law in New Jersey. That’s just ridiculousness squared. But nonetheless it is law, at least as it stands in New Jersey now. We saw other states and other counties constantly push on the so-called “assault weapon” ban, a focus being on the big bad AR-15. We’ve had fight after fight. Page – 4 – of 15 Page – 5 – of 15 Evan Nappen 12:35 And as our battle for Second Amendment rights continued through the courts, we got the trifecta. We got the Heller finding of what we all knew in our hearts was true, that the Second Amendment is an individual right. We got McDonald, which said this doesn’t just apply to the federal government, it applies to all states and localities. And then we got Bruen that laid out the test of constitutionality and gave us the requirement that carry permits must be issued, must be issued. With that buildup of having the trifecta, we’ve now gotten more cases from the Supreme Court that solidify this approach. And just now, in this moment in our lifetimes, the Supreme Court has finally accepted the challenge to the bans of so-called “assault weapons”. The name of the case. Teddy Nappen 13:36 Particularly those two cases. Evan Nappen 13:39 Yes, Viramontes v. Cook County, and Grant versus Higgins. Now, those cases, the Cook County case is the Illinois’ local county. It’s a local assault weapon ban ordinance, just an ordinance banning. And then the other case they took was in Connecticut, which is a statewide ban. Why do that? Well, what’s great is they’re going at anywhere and everything, whether it’s local or state. The challenge is across the board, as per McDonald. It’s incorporated both local and state. So we now have a certiorari grant combining two cases, and it isn’t just limited to Connecticut and this one local county in Illinois. Their decision will reach all localities, all states, and stand in the future with our win, that I am confident we will win, to stop future federal laws on this. Here’s the actual. Go ahead, Teddy. Teddy Nappen 14:52 I will point out that this is just something the we. I always keep an eye on, like all the arguments the Left always do. I always love the ad hominem attack, where they say. Well, this is just some Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which is they are a party to both cases. (https://saf.org/supreme-court-grants-cert-in-saf-assault-weapons-cases/) They’re the ones that brought the cases. Second Amendment Foundation was joined by the Firearms Policy Coalition. They brought the Vermont. Evan Nappen 15:16 And second Amendment Foundation. Teddy Nappen 15:17 And Second Amendment Foundation, along with the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. They always try to say. Evan Nappen 15:21 Teddy, there are also individual plaintiffs that are very important, that have standing, that have gone this distance. So, this is actual people and organizations. Teddy Nappen 15:32 Yeah, astroturf. Page – 6 – of 15 Evan Nappen 15:32 Yeah, well, astroturf, that’s a joke. Teddy Nappen 15:36 Yeah, but that is. Evan Nappen 15:37 I mean. Yeah. Go ahead. Teddy Nappen 15:40 Just to take that in. Throughout history, just look at the cases throughout, like some of the major Supreme Court cases. I think it was, what was it, either.. I think it was like maybe Plessy versus there was one regular Supreme Court case where it was brought by the, the.. it was about segregation. It was the train companies, where they’re trying to make sure they didn’t have to make extra cars for separating blacks and whites. And it was brought, and they actually set it up to have the case, to get the individual arrested for the segregation. It’s not the first time you’ve had organizations, and that’s throughout all, like a vast majority of cases where you have other. Evan Nappen 16:22 Listen, Teddy. Astroturf? Rosa Parks was a setup. Rosa Parks at the back of the bus, racial segregation. What do you think? It was engineered to make the challenge! Yeah, so don’t give me that. You want to put the issues forward and get the issues decided. Good, good. They have actual plaintiffs. They have actual people that are suffering under these laws, and they have organizations that represent vast amounts of members. It’s fine. It’s real. The assault firearm bans are real, and in New Jersey, their impact has been one of absolute destructive power. But let me just tell you what the court, just to close this, so we know exactly what they’re going to decide. Here is the question presented that they have granted certiorari on. Here it is, ready? Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess the AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles. This is great! One of the criteria that the antis are going to use, is they’re going to say, well, it has to be arms that are commonly possessed. Well, the AR-15 is the most commonly possessed rifle in America. As a matter of fact, folks, there are more AR-15s than there are Ford F150 pickup trucks! Let that sink in. Teddy Nappen 18:08 That was the other argument I’ve been seeing from The Trace. (https://www.thetrace.org/2026/06/assault-weapons-bans-supreme-court-2a/) They just did their whole, you know, boo hoo, whining, and crying. It was from Chip Brownlee. Guess the first thing they highlight? This is the fight for the dangerous and unusual AR-15. Like that’s the common use. That’s the spin that they’re going to use. They’re trying to lay the groundwork on, is that whole idea of. Evan Nappen 18:34 Well, you know why? They don’t have historical analogs under the Bruen test anymore, that can help them. Their analogs have had their legs cut off. The one they loved was about the Black Codes, where they banned blacks from Bowie knives and guns, or whatever. And Alito, just in the recent opinion, made it clear that’s a tainted relic. It can’t be taken seriously. So, forget it. That analog is out the Page – 7 – of 15 window. They just revealed, based on research by Stephen Halbrook, that the precedent claimed for carrying – as a matter of fact, this was even in Kuhns. One of the precedents relied upon by the court was a law that never was a law. It was simply something in some Frenchman’s book that talked about it. But the actual law was not how they’re citing it at all. Their analogs are fraught with fraud, fraught with being completely tossed in the garbage can, and they know it. When it comes to that Bruen test of history, text and tradition. In order for a law to be upheld and found not to be unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, the Government has the burden of showing the past analogs that there were other laws that were like that law that make this new law acceptable. And they don’t have that. They do not have it. So, they’re falling back, Teddy, to it’s not common use. Well, that’s falls flat on its face. They’re falling back on what? What’s the classic? Why don’t you tell us? What’s the classic when all else fails for them to cry about? Teddy Nappen 20:34 Blood In The Streets. That’s Blood In The Streets. They always cite two BITS. We have to consider the gun violence when considering this. All that goes right to Brown. Evan Nappen 20:43 Public policy. They always go back to the public policy arguments, public policy, and guess what? That doesn’t cut it! That doesn’t justify infringement of the Second Amendment. That argument is dead in the water. It’s not the test. It’s not a balancing test. Balancing tests aren’t allowed. Done, dead, gone. You can’t balance public policy. Can’t do it anymore. They know they’re going to be crushed, and I cannot wait for that day. I cannot wait till, at the latest, it’ll be next June. We’re going to have a decision that removes finally. I know it in my bones. Gets rid of, ends this travesty called the “assault weapon” ban. Let me tell you something. These laws have destroyed good people. These laws have created more harm than they claim the firearms themselves have created, especially in states like New Jersey. Evan Nappen 22:00 It isn’t just that an individual can’t have that gun or this gun. It’s the aggressive insanity of enforcement destroying people’s lives. If you get convicted of possession of an “assault firearm” in New Jersey, right? An AR-15 that has a bayonet mount on it and a pistol grip. You are now guilty of possession of an “assault firearm” because of a bayonet mount. You’re looking at 10 years in State Prison with a minimum mandatory three and a half years. No chance of parole. Three and a half years – minimum mandatory, folks. No way around it. No way. If you’re convicted of that, the judge has zero discretion. You can be Mother Teresa, and you’ll have to get three and a half years minimum mandatory in State Prison because you had a gun that had a bayonet mount and a pistol grip. You can only have one offending feature, and the pistol grip is one offending feature, right out of the box. And you had two because your other one was a bayonet mount. You know how important bayonet mounts are to crime. I mean, come on. What about all the drive-by bayonetings we have to take care of here, right? Folks, that’s how they.. Teddy Nappen 22:00 I think you also. Just looking at the future, because from the facts of where everything’s lined up, yeah, we’re going to win. And just seeing that right now, the way things lay out, I look to. Page – 8 – of 15 Evan Nappen 23:45 Well, we don’t want to be overconfident, but we. Teddy Nappen 23:48 I understand. Fine, cautiously optimistic. Evan Nappen 23:52 But I am cautiously optimistic. I am incredibly cautiously optimistic with an emphasis on optimistic. Teddy Nappen 23:59 I always look to what is left of their, what would be the next step, then on there on the gun right suppressionist? Because the only thing I could think of is they’re just going to try to put. Evan Nappen 24:09 Wait, wait, wait. Hold that thought for a minute. I just want to finish about the other destruction that has occurred. Like I said, it’s not just that you get arrested and you’re charged with assault firearm. Then you’re thrown in the Gulag, and they want to hold you until your trial. You’re going to spend at least a week, even if your lawyer can get you out before your trial. You have that fight. Then they use it as a licensing disqualifier. If you had an assault firearm, you’re banned from ever having guns again. It doesn’t matter. It’s an assault firearm. On top of that, they have made assault firearm possession not releasable under the Gulag. Remember, we’ve talked about this. It becomes a criteria where there’s a presumption for you to be held in jail. Presumption in favor all over this nonsense. So, you see it’s far-reaching, and what happens when someone inadvertently gets involved in this? Your life gets destroyed. You lose your career. You lose your family. You can lose your freedom. You lose your gun rights, and it’s devastating to people. And then there are those that are doing hard time because they are otherwise lawful possessors. It doesn’t matter. They’re doing the time, having their life destroyed, and having been turned into felons. Evan Nappen 25:40 So, let me just say this. After this decision is a tremendous win for our gun rights and for civil rights, because it’s in the same category as the First Amendment, folks. It’s in the same category as a fundamental right under the Bill of Rights. What I want to see after that decision is reparations to gun owners. That’s right. Reparations to gun owners. You know, they talk on the other side about reparations for slavery to generations later that were never slaves, and they want reparations. Here we will have reparations to individuals who are still alive and have suffered. To anybody that had to give up one of their guns that never should have had to. To those that went into the Gulag and suffered that never should have. To those who have done State Prison sentences that never should have. To those who have lost their gun rights, who have had their families, their lives, their freedom, and their fortunes, all destroyed. Reparations to them. Wait till after this decision comes down. Then we push for reparations. We don’t let it end. Oh, sure. Is that difficult? Will it be hard? Yeah, but it’s no more hard, and frankly, less, way less, of an ask than those asking for reparations for slavery, where we don’t even have the victims of that alive today. Page – 9 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 27:09 It’s also very easy to quantify, because you go into just the legal fees that were brought, the time in jail. Plenty of people have sued and won on those cases. So, it’s something you can actually determine, as opposed to generational racism. It’s ridiculous, as ridiculous sounds, but to this end, where someone who had their life destroyed because of the gun control that they have pushed over the years. Evan Nappen 27:39 That was utterly a violation of our fundamental rights and Second Amendment civil rights. It absolutely is going to lay groundwork for at least tremendous litigation, and really we should have eventually a federal reparations law requiring states to pay that ever had these laws. To compensate individuals who suffered under their tyranny. So, Teddy, you had something else to mention. I know you did. Teddy Nappen 27:39 Yes. So, the one thing I was looking at, whenever I always look to our opponents, because I try not to think of them as being stupid. Even though they are pretty retarded on a lot of different fronts, but they always keep pushing. And I remember this term for it, of what they were described. The Left and the Marxists are line steppers. They go with the idea of what can we get away with, what can we push for, because they always go for that. It’s always just progressivism for progressive sake. Cut to trans ideology. Cut to, you know, we’re going to take your children away and then transition them. Cut to any form of the Left in its insanity. Teddy Nappen 28:16 I always think what will be the next push, and I can see it right now. Repealing the Second Amendment will be the next step. Evan Nappen 28:16 100 percent. Teddy Nappen 28:36 Yes, that will. That’s the only. The only thing I can think of is what they did to Penny, what they did to all the other self-defense cases that we’ve had. Fine, you can have your firearms, but if you ever use them, we will drag you through the courts. We’ll make your life a living hell. We will make it so that people will want to murder you and come to your house and dox you. That’s the only thing at this point. That’s all they have. They are the party of violence, that is shown. You have doxing websites they run. That is the only two avenues I can see for that, and also suing the gun shops into oblivion, which we need to do something with the, I think, what is it, the PLCAA, where it’s the protection. Evan Nappen 29:59 Yeah, PLCAA. (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act) Right. Teddy Nappen 30:02 We need to improve and expand PLCAA, and just say no. Stop wasting the state’s money. So, I don’t know what the test would be, but we need to. Page – 10 – of 15 Evan Nappen 30:12 Well, the fight will definitely change, and you know, the gun rights oppressors are not going to give up. But. Teddy Nappen 30:21 Of courses not. Evan Nappen 30:21 It will absolutely take away one of their actually most successful modern gun rights oppression tax. This will be one of. This will destroy what has actually been one of their areas of success, to be honest. They have succeeded in multiple states, and even at one point federally over this. This will destroy it, kill it, and they’re going to be knocked back on their heels very hard by it. And then we need to finish the job. Evan Nappen 31:00 Repeal Hughes Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:01 We need to go at reparations and make it so that when any of these governments decide to embark on rights violations, that down the road we make them pay. We just don’t kill the law. We just don’t knock it out, so that it no longer has effect. We have to make them pay for what they did to good people, and we do that through reparations. Teddy Nappen 31:29 We should also repeal the Hughes. Amendment. Evan Nappen 31:31 That’s going to build. Once you get this case, then, of course, the rest of NFA, any other hardware bands, all these things are going to be on the table. We will have even stronger, better case law to take it all out as the house of cards built by the gun rights oppressors collapses. Hey, and by the way, let me tell you about our good friends at WeShoot. WeShoot is a range in Lakewood. It’s where Teddy and I both shoot, and that is, of course, where we get our training. And I want to tell you that they are offering New Jersey concealed carry, so you can get your CCARE so you can get your carry permit out of Jersey. They have a new price for their CCARE. It’s incredible. It’s only $225! You can sign up at WeShoot and get their carry course, and it is great. You’ll get your PTC certification, and they really set the gold standard there at WeShoot. You’ll be able to get re-qualification, too. This is the training that police departments use. They’re also USCCA and NRA backed courses. It’s all combined. This is where you can reserve and get it done, so you can get your carry. Evan Nappen 33:03 Particularly now where we’re knocking out “sensitive places”, as we just did with the Wolford case, which actually impacts New Jersey “sensitive places”. We’re going to see more and more availability of where we can carry, and every carry permit holder is another vote for carry. Probably by now, we are well over 100,000 carry permits in New Jersey. You know, it used to be 600. Literally just 600 carry Page – 11 – of 15 permits. Not 600,000. Six hundred. And now we’re in the 100,000 or damn close, if not over it, of permit carriers. I just showed you how their oppression law was so successful before, and after Bruen, it’s dead. Evan Nappen 33:50 So, go to weshootusa.com. Check out We Shoot, and I know you’ll love WeShoot, too. They have great training, and not only can you get your New Jersey permit certification, your CCARE, but they also offer special training to get that for seniors, 65 or older. They have a special deal for seniors – only $185. You can get your training there. They also offer New York City non-resident carry. They are offering New York City non-resident carry. They have it at a fantastic new low price of $289, and you can get your New York City carry, which also covers New York State non-resident carry permit. They’ll do all the training, and this is really great. Anthony Zalo will be doing this course. It spans two days, and it covers firearm safety and storage, pistol ammunition basics, de-escalation techniques, federal and state law, live fire training. If you’re seeking even more certifications, they offer Maryland Wear and Carry Certification, as well as Washington, D.C. carry permits for just $150 each. On Tuesday, August 4, they will be holding their New York resident and non-resident carry courses. Evan Nappen 35:37 WeShoot also has Civilian Shoot House Training. This is really cool. Their Civilian Shoot House Training, so you can understand how to clear rooms, move with purpose, and make decisions under pressure. This is great for homeowners and parents and security team. Anybody who’s serious about protecting their home and community, check out WeShoot’s Civilian Shoot House Training. They have that scheduled out. You can sign up for Friday, July 31st for that Training. They also have adult CPR / AED and Stop the Bleed, so that you know how to treat wounds. They’re offering that training on Monday, July 20. And for new shooters, they have great training called “From Nervous to Bullseye”. If you’re entry level, you want basic training. Here’s what you can do. They’re also offering weekend classes, and you can “Hit Your Weekend Target” with their great instructors – Grant Gallagher, Tony Zollo, and Lance Hubeny. They’re all there. Sign up at WeShoot. They are a phenomenal resource. We’re talking here about WeShoot in Lakewood. They offer USCCA and Sig Sauer Academy – “Close Quarter Defense Fundamentals. I mean, can you believe this? Just fantastic training. Make sure you check out weshootusa.com. You’ll love the range, you’ll love the pro shop, and you’ll love the people. They are the best. Go to weshootusa.com today, and take a trip down to Lakewood. They are right there in Central Jersey, conveniently off the Parkway. You’ll be glad you did. Evan Nappen 37:40 Let me also shamelessly promote my book, New Jersey Gun Law. It’s the bible of Jersey Gun Law, and you need to get your copy today. Go to EvanNappen.com and get a copy of New Jersey Gun Law. It’ll help keep you from being a GOFU. Hey, we are now celebrating, of course, the 250th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. This is a great moment in our history where that fantastic, earth shattering, world changing, humanity changing, document was signed and began the birth of our wonderful America, the greatest country on earth. I have nothing but reverence for our Founding Fathers and our Founding documents, and celebrate 100%. Page – 12 – of 15 Evan Nappen 38:48 Let me tell you about the author. Of course, the Committee of Five technically authored The Declaration, but the majority of the credit is given to, and I hope you know this, Thomas Jefferson. But let me tell you about how great Thomas Jefferson was. Not just because of his phenomenal presidency, his assertion of our national reputation against the Muslim pirates, the pirates of the day, standing up to them, and also the Louisiana Purchase, and so many amazing things under Jefferson. And, of course, the Declaration of Independence. But let me tell you something else about Thomas Jefferson. I want you to know, when it comes to firearms, Thomas Jefferson was one of us. He couldn’t be more one of us. Thomas Jefferson was one of the greatest gun owning founding fathers to live. Evan Nappen 40:04 And let me read you, especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The man who wrote that and made us so where we are today, we can be proud and free. Listen to some quotes from Thomas Jefferson, specifically about guns. Here’s a great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” Yeah, he said that. No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. That’s from Thomas Jefferson in the Virginia Constitution draft of 1776. Here’s another phenomenal quote by Thomas Jefferson. “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Let that sink in, folks. He preferred dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. He wrote that in a letter to James Madison in 1787 . Here’s another great quote from Thomas Jefferson. “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” That’s right. Enemies, foreign and domestic, my friends. You heard what Jefferson said. Evan Nappen 41:40 “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Pure common sense spoken by Thomas Jefferson in Commonplace Book, quoting the 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria. Here’s another quote from Thomas Jefferson. “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” Let that one sink in, folks. Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to Peter Carr from August of 1785. Evan Nappen 42:27 “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; and they may exercise it by themselves, and that is their right and duty to be armed at all times. Let all those quotes from Thomas Jefferson sink in. Think about them as we celebrate the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence and the man that was the chief engineer of that document and how that man viewed our Second Amendment rights. Page – 13 – of 15 Teddy Nappen 43:43 I will also say, like, I don’t know if you did. Did you ever get to go to Monticello? Did you and Mom get to go? Evan Nappen 44:09 Thanks for mentioning it. No, that is on my bucket list, and I’m going there. My wife went. You’ve gone. Teddy Nappen 44:18 No, I didn’t. I didn’t get to go. Evan Nappen 44:20 What? You didn’t either? Teddy Nappen 44:20 Nope. Just Mom. Evan Nappen 44:21 Teddy, you and I have got to go. Teddy Nappen 44:23 Just Mom got to go. That’s why. Evan Nappen 44:25 This is just wrong. I’ve got to go to Monticello. I’ve meaning to get there. And it’s bugging the hell out of me. Teddy Nappen 44:33 If you ever do go there, they have his pistols. His famed pistols that were, I think, gifted to him. (https://www.monticello.org/encyclopedia/firearms) Yeah, his famed twin pocket pistols that were gifts from, I believe it was a pair of Turkish pistols received from General Isaac Zane in place of a monetary bequest. Evan Nappen 45:07 Bequest. He gifted him these pistols. Teddy Nappen 45:11 Okay. Evan Nappen 45:12 Yeah. Teddy Nappen 45:14 It was also kind of interesting that Jefferson loved to go out and do competition shoots. He would do a lot of them, and he was a fairly good marksman. There were marks in his letters showing that he noted Page – 14 – of 15 in his accounts, I won a shooting in one of six, it was a muster with Captain Jacob Moon’s Albany County Militia Company. He lost two to six, but as he grew older, his limited exercise. He moved more to firearms and hunting over his horseback riding. He even had designs, and there was accounting of a double-barreled gun lock that he had drawn. So, there’s various other bits in his accounts. Evan Nappen 46:01 Like I said, he’s one of us, man. One hundred percent. Hey, this is wonderful, an incredibly important part of our heritage and our tradition. Jefferson stands tall. All the Founding Fathers were, of course, gun owners and knew the importance of arms, but Jefferson is special, without a doubt. Jefferson is special. Evan Nappen 46:32 And you know, Teddy, I want to tell you about this week’s GOFU. This is a GOFU that every time in the practice of gun law, there’s something new. Some other GOFU that I’d not even heard about before, and it just blows me away. It constantly gets crazier and worse, and I want everyone to understand this GOFU, which is, of course, a Gun Owner Fuck Up. Where individuals are now experiencing expensive lessons, or have experienced expensive lessons that you can hopefully avoid for free by listening to Gun Lawyer. Evan Nappen 47:16 So, this week’s GOFU concerns the following. We have a couple, a husband and wife, that are not getting along well with one another, and okay, it happens, right? It happens. Well, it ends up where at some point there’s a fight, and like the old kind of comedy issue you’ve seen on TV, where often it’s the woman, it doesn’t have to be, but often is, throws the husband’s clothing or the belongings out the window to get out. That kind of a thing. Well, in this case, apparently his firearms were tossed out onto the lawn. I guess it sends a message as to throwing out things that the other party believes they care about. But whatever. I’m not going to get into the psychology of it. The bottom line is that this takes place. What happens? Well, it ends up where the police get involved. The police get involved because it falls under the so-called banner of domestic violence. Anytime there is domestic violence, police are called in over any claim of domestic violence, and it’s so broad. Remember, domestic violence could be anything, even harassment, which the essence of which is doing something to purposely annoy another. Now, I know none of you have ever purposely annoyed your spouse or your boyfriend or your girlfriend, but if you did, then you arguably committed domestic violence for harassment. Evan Nappen 48:57 Anyway, that can bring the police into your lives, and this is where you get to live the famous saying of Ronald Reagan. “We’re here from the Government, and we’re here to help.” And, of course, that was one of the best, most sarcastic things that Reagan ever said. Because we’re here from the Government and we’re here to help, is of course the exact opposite. And that’s what happened here. The Government gets involved, and both parties are questioned over various allegations. It doesn’t matter what. The bottom line is that the domestic violence forms are filled out where the issue is documented, and the wife is asked, do you want a restraining order? And she wisely says no. This is internal. They’re squabbling, or whatever. She doesn’t need a restraining order. The husband, who related his whole side of everything there too, is asked, “do you want a restraining order? And he wisely said no, as well. Page – 15 – of 15 Evan Nappen 50:11 So, now you have a couple that are trying. They’re going to do whatever, but they don’t want restraining orders. They don’t want the Government in their life. They’re not interested in that. But what happens? The Government files Red Flags, TERPOs, Temporary Extreme Risk Protection Orders on both of them. Neither of them wanted a restraining order. Neither one wanted it, but it didn’t matter. The Government now files to take away both of their gun rights. To take away their guns and put them on a list of extreme risk. This puts you on a database that could even arguably be accessed by TSA or others that you’re a danger. It has farther reaching collateral consequences than just taking guns and taking away your gun rights. Putting you into the court system now to have to individually fight TERPOs, because we’re from the Government and we’re here to help. That, my friends, is the GOFU. Keep it in mind at all times about being from the Government and there to help. Especially on the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Evan Nappen 51:37 This is Evan Nappen and Teddy Nappen reminding you that gun laws don’t protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens. Even Thomas Jefferson knew that. Speaker 3 51:50 Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing Evan@gun.lawyer. The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state. Downloadable PDF TranscriptGun Lawyer S5 E297 Transcript About The HostEvan Nappen, Esq.Known as “America's Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, and weapons history and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades — it's no wonder he's become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry and national media outlets. Regularly called on by radio, television and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news Evan has appeared countless shows including Fox News – Judge Jeanine, CNN – Lou Dobbs, Court TV, Real Talk on WOR, It's Your Call with Lyn Doyle, Tom Gresham's Gun Talk, and Cam & Company/NRA News. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America. Email Evan Your Comments and Questions  talkback@gun.lawyer Join Evan's InnerCircleHere's your chance to join an elite group of the Savviest gun and knife owners in America.  Membership is totally FREE and Strictly CONFIDENTIAL.  Just enter your email to start receiving insider news, tips, and other valuable membership benefits.   Email (required) *First Name *Select list(s) to subscribe toInnerCircle Membership Yes, I would like to receive emails from Gun Lawyer Podcast. (You can unsubscribe anytime)Constant Contact Use. Please leave this field blank.var ajaxurl = "https://gun.lawyer/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php";

Across generations, public moments of prayer and thanksgiving have shaped how many people understand national identity and responsibility. Whether one looks at early proclamations or later seasons of national hardship, the consistent theme is simple: gratitude toward God is meant to be expressed, not assumed. It keeps perspective steady and prevents freedom from turning into entitlement. At its core, this kind of reflection isn’t just about looking backward—it’s about asking what we do with what we’ve been given today. Gratitude becomes a posture that influences how we live, serve, and treat one another right now. Highlights: Scripture invites believers to actively remember and proclaim God’s works Gratitude is a stabilizing force in how we view history and present blessings Public and personal thanksgiving have long shaped spiritual and cultural identity Freedom carries responsibility, not just privilege Remembering God’s faithfulness helps anchor perspective in the present Continue the conversation with the Crosswalk community here: https://forums.crosswalk.com/ Do you want to listen ad-free? When you join Crosswalk Plus, you gain access to exclusive, in-depth Bible study guides, devotionals, sound biblical advice, and daily encouragement from trusted pastors and authors—resources designed to strengthen your faith and equip you to live it out boldly. PLUS ad free podcasts! Sign Up Today! Full Transcript Below: A Call to Be Thankful for America on Its 250th Anniversary By Lynette Kittle Bible Reading: “Give praise to the Lord, proclaim His name; make known among the nations what He has done.” - Psalm 105:1 As America celebrates its 250th Anniversary, we, as citizens of the United States, have much to be thankful for! History books record, and historical monuments stand, in honor of the Christians whom God led across the ocean, who were seeking a land where they could freely and openly serve Him, those willing to leave all they had behind and risk their lives to set sail for a New World. As the forerunners, the Pilgrims’ trek led them to America, where they brought their deep spiritual convictions to lay the groundwork and foundational biblical beliefs; truths that led our Founding Fathers to base our Declaration of Independence on godly principles; and truths that have given us the right to worship God freely and without reserve since their coming. Without our founders humbling themselves before God, there would be no USA today. As American history records, prayer and fasting were called for and practiced in America’s founding and the establishment of our nation, playing a major role in establishing America by the first patriots who practiced James 4:10 on a national level: “Humble yourselves before the Lord, and He will lift you up.” By our leaders calling our nation to humble itself before God in prayer and fasting, our founders followed 2 Chronicles 7:14, urging, “If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and heal their land.” By humbling ourselves as a nation, our leaders seemed to understand what Galatians 5:13 reminds us: “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love.” America’s History Reveals Decades of National Thankfulness Even before the official establishment of the United States, historical documents record that, throughout the American Revolution, the Continental Congress, in response to winning critical battles, called for national days of Thanksgiving, asking colonists to express gratitude to God for His divine protection over the troops. After the Declaration of Independence, national thanksgiving continued, beginning in 1789, with President George Washington issuing the first official United States Thanksgiving proclamation, calling upon all Americans to demonstrate gratitude to God for the end of the war and the Constitution’s successful ratification. President Washington said, “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor.” Following Washington’s example, Presidents John Adams and James Madison also called for national days of Thanksgiving during their presidential terms. As well, President Abraham Lincoln, on October 3, 1863, in the midst of the Civil War, proclaimed the last Thursday in November as a national day of Thanksgiving. A Nation’s Living Testament to God’s Faithfulness The United States is a living testament to God’s faithfulness and to what happens when a nation is willing to humble itself before God… recognizing His sovereignty over the earth and publicly thanking Him for His protection and provision for its leaders and people. As citizens of the USA, we have much to be thankful to God for our nation, as we celebrate our 250th anniversary. Thankfulness to God for what He has done in America through the faith of our Founding Fathers, who feared and worshipped Him and laid a godly foundation for our land based on biblical truth, and whose beliefs continue to this day across our nation. Intersecting Faith & Life: As our nation celebrates its 250th anniversary, ask God to help you find reasons to be thankful for our country, our godly heritage, and the freedoms we still enjoy today. As well, ask the Lord to move in the hearts of people across our nation, encouraging them to praise and thank Him for all that He has done for us as a country. Further Reading: A Prayer to Praise God for Our Nation Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Is America a democracy or a constitutional republic? Why did the Founding Fathers reject pure democracy and build a government with checks and balances? In this special Independence Day episode, Peter Rosenberger explores the biblical view of human nature, the influence of John Locke, Montesquieu, James Madison, and Robert Woodson, and explains why caregivers uniquely understand stewardship, accountability, and freedom. Discover how the lessons learned from decades of caregiving illuminate the Constitution, patriotism, limited government, and the Christian hope that no government can provide.

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, what made the Declaration of Independence remarkable was that it was unprecedented in human history. The Declaration serves as the foundational basis for the nation and its Constitution, celebrating America's purpose. Critics like Presidents Obama and Woodrow Wilson have rejected or downplayed its first part on the Creator and principles, focusing instead on the list of grievances against the king to advance new ideologies; however, President Coolidge defended these enduring, universal ideas from Aristotle and Locke as perpetual, not to be dismissed. The Declaration's concise statement of American identity is incompatible with Marxism, Islamism, and fascism. Also, President Reagan was a great admirer and friend of Milton Friedman. He often sought his input on economic policies. During Reagan's presidency, there was massive economic growth, and he won two historic landslide elections, popular vote and electoral college, like no Republican before or since. Alexander Hamilton would grow increasingly supportive of a powerful central government. He would argue with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison on their approaches to government during the Washington administration and beyond. Hamilton argued for implied powers under the Constitution, which infuriated Jefferson and Madison. Hamilton claimed the necessary and proper clause was essentially a ticket to significantly expanding federal action. Later, Americanism and capitalism are philosophies enabling individual decision-making under the Declaration and Constitution, whereas ideologies are fanatical beliefs imposed society-wide regardless of consequences. Communism is defective and anti-human, misreading human nature by suppressing free will, reason, debate, and academic freedom in favor of brainwashing, conformity, and central control, as seen in places like Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and China, and similarly with Islamists. Nationalists, populists, and Marxists attack the American experiment, economic system, and culture through emotion, slogans of equality, and activist government, showing overlaps reminiscent of 1930s fascists and communists. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What did James Madison fear most about democracy? Madison believed tyranny could come not only from kings and dictators, but from the majority itself when power goes unchecked. In this episode, I reveal Madison’s plan to stop tyranny, protect individual rights, and design a Constitution strong enough to control government—and force government to control itself. If you’re tired of broken healthcare you need to choose the right pharmacy. Check them out at allfamilypharmacy.com/dinesh and use code DINESH10 to save 10% off your next order. Leave the old “buy and hold” crypto strategy behind at https://DineshCrypto.com ! Purchase crypto with military grade encryption and American customer service. Hundreds of crypto holders have saved MILLIONS thanks to BlockTrustIRA’s Animus AI. Visit https://DineshCrypto.com and receive up to $2,500 in FREE bonus crypto! America has nearly 39 trillion dollars in debt! Are you protected from this pending disaster? Go to http://DineshGold.com and get up to 10% in bonus gold or silver. I’m on substack! Check out what I have to say here: https://dineshdsouza.substack.com/ For free and unbiased Medicare help, dial (706) 262-4774 to speak with my trusted partner, Chapter, or go to https://askchapter.org/dinesh" Chapter and its affiliates are not connected with or endorsed by any government entity or the federal Medicare program. Chapter Advisory, LLC represents Medicare Advantage HMO, PPO, and PFFS organizations and stand alone prescription drug plans that have a Medicare contract. Enrollment depends on the plan’s contract renewal. While we have a database of every Medicare plan nationwide and can help you to search among all plans, we have contracts with many but not all plans. As a result, we do not offer every plan available in your area. Currently we represent 50 organizations which offer 18,160 products nationwide. We search and recommend all plans, even those we don’t directly offer. You can contact a licensed Chapter agent to find out the number of products available in your specific area. Please contact Medicare.gov, 1-800-Medicare, or your local State Health Insurance Program (SHIP) to get information on all of your options. Dinesh D'Souza is an author and filmmaker. A graduate of Dartmouth College, he was a senior domestic policy analyst in the Reagan administration. He also served as a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. He is the author of many bestselling books, including "Illiberal Education," "What's So Great About Christianity," "America: Imagine a World Without Her," "The Roots of Obama's Rage," "Death of a Nation," and "United States of Socialism." His documentary films "2016: Obama's America," "America," "Hillary's America," "Death of a Nation," and "Trump Card" are among the highest-grossing political documentaries of all time. He and his wife Debbie are also executive producers of the acclaimed feature film "Infidel." — Want to connect with Dinesh D'Souza online for more hard-hitting analysis of current events in America? Here’s how: Get Dinesh unfiltered, uncensored and unchained on Locals: https://dinesh.locals.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/dsouzadinesh Twitter: https://twitter.com/dineshdsouza Rumble: https://rumble.com/dineshdsouza Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dineshjdsouzaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Great American Fair was meant to celebrate the nation's 250 anniversary of declaring independence from tyranny. Instead, it appeared to be the final nail in the coffin of a compromised and hijacked country. From Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to fake buildings with screen printed tarps, fake arches, foreign flags, religious propaganda, $20 subsidized food-slop, $40 cheap hats, $200 freedom jerseys, and armed soldiers patrolling the grounds enforcing Orwellian loudspeaker announcements. The turnout was so poor that people had to be rounded up with zoomed in low camera angles to produce the illusion that tens of thousands showed up at once. If that weren't enough propaganda, the same administration is using World Cup celebrations as proof of support for its policies domestically and internationally. In other words, look, Americans are celebrating the USA Team, so that must mean they support war in Iran or skyrocketing prices. It's all so embarrassing and has devolved into less than even a cheap caricature. *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, subscribe below.

July 1, 2026 ~ Chris Renwick discusses Supreme Court rulings on birthright citizenship and transgender athletes. It also covers the Michigan budget, James Madison's role in the Constitution, NASA's moon plans, and Michigan's Tri-Share childcare program. Plus, the hosts react to unexpected power outages and the World Cup excitement. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

On Tuesday's Mark Levin Show, Chief Justice Roberts improperly relied on English common law as a basis for birthright citizenship, despite the framers using it only as a guide and rejecting elements that conflicted with the U.S. system. The 14th Amendment and the preceding Civil Rights Act of 1866 were narrowly intended to grant full citizenship rights to freed Black slaves and their children amid post-Civil War resistance—not to address immigration or confer citizenship on children of illegal aliens. The opinion wrongly equates "jurisdiction" with mere physical presence, leading to illogical results like automatic citizenship for babies of illegal immigrants (who retain foreign allegiance) while creating unaddressed exceptions for diplomats, revealing a result-oriented, activist approach that rewrites history. Roberts and his Majority twisted the history of the 14th amendment and just constitutionalized birthright citizenship, knowing full well that our nation, like Europe, is facing a grave threat from within as a result, in part, of the intentional refusal of our government, when the Democrats are in power, to enforce immigration laws and, oppositely, facilitating the importation of aliens from all over the world without proper vetting. Also, the constitutional amendment process is rarely used. It requires two-thirds approval in both houses of Congress to propose language, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states—neither of which is feasible for issues like changing birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court has constitutionalized elements not originally in the Constitution, making reversal through amendments impractical. Instead, the effective path is filling Court vacancies with constitutionalists, as achieved in overturning Roe, without resorting to court packing. Later, Hans von Spakovsky calls in and explains that Roberts' opinion was appalling and a complete rewrite of American history, particularly regarding the 14th Amendment. He notes that Justices Alito and Thomas eviscerated it in separate dissents, highlighting that Roberts' historical account was inaccurate. He criticized Roberts' selective and distorting use of sources like Thomas Paine and Frederick Douglass, pointing out Thomas's observation that Douglass viewed Black Americans as citizens due to their equal allegiance to the U.S., unlike illegal aliens who owe allegiance to their native countries. Finally, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison favored limited central government, while Alexander Hamilton preferred a powerful, activist federal government with implied powers. Modern nationalist populists share this Hamilton big-government outlook with the left, which lacks clear constitutional principles and risks abuse, in contrast to true constitutional conservatism. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

We know James Madison as the Father of the Constitution. But who was he before that? In this special episode, Dr. Katie Crawford Lackey takes the guest seat to explore the formative years that made Madison who he is.At 25, Madison was the youngest major figure of the founding era — small, sickly, quiet, and easy to overlook. He never commanded armies or delivered rousing speeches. What he had were ideas, and a framework for thinking about power, human nature, and government that no one else in the room quite possessed. Where did that framework come from?The answer lies in three Scottish Enlightenment-influenced teachers, a frontier Virginia upbringing, and an unconventional choice to attend the College of New Jersey — the institution we know today as Princeton — rather than William and Mary, where every other wealthy Virginia man of his generation enrolled.Dr. Crawford-Lackey traces Madison's intellectual development from the schoolroom of Donald Robertson, where a 70-mile horseback journey opened a young boy's mind to Locke, Milton, and Montesquieu, through his years under John Witherspoon at Princeton — where he experienced the Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party not as distant news, but as live confirmation of everything the Scottish Enlightenment had taught him about human passion and the limits of reason.Madison wasn't born a Founding Father. He was made — by a rigorous education, a world in crisis, and the hardest question anyone could ask on the eve of a revolution: What kind of people is government meant to govern?The answer he arrived at still shapes American democracy today.

July 1, 2026 ~ Chris Renwick speaks with Jack Rakove, a Stanford University professor, about James Madison. They discuss Madison's lasting impact on the U.S. Constitution and his often-overlooked political influence. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Today in our continued exploration of why the US is the way it is, we get to Article I. Why did the framers design Congress the way they did? Why did the small states come out so far ahead? And what, potentially, would James Madison think if he saw its operation in 2026? To help us navigate the thoughts of men long-dead, we talk to Madison scholar Jack Rakove. He shares his insights on representation, the electoral college, and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, it's worth asking: What was the American Revolution actually about? We all remember the broad strokes we learned in school: Independence from the British crown. Taxes on tea. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But on a deeper level, the American Revolution was—and is—a revolution in political theory, reimagining what a legitimate government is and what its relationship to its citizens should be. Washington's troops won the ground war 245 years ago at Yorktown, but the ideological battle continues against forces on both the left and the right who are pursuing a ruthless assault on America's core values. The American Revolution isn't over. Inscribed inside the dome of the Jefferson Memorial are the words: "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson wrote that in an 1800 letter, but that feeling of hostility toward the tyranny of a distant monarch is what drove him and his fellow revolutionaries in 1776. Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch summarized the Declaration's core ideas in an interview with Reason: "The Declaration of Independence had three great ideas in it. That all of us are equal. That each of us has inalienable rights given to us by God, not government. And that we have the right to rule ourselves." That's why Jefferson declared that a legitimate government requires the "consent of the governed." Thomas Paine put it more scathingly in his 1776 pamphlet Common Sense, writing that "government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens." Monarchy was the Devil's most effective and enduring form of "idolatry." We don't fret over tyrannical kings in today's America. Only ceremonial vestiges of hereditary monarchy remain in the modern world. The Revolution achieved a complete victory in that sense. Yet a counterrevolution is underway, one that views the American Revolution and the republic it birthed as a failed liberal regime that has outlived its usefulness. And these counterrevolutionaries sit remarkably close to the levers of power. Self-Rule Under Threat Three years before he became vice president, J.D. Vance told podcaster Jack Murphy that America had reached a point of no return. "We are in the late republican period," he said. "If we're going to push back against it we have to get pretty wild and pretty far out there and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with. Indeed, among some of my circle the phrase 'extra-constitutional' has come up quite a bit." Vance regularly cites and associates with a group of so-called "postliberals." He appeared on a panel with one of this movement's leading intellectuals, Patrick Deneen, a Notre Dame political science professor and the author of Regime Change: Toward a Postliberal Future, in 2023. Deneen believes there is an unbridgeable divide between the "elite" and "ordinary" people. "What is needed," he writes in the book, "in short, is regime change—the peaceful but vigorous overthrow of a corrupt and corrupting liberal ruling class," which will be replaced by a more virtuous one. He envisions the kind of aristocratic government favored by the ancients like Plato and Aristotle, endorsing "aristopopulism," where an elite class works to further the interests of the masses. "The replacement of the current elites in our society ought to be more closely aligned to the interests of ordinary people," Deneen said at the panel. He invokes a "premodern conception of liberty—expressed in the pages of Plato, Aristotle, the Bible," where institutions like the family, the church, and the state worked together to impose "guardrails" protecting individuals from becoming "slaves" to their own desires. My colleague Stephanie Slade writes about the postliberal right for Reason magazine. "He says people like [himself] should just be in charge of our government. That's what he means by regime change," Slade says. "[That] we should replace the current elites." She notes that postliberals are willing to frame the entire American Founding as a mistake: "They might say, yeah, America did have a liberal founding and that's why it was a mistake. Actually, this whole experiment was a mistake, and it maybe took a couple hundred years for that mistake to play out….We now can see that it doesn't lead to good conservative outcomes." In his book Common Good Constitutionalism, Adrian Vermeule, a postliberal Harvard Law professor and appointee to President Donald Trump's Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, wrote that "the central aim of the constitutional order is to promote good rule, not to 'protect liberty' as an end in itself." That's a rejection of the spirit of 1776. Paine saw the existence of government as a necessary evil because of "the inability of moral virtue to govern the world." A minimal state, in his view, should be restricted to supplying "freedom and security." As Gorsuch put it in the same Reason interview: "If you think of the Declaration as kind of our mission statement, our ideals, and the Constitution is the how-to manual—well, the Constitution is all about dividing power. Madison realized men are not angels and that their aspirations for power need to be checked and checked and checked again." The "regime change" Deneen and Vermeule call for isn't explicitly violent. Deneen describes "Machiavellian means to achieve Aristotelian ends." The strategy manifests as a steady expansion of presidential authority, as we've seen under Donald Trump's second term: the 143 executive orders he signed in just his first 100 days, more than any other president in history; his decision to send troops to American cities without permission from local authorities; his declaring of 21 national emergencies while in office; and his decision to send illegal immigrants to overseas prisons in defiance of the judicial branch. Incidentally, one of the grievances listed in the Declaration of Independence was King George III's penchant for shipping the accused "beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offenses." Before he became vice president, Vance encouraged Trump to emulate Andrew Jackson and dare the Supreme Court to try enforcing its rulings against him. "If I was giving him one piece of advice," Vance said, "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people, and when the courts—because you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.'" "That's a really dangerous idea to be even casually trotting out there, let alone for somebody who is now the sitting vice president to be on the record," Slade says. "He said it a number of years ago when he was just a candidate for office, but I've never seen anything from him since he's been in office that makes me think that he doesn't ultimately believe in that sort of approach to politics." Some postliberals call for measures far more dramatic than the steady erosion of constitutional restraints currently underway. Michael Anton, who worked in Trump's State Department over two terms, wrote in his book The Stakes about the prospect of a "Red Caesar"—a right-wing dictator who would rise from the ashes of the fallen republic. "Caesar's word replaces constitutionalism and even, in the final analysis, law," he wrote. In a podcast conversation with pro-monarchist blogger Curtis Yarvin, Anton discussed what that might look like. "Caesarism is a form of monarchy, but that follows a nonfunctioning republic, a republic that doesn't work anymore," Anton said. Yarvin proposed that the path to power would begin with declaring a state of emergency in an inaugural address, "taking direct control over all law enforcement authorities….Basically like Caesar, you're using all of the force available to you."  "There is just clearly much more of a sense that government power is meant to be used to advance our side in the face of our enemies," Slade says. "And the enemies are the left, the political left, and anyone on the right who isn't going to line up with [them]. [They believe] political power should be used to reward our friends and punish our enemies, and that to me is a clear violation of one of the core principles of rule of law, which is equal treatment for everyone under law." In the COVID era, President Joe Biden imposed national mandates by executive fiat, and his administration tried to suppress dissent by pressuring tech companies to censor critics. The Democratic Party has also flirted with the idea of packing the Supreme Court to get its way, which is not a new impulse for the party. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the Court in 1937, it cost him the support of progressives who had previously backed the New Deal. FDR is revered by progressives and cited by Yarvin as a prototype for an American Caesar. "Was FDR a dictator? What does it mean to be a dictator? What does this pejorative word mean?" Yarvin asks. "A dictator is somebody who rules alone. And that, I think, is a beautiful thing." The Revolution was, first and foremost, about self-rule: We would no longer abide by a diktat from an overseas king. From the very beginning of the republic, power-seeking men have tried to undermine that vision. In its earliest days, there was a plot to install a Prussian prince as king of a new American monarchy. Jefferson accused John Adams and Alexander Hamilton of being monarchists, recounting in horror a dinner conversation in which Hamilton told him "the greatest man…that ever lived was Julius Caesar." But monarchy is seductive because strongmen promise order in chaotic times. In the wake of Shays' Rebellion, a post-Revolution farmer's uprising, Jefferson worried the Constitution's drafters were overreacting by creating a powerful presidency that would devolve into a monarchy. "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?" he wrote. And then, famously: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." Hopefully, patriots won't be shedding blood anytime soon. But Jefferson's point stands: Preserving the promises of the Revolution will always be an ongoing battle. Self-rule was one of those promises. Another was self-ownership, which includes the right to do what you want with your own property. The Rise of 'Right-Wing Progressivism' The Declaration accused the king of "cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world." The American colonies experienced unprecedented economic growth, a topic of keen interest to the laissez faire economist Adam Smith, whose book The Wealth of Nations also turns 250 this year. Smith was fascinated by the American colonies, observing that their "progress has been more rapid than that of the English in North America. Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity." Other imperial powers, such as the Spanish and Portuguese, mandated that their colonists trade only through state-created monopolies. Smith pointed out that because American colonists could export lumber to the wider European market, they were incentivized to clear and improve land. Low taxes enabled them to reinvest their profits. Smith criticized England's Navigation Acts for prohibiting colonists from buying from other countries and for discouraging manufacturing to protect domestic competitors. Although England's "mercantile spirit" hampered the economy, Smith believed that in virtually every other respect the liberty of the English colonists "to manage their own affairs their own way is complete," concluding that both England and the colonies would be better off with an independent America that traded freely with England. Like the American revolutionaries, Smith described economic freedom as not just smart policy, but as a natural right. "To prohibit a great people…from making all that they can of every part of their own produce," he wrote, "is a manifest violation of the most sacred rights of mankind." That revolutionary understanding is still under attack today from both the left and the right. Socialists like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani talk about individual profits as if they are the property of the collective. And Trump has the same mercantilist instincts toward trade that Smith argued against 250 years ago. "I love tariffs. Most beautiful word," Trump said in September 2025. "I said my favorite word in the English dictionary is the word tariff."  The postliberal right argues that laissez faire economics has undermined the working class. "Conservatives have outsourced our economic and domestic policy thinking to libertarians," Vance said at a 2019 National Conservatism Conference. "Do we serve pure unfettered commercial freedom, do we serve commerce at the expense of the public good, or do we serve something higher? And are we willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?" "It is really important to recognize that what the postliberal right is pushing in terms of economics is progressivism," Slade says. "It's not conservatism." Tucker Carlson made the point in 2019 when he praised Elizabeth Warren's "economic patriotism" platform, noting it "sounds like Donald Trump at his best." What the so-called "economic patriots" of the left and right are converging on is a rejection of the spirit of 1776 and an embrace of monarchy. In the 18th century, many colonists could trade only through state-licensed monopolies. Warren has proposed remarrying corporations and the state through "stakeholder capitalism," in which political appointees sit on corporate boards to steer them in the right direction. Trump took a major step toward the corporatist approach in 2025 when directing the federal government to take a 10 percent stake in Intel. Before him, President Barack Obama took stakes in GM and Chrysler as part of a bailout package. "I don't think it's really a sustainable political equilibrium to have two parties that are both economically leftist," Slade says. "The American people are not on board with that. That is the horseshoe in action. And it's part of why I think there is an opportunity for old-school Reagan-style free-market conservatism to make a comeback." The slow abandonment of the revolutionary ideas of self-rule and private property that American patriots fought for in the late 18th century is downstream of a third, fundamental aspect of the American Revolution that is also under attack: freedom of conscience. Remarrying Church and State The postliberal right wants to tear down the wall between church and state. "They want to integrate church and state instead of separating them," Slade says. In some cases, it's Catholic integralists like Harvard's Vermeule, who has described a strategy of turning the government Catholic by "strategically locat[ing]" integralists "within liberal institutions…to undo the liberalism of the state from within." Deneen has suggested passing "blue laws" that would ban pornography, online gambling, and operating businesses on Sundays. A Protestant variety of Christian nationalism is embodied by pastor Doug Wilson—a spiritual mentor to Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who invited Wilson to lead a prayer at the Pentagon. In a recent interview, Wilson said the "governing authorities should recognize formally that Jesus rose from the dead" and that "the basis of law would have to be Christian, and I would want it to be Protestant." Most of the revolutionaries were Christian Protestants, but they insisted on separating church and state to avoid the horrific religious wars that had ravaged Europe. "Torrents of blood have been spilt in the old world" to end religious discord by establishing state churches, wrote James Madison in opposition to taxes that would have funded an official church of Virginia. An even deeper problem for these devout believers in divine providence was that marrying religion to the state removed the very freedom to choose faith that God desires. In his opposition to the Virginia law, Jefferson wrote that "Almighty God hath created the mind free" and that "all attempts" to force religious belief "are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion." Madison argued historically that Christianity reached its "greatest lustre" in the times before it incorporated with the state, and that religious laws would counterproductively discourage nonbelievers from entering a region he hoped would become a beacon of Christianity. "Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man." Slade draws on her own Catholic faith in making the case. "I am a libertarian because I'm a Catholic, because I believe that every person was created in the image of God," she says. "I just think it's morally wrong from a Catholic or Christian perspective to try to use the coercive, violent power of the state to make people live a certain way. Even if the way that these guys would like to make people live—going to church on Sunday, praying, investing in your community and your family, self-sacrifice—all these good Christian values. They're good Christian values, but they can't be coerced or imposed from the top down. It's wrong and morally offensive from a Christian perspective." Slade says she understands the despair postliberals feel about the collapse of faith and virtue in contemporary America and that they have a point about the progressive capture of institutions. "What they're channeling is a really influential belief, which isn't totally wrong, that the left made a very concerted effort to make what is often referred to as a 'long march through the institutions' and to capture so many of our elite institutions—both at the governmental level but also at the cultural level: higher education, Hollywood, the mainstream media." Critics of the progressive agenda—or "wokeness"—often describe it as its own kind of religion. Linguist and social critic John McWhorter has argued that it has "slowly transmogrified into a kind of replacement for Protestant Christianity" among its adherents. Whether religious or not, progressives have imposed their social values on Americans through public school curricula, federal policy, and civil rights law. They have violated the freedom of conscience that Jefferson and Madison wrote about in a way very similar to how mandating religion would. Postliberalism is part of the political backlash. A poll conducted in early 2021 of people who voted for Trump in 2020 didn't find agreement on nationalist economic policies—tariffs, industrial policy, any of that—but found near-universal agreement on a sense of cultural siege. About 90 percent agreed with statements like "the mainstream media has become just an arm of the Democratic Party" or "Christianity is under attack today." "This sense that the culture has been captured by people who are hostile to people like me and who hate me and want to drive me out of the public square has created so much resentment and so much of a backlash that's driving this postliberal right-wing politics," Slade says. "I don't think it's possible to understand what's going on on the right without looking at what's been going on on the left, definitely ramping up during the period referred to as the great awakening." Slade's new book argues that the remedy to this postliberal moment is a rediscovery of "fusionism"—the reintegration of liberty and virtue. "A good society needs to be both free and virtuous. And the Founders certainly believed this," she says. John Adams wrote just 13 days before the signing of the Declaration that "the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People…they will not obtain a lasting Liberty." "What he's saying is, we can have a limited government in a free society, but if the people aren't naturally virtuous, if they don't trust each other, if they aren't good to each other—that [the Republic] is going to end up succumbing to tyranny and to a strongman government," Slade says. His fellow revolutionary and intellectual adversary Jefferson flipped the equation by writing that liberty "is the great parent…of virtue." Balancing liberty and virtue means reconstructing some of the civic "guardrails" that Deneen laments having lost in modernity—but not handing the power to regulate our conscience to the government. "What we're seeing a lot is people who are focused either on liberty but don't spend a lot of time thinking about how do we cultivate virtue, or who say, forget your liberty, we want virtue at the point of a gun," Slade says. "Government's job is to protect our basic rights and liberties. It should be prioritizing the protection of liberty." "That doesn't mean that virtue isn't important. In fact, it's the highest, most important thing in life—to pursue a virtuous life," Slade continues. "But it's not OK to expect government to do that for us. Government protects our freedom and we use that freedom to pursue virtue." The solution, Slade argues, has to be ground-up. She invokes Alexis de Tocqueville, who observed when he came to America in the 1830s that Americans excel at coming together and creating voluntary community solutions to social problems. "We should have some muscle memory here. We should be able to get back to that idea of thinking of ourselves as being on the front lines of solving problems, building new civil society institutions, nongovernmental institutions that can try to solve the problems we see in our society," Slade says. "Good policy can make this easier. And bad policy can crowd it out and make it a lot harder." The Declaration of Independence is 250 years old, but the Revolution it started is as vital as ever. During the final days of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked what kind of government they were in the process of designing. "A Republic," he said, "if you can keep it." Photo Credits: Horst Galuschka/dpa/picture-alliance/Newscom/ Dennis Flaherty / Jaynes Gallery / DanitaDelimont.com / Danita Delimont/ Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom/ TIA DUFOUR/UPI/Newscom/Antonio Perez/TNS/Newscom/ Aaron Schwartz - Pool via CNP/picture alliance / Consolidated News Photos/Newscom/ Ron Adar / SOPA/ Images/Sipa USA/Newscom/ JT Vintage/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom/ AdMedia/SIPA/Newscom/ Hugh Rooney / Eye Ubiquitous/Newscom/ Bonnie Cash - Pool via CNP/CNP / Polaris/Newscom/AdMedia/Newscom/ Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/Newscom/ Polaris/Newscom; Eric Lee - Pool via CNP/ZUMAPRESS/Newscom; Department of Defense The post The American Revolution Isn't Over appeared first on Reason.com.

National Tapioca day. Entertainment from 1956. Molly Pitcher stars at battle of Monmouth in American Revolution, WW1 began, Everyone in South Korea gets one year younger. Todays birthdays - Mel Brooks, Pat Morita, Gilda Radner, Kathy Bates, John Cusack, Mary Stuart Masterson, Tichina Arnold, Elon Musk, Kellie Pickler. James Madison died.Intro - God did good - Dianna Corcoran https://www.diannacorcoran.com/Tapioca song - Lizz RoThe wayword wind - Gogi GrantHeartbreak Hotel - Elvis PresleyBirthdays - In da club - 50 Cent http://50cent.com/Best days of your life - Kellie PicklerExit - Pretty little things - Suzi Kory https://suzikory.com/History & Factoids about today Playlist on SpotifyHistory & Factoids about today webpagecooolmedia.comcountryundergroundradio.comNational Days Puzzles - JulyGrace & Grit Christian Country Radio

Was America's founding a genuinely Christian project, or has that idea been read backward into history by people who want it to be true? Dr. Ben Carson, famed neurosurgeon, former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and founder of the American Cornerstone Institute, joins Joshua Lewis to make the case that the founders' faith wasn't incidental to the American project, but was foundational to it.ABOUT THE EPISODE:Carson walks through the well-known stories: George Washington's providential survival during the French and Indian War, Benjamin Franklin's call to prayer at the Constitutional Convention, John Adams' conviction that the Constitution was built for "a moral and religious people." Carson recounts these as evidence that the founders understood their rights as God-given rather than state-granted and argues this conviction is what allowed the young nation to move as fast as it did.But this episode tackles some of the harder questions about America's Christian roots. In fact, many Christians today are wrestling with where the line falls between honoring faith's role in government and slipping into theonomy or Christian nationalism (using the Bible not just to inform conviction, but to enforce practice). Josh and Dr. Carson walk through the difficult cases, including Thomas Jefferson's private letters calling Paul "the first corruptor" of Christ's doctrine, the Treaty of Tripoli's explicit statement that the U.S. government is "not in any sense founded on the Christian religion," and the uncomfortable reality that some founders held views far messier than the Sunday-school version of American history.What emerges is a conversation about the difference between a Christian moral framework shaping a leader's conscience and a Christian theocracy shaping a nation's laws and why the founders, having fled state-enforced religion in Europe, were careful to avoid recreating it here. Dr. Carson also addresses the founders' inconsistencies head-on, including slavery, and how a constitution "inspired" by Christian conviction could coexist with such a profound moral failure.If you've ever felt caught between two unsatisfying camps with "America was a secular Enlightenment experiment" on one side, and "America should be governed by biblical law" on the other, this conversation gives you a third way to think about it: historically honest, theologically grounded, and avoidant to both extremes.0:00 – Introduction0:51 – Built on Faith Children's Book1:00 – Washington's Providence Stories4:34 – Christianity Twisted by Marxism6:09 – Founders and Deism Debate8:00 – Declaration vs Constitution11:06 – Theonomy and Theocracy12:47 – Christian Ethics and Lawmaking19:12 – Washington's Christian Faith20:50 – Jefferson's Mixed Beliefs26:49 – Benjamin Franklin's Faith33:39 – Treaty of Tripoli Question35:32 – James Madison and Constitution38:05 – Christian Political Involvement RESOURCES MENTIONED:- Dr. Ben Carson's children's book, Built on Faith (co-authored with Kirk Parrish): https://www.amazon.com/Built-Faith-Ben-Carson/dp/1967002711- American Cornerstone Institute: https://americancornerstone.org- Andrew Wilson, Remaking the World: How 1776 Created the Post-Christian West: https://www.crossway.org/books/remaking-the-world-hcj/- Carl Trueman, The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: https://www.crossway.org/books/rise-triumph-modern-self-hcj/- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), Article 11 (full text): https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.aspSubscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com. Support the showABOUT THE REMNANT RADIO: The Remnant Radio exists to equip believers who are hungry for the radical middle of both Word and Spirit. Subscribe for twice-weekly content on theology, church history and the gifts of the Spirit.

Mitch and Trey break down both divisions in the Sun Belt and discuss why it could be the deepest and most entertaining conference in the G6! The guys break down the teams from the east, including James Madison's bid to repeat and give elevator pitches for what you should be looking for from the West division.Check out our brand new sponsor — ⁠⁠⁠⁠Red Water Hats!⁠⁠⁠⁠Get 15% off your first purchase from Homefield Apparel when you use code “THREETECHPOD” at checkout!https://tr.ee/ZFhu7XSuLgJoin the Jimmy's and Joe's for CFB content for all 138 teams!FOLLOW: @ThreeTechPod on Instagram and Twitter!HOMEFIELD DISCOUNT: THREETECHPOD for 15% off!

“If your opening position is: your views are beyond the pale, you are deplorable, there is no space for you in democracy — then how on earth do we expect anything other than revolutionary conservatism as a response?” — Maciej Kisilowski For Americans concerned about the fragility of their democracy, Poland offers some reassuring news. Having experienced its own illiberal blip, democracy in Poland now seems amongst the healthiest in Eastern Europe. So what does a democracy only created in 1989 teach America as the old republic braces for its surreal semiquincentennial celebration? The Vienna-based constitutional scholar Maciej Kisilowski is the author of Let's Agree on Poland: A Case Study in Strategic Constitutional Design. In this bestselling 2025 book, Kisilowski argues that Poland is a map of where other Western democracies could go. If they choose to. Poland elected its first illiberal conservative government in 2005. Hungary followed in 2010. Both explicitly served as models for Donald Trump — relatively tamed in his first term, unshackled in his second. Like the United States, Poland is a relatively rich country with per capita GDP growing an astonishing 650% in a single generation. So, Kisilowski argues, the conventional argument that Poland embraced illiberalism in response to economic hardship is mostly wrong. Instead, what triggered illiberalism in Poland was culture, particularly the compressed, accelerated challenge to traditional identity — national, male, religious — that EU accession triggered in Central Europe. Kisilowski, who teaches at Central European University, might have entitled his book Let's Agree to Disagree. Poland's solution to this cultural crisis of identity is what Kisilowski calls “subsidiarity” — genuine decentralisation that allows both conservative communities to remain traditional and liberal cities to become progressive, all within a common democratic framework. He warns both the left and the right that if you tell people their views are somehow foreign, it's entirely rational for them to want to smash their “foreign” democracy. This is the Polish model of a viable 21st century democracy. Ironically, it's a Madisonian warning about the dangers of faction. The “deplorable” gambit always backfires. Péter Magyar's remarkable victory in Hungary — a staunch conservative ending Orbán's 16-year mafia-style illiberal chapter — offers the Hungarian model of Kisilowski's argument. So this July 4, worried Americans might read Let's Agree on Poland. Or reread James Madison. Five Takeaways •       Central Europe as the Leading Indicator: Poland and Hungary Before Trump: Poland elected its first revolutionary conservative government in 2005 — sixteen years before the January 6 insurrection. Hungary followed in 2010. Both were explicitly cited as models by the architects of Trump's political project. Kisilowski's argument: what happened in Central Europe is not a regional anomaly but a leading indicator of what happens when open society's challenge to traditional identity is concentrated and rapid rather than gradual. The walls of liberal democratic institutions were weaker in Warsaw and Budapest. They will not hold indefinitely in Washington or London either. •       It's Not the Economy, Stupid: The Case Against Materialist Explanations: Poland and Hungary are economic opposites. Hungary was the “happiest barrack” of the Soviet bloc but fared poorly after 1989. Poland was among the poorer countries of the bloc and grew 650% in per capita GDP in one generation, with a Gini coefficient below France's. Same revolutionary conservative politics. Opposite economic trajectories. Kisilowski's conclusion: the materialist explanation — people turn right because of economic hardship — is flatly wrong. The driver is identity: the compressed, accelerated challenge to national, male, and religious identity imposed by EU accession conditionality in a decade. •       The Deplorable Problem: Why Exclusion Rationally Produces Authoritarianism: Kisilowski's most politically pointed argument: if your opening position to conservatives is that their views are beyond the pale, they are deplorable, there is no space for them in democracy — then it is entirely rational for them to break democracy. Not irrational. Not manipulated. Rational. If there is no space for me inside the system, I must break the system. That is what revolutionary conservatism is: a rational response to liberal exclusion. The solution is not to validate the views. The solution is to demonstrate that there is a place for those people and their communities within a democratic framework. That is the Madisonian insight. •       Subsidiarity as the Solution: Conservative Communities, Liberal Cities, Common Framework: Kisilowski's constitutional proposal, worked out with co-authors from the full ideological spectrum, is subsidiarity: genuine decentralization that allows conservative rural communities to be conservative and liberal cities to be liberal, within a common democratic framework. Budapest, in Magyar's Hungary, should get strong autonomy to pursue the more liberal policies its electorate wants. Warsaw and Kraków should be able to differ. The European Union is, in this reading, the model: different countries, different cultures, one framework. The alternative is winner-takes-all, which always produces a revolutionary reaction from the losers. •       Peter Magyar and Hungary: Proof of Concept for the Compromise Strategy: Magyar's extraordinary victory in Hungary — winning a constitutional majority against a 16-year right-wing regime rightly called a mafia state, in elections skewed heavily toward the government — is, in Kisilowski's reading, direct evidence that the compromise strategy works. Magyar is a staunch conservative and former member of the Orbán government. He won because he demonstrated to far-right voters that there was a place for them and their views within democratic Europe. The 2 million liberal Budapest voters who voted for him did so not because they like his conservatism but because he was unquestionably preferable to Orbán. Kisilowski made sure Magyar got the book. About the Guest Maciej Kisilowski is Associate Professor of Law and Strategy at Central European University (CEU) in Vienna. He is co-editor (with Anna Wojciuk) of Let's Agree on Poland: A Case Study in Strategic Constitutional Design (Oxford University Press, 2025). He is a Europe's Futures Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) in Vienna and a visiting fellow at Harvard Law School. He writes frequently for Project Syndicate, Politico, and The EU Observer. References: •       Let's Agree on Poland: A Case Study in Strategic Constitutional Design by Maciej Kisilowski and Anna Wojciuk (Oxford University Press, 202...

"The Author of the First Amendment," #RTTBROS #NIGHTLIGHT #USA250 The Author of the First Amendment"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."— 2 Timothy 3:16-17The StoryAlmost nobody remembers who actually wrote the First Amendment.James Madison proposed it. The House and Senate debated it. But the man who crafted the final wording was Fisher Ames of Massachusetts.Fisher Ames was a congressman, a lawyer, and a man of strong Christian conviction. And he believed, with a certainty that would astonish modern interpreters of the First Amendment, that the Bible should be the foundational textbook of American education."Why should not the Bible regain the place it once held as a school book?" he wrote. "Its morals are pure, its examples captivating and noble." The Amendment he helped write was intended to prevent the establishment of a national denomination, not to make America religiously neutral. The author of the First Amendment wanted the Bible in every schoolroom in America.The ReflectionThe distance between what Fisher Ames intended and what the First Amendment has been interpreted to require in our own day is a measure of how far we have traveled from the founding.The men who wrote the Constitution were not trying to build a secular republic. They were trying to prevent the entanglement of state power with a specific ecclesiastical institution. That is a very different thing from removing faith from public life.2 Timothy 3:16-17 was not a disputed text for the founders. It was a settled conviction. Scripture was profitable, practically useful, for building the kind of citizens a free republic required.When we removed the Book, we removed the foundation. The First Amendment protects the right to preach the gospel. The man who wrote it hoped we would.The Patriot's PrayerLord, Your Word is profitable for this nation as much as for our souls. We confess that we have allowed Scripture to be driven from the places where it once shaped the minds of a free people. Restore a love for Your Word in the homes, schools, and hearts of this nation. Begin with us. May our own reverence for Scripture be so deep that those who watch our lives cannot miss it. In Jesus' name, Amen.Pray It ForwardHow deeply is Scripture embedded in your daily life, not just in devotional minutes, but in your decisions, your conversations, your parenting? Ask God to show you where the Book needs more room.

American democracy is in a period of crisis, so it seems natural to look back to its origins. So here in Episode 10 of Season 5, I interview Professor Josiah Ober. Having previously taught at Princeton University, Ober is a professor of political science, classics, and philosophy at Stanford University, the Director of the Stanford Civics Initiative, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The author of many books, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece (2015), and Civic Bargain (2023), co-written with Brook Manville, he was previously a Madison's Notes guest in Season 3. Drawing on his 2015 book, we discuss the history of ancient Greece and the political legacy of its classical period. Our conversation ranges from the Bronze Age Collapse and the age of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to the rise of the Greek city-state and decline of democratic Athens. We discuss contingencies of the Peloponnesian war, the cases for and against Alcibiades, whether the polity flourished under Macedonian and Roman empires, the relationship of philosophy to civics, was Socrates guilty and how much did Plato invent about him, in what way the god Hermes symbolized Greek trade in the Mediterranean, if James Madison truly understood ancient history, and lastly Ober's work with the growing civics programs in American higher education. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

American democracy is in a period of crisis, so it seems natural to look back to its origins. So here in Episode 10 of Season 5, I interview Professor Josiah Ober. Having previously taught at Princeton University, Ober is a professor of political science, classics, and philosophy at Stanford University, the Director of the Stanford Civics Initiative, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The author of many books, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece (2015), and Civic Bargain (2023), co-written with Brook Manville, he was previously a Madison's Notes guest in Season 3. Drawing on his 2015 book, we discuss the history of ancient Greece and the political legacy of its classical period. Our conversation ranges from the Bronze Age Collapse and the age of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to the rise of the Greek city-state and decline of democratic Athens. We discuss contingencies of the Peloponnesian war, the cases for and against Alcibiades, whether the polity flourished under Macedonian and Roman empires, the relationship of philosophy to civics, was Socrates guilty and how much did Plato invent about him, in what way the god Hermes symbolized Greek trade in the Mediterranean, if James Madison truly understood ancient history, and lastly Ober's work with the growing civics programs in American higher education. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

American democracy is in a period of crisis, so it seems natural to look back to its origins. So here in Episode 10 of Season 5, I interview Professor Josiah Ober. Having previously taught at Princeton University, Ober is a professor of political science, classics, and philosophy at Stanford University, the Director of the Stanford Civics Initiative, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The author of many books, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece (2015), and Civic Bargain (2023), co-written with Brook Manville, he was previously a Madison's Notes guest in Season 3. Drawing on his 2015 book, we discuss the history of ancient Greece and the political legacy of its classical period. Our conversation ranges from the Bronze Age Collapse and the age of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to the rise of the Greek city-state and decline of democratic Athens. We discuss contingencies of the Peloponnesian war, the cases for and against Alcibiades, whether the polity flourished under Macedonian and Roman empires, the relationship of philosophy to civics, was Socrates guilty and how much did Plato invent about him, in what way the god Hermes symbolized Greek trade in the Mediterranean, if James Madison truly understood ancient history, and lastly Ober's work with the growing civics programs in American higher education. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

American democracy is in a period of crisis, so it seems natural to look back to its origins. So here in Episode 10 of Season 5, I interview Professor Josiah Ober. Having previously taught at Princeton University, Ober is a professor of political science, classics, and philosophy at Stanford University, the Director of the Stanford Civics Initiative, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The author of many books, including Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens (1989), The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece (2015), and Civic Bargain (2023), co-written with Brook Manville, he was previously a Madison's Notes guest in Season 3. Drawing on his 2015 book, we discuss the history of ancient Greece and the political legacy of its classical period. Our conversation ranges from the Bronze Age Collapse and the age of Homer's Iliad and Odyssey to the rise of the Greek city-state and decline of democratic Athens. We discuss contingencies of the Peloponnesian war, the cases for and against Alcibiades, whether the polity flourished under Macedonian and Roman empires, the relationship of philosophy to civics, was Socrates guilty and how much did Plato invent about him, in what way the god Hermes symbolized Greek trade in the Mediterranean, if James Madison truly understood ancient history, and lastly Ober's work with the growing civics programs in American higher education. Hosted by Ryan Shinkel, Madison's Notes is the podcast of Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions. The transcript for this interview is available on our new Substack page, “Madison's Footnotes.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

THE LEFT JUST TOLD A MILLIONAIRE WELDER NOT TO CELEBRATE -- AND THE SUPREME COURT PUT THE FOUNDING FATHERS ON TRIAL FOR DRINKING This Friday SpaceX pulled off the biggest IPO in Wall Street history, made Elon Musk the first trillionaire on record, and turned roughly 4,400 blue collar workers into millionaires in a single morning. We dig into the welder who got handed stock he didn't understand a decade ago and woke up a millionaire, the parade of politicians who looked at that and demanded their cut, and why the Ayn Rand split between producers and looters explains the whole circus. We trace the word "robber baron" back to the medieval lords who chained the Rhine and taxed everyone who passed, and back to Vanderbilt, the man who cut fares for the working class and got branded a villain for it. Then we head to the Supreme Court, where the Justice Department is arguing that men like James Madison were habitual drunkards who'd lose their guns under their own Second Amendment. We close on the open ocean with a man who looked at every failed libertarian utopia and decided to build the plumbing first.

Send us Fan MailRandall Balmer joins me for remarks about why he believes America is not a Christian nation and why separation of church and state is the American way. This is the topic of chapter 6 in my new book The Christian Past That Wasn't. In the book, I cover the topics in this segment as well as the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, The Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States, and the views of James Madison. Christian nationalists have significantly distorted the history in this area to reframe and redefine separation of church and state. I go to the primary sources to show readers what the framers said about this important principle. To purchase or learn more about The Christian Past That Wasn't, go to www.christianpast.com.Written, produced, and hosted by Warren ThrockmortonMusic provided by Roman Candle, Jonathan Swaim, and Netop.For a playlist of music used on the podcast, see this link: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/6jP94UmS5sCwoB4Ex3ini9?si=0C7Woza2QRaKrIsvvJ_l7g

On this episode, we travel beyond the northeast to examine South Carolina in the Revolutionary War. We examine the Siege of Charleston and compare the town's experience to that of Boston. Note that, although American forces besieged British troops in Boston, at Charleston, those roles were reversed and American forced held the city against an ultimately victorious British army. We also discuss the significance of Henry Laurens, a founding father from South Carolina who was highly regarded by John Adams. We are joined by Elizabeth Chew, CEO of the South Carolina Historical Society, and Greg Brooking, author and historian of the American Revolution in the South. At the MHS, we examine several items related to the Revolution in South Carolina and are joined by a special guest. Reference Librarian Daniel Hinchen also reprises his role as John Adams. This episode was produced in collaboration with From the Vault: The SCHS Podcast. We encourage you to listen to their upcoming episode highlighting the relationship between two founding fathers: John Adams and Henry Laurens. Learn more here. Learn more about episode objects here: https://www.masshist.org/podcast/season-5-episode-6-South-Carolina  Email us at podcast@masshist.org. Episode Special Guests: Dr. Elizabeth Chew became CEO of the South Carolina Historical Society in January 2024. A public historian, curator, and educator, she has worked at museums and history organizations for over  thirty years. Prior to arriving in Charleston, she served as Executive Vice President and Chief Curator at James Madison's Montpelier in Orange, Virginia and as Curator at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello in Charlottesville. She received a BA from Yale University, an MA from the University of London, and a Ph.D. from UNC- Chapel Hill.  Dr. Brooking is high school teacher in Fulton County, GA and the author of From Empire to Revolution: Sir James Wright and the Price of Loyalty in Georgia. Daniel Hinchen is a Reference Librarian at the Massachusetts Historical Society. This episode uses materials from: Cloudbank by Podington Bear (Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported) Psychic by Dominic Giam of Ketsa Music (licensed under a commercial non-exclusive license by the Massachusetts Historical Society through Ketsa.uk) Curious Nature by Dominic Giam of Ketsa Music (licensed under a commercial non-exclusive license by the Massachusetts Historical Society through Ketsa.uk)

This week's episode, which finds Steve over in Japan but still with a hoarse voice, ranges widely from exonerating John Yoo from being implicated in a major whiskey heist, to what the prodigious drinking habits of the Founding Fathers has to say about constitutional law today. Justice Neil Gorsuch reminds us that “John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day. James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol—he only had three or four glasses of wine a night.” Ah, the great ones.Speaking of the Founders, we make a nod to the tragic passing of Gordon Wood, and naturally manage to get into an argument about history and historians.But the central topic of today is considering John's foray into grand strategy in his Civitas Outlook article this week on "America Doesn't Need to Fear a 'Thucydides Trap'," , and while Admiral Ackbar needed to fear a trap, John doesn't think so. But what was Chinese premier Xi trying to do in bringing up the subject in a public session at the recent summit with Trump? One doesn't imagine Trump being a reader of Thucydides, though one can easily see him liking the outcome of the Melian debate. In fact, maybe that's what he's up to with Iran? Who can tell. 

Carl and Mike are joined by Mike Conti as they discuss the World Cup and where Team USA stacks in comparison to the rest of the world.

So much has happened in just the last few weeks that most Americans probably never believed even COULD happen. Blatant election fraud, long denied, has become so flatulent that even the far left is embarrassed by the stench of LA. When they’re not paid to lie. And two examples of what happens to a dumbed-down, demoralized, and disarmed society when invaders rape, then kill, and finally humiliate them, have – MAYBE – even awakened no-longer-great Britain to how they have been defeated. So, Mark Call asks some questions. Even if it may already be too late for most of those who “reject knowledge,” and are now suffering for it. Not, “what will you do IF,” but what will you do WHEN? James Madison: “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much … to forget it.” But AmeriKa did. Before any of us were even born. JFK: “When peaceful revolution is made impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable.”

Transfer portal season is over. The actual college football season is almost here. With the dust (probably) settled on everyone's roster, Richard and Alex pick through dozens of portal classes and highlight 26 players who are sliding into situations worth tracking in 2026. This episode is NOT just a recitation of the highest-ranked transfers, but a deeper examination of who's being relied on to fill major holes, who's propping up a hot-seated coach, and who's just going to be plain old fun to watch. We cover new players going to: * 11:55: Texas* 13:50: Nebraska* 16:51: Miami* 19:49: Clemson* 22:27: Oregon* 24:12: James Madison* 27:01: Ohio State* 29:56: Washington* 36:06: LSU* 42:31: Oklahoma* 47:55: Texas Tech* 51:43: Florida State* 54:34: Cal* 56:59: Baylor* 58:49: Miami University* 1:02:22: Michigan* 1:03:04: WisconsinProducer: Anthony VitoIf you like this episode, you'll love a paid subscription. For $10 a month (or you can get a free month with an annual subscription), subscribers get about twice as many Split Zone Duo podcasts, as well as our coach carousel reporting, deep dives on college football history, Q&A opportunities, and many more goodies as we think of them. You also help keep this show independent and ensure we're making a podcast that puts our listeners, not anyone else, first. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.splitzoneduo.com/subscribe

June 8, 2026On June 8, 1789, James Madison of Virginia introduced a series of amendments to the US Constitution, Ten of his amendments would eventually be adopted and become the Bill of Rights, One of the amendments said that no national religion would be established and the full and equal rights of conscience would not be infringed, Madison cared deeply about keeping the government away from religion, believing that representative government was at stake, The reality of these concerns is playing out today, Defense Secretary Hegseth has removed about 180 faith traditions from the list recognized by the Department of Defense, 31 religions are still recognized, 22 of them are Christian denominations, Mormons were originally left off the list, but after an appeal by Sen Mike Lee of Utah to the president, it appears poised to be included, Madison and those who passed and ratified the Bill of Rights believed that to make people's religion - their right of conscience - depend on the approval of the president would destroy self-government.Watch today's recording here: https://www.youtube.com/live/g9TUa1Rwd6U?si=T8_KKcHQZElhpnZ-Get full, free access to Letters from an American here: https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribeYou can also find me:Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/hcrichardson.bsky.socialInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/heathercoxrichardson/?hl=enFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/heathercoxrichardson/YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@heathercoxrichardson Get full access to Letters from an American at heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode we enter the pressure-filled launch of America's government and get to know the major figures who shaped its destiny.  Relive George Washington's reluctant ascent to the presidency, from his Mount Vernon solitude to a triumphant inauguration amid national fears of monarchy.  Discover how James Madison championed the Bill of Rights against skeptics, ensuring fundamental American freedoms.  And inside Washington's Cabinet, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson ignite a political rivalry so fierce it will define American government for centuries.  It's the story of the human drama behind the Constitution's first real tests, and how close the American experiment came to collapsing before it ever began. GLENN'S SPONSORS: PreBorn: Together, we can end the tragedy of abortion, one mother and baby at a time. To donate securely, dial #250 and say the keyword “baby,” or visit ⁠https://preborn.com/glenn⁠. Relief Factor: If you're living with aches and pains, see how Relief Factor, a daily drug-free supplement, could help you feel better and live better. Try the three-week QuickStart for just $19.95 by visiting https://ReliefFactor.com. Jase Medical: Get your personalized emergency medical kit today. Visit https://jase.com/ and enter code “BECK” at checkout for a discount on your order. American Financing: American Financing can show you how to put your hard-earned equity to work and get you out of debt. Dial ⁠800-906-2440⁠, or visit ⁠https://www.americanfinancing.net⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this week's episode of Inside the Headset – Presented by CoachComm, we're joined by Peter Davila, Defensive Coordinator at Keiser University. In this conversation, Coach Davila shares the journey that has shaped his coaching career, discussing how purpose, perseverance, and professional development have guided him through opportunities at multiple levels of football. He reflects on the mentors who impacted his growth, the challenges of balancing coaching and family life, and the lessons learned throughout his career transitions. Coach Davila also provides insight into his first experience as a defensive coordinator at Keiser University, discussing leadership, staff development, and the importance of embracing new challenges. The episode concludes with advice for coaches navigating their own careers and seeking to maximize every opportunity in the profession. Follow Coach Davila and Keiser Football here:

This episode of The Campaign delves into the phenomenon of outsiders entering politics and the role of experience in elected office. Chris shares his personal story of leaving a successful broadcasting career to serve his community and represent his neighbors in Congress. He discusses the importance of authenticity and the value of a fresh perspective in politics, contrasting it with the cynicism and disdain many Americans have for elected officials. He also touches on the issue of term limits, questioning whether institutional knowledge is always a bad thing. The conversation also explores the concept of "citizen legislators," as coined by James Madison, and how it relates to Chris' decision to run for office. He emphasizes the need for representatives to stay grounded and connected to their constituents, citing the example of George Washington, who voluntarily stepped down from power and returned to his farm.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.