Podcasts about proponents

Paul Mueller critiques industrial policy's resurgence, noting proponents conflate it with pro-market growth. He argues government direction leads to overproduction and resource misallocation, referencing China's EV troubles. 1910 FRESNO

Paul Mueller critiques industrial policy's resurgence, noting proponents conflate it with pro-market growth. He argues government direction leads to overproduction and resource misallocation, referencing China's EV troubles. 1964 MD

Paul Mueller critiques industrial policy's resurgence, noting proponents conflate it with pro-market growth. He argues government direction leads to overproduction and resource misallocation, referencing China's EV troubles 1870 MANHATTAN

Proponents of the Government of National Unity are hoping to see it complete its full term, but cracks are again beginning to show in the ten-party pact. The Patriotic Alliance is threatening to pull out of the GNU, and is even prepared to lose its ministerial position, if its Deputy president Kenny Kunene is not reinstated in his position in the City of Johannesburg as MMC for Transport. The party has cleared Kunene of wrongdoing after he was found at the Sandton house of murder-accused Katiso KT Molefe, at the time of his arrest. PA leader Gayton McKenzie has even vowed to work with the DA if the party's marriage with the ANC doesn't work out. Ntlantla Kgatlhane has more

The human interventions intended to make Louisiana's coastline habitable and productive over the past century have contributed to the region's most existential threats. Without redress, displaced river sediment, compromised wetlands, and land subsidence will increasingly expose the state to extreme storm surge and sea level rise.  In 2007, following the devastating impacts of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Louisiana adopted its Coastal Master Plan. More than 100 projects have been approved under the plan, including the $3 billion Mid Barataria Sediment Diversion. The largest project of its kind, the diversion was designed to regenerate 40 square miles of barrier wetlands by allowing the leveed river to flood the Barataria Basin. Construction began in 2023, but it was ultimately canceled by Governor Jeff Landry in July of 2025 due to financial and environmental objections.  The arc of this project, from its design through its cancellation, exemplifies how complicated and divisive collective decision-making can become in the age of climate change. Projects scaled to meet major resilience issues are rarely able to serve the conflicting priorities, values, and interests of all stakeholders equally—and trade-offs can bring conflict at every step.  The Water Institute CEO Beaux Jones and award-winning environmental journalist Boyce Upholt both return to the podcast—this time for a joint conversation about the dilemmas in Mississippi River management, conflicting interests and negotiations in coastal resilience, and what it all means for Louisiana's future.  Relevant Articles and Resources  Subscribe to receive the Southlands Magazine and newsletter here! Learn more about the 10X Convergence and attending  “'It's a tragedy': Current, former state officials spar over scuttled coastal project” (The Current LA, August 2025)   “What scrapping a $3 billion coastal project means for Louisiana's future” (The Washington Post, July 2025)  “Proponents of Mid-Barataria diversion warn against abandoning wetlands” (Louisiana Illuminator, May 2025)  Mississippi River 100 (The Water Institute)  Relevant Ten Across Conversations Podcasts  Past and Future Resilience Along the Mississippi with Boyce Upholt  Want to Understand the Future of U.S. Climate Resilience? Look to the Gulf Coast  Mississippi River Mayors Coalesce to Address Shared Climate Risks  CreditsHost: Duke ReiterProducer and editor: Taylor GriffithMusic by: Emanuel Wilde and Johan GlössnerResearch and support provided by: Kate Carefoot, Rae Ulrich, and Sabine Butler  About our guests Beaux Jones is the president and CEO of The Water Institute. Prior to joining the Institute, Beaux was environmental section chief of the Louisiana Department of Justice, where he represented the state on a variety of matters ranging from environmental and coastal law to criminal and appellate law. He previously was an environmental and coastal lawyer for the firm Baldwin Haspel Burke & Mayer. Beaux also served on the BP spill litigation team with the Louisiana State Attorney General.  Boyce Upholt is the founding editor of Southlands Magazine and the author of The Great River: The Making and Unmaking of the Mississippi. His award-winning environmental reporting has appeared in The Atlantic, National Geographic, and The New Republic, among others.

Editorial cartoonists Ted Rall (left-leaning firebrand) and Scott Stantis (right-wing straight shooter) ask why over half of Americans say democracy is on the ropes, unpack Zohran Mamdani's jaw-dropping poll surge in the NYC mayor's race, probe if social democratic vibes—like beefed-up welfare and worker protections—can actually work in the USA's cutthroat system. Plus, they dissect the bizarre Dallas ICE HQ shooting where the official story just doesn't add up, and break down chaos at Area 51 with shots popping off amid wild conspiracy buzz. Serious stakes, real talk, and that signature left-right sparring keeps it electric.  • Democracy in Distress: A Quinnipiac poll reveals 53% of Americans believe U.S. democracy isn't working, up sharply from earlier surveys, with 74% of Democrats echoing the gloom versus just 22% of Republicans. Amid rising political violence fears—71% call it a "very serious problem"—top voter worry is preserving democracy at 32%. Controversies swirl over partisan rifts and recent events like the Charlie Kirk assassination fueling national pessimism. • Mamdani's Poll Surge: Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani leads NYC mayoral polls by 20 points over Andrew Cuomo in a Suffolk University survey, with 45% support in Quinnipiac's four-way race. His edge stems from affordability (21% voter priority) and crime concerns, but critics slam his anti-Israel stance, NYPD critiques, and bold plans like free buses and rent freezes as too radical for the city.  • Social Democracy's U.S. Fit?: Experts debate if Nordic-style policies—universal healthcare, paid leave, active labor markets—can thrive in America's polarized landscape. Proponents argue flexicurity boosts work and equity; skeptics cite racial divides, weak unions, and GOP resistance as barriers. Recent pushes like Medicare for All highlight feasibility but face extremism and funding hurdles in a capitalist powerhouse.  • Dallas ICE Shooting Spin: A sniper fired on Dallas ICE HQ from a rooftop, killing two detainees and critically wounding one in a van; the gunman, Joshua Jahn, died by suicide, supposedly leaving "ANTI-ICE" ammo casings. DHS calls it targeted hate, but narrative gaps—like indiscriminate shots and Jahn's sparse politics—spark skepticism. • Area 51 Shots Fired: Guards at Nevada's secretive Area 51 base fired on a gunman blasting the gate in a brazen breach attempt, echoing 2019's viral "raid" memes. No injuries reported, but the incident reignites UFO conspiracies and security debates over the site's classified ops, from drone tests to alien lore, in a year of escalating U.S. mass shootings.Support the showThe DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Editorial cartoonists Ted Rall (left-leaning firebrand) and Scott Stantis (right-wing straight shooter) ask why over half of Americans say democracy is on the ropes, unpack Zohran Mamdani's jaw-dropping poll surge in the NYC mayor's race, probe if social democratic vibes—like beefed-up welfare and worker protections—can actually work in the USA's cutthroat system. Plus, they dissect the bizarre Dallas ICE HQ shooting where the official story just doesn't add up, and break down chaos at Area 51 with shots popping off amid wild conspiracy buzz. Serious stakes, real talk, and that signature left-right sparring keeps it electric.  • Democracy in Distress: A Quinnipiac poll reveals 53% of Americans believe U.S. democracy isn't working, up sharply from earlier surveys, with 74% of Democrats echoing the gloom versus just 22% of Republicans. Amid rising political violence fears—71% call it a "very serious problem"—top voter worry is preserving democracy at 32%. Controversies swirl over partisan rifts and recent events like the Charlie Kirk assassination fueling national pessimism. • Mamdani's Poll Surge: Democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani leads NYC mayoral polls by 20 points over Andrew Cuomo in a Suffolk University survey, with 45% support in Quinnipiac's four-way race. His edge stems from affordability (21% voter priority) and crime concerns, but critics slam his anti-Israel stance, NYPD critiques, and bold plans like free buses and rent freezes as too radical for the city.  • Social Democracy's U.S. Fit?: Experts debate if Nordic-style policies—universal healthcare, paid leave, active labor markets—can thrive in America's polarized landscape. Proponents argue flexicurity boosts work and equity; skeptics cite racial divides, weak unions, and GOP resistance as barriers. Recent pushes like Medicare for All highlight feasibility but face extremism and funding hurdles in a capitalist powerhouse.  • Dallas ICE Shooting Spin: A sniper fired on Dallas ICE HQ from a rooftop, killing two detainees and critically wounding one in a van; the gunman, Joshua Jahn, died by suicide, supposedly leaving "ANTI-ICE" ammo casings. DHS calls it targeted hate, but narrative gaps—like indiscriminate shots and Jahn's sparse politics—spark skepticism. • Area 51 Shots Fired: Guards at Nevada's secretive Area 51 base fired on a gunman blasting the gate in a brazen breach attempt, echoing 2019's viral "raid" memes. No injuries reported, but the incident reignites UFO conspiracies and security debates over the site's classified ops, from drone tests to alien lore, in a year of escalating U.S. mass shootings.Support the showThe DMZ America Podcast is recorded weekly by political cartoonists Ted Rall and Scott Stantis. Twitter/X: @scottstantis and @tedrallWeb: Rall.com

Jackson County residents will decide Tuesday, Sept. 30, on whether to recall County Executive Frank White Jr. Proponents and opponents shared their perspectives ahead of the vote, and explain what will happen if White gets recalled.

In this solo episode of The Reformed Brotherhood, Tony Arsenal tackles the concerning theological trend of "Divine Council Theology" and its recent resurgence within Reformed circles. He offers a critical analysis of Michael Heiser's influential work and its problematic popularization by Reformed figures like Doug Van Dorn and John Moffitt. Tony demonstrates how redefining the biblical term "Elohim" to include both God and created spiritual beings in the same ontological category fundamentally undermines the creator-creature distinction essential to Christian orthodoxy. Through careful examination of systematic theological categories, communicable and incommunicable attributes, and implications for Christology, he reveals why this seemingly academic redefinition poses serious threats to biblical monotheism and classical Reformed theology. Key Takeaways Divine Council Theology, popularized by Michael Heiser and now being promoted within Reformed circles, attempts to redefine "Elohim" as a functional category that includes both God and created spiritual beings. This theological trend commits an etymological fallacy by redefining the predominant usage of "Elohim" (which refers to the God of Israel in ~2,300 of 2,600 occurrences) based on minority usages. The approach dangerously blurs the fundamental creator-creature distinction that is essential to Christian monotheism and orthodox theology. Proponents incorrectly classify divine power as a communicable attribute rather than recognizing omnipotence as an incommunicable attribute that cannot be shared with creatures. The theological system makes problematic analogies to the incarnation, showing a confused understanding of the hypostatic union and potentially opening the door to Arian implications. This theology represents a concerning return to concepts the early church fathers fought against when confronting pagan Greek thought, rather than a retrieval of biblical teaching. Departing from the "pattern of sound words" handed down through church history in favor of novel interpretations should raise significant warning flags. Key Concepts The Creator-Creature Distinction The most fundamental division in Christian theology is not between spiritual and material beings, but between the uncreated Creator and everything else that exists. Divine Council Theology dangerously undermines this distinction by placing God and created spiritual beings in the same category of "Elohim." While proponents acknowledge God as the uncreated Creator, they nevertheless insist on categorizing Him alongside angels, demons, and other spiritual entities based on shared attributes of power or function. This categorization system parallels pagan worldviews more than biblical theology, where God exists in a class of one. By defining "Elohim" as a functional category related to spiritual power rather than an ontological one, this approach inadvertently returns to a hierarchical view of spiritual beings with God merely at the "top of the totem pole" rather than in an entirely separate and unique category of existence. This framework subtly but significantly undermines biblical monotheism by suggesting God shares a fundamental nature with His creatures. Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Divine Council Theology mishandles the traditional theological distinction between God's communicable and incommunicable attributes. In classical Reformed theology, communicable attributes (like love or wisdom) can be shared with creatures in a limited, analogical way, while incommunicable attributes (like omnipotence, eternality, or divine simplicity) belong exclusively to God and cannot be shared without making the creature into God. Proponents of Divine Council Theology erroneously suggest that the power denoted by "Elohim" is a communicable attribute that God shares with spiritual beings, rather than recognizing omnipotence as properly incommunicable. This misclassification creates theological incoherence: if God could truly share His omnipotence with creatures, those creatures would effectively become equal to God in power, creating the logical impossibility of multiple omnipotent beings. This confusion of categories demonstrates how this theological system fails to maintain proper distinctions that are essential for preserving the uniqueness and transcendence of God in Christian theology. Memorable Quotes "Christianity and biblical Judaism—the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter... The primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the uncreated creator and his creation." "Rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years... Moffitt and Van Dorn think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't." "These teachings are pagan. This is talking about returning to a world populated by spiritual beings, and God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole... We're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture." Resources Mentioned Reformed Arsenal article series on Divine Council Theology Full Transcript [00:00:24] Introduction and Episode Setup Tony Arsenal: Welcome to episode 461 of the Reformed Brotherhood. I am Tony, and today it's just me. Hey, brothers and sisters. We had a little bit of a scheduling conflict this week, so Jesse is taking the week off and uh, it gives me an opportunity to talk about something that I've been doing a little bit of research on. [00:00:47] Affirmations and Denials Tony Arsenal: Hopefully the listener has noticed that Jesse and I have been trying to keep our affirmations and denials a little bit tighter so we can get into the meat of the episode a little bit quicker. But occasionally we do run into a denial, usually a denial, but we run into a denial that, uh, we often say this could be an episode of its own. And so today is one of those episodes. So I'm not gonna give you my normal affirmation or denial. I'm just gonna jump into it. Now this is gonna be a little bit off the cuff. I've been doing some research, so I may not have as much of the receipts as the kids say, um, as I normally would. But I am writing a series of articles on this issue over@reformedarsenal.com. I'll make sure to put the link to the first article in the show notes. All of the receipts are there, all of the timestamps for the podcast episodes that I'll be. Discussing your critiquing. Are there citations for research work that I'm doing? All that stuff is there. So if you're interested in digging into the meet and you're the kind of guy who, or girl who likes to nerd out in the footnotes, then head over to uh reformed arsenal.com. You'll find the series pretty quick. [00:01:56] Introduction to Divine Counsel Theology Tony Arsenal: What I wanted to talk about today, and I'm glad we have kind of a whole episode, uh, to talk about it, is a movement, uh, that has some foothold in reformed theology. Uh, it's not new, uh, it didn't start in reformed theology, but for some reason, uh, those who are within our orbits tend to be a little bit enamored by this kind of theology. I'm not exactly sure why. [00:02:19] Michael Heiser's Influence Tony Arsenal: This theology is often called Divine Counsel Theology, and it was really, um, you know, it's not entirely new even with, with this figure, but it was really made popular and sort of, um, spread about and made accessible by the late Michael Heiser. Um, part of this is because he was just a very winsome, uh, guy. He took. Sort of highfalutin academic concepts and was able to bring them down to, uh, to an understandable level, including things like ancient near Eastern context, biblical, you know, ex of Jesus Hebrew language, other ancient near Eastern languages, which of course, that's that kind of stuff is what this podcast is all about, taking difficult, sometimes technical concepts. Talking about them, translating them into kind of the language that everybody else speaks. So that project was fine. The issue is the direction that he goes with a lot of the theology. So Michael Heiser writes a book called Unseen Realms, which is seen as kind of a retrieval of the supernatural mindset and worldview of the Bible. Uh, there's a lot to be commended about that, uh, enterprise, about that intention. I do agree with part of what he has to say when he says that we've lost a lot of the supernatural context of the Bible. Um, but I think where he goes with it is a direction that we really ought not go and we'll dig into it. [00:03:43] Critique of Reformed Fringe Podcast Tony Arsenal: The reason this is coming up now is because recently there's been a series of articles and podcasts put out by a show called The Reformed Fringe. Uh, some if you're in the Telegram chat, which you can join at, uh, t Me slash Reformed Brotherhood. You've already seen some of this stuff. We've already talked about it a little bit. But the Reformed Fringe is a podcast that sort of tries to fill a space that's something like Haunted Cosmos, which we've talked about before. Um, fills sort of looking at the weird fringe kind of things in the world. Ghosts, paranormal activity, trying to explain it through a biblical, uh, lens or worldview. Again, that's a commendable. Effort. There are strange things that happen in our world that are not easily explainable or at all explainable by natural, uh, naturalistic means. And so coming to those things with the Bible as our, uh, rubric to instruct us on how the world works is a commendable thing. But again, this project, which is by and large, um, and we'll get into maybe, but by and large is just an extension of, um, Heiser's project really goes in directions that cause all sorts of problems down the road. So the podcast is, uh, run by a guy named Doug Van Dorn, who most of the audience probably hasn't heard of. I have had run-ins with Doug over the years. Um, the last time I ran into him actually was revolving around similar kinds of issues that I'm gonna be calling out today. Um, and it, it ended up with him kind of having to depart from the reform pub, uh, maybe to put it a little bit politely and, um. You know, he has, he has taken, he's theology, which was not explicitly reformed. Heiser was not a reformed guy. He had no claims to be a Calvinist in many ways. Uh, he was sort of anticon confessional in, in that he opposed not the idea of a faith statement, but he sort of purported to come to the Bible with no biases, with no tradition. He wanted to approach what he called the Naked Bible. That was actually the name of his podcast before he died a few years ago. And so what Doug Van Dorn is, has done who, uh, Doug is a claims to be a 1689 Reformed Baptist. He's a pastor in Colorado, I believe. Um, he has tried to take this divine counsel theology and bring it into the reformed world. So he comes at it with a, a slightly different angle, but for the most part, his conclusions are the same. And in many cases he just straight up steals ER's work and doesn't cite it, doesn't do much to, uh, articulate that this is not his original research. Um, so he's taken that and he's trying to bring it into the reformed world. And Heiser himself was actually quite influential when I was a, an admin in the reform pub. We would run into lots of, lots of young reformed guys. Who were really enamored with this and they really saw, he's project as sort of a return to a pure form of exo Jesus that really got at what the Hebrew was saying. And it tickled, I think, kind of an intellectual, uh, an intellectual itch that a lot of those guys had combined with sort of this desire for the new and novel, um, which is in itself can be pretty dangerous. To sort of make things a little bit more pressing, Heiser has teamed up with John Moffitt, who many of our listeners may know. Uh, he's one of the co-hosts and founders of the podcast, Theo Cast, uh, which otherwise is a perfectly fine podcast. Um, he's also a 1680 or claims to be a 1689 Reform Baptist. He's a pastor. Um, their podcast is sort of what you would get if you had, uh, and I don't mean this to be pejorative, although maybe it is a little pejorative. Theo cast is what you would get if you took r Scott Clark. Uh, you made it much less intellectual and careful, and then made it Baptist. And what I mean by that is Scott's whole project. In large part is to recover and to emphasize the law gospel distinction. Theo cast has taken that and sort of cranked it up to 11. Uh, and they have um, they have sort of moved away from a lot of the classical reform distinctions of the law itself, so they don't full on deny the third use of the law. But in practice they would say that, um, good works is no kind of evidence whatsoever for your, um, for your faith. It's no kind of evidence of your, your salvation, which of course are confessions themselves. Um, say that there is a kind of evidential value to assessing our good works within certain reason and con. So the show is otherwise orthodox. You know, I I, I recall hearing episodes where they were refuting things like EFS, um, but because of that, Moffitt brings with him sort of an air of credibility and an error in orthodoxy that, um, the show itself probably hasn't merited. If Doug just recorded, pushed, play and put it on the. I don't think there would've been too much, uh, too much of a following. He would've probably, you know, grabbed a couple people who heard it and thought it was interesting. But because Moffitt has such a following on Theo cast, he brings with him a large audience, and that makes it particularly dangerous because his name attached to it makes it more widespread. It makes it feel like it's safer. And so I think a lot of people, uh, assume that what he's saying is orthodox and good. And I think what we'll find out is, is that it's not. So I think that's enough ProGo. [00:09:10] Elohim and Its Implications Tony Arsenal: I'm gonna go ahead and, and jump into explaining kind of what the theology that we're talking about is and, and what the problems are. So this all started kicked off, uh, with a series of podcast episodes and the first episode, and again, I don't have the specific titles here. I'll put a bibliography in the show notes on this one just so you have links to all the relevant episodes. Um, this all kind of kicked off with a podcast episode called something like The History of the Word God, or something like that. And, um, basically what Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they wanna look at the word Elohim in the Bible, which of course is a plural noun. Uh, in Hebrew, the, the suffix, just like in English, we might add an S or an ES, um, to a word to make it plural. Or in Greek, it's usually, if it's a masculine, uh, noun, it's, it's an oi or an omicron iota that sort of always sound at the end. Um, or when we, we talk about Latin, you have, you have like, um, you add the I at the end, so we say octopi instead of octopuses or something like that. Cacti instead of cactus. Although both of those are kind of pig Latins, um, in, in Hebrew for, uh, for masculine nouns. The suffix that you add to make it plural, is that eam sound. It's a, it's an Im if you transliterate in English. So the word Elohim is a plural of the original noun El which is a proper name for a eury deity. But it came to just be the singular word for, for God. Um, and, and in non-biblical language, we would say in a God. Um, and we do see in English, there are in, in Hebrew, in the Bible, there are places where we see the singular of this. It's kind of an older form, so it doesn't show up as much. Um, but by and large when we see the word Elohim in the Bible. Something like, uh, outta 2,600 references or more than 2,600 references in the Bible. Um, the word Elohim is associated with a single, a singular noun, and it only refers to the God of Israel. What Moffitt and Van Dorn want to do is they want to take this word and they wanna define it based on the abnormal. Uh, use of it. So the vast minority, minority of cases in the Old Testament, the word Elohim refers to the gods or to a non, like what we might say is lower G God, either like the God, Baal, or some sort of collective reference to the gods, the gods of the nation, or something like that. They wanna take the fact that there is this variation in the way the word is used and sort of radically redefine how the Bible uses it. And this, this is what I call and what a lot of people would call an etymological fallacy. So what they're doing is, instead of, uh, looking at the word and defining it based on how it's used in an, in an overwhelming fashion, they're looking at sort of the etymology of the word. And then they're using the fact that there are, uh, some pretty Dr. Dramatically minority cases where the word is used in a different way and they wanna redefine it and say, in, in all or most cases in the Bible actually. This is what the word means. So they look at the word L, which from its root has something to do probably with the, with the word for power or something like that. Um, they wanna look at it. And, you know, if you read someone like Vos in Reformed dogmatics in his volume one, he talks about how when we see the name Elohim for God, it denotes or, or refers to his sort of power, his omnipotence, which is all good and fine, just like we would say Yahweh. Uh, as a proper name refers to God sort of in his covenant role. It's his covenant name, his, his intimate, familial name that he shares, uh, with his people or he reveals to his people. Elohim is a more abstract name and it refers to God's power. Usually we see it in relation to his cre creation. So in Genesis one, um, when it's God created, it's Elohim created, which is also important and relevant for, for later. So what they wanna do is they want to say that Elohim actually. What Act Elohim actually means is it's a reference to a class of beings, spiritual beings, and that that it means sort of any spiritual being that has some type of supernatural power or enhanced power, some sort of spiritual power. They do this by saying that the noun is not an ontological noun, it's actually like a noun of function. Um, so like we would say a, a good example in English would be a painter that's a noun of function. It's a title of function. It any person could be called a painter if they engage in the verbal action of painting. And so what they're saying is that any being that engages in the action of having power. Is, uh, is an Elohim. And so that would include, in narrating at least, it would include angels, demons. Uh, I, you know, I don't know that they've said this explicitly, but I, I think Heiser would've included things like ghosts, disembodied spirits, um, humans in sort of the intermediary state might be considered Elohim humans in the, in the, um, this. Life are called Elohim, uh, in some instances. So, so this is where the Divine Council theology comes from, and that comes from Psalm 82, I think, where there's this council of Elohim that, that Yahweh seems to be speaking to and deliberating with. Or you look at Joe, where the sons of God come and they sort of pulled court in God's heavenly presence. So he would say those are examples where the, the collected Elohim. God being one of the Elohim are somehow gathered in this heavenly divine counsel. Now what this does is just devastating to Christian theology is it takes God who exists in a class of one. The, the, the God of the universe is, is the only uncreated entity in all of of the world. And so when we start to talk, and this is ironic, when we start to talk about the ways to divide up the world, the ancient world, the, the pagan world tended to divide the world between, um. Between spiritual and material. So think of g Gnostics where matter was bad and spirit was good. Or even think of something like, um, the Greek pantheons, the Greek, um, Greek religion, like ancient Greek mythology. You have sort of the spirits and the spiritual world and the gods inhabit a spiritual, have a spiritual existence for the most part. And then you have the physical world where kind of people live, uh, at least while they're alive. Christianity and, and Judaism, at least Biblical Judaism. On the other hand, the, the primary distinction is not between spiritual and matter. There is of course that distinction. There are humans, which are spiritual and material. There are animals which are entirely material, and then there are angels which are entirely spiritual. And so we would say that God is spiritual. So that is a distinction in the world. But the primary distinction when we're talking about the most absolute line is the distinction between the, the uncreated creator and his creation. So what Moffitt, Moffitt and Van Dorn do is instead of observing that biblical distinction, which really all of Christian theology and Christian monotheism rests on, they wanna say that instead, the distinction is between the. Um, is between the Elohim as the sort of spiritual beings and then sort of everything else of the created world, and so they wouldn't deny that God, that Yahweh is. The uncreated creator of all things, but they would say he's an uncreated Elohim and that there is a class of created Elohim. So I don't, I don't think you have to go too far down this road to see what this does. It puts God on the same level as his creatures in at least one way. Um, and I think we'll find out later, uh, as we talk through this, actually it does it in a couple ways that are really, uh, really can be problematic as we go. And so, uh, just let me be clear if all that, if all that Moffitt and Van Dorn were saying, if, if all they said was, um, we can use the word Elohim to describe any creature. Or God that doesn't have a body. Elohim is a synonym for the word spirit. Um, that wouldn't be the wisest way to speak, I don't think. It wouldn't be the, the most, um, felicitous or safe way to talk about the distinction. But it wouldn't be controversial. There'd be nothing wrong with that. It'd just be using a different word. It'd be like if I said, well, instead of the word spirit, I'm gonna use the word bibly bop, you know? So we have. We have God who is bibly bop, and we have the angels who is bibly bop, and humans are biblio bop. And also material, again, not the safest way to talk. There's no reason to use that alternative language when the Bible gives us perfectly legitimate language. Um, but it wouldn't be a problem. But Moffit and Van Dorn go. Way past this and maybe they don't realize it. I've asked them on Twitter, I asked them to clarify. I didn't get a response. So if they are hearing this, which maybe they will, maybe they won't. If they're hearing this, I would really love to get some clarification on some of these questions because I would love nothing more than to be able to say that this was all a big misunderstanding and that actually all they're saying is that there is this spiritual existence. That, um, we can put all things that are spirit without a body or spirit with a body. We can put all those in the same category and call that category Elohim. Again, I don't think that's safe, but if that's all they were doing, that would be fine. But we see in their episodes, and I'm gonna try to grab some quotes, um, from, from some of the articles I've written. But again, go read the articles because this goes way more in depth. It's got timestamps of it. It's got links to their episodes. Don't take my word for it. Go listen to their. Words and, and check, you know, check my math on this. But what they do is they actually start to, in, in an attempt to justify why it's okay to put God in the same category as his creatures. Um, and in at least one way, they start to make some weird statements that have a lot of systematic theology, um, implications that are, are just really, really risky. So, for example, one of the ways that they try to kind of explain this, I'm gonna pull, pull the article that I wrote up here. So, great podcasting. [00:19:34] Communicable vs. Incommunicable Attributes Tony Arsenal: Um, one of the ways they start to try to do this is again, they, they wanna say they use this distinction between incommunicable and communicable attributes, right? So in, in Christian theology, classically speaking, a communicable attribute of God is an attribute that he shares or could share with. A creature and primarily we're talking, you know, we're talking about attributes that he shares with his image bearers. So something like, um, love. Love is a communicable attribute. Our love is different than God's love, but when we say love, we're talking about the same basic category of things God loves differently than we do. But love and in a human sense, and love in a, in a divine sense, are still talking about the same thing. There's a point of contact there. Um, an incommunicable attribute would be something like, um, something like eternity. Right. Eternity is not just an extended infinite sequence of time. If it was, he could share that with us. Um, but eternity or infinity is an entirely different way of existing than a creature could ever, could ever exist in divine Simplicity is another example. Um, God could not make humans simple because simplicity entails all sorts of things like infinity. Um, eternality. Um, you know, omnipresence, omni, potent, all of these things are entailed by simplicity. So God could not make a creature infinite because in order for it to be infinite, it would have to be God. Uh, God could not make a creature simple, uh, in the, in the sense of no composition of parts. Uh, because that would mean that that creature is actually God and has no composer. So, so those would be the classic, uh, incommunicable attributes and omnipotence. Is considered, although it's a little bit weird, it sort of crosses the line in some ways. But omnipotence is considered. An incommunicable attribute. God cannot share his omnipotence with a creature because you can't have two omnipotence. Um, if you have two omnipotence, then those two omnipotence cancel each other out in some sense. If God, and, and, and he has a will, God wills one thing, and then I as a creature, if he shared his omnipotence with me, somehow willed a different thing, then we would no longer be, neither of us would be omnipotent. Where this goes sideways with Moffitt and Vandorn is rather than respect omnipotence as a an incommunicable attribute, they say that the attribute or the word Elohim denotes power or might, and that is a communicable attribute. So God does give us a certain level of power. He allows us a certain level of agency. He grants that to us. Again, I'm not even sure that we would call that an an. A communicable attribute. Um, but in a sense, I guess it is. And so they say here, um, Elohim does not mean omnipotent. It means power. It's not an incommunicable attribute. It's a communicable attribute that all kinds of entities could possess. So they're saying that the word, um, the word Elohim, uh, in the Bible denotes that a. A, an entity possesses a certain kind of power or acts in a certain role of executing a certain kind of power. And that doesn't mean omnipotence. It means it means potence. It means some sort of power. And so that that wielding power attribute that. Uh, being a, being that wields power, that attribute, whatever we want to call it, however we want to phrase it, that is a communicable attribute that God shares. He communicates that attribute to all other beings in the class of Elohim. Now, let's just back that up for a second. Um, this still would mean that God has to be the creator and they don't deny that, but it would still mean that God, prior to creation. Was an Elohim in a category of one, and then somehow he created a class and because he's extended. This attribute of wielding power, say power wielder, to try to make it actually more of an attribute. He's extended this attribute of power wielder to uncreate or to created angels, demons, human spirits, whatever other spiritual entities there might be. They would bring in things like principalities, powers, they have a whole, in other, other contexts, they'll talk about this whole different bifurcation of types of spiritual beings that I think is a little speculative, but not a big deal. He extends this power wielder attribute to these created categories. And instead of this now creating a separate category of power wields who are not God, it now is uh, he expands this category of one to now include all sorts of other things, which again, as you can, you can imagine, just runs into problems. And so the, again, this, this word Elohim appears over 2,600 times, and of these instances, 230 of them refer to the God of Israel. So the idea that that. This word is not used specifically as a reference to the God of Israel, or should not be thought of as uniquely titling or almost exclusively titling God. The God of Israel just doesn't really match the data, but it's also just really poor Exogenic method. So rather than take the predominant usage and look at the context. Understanding that the predominant usage is the predominant usage. Instead, we're gonna go back and say, well, these, these minority, these 300 or so cases outside, and not even all 300 of them are used the same way, but these 300 or so cases of them not referring to the God of Israel, we're gonna use that to redefine the word. Its entirety. It's just poor. It's just poor scholarship. It's overly speculative. Um, I haven't read much of. He's work on this in the primary sources. Um, I, I would venture a guess that Heiser makes a much more robust argument than this. And this is part of the problem. When you take an already speculative, already dangerous theology and you try to pop popularize it when you just don't have the same chops that he did, uh, you end up really making some crass, simplistic arguments that just make you look a little silly. To think we can take 200 or 2,600 instances and redefine 2 20, 300 of them. By the way, it's used 300 of the times Just doesn't make any sense. So it again, if, if all we are saying is that God is spiritual and angels are spiritual and so there is some point of affinity between the two, then that would be okay. That wouldn't be a problem. Again, there's some risk in using the word Elohim in that. Sort of placeholder, but, um, that would be a semantic discussion. What they're doing is far, far deeper and far more problematic than that. [00:26:30] Systematic Theology Concerns Tony Arsenal: And so the, the other thing they do, um, that I think is really dangerous, and I don't have all of the, I haven't finished this article yet, so I don't have all of the timestamps in front of me to, to, to get there, is in attempting to justify this Moffitt, uh, in, in one of the other episodes, he turns to the incarnation as a sort of model. And so he'll say that, you know, the son of God is divine, but he's also human. And the fact that he's human, uh, doesn't therefore mean he's not also uniquely the uncreated creator. I would assume everyone hearing this who listens to this show, uh, which has done many, many episodes on Christology, it's one of our pet projects, is just throwing their listening device across the room because what Moffitt seems to miss entirely is that Christ is not, the sun is not in the category of human. Uh, sort of in a simple sense, Christ is in the category of human because he assumes to himself a second created nature. So what, what the, the analogy he's trying to draw is if the sun can be human without ceasing to be the unique one, uncreated God, then so also can, the whole trinity, I guess, can also be Elohim without ceasing to be the one uncreated God. He even goes so far as to say that there is Uncreated Elohim, and then there is created Elohim, and they're all in the category of Elohim, but because there's this commonality, we should still consider that class. And he draws that distinction or he draws the implication that. Um, there's somehow uncreated humanity in Christ, which is a whole different ball of worms that we won't get into. But in, in drawing this analogy, he sort of shows that he really doesn't understand the hypostatic union. He doesn't understand the incarnation, or if he does, he's really making a poor comparison because in the hypostatic union it's not as though the son, uh, as divinity, the son, as the one uncreated. God simply adds to himself in a raw sense and merges. Uh, he doesn't become part of the category of human without taking on a second nature. And then now we are even getting into some inconsistencies. Is human an ontological category or is that a category of function? Are there other categories of function, uh, other creatures in existence that the category of function human might fit? So I think you can see that this just is not a self consistent. Um, a self-consistent system and it leads to all these weird implications. Um, you know, and then they'll even go on to talk about how the Son is the angel of the Lord. I'm not gonna get into a lot of it here, and I agree with that thesis that the, when we see the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament, in the vast majority of cases, we're probably seeing a pre-incarnate appearance of, um, of the second person of the Trinity. They go so far as to say that this is actually a sort of. Incarnation or a sort of hypostatic union of the Elohim nature. So they, they, they draw this distinction, or they draw this parallel between created Elohim and Uncreated Elohim, and they, they argue again, I think implicitly, but in some instances it's almost, it's almost explicit that the son in, in being the angel of the Lord, takes on the uncreated or takes on the created Elohim nature. It's, it's really, um, it's really problematic. So now we have the son who is, uh, sort of hypostatic united to the unc, to the created Elohim nature, and then also is hypostatic united to the human nature. Um, it, it really just gets messy and it confuses categories in a way that is not helpful. And if I'm just being frank, a lot of the younger reformed guys. And when I say younger, I'm talking, maybe I'm projecting back to when I was a younger reform guy, um, I'm talking about people in their mid twenties to maybe early thirties, right? The, the people who were maybe the second or third generation of the young restless reform guys, they didn't necessarily learn, uh, ref young restless reform theology directly from RC Sproul. You know, they weren't the first generation. Um, and, and maybe their pastors weren't the first generation, but, but maybe their pastors were the second generation and now they're learning it from their pastors. So you might think of 'em as like the third generation, to be frank, they don't usually have a great grasp on some of these systematic theology categories as part of why. Jesse and I do this podcast, and part of why we cover the same topic over and over again, part of why we're gonna go through this parable series. But when we're done, we're probably gonna go back and start over with systematic theology. We're gonna go back, we're gonna go through another confession. That's why we spent, we spent like six years going through systematic theology. And almost immediately went back to the Scott's confession and did most of it all over again because these truths need to be taught again and again and again. This is part of what Jude is talking about when he says, we have to contend for the faith. It's not just fighting with people online. It's not just polemics or apologetics. It is reteaching and handing down the faith that was once delivered to the saints. Again, and this is perhaps, and this is the last point I'll make. This is perhaps the most. Telling a reason we should be weary and suspicious of this theology. Paul, in, uh, one of the letters to Timothy, second Timothy, maybe he says, follow the pattern of the sound words that you heard from me. He's not talking about the scriptures. He doesn't say follow the sound words that I'm writing to you. He's referring to a body of doctrine sometimes. The Bible calls it the faith, right? Jude says to contend for the faith. There's this body of doctrine that is the teaching of the apostles, and it is encapsulated in this sort of set pattern of words. Erin A is called it the rule of faith or the regular fide, right? This is where we get things like the Nicean Creed or the Hanian Creed. Why we have creeds and confessions is because we don't need to reinvent the wheel and rather than rely on the safe time-tested words and concepts that have been proven and validated, and attacked and defended and, and um, have been victorious for hundreds and thousands of years, rather than rely on those. Moffitt and Van Doran think it is smarter and safer to depart from the pattern of sound words rather than to keep the pattern of sound words because they think that they are able to look at the Bible the way basically no one ever has in the 2000 years of the church and find something they haven't. I don't wanna be too bombastic. Um, I don't, I don't know either of them. Well, um, from what I can tell, what I've heard of their professions of faith, uh, they're, they're Christian believers. They love the Lord and are very confused. But these teachings are pagan. This is, we're talking about returning to a world of, of populated by spiritual beings. And God is kind of just on the highest part of the totem pole, and maybe there's a firm line between his place on the totem pole and the, the next level down. Maybe there is, um, gets a little bit less firm of a line when we're talking about Jesus, right? So there's some potential Arian implications there that the son, uh, is not the highest deity he is. He's like the father in some ways, but he, you know, in his sort of original form is like creatures in other ways. Um, we're just returning to something that the early church fought hard to get rid of when they came out of their pagan culture. When we started to see Greeks convert to Christianity, they had to figure out how do we come out of our polytheistic culture, and this is where we get the best defenses of monotheism. Jewish Christians didn't have to argue for monotheism because all the Jewish Christians already were monotheists in a biblical sense. The Greek Christians had to fight this stuff. Justin Martyr had to fight this stuff. Athanasius and the Cappadocian fathers had to fight this stuff constantly pushing back against the background Greek culture. And Moffitt and Van Dorn wanna point to that and say, see, really, they're just Greeks in disguise and in the reality is Athanasius and the cap oceans, were fighting against the theology that is making a resurgence in this divine council theory. [00:34:55] Conclusion and Call to Action Tony Arsenal: So I think that's enough for now. Please. Again, I'm writing a long series on this. I don't know how long it's gonna take. I think it's gonna be probably 10 or 13, 10 to 13 articles. It's, it's gonna be a pretty extensive project. But go read them. Go look at them, listen to their episodes, read their articles, and then you compare that to the word of God, has what I said made more sense or does what they make more sense. So I'll leave you with that. The dog is losing her mind. And uh, with that honor, everyone love the brotherhood.

Story of the Week (DR):Disney Pulls Jimmy Kimmel's Show After Kirk Remarks Republicans Leverage Charlie Kirk's Death to Declare War on Free SpeechCharlie Kirk assassination reignites debate over Section 230 protections for social media companies"Section 230 needs to be repealed. If you're mad at social media companies that radicalize our nation, you should be mad," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press." "I have a bill that will allow you to sue these people. They're immune from lawsuits."Nexstar And Sinclair, Two Largest Station Groups, Wield Influence In ABC Decision To Pull Jimmy Kimmel In Light Of His Charlie Kirk CommentsA $6.2 billion deal looms over Jimmy Kimmel's suspensionNexstar, the largest station group in the country, is a leading champion in the broadcast industry for the FCC to relax media ownership limits and has a major merger before the Trump administration, its proposed $6.2B acquisition of Tegna, creating a mega-company with 265 stations in 44 states and the District of Columbia, representing 80% of U.S. TV households.Nexstar needs the agency to ease rules that currently limit the percentage a broadcaster can reach to 39% of the nation's television households.Sinclair also is seeking deregulation, and in its statement, it praised Carr. “We appreciate FCC Chairman Carr's remarks today and this incident highlights the critical need for the FCC to take immediate regulatory action to address control held over local broadcasters by the big national networks,” Sinclair said.Nexstar: founder/Chair/CEO Perry SookSinclair: the Smith family: currently nepobaby David Smith; board is 44% SmithWhat to know about Brendan Carr, the FCC chairman who went after Jimmy KimmelIn response to an opinion column in The Washington Post by Mark Zuckerberg, the chief executive of Facebook, outlining his ideas for removing harmful content, Carr criticized Zuckerberg's call for government regulation as a violation of the First Amendment.He later praised Zuckerberg's "instincts" to show Trump's posts that amplified COVID-19 misinformation unaltered.Carr supported Trump's "Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship" targeting Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.Trump filed a $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times and 4 of its journalistsTrump's NYT Lawsuit Dismissed by Republican-Appointed JudgeA federal judge on Friday dismissed Donald Trump's $15 billion defamation lawsuit against The New York Times. U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday: a lawsuit is not "a protected platform to rage against an adversary."Comcast CEO criticizes ex-MSNBC contributor's remarks about Charlie Kirk in memo to staffTrumpy Billionaires Close In on TikTok TakeoverAllies of President Donald Trump are poised to get their hands on TikTok's U.S. operations.Entrepreneur Larry Ellison, worth approximately $350 billion, and Marc Andreessen, a venture capitalist with a $2 billion net worth, have been pals with the president for years.Ellison's software giant Oracle, Andreessen's venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and private equity firm Silver Lake are among a group of U.S. businesses said to be nearing a deal to take over the American operations of the short-form video app, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal.Nestlé Chairman to Step Down After Abrupt CEO FiringNestlé investors demand chair Paul Bulcke resign over CEO churn “I have full trust in Nestlé s new leadership and firmly believe this great company is well positioned for the future,” Bulcke said. “This is the right moment for me to step aside and accelerate the planned transition, allowing Pablo and Philipp to advance Nestlé's strategy and guide the company with a fresh perspective.”Board member (2018-) Pablo Isa new chairThe company appointed Dick Boer as lead independent director and vice chairman of the board of directors as of Oct. 1, while Marie-Gabrielle Ineichen-Fleisch was appointed vice chair of the board.A new ally against excessive CEO Pay: Pope LeoPope Leo appears to be particularly baffled by the Tesla pay package that could turn Elon Musk into the world's first trillionaire: “What does that mean and what's that about? If that is the only thing that has value anymore, then we're in big trouble.”Dave Ramsey Says 'We're Not All Equal. It Doesn't Work That Way' — The Rich Aren't Evil, It's Just Math and Jealousy Fueling the StigmaRashida Tlaib and Bernie Sanders introduce the Tax Excessive CEO Pay Act. Proponents of the bill argue that it will incentivize large corporations to narrow their internal pay disparities by either increasing wages for their lowest-paid employees or reducing executive compensation packages Key Provisions of the Act:Tax Trigger: The new tax would apply to companies with a CEO-to-median-worker pay ratio of 50-to-1 or greater.Graduated Tax Rates: The penalty begins with a 0.5 percentage point tax increase for companies with a pay ratio between 50 and 100-to-1.Progressive Structure: The tax rate increase climbs with the pay ratio:1.0 percentage point for ratios between 100 and 200-to-1.2.0 percentage points for ratios between 200 and 300-to-1.3.0 percentage points for ratios between 300 and 400-to-1.4.0 percentage points for ratios between 400 and 500-to-1.5.0 percentage points for ratios exceeding 500-to-1.Broad Application: The act is intended to apply to both publicly and privately held companies with annual revenues of $100 million or more.Exxon to offer auto-voting to counter shareholder activism. Here's how it works:Opt-In Program: The auto-voting feature is a voluntary, opt-in program for retail investors.Automatic Voting: Once enrolled, an investor's shares will be automatically voted in accordance with the board's recommendations on all proposals at shareholder meetings.Flexibility for Investors: Despite the automated nature, investors will still receive all proxy materials and retain the right to manually override the automatic vote on any specific proposal. They can also opt out of the program at any time, free of charge.Exxon's Stated Rationale:Leveling the Playing Field: Exxon argues that this program is a matter of fairness, designed to give retail investors the same ease of voting that institutional investors have. They contend that individual investors often lack the time and resources to research and vote on complex proxy proposals.Addressing Low Turnout: The company has highlighted that while retail investors hold a significant portion of its shares (nearly 40%), their voting turnout is low (only about a quarter of them vote).Countering Activist Agendas: Exxon has explicitly stated that activist groups have exploited this low retail voter participation to advance their own agendas, which the company claims are often political and detrimental to long-term shareholder value.Texas AG probes proxy advisers Glass Lewis, ISS amid ESG backlash By ReutersExxon Urges Europe to Repeal Rules to Make Companies Track Climate PollutionGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Tyson is ditching corn syrupIt also plans to axe sucralose, BHA/BHT, and titanium dioxide from its food by the end of 2025MM: New Poll Finds That Americans Loathe AI53 percent of just over 5,000 US adults polled in June think that AI will "worsen people's ability to think creatively." Fifty percent say AI will deteriorate our ability to form meaningful relationships, while only five percent believe the reverse.MM: Northeast US states form health alliance in response to federal vaccine limits MMAssholiest of the Week (MM):Which capitalist is the bigger assholeBob IgerIger yanked Kimmel after pressure from affiliate owners looking to curry FCC favor in a $6bn mergerThere are comparisons being made to when Iger cancelled Roseanne:From blowhard Iger apologist Jeff Sonnenfeld: “Iger has been a fearless, equal opportunity offender in defending Disney's corporate character, whether from intrusions by the left or by the right. He was criticized harshly from many on the political right when in 2018, he cancelled Rosanne, then ABC's #1 show, when its star imploded with a cruel racial tirade about President Obama's former top advisor, Valerie Jarrett.”Sonnenfeld ignores the content of what was said obviously, since he has to make a point to kiss Iger's ass - Kimmel said MAGA didn't want the shooter to be MAGA, Barr said a black woman was from Planet of the Apes… so, very the same?This isn't about brand protection, this is about economics - and Iger the dealmaker just made a trade: short-term political expediency for cash as he tries to unload ABCIn 2023, Iger was in talks with Nexstar to buy ABC outrightAlso 2023, massive deals between Disney and NexstarNexstar's ABC agreements expire December 202614% of Nexstar stations are ABC affiliates - Tegna would add 7%Disney already was cancelled by the right for having movies that were too woke, now they just Target-ed themselves right in the groinASSHOLE ACTION ITEM:Disney's next AGM is likely March 2026 - buy Disney stock with the intention of voting out every starfucky directorBonus option: buy shares of Coca-Cola, GM, Under Armour, P&G, Reckitt Benckiser, Bristol Myers, Target, Carlyle, and Lululemon to vote the same directors out of ALL their board positions - make shit decisions in one place, you'll make them everywhereDisney's Mel Lagomasino on Coca-Cola with Carolyn Everson (twofer!), Mary Barra at GM, Everson also at Under Armour, Amy Chang at P&G, Jeremy Darroch at Reckitt Benckiser, Derica Rice at Bristol Myers, Target (anti DEI AND anti free speech!), Carlyle, Cal McDonald at LululemonVote out Sonnenfeld - on the board of Lennar Corporation - vote him out for kicks since he's so deferential to CEOs, how on earth can he hold one accountable? Is he the voice of shareholders or CEOs?Perry SookThe buyer! Nexstar looking to acquire Tegna for $6bn, which would consolidate 80% of US households local news stationsNexstar has to make nice with Brendan Carr, chair of the FCC (I miss Lina Kahn… sigh) - and Carr is purely political, so here was how they bent the knee:“Nexstar's owned and partner television stations affiliated with the ABC Television Network will preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! for the foreseeable future beginning with tonight's show. Nexstar strongly objects to recent comments made by Mr. Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk and will replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets.”Again, if you read Kimmel's actual comment, he's saying that MAGA doesn't want the shooter to be MAGA… he actually didn't say ANYTHING ELSE about the shooting itselfSonnenfeld: “Kimmel's suggestion that “the MAGA gang (is) desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” doesn't square with the facts which are known at this point. Regardless, these comments are blatantly insensitive as political violence should never be tolerated or exploited as comedic entertainment, no matter who perpetrated it.”Except Kimmel didn't joke about political violence, he joked about the fact that MAGA is super hoping it wasn't their political violence.Perry Sook's political donations have been almost entirely to Republican candidates over the last decade (except for National Association of Broadcasters) - and it's paid offBrendan Carr, Soon To Be FCC Chair, Says Commission Will Back Local TV Stations “Even If That's In Conflict” With Broadcast NetworksNew FCC boss could unleash biggest local TV shakeup in decadesSook owns just under 6% of Nexstar stock, with Vanguard and Blackrock clocking in at a combined 21.8% - meaning about 28% of votes are guaranteed to go with managementMeaning this was all a pretense to consolidate broadcaster ownership - and Sook is one of the winners of the consolidationNow Carr has a reason he can vote for Nexstar purchase, Iger gets out of more ABCASSHOLE ACTION ITEMIt's basically too late to vote against Nexstar's board - their meeting was in June 2025, the merger will be approved by thenYou could maybe buy shares and vote against the mergerAlternatively, buy Yelp (Tony Wells), Denny's (Bernadette Aulestia), and Urban One (Geoffrey Armstrong) to vote out board elsewhereDavid Deniston SmithCEO of Sinclair, owner of 20% of ABC affiliates - the most currently, but post merger would be secondNepo baby Smith, who, with the rest of his brothers and family, own 82% of voting power, are Trump and GOP toadiesAnother mediocre conservative blowhard CEO who spent the last two decades kissing the ass of every republican he can findHe was one of Turning Point USAs biggest donors through his foundation, and issued the following statement: they would “not lift the suspension of ‘Jimmy Kimmel Live!' on our stations until formal discussions are held with ABC regarding the network's commitment to professionalism and accountability,” calling on Kimmel to make a direct apology to the Kirk family, and for the network to make a “meaningful donation” to them and Turning Point USA.In the 00s, Sinclair let a paid Bush administration propagandist deliver reporting on their local news stationsIn Trump 1.0, Sinclair forced local news broadcasters to read off a script about how mainstream media was fake newsIn the 90s, Smith was caught getting a blowjob from a prostituteASSHOLE ACTION ITEMSinclair's board is dual class dictatorship, but you CAN vote out Ben Carson on the DR Horton and Covenant Logistics boards - yes, that Ben CarsonHeadliniest of the WeekDR: Elon Musk Fires 500 Staff at xAI, Puts College Kid in Charge of Training GrokMM: If You Don't Know Who the Underperforming Director Is, It Might Be You!Are the CEO, chair or committee leads soliciting my input off-cycle?Does the CEO and select members of the executive team think of me as a trusted advisor and am I able to constructively coach behind the scenes?If the answers to all of these questions are “No,” it could be a sign that you are not performing to the level expected by your company's management.YOU DON'T REPORT TO MANAGEMENTWho Won the Week?DR: I guess they just win every week: Trumpy and creepy billionaires profiting over an app used primarily by 18-34 year olds (70%): Oracle's Larry Elison, Andreessen Horowitz's Marc Andreessen.MM: Gillette, the razor company: Pete Hegseth goes to war against military beards, stresses ‘grooming standards which underpin the warrior ethos'PredictionsDR: FCC Chair Brendan Carr cancels himself when he digs up reports when he cast himself as a First Amendment purist, denouncing efforts by Democrats and Republicans to lean on TV providers and social media platforms as “censorship” and a “chilling transgression of free speech.”ure on media a ‘chilling transgression of free speech.'”MM: I wrote this on Bluesky two days ago: “The next step for Brendan Carr and the FCC is to repeal Section 230 - after which they can sue social media companies for any anti-conservative posts. Then the silencing is complete until dissent is done via snail mail.” Today, I was right: Charlie Kirk assassination reignites debate over Section 230 protections for social media companies. We're in an era of algorithmic autocracy - Microsoft changed LinkedIn's algorithm earlier this year and there

When the Covid-19 pandemic struck in 2020, hundreds of millions of people worldwide suddenly found themselves working from home for the first time. Since then, calls for more flexible and shorter working hours have continued to gain momentum.Proponents of a four-day week argue that employees, business and society at large would be better off with one less day of work. Those in favour of reducing working hours also say it would help tackle burnout, gender inequality, unemployment and improve general health and wellbeing.However, opponents say reducing working hours could cause economic damage, waken people's work ethic and put a strain on public services.They've also warned that industries like education, medicine and hospitality, which require staff seven days a week, 24 hours a day, cannot simply change their working format.The Netherlands, where the average working week is now 32 hours, is one country where the four-day model is quietly changing people's lives.How did the Dutch embark on this working model, how successful has it been and what downsides are there to cutting back the working week?Financial Times columnist and reporter Sarah O'Connor discusses the shift in the Netherlands to a shorter working week and examines whether the Dutch model could function in other countries.Presented by Sorcha Pollak. Produced by Andrew McNair. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On the show today, we discuss the decision by ABC to indefinitely suspend 'Jimmy Kimmel Live' following comments made by Jimmy regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Proponents of Kimmel are saying this is an attack on free speech, but was it really? Or was it just a business decision by ABC?

Anyone hoping to nail a fall race, like Michelle, will appreciate all the night-before and morning-of advice from seasoned racers/hosts Sarah and Dimity. Proponents of the run-walk method, like Emily, will breathe a sigh of relief at Coach Dimity's answer to, “Do I need more cardio?” And parents like Peter will be grateful for the advice—and empathy—about getting your teens to stick with running.    The host-duo share smile-inducing sports anecdotes from recent memorial services they each attended before jump into Q&As at about 6:00. Please call 470-BADASS1 (470-223-2771) to record your question, and find the off-season triathlon training programs here.   When you shop our sponsors, you help AMR. We appreciate your—and their—support!   Feel the Currex difference: Get 15% off with code AMR15 at Currex.com   Calm your racing mind: Save 25% at CBDistillery.com with code AMR Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). 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

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the wake of World War II, the United States leveraged its hegemonic position in the international political system to gradually build a new global order centered around democracy, the expansion of free market capitalism, and the containment of communism. Named in retrospect the "liberal international order" (LIO), the system took decades to build and is still largely with us today even as the US's relative power within it has diminished. In Great Power, Great Responsibility: How the Liberal International Order Shapes US Foreign Policy (Oxford UP, 2025), Michael Poznansky explores how the LIO has influenced US foreign policy from its founding to the present. Proponents argue that its impact has been profound, producing a system that has been more rule-bound and beneficial than any previous order. Critics charge that it has failed to prevent the US itself from consistently violating rules and norms. Poznansky contends that the answer lies in between. While rule-breaking has been a constant feature of the postwar order, the nature of violations varies in surprising and poorly understood ways. America's approach to compliance with the LIO, including whether leaders feel the need to conceal rule violations at all, is a function of two primary factors: the intensity of competition over international order, and the burden of complying with the liberal order's core tenets in a given case. Drawing on nine case studies, including the Korean War and Iraq War, Great Power, Great Responsibility sheds important light on the future of US foreign policy in an era where American unipolarity has ended and great power rivalry has returned. Our guest is Michael Poznansky, an Associate Professor in the Strategic and Operational Research Department and a core faculty member in the Cyber & Innovation Policy Institute at the U.S. Naval War College. Our host is Eleonora Mattiacci, an Associate Professor of Political Science at Amherst College. She is the author of "Volatile States in International Politics" (Oxford University Press, 2023).

listener comments? Feedback? Shoot us a text!Proponents of the nepohualtzintzin hail it as a marvel of ancient Mesoamerica. Elevated as a symbol of mathematical sophistication, the device has captured the imagination of scholars and enthusiasts since the 1970s. However, a close examination of the available evidence raises questions about the nature and origin of the nepohualtzintzin. In this episode we dive into the bizarre history of the alleged "Aztec computer." Support the showYour Hosts:Kurly Tlapoyawa is an archaeologist, ethnohistorian, and filmmaker. His research covers Mesoamerica, the American Southwest, and the historical connections between the two regions. He is the author of numerous books and has presented lectures at the University of New Mexico, Harvard University, Yale University, San Diego State University, and numerous others. He most recently released his documentary short film "Guardians of the Purple Kingdom," and is a cultural consultant for Nickelodeon Animation Studios.@kurlytlapoyawaRuben Arellano Tlakatekatl is a scholar, activist, and professor of history. His research explores Chicana/Chicano indigeneity, Mexican indigenist nationalism, and Coahuiltecan identity resurgence. Other areas of research include Aztlan (US Southwest), Anawak (Mesoamerica), and Native North America. He has presented and published widely on these topics and has taught courses at various institutions. He currently teaches history at Dallas College – Mountain View Campus. Find us: Bluesky Instagram Merch: Shop Aztlantis Book: The Four Disagreements: Letting Go of Magical Thinking

Today on the show: Breaking News! We are opening the show with our initial thoughts and discussion around what seems like an assassination of Charlie Kirk, the CEO and co-founder of Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organization and joining me is Camilo Perez Bustillo. Also, as we speak, The senate education committee will decide on California Bill AB715. Proponents of the Bill say it fights antisemitism in schools, opponents say it includes stifling of teachers, students and curriculum mentioning Palestine. And we will close the show with Part 1 of a segment about Women Searchers in Mexico. Taking searches into their own hands, literally excavating public and private lands for bodies or personal affects of their loved ones. We talk with a member of The Hasta Encontrarte Collective and of Amnesty International Mexico. The post The Assassination of Right Wing Commentator, Charlie Kirk appeared first on KPFA.

The Trump administration announced that it will withhold $5 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already allocated. The “pocket rescission” is Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought's latest move to give the executive branch control over America's spending. House Democrats call it an unlawful attack on Congress' power of the purse. The Trump administration has also imposed tariffs and selected U.S. attorneys without congressional approval. How can Congress take back its power? Will Democrats and Republicans work together to prevent a shutdown before federal funding runs out at the end of the month? The Johnson Amendment (1954) allowed the IRS to remove tax-exempt status from charitable organizations and churches if they endorsed political candidates. Although some outspoken faith leaders disregarded the rule and received no retribution from the IRS, the Trump administration has now created an official carve-out for churches to endorse candidates and keep their tax-exempt status. Proponents of the Johnson Amendment, like including the 1,000 nonprofits that signed a community letter supporting nonpartisanship, believe that the law prevented churches from becoming political agents manipulated by anonymous donors' tax-free gifts. Others, like the National Religious Broadcasters, say the Johnson Amendment infringed on their First Amendment rights. Will this new leeway degrade the role of churches as nonpartisan centers of community? Third Way, a left-wing think tank, released a memo urging Democrats to leave behind language they believe repels voters. The list includes words such as “privilege,” “systems of oppression,” “birthing person,” and “Latinx.”  The right has expressed disdain with “wokeness” and language policing. Progressives adopted these terms to be more inclusive and empathetic, but are they having the opposite effect?

Project 2025 is not just another policy blueprint; it is a sweeping, meticulously detailed playbook designed to overhaul how the federal government operates, reshape the civil service, and realign American governance along sharply conservative lines. Crafted by the Heritage Foundation with contributions from over 100 coalition partners and released in April 2023, the 927-page document, titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlines concrete steps a newly elected Republican president could take starting from day one in office.Proponents of Project 2025 describe it as a plan to “destroy the Administrative State,” targeting what they argue is an unaccountable bureaucracy captured by liberal interests. Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation put it bluntly: “All federal employees should answer to the president.” The vision centralizes control of the entire executive branch, grounding itself in an expansive interpretation of the unitary executive theory. According to the project's documentation, independence for agencies such as the Department of Justice, the Federal Communications Commission, and others would be eliminated. Leadership at these institutions would be swept clean and staffed by presidential loyalists, many of whom could be installed in “acting” roles that bypass Senate confirmation.A key mechanism enabling this transformation is Schedule F, a controversial classification devised to move large numbers of nonpartisan civil servants into at-will positions. Without traditional civil service protections, these employees could be easily removed and replaced with political appointees. Heritage Foundation writers stress that this is essential to secure rapid, loyal implementation of the president's agenda. Critics, however, warn that the move exposes federal government positions to unchecked political influence and undermines the longstanding principle of impartial public service.Listeners may recognize some of these ambitions from earlier efforts under President Trump. This time, Project 2025 comes armed with a detailed 180-day playbook and ready-to-sign executive orders designed to implement change with unprecedented speed. As reported by Government Executive, the plan's first phase has already resulted in the abrupt dissolution of agencies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Board and USAID, accompanied by mass firings spanning across more than two dozen agencies. Challengers, including federal employee unions like the NTEU, have launched lawsuits, arguing these actions violate long-standing legal protections for government workers.Project 2025 reaches well beyond administrative restructuring. In criminal justice, for example, the document spells out proposals directing the Department of Justice to directly intervene in cases where local prosecutors are viewed as too lenient—potentially removing them from office. The Brennan Center points out that such measures could limit prosecutorial discretion and pressure local officials to abandon reform agendas, particularly in drug or low-level offenses.In the education sphere, the blueprint calls for significant expansion of voucher programs, the empowerment of charter schools, and even the closure of public schools deemed noncompliant with conservative values. Curriculum “censorship” is highlighted as a tool to ensure ideological conformity, and efforts to diminish the role of public education are explicitly connected to broader goals of limiting federal influence at the state and local levels.Reproductive rights are a prominent battleground as well. The project supports creating a national registry to track abortions and calls for nationwide restrictions that leverage statutes like the Comstock Act and reverse FDA approvals of abortion medication.Expert commentary ranges widely on the likely impacts of these reforms. Advocates assert Project 2025 will bring accountability and restore order, claiming decades of bureaucratic drift must be corrected by strong executive leadership. Detractors warn of an “authoritarian presidency,” as noted by the Brennan Center and the ACLU, pointing to risks for democratic norms, the separation of powers, and civil liberties.As the nation watches, key milestones approach. Should a Republican administration prevail in the next election, listeners can expect swift, far-reaching executive actions, many of which are already being tested on a smaller scale in various states. The months ahead promise critical court battles, legislative showdowns, and profound debates about the future of American government.Thank you for tuning in to today's narrative exploration of Project 2025. Join us again next week for more in-depth analysis and vital updates on the changing landscape of American policy and governance.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 has emerged as one of the most ambitious and controversial blueprints for American governance in recent memory. Initiated by the Heritage Foundation and backed by a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations, the project's stated mission is to radically restructure the federal government and centralize executive power, promising what supporters call a return to accountability and efficiency. Critics, meanwhile, warn of its sweeping threats to democratic norms, federal checks and balances, and the livelihoods of millions.Unveiled in the form of a 900-page manifesto titled “Mandate for Leadership,” Project 2025 provides granular directions, agency by agency, for an incoming administration determined to overhaul how Washington operates. According to the Heritage Foundation, the “heart of the project” is dismantling what they label as an unaccountable bureaucracy that has “drifted too far from the people's will.” Kevin Roberts, Heritage's president, bluntly declared, “All federal employees should answer to the president.” This vision is animated by an expansive concept known as the unitary executive theory, essentially arguing that the president should have direct control over all executive branch agencies, shedding their current independence.For listeners wondering about concrete changes, consider the plan for the Department of State. Project 2025 advocates for the wholesale removal of agency leadership officials before Inauguration Day, replacing them with individuals hand-picked for strict ideological alignment. Kiron Skinner, who penned the State Department chapter, envisioned a department led exclusively by loyalists, aiming to “remove those not aligned with the president's priorities.” This move is designed not just to hasten the implementation of foreign policy goals, but to prevent bureaucratic resistance—a key grievance among the plan's authors.Just as striking is Project 2025's approach to the federal workforce. Its architects call for the resurrection and expansion of “Schedule F,” a controversial employment status for federal employees. Schedule F would classify hundreds of thousands—if not more—career civil servants as political appointees, stripping them of longstanding job protections. The stated goal is a government “purged of entrenched opposition” so that “key decisions reflect the president's will on day one.” Critics like the National Federation of Federal Employees describe this as a “scheme to purge career professionals,” warning it would turn public administration into a partisan machine vulnerable to corruption.The plan doesn't stop at restructuring government jobs. Project 2025 lays out a 180-day playbook, which includes ready-to-sign executive orders to immediately strip environmental regulations, curb civil rights protections, and overhaul social welfare programs. According to the Center for Progressive Reform, executive actions under this strategy have already targeted the rollback of climate rules, weakened worker safety standards, and eliminated agencies altogether. The swift elimination of the Consumer Financial Protection Board and US Agency for International Development, as documented by Government Executive, was meant to signal a new era of “government efficiency” but resulted in “widespread layoffs and institutional chaos.”Project 2025's policy ambitions also extend to social issues. In its blueprint, it calls for curtailing access to abortion, undoing LGBTQ protections, and limiting federal action on racial equity. The ACLU describes these proposals as “an unprecedented rollback of civil rights and liberties,” comparing their scope to a rewriting of American society's basic fabric.Proponents lay claim to a mandate from voters frustrated by government gridlock and what they see as bureaucratic overreach. Opponents counter that this is not reform but a consolidation of power. Legal experts from across the spectrum worry that such an agenda could collapse the traditional American barrier between politics and administration, risking both the appearance and the reality of authoritarian rule.Several milestones now lie ahead. With ongoing lawsuits from labor unions and scrutiny by watchdog groups, the coming months promise court battles and congressional hearings over Project 2025's legality and impact. Congressional Republicans and administration officials are preparing for rapid implementation, while a coalition of civil rights organizations and some lawmakers are vowing organized resistance.The stakes for American governance have rarely been higher. Whether Project 2025 becomes a historical footnote or a defining blueprint for the future will depend on political will, legal battles, and the choices made in the next critical year.Thanks for tuning in to this week's deep dive. Come back next week for more.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Project 2025 is reshaping the conversation about the role and reach of the federal government in ways that feel both sweeping and personal. Born from the Heritage Foundation's “Mandate for Leadership,” this 900-plus-page policy blueprint divides nearly every federal agency and department into zones of targeted reform, all aimed at what its architects call “destroying the administrative state.” Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts summed up the mood behind it simply, declaring that “every federal employee should answer to the president.” That principle, experts say, guides the project's plans to consolidate power at the top and move swiftly on a series of executive moves from day one.The scale of intended change is hard to overstate. Project 2025 outlines an operational playbook for the first 180 days of a new Republican administration. Its centerpiece is Schedule F—a government job classification that would allow the new president to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants as at-will political appointees. That means federal workers, who traditionally hold their positions regardless of party, could be replaced without cause by loyalists. Kiron Skinner, who authored the State Department chapter, suggested clearing out senior career officials before January 20 and quickly installing appointees who share the president's views, bypassing regular Senate confirmation requirements. Skinner argues such moves are necessary to ensure ideological alignment, though when pressed by CNN's Peter Bergen, she couldn't cite a specific past obstruction by career diplomats.Concrete actions have followed rhetoric. When President Trump took office on January 20, he and Elon Musk's newly minted Department of Government Efficiency hit the ground running. According to Government Executive and other outlets, entire agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and USAID were targeted for elimination through “legally questionable means,” with the stated goal of cutting $1 trillion in spending. Executive orders soon followed, including one mandating that federal agencies may only hire one worker for every four who leave, and requiring return-to-office mandates for a federal workforce that had grown accustomed to remote work during the pandemic.Faced with the threat of losing job protections, over a quarter-million federal workers and contractors were facing layoffs by spring 2025, with forty-seven years of collective bargaining law challenged as unions raced to court. NTEU President Doreen Greenwald put it bluntly, calling it “an attack on the law, and on public service.” Opposition isn't limited to labor groups. The ACLU has charged that Project 2025 is a “roadmap to replace the rule of law with right-wing ideals,” warning that the proposals could undermine legal norms, civil rights, and protections for marginalized groups. Legal scholars from both political parties have raised flags about weakening the separation of powers, endangering environmental and public health safeguards, and risking consolidated, unchecked executive authority.Proponents are equally resolute. They argue that Project 2025 is a necessary corrective to what they view as a bloated, left-leaning bureaucracy unaccountable to the people. Heritage Foundation materials frame the federal government as too large, too costly, and resistant to the priorities of conservative Americans. They cite the sheer scale—over 2.4 million civilian federal employees—and the proliferation of agencies as drivers for dramatic consolidation and workforce reductions.Specific policy proposals go beyond personnel. The project seeks to reset environmental rules, roll back climate policies, and overhaul protections related to health, education, and civil rights. Critics, including groups like the Center for Progressive Reform, warn that these policies will lead to significant negative effects for ordinary Americans—from loss of workplace and environmental protections to sharp changes in immigration enforcement and reproductive rights.As the summer of 2025 progresses, listeners should watch several key milestones. Court cases brought by federal employee unions and advocacy groups could set vital precedents for the separation of powers. Agency heads are evaluating which departments could be merged or eliminated entirely in accordance with new directives. Congress, too, will play an uncertain but pivotal role as many Project 2025 reforms require new legislation or appropriations. Meanwhile, a country already polarized by election-year tensions is bracing for the long-term consequences of this radical experiment in federal power.Thank you for tuning in to this week's deep dive into Project 2025's ambitions and realities. Be sure to come back next week for more crucial stories shaping the nation.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

Greg Bishop shares some of the debate around President Donald Trump's executive order ending federal tax funds for cashless bail policies like Illinois' and the push back from proponents of the state's Pretrial Fairness Act.

Real Ice, a UK based start-up, has been on the forefront of exploring the viability of this new technology. Aqua Freezing involves drilling holes through sea ice to pump out the sea water below and refreeze it on the surface. Once the water freezes, it thickens existing ice to the surface. Adding snow insulation in late winter is expected to help ice persist through summer melts, thereby reducing the risk of a "Blue Ocean Event." This solution targets climate change by maintaining Arctic ice cover, which can stabilize local ecosystems and moderate global climate impacts. If the project is successful, it is projected to postpone the loss of ice caps by approximately 17 years for each year this is completed. For every four feet of water pumped onto the surface, it is projected that the ice will cover around 3 feet. The Decline of Arctic Sea IceAs climate change heightens temperatures and alters climatic conditions, summer sea ice in the Arctic is melting rapidly. By the mid 2030s, it is predicted that a “Blue Ocean Event” (or BOE) will occur, meaning that the Arctic Ocean is expected to have less than one million square kilometers of sea ice. This equates to just 15% of the Arctic's seasonal minimum ice cover of the late 1970s. As ice continues to melt, more of the ocean will be exposed to the sun's rays, thus absorbing more heat and accelerating warming. The Arctic has warmed four times faster than the rest of the world since 1979, largely due to this positive feedback loop known as Arctic amplification. Since the 1980s, the amount of Arctic sea ice has declined by approximately 13% each decade. As the BOE unfolds, it will trigger significant impacts, including droughts, heatwaves, accelerated thawing of terrestrial permafrost (releasing emissions in the process), and sea level rise. The Arctic plays a critical role in climate stabilization by acting as a large reflective surface, helping to cool the planet and maintain a stable global temperature. The BOE is thus a major climatic tipping point with catastrophic global consequences. A new methodology has been proposed to protect and restore Arctic sea ice known as Aqua Freezing. This approach uses renewable energy-powered pumps to distribute seawater on existing Arctic ice, allowing it to refreeze and thicken, helping to maintain climatic stability.The plan aims to target over 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice, an area larger than California. The process of refreezing already shows promise in field tests conducted over the past two years in Alaska and Canada. Proponents of refreezing Arctic sea ice believe that this technique would buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb the impacts of climate change. Refreezing ice would also preserve the albedo effect, which reflects sunlight back into space, preventing warming. Although AquaFreezing offers a potential solution to combat Arctic melting, scientists and policymakers doubt whether sea ice can be grown over a long enough period to make a true difference in the climate crisis. Further, the project is quite costly, equating to over 5 trillion dollars and demanding more steel than the US produces in a single year. The project would require 10 million pumps; however, this would only cover 10% of the Arctic Ocean's roughly 4 million square mile size. To cover the entire area would require 100 million pumps and roughly 100 million tons of steel each year. The US currently produces around 80 to 90 million tons of steel a year, so covering just 10% of Arctic ice would require 13% of US steel production. The production required for the project could lead to immense environmental degradation and added emissions in the process.  About Our GuestSimon Woods, co-founder and Executive Chairperson of Real Ice, is hopeful that this solution will buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb climate change. Real Ice believes this innovative solution can preserve sea ice and thus work to combat climate change. ResourcesArctic News, Blue Ocean EventCNN, A controversial plan to refreeze the Arctic is seeing promising results. But scientists warn of big risksRealIce, Introducing AquaFreezing: Encouraging the natural process of Arctic sea ice generation.Smithsonian Magazine, Arctic Could Be Sea Ice-Free in the Summer by the 2030sSustainability Times, Controversial Arctic Refreezing Plan Shows Promise, but Risks RemainWarp Notes, They are developing a technology to restore sea ice in the ArcticFurther ReadingYoutube, Scientists' Crazy Plan To Refreeze The ArcticFor a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/real-ice-with-simon-woods/.

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Does the President control independent agencies? This panel will examine the Trump administration’s efforts to reassert presidential control over independent federal agencies, considering the constitutional, legal, and practical implications of such actions. Central to the discussion will be Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, which upheld the independence of certain regulatory bodies by limiting the President’s removal power, and the perspectives raised by legal cases such as Hampton Dellinger’s, which questioned the administration’s authority over the removal of agency officials. Proponents argue that increased presidential oversight enhances accountability, ensuring agencies align with elected leadership’s policies, while critics warn that such changes could erode agency independence and introduce political influence into regulatory decisions. The discussion will consider whether these changes promote efficient governance or threaten the integrity of federal oversight.Featuring:Prof. Jed Shugerman, Professor, Boston University School of LawProf. Ilan Wurman, Julius E. Davis Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School(Moderator) Prof. Aram Gavoor, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The George Washington University Law School

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p 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

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Is the breakup of an increasingly polarized America into separate red and blue countries even possible? There is a growing interest in American secession. In February 2023, Marjorie Taylor Greene tweeted that "We need a national divorce...We need to separate by red states and blue states." Recent movements like Yes California have called for a national divorce along political lines. A 2023 Axios poll shows that 20 percent of Americans favor a national divorce. These trends show a sincere interest in American secession, and they will likely increase in the aftermath of the 2024 Presidential election. Proponents of secession make three arguments: the two sides have irreconcilable differences; secession is a legal right; and smaller political units are better. Through interviews with secessionist advocates in America, Ryan Griffiths explores the case for why Red America and Blue America should split up. But as The Disunited States shows, these arguments are fundamentally incorrect. Secession is the wrong solution to the problem of polarization. Red and Blue America are not neatly sorted and geographically concentrated. Splitting the two parts would require a dangerous unmixing of the population, one that could spiral into violence and state collapse. Drawing on his expertise on secessionism worldwide, he shows how the process has played out internationally-and usually disastrously. Ultimately, this book will disabuse readers of the belief that secession will fix America's problems. Rather than focus on national divorce as a solution, the better course of action is to seek common ground. Ryan D. Griffiths is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. His research focuses on the dynamics of secession and the study of sovereignty, state systems, and international orders. He teaches on topics related to nationalism, international relations, and international relations theory. Daniel Moran's writing about literature and film can be found on Pages and Frames. He earned his B.A. and M.A. in English from Rutgers University and his Ph.D. in History from Drew University. The author of Creating Flannery O'Connor: Her Critics, Her Publishers, Her Readers, he teaches research and writing and co-hosts the long-running p Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

With Saudi recognition of Israel off the table, pro-Israeli and Israeli pundits and far-right and conservative pro-Israel groups in the United States are pushing the kingdom to become an aggressive regional player in Israel's mould. The pundits and groups want Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to abandon his de-escalation policy, including the kingdom's fragile freezing of its differences with Iran, and to reignite his ill-fated 2015 military campaign against Iran-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen that sparked one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. Proponents of a Saudi Arabia, that like Israel would impose its will with military force, believe that a more assertive kingdom would allow Israel to outsource its fight with the Houthis, revive the notion of an Israeli-Gulf anti-Iran and anti-Turkey alliance, help Saudi Arabia resolve differences with the United Arab Emirates, Israel's best Arab friend, and potentially give the possibility of Saudi recognition of Israel and a key role in post-war Gaza a new lease on life. To garner support among US administration hawks and President Donald J. Trump's isolationist Make America Great Again (MAGA) support base, the pundits and conservative think tanks argue that Saudi Arabia's de-escalation policy and informal ceasefire with the Houthis have enabled rebel missile attacks against Israel and US naval vessels and commercial shipping in the Red Sea.

Welcome to the Grace in Focus podcast. Today, Bob Wilkin and David Renfro are answering a suggestion that perhaps free grace proponents use John 20:31 to prove that John is the only evangelistic book inthe Bible. How is proof texting used correctly and/or erroneously? What part does intent and context play in determining meaning? Thanks

Twenty-four states allow community and technical colleges to issue bachelors degrees. Proponents argue that these programs are tightly aligned to workforce needs, more affordable, and meet the needs of people who live far or otherwise can't attend a university. Critics are concerned about the quality of education, financing these programs, and competing for enrollment with nearby universities. Guests Dr. Debra Bragg, Jim Reed, and Sunaina Virendra talk through these issue and discuss recent efforts to launch new community college baccalaureate programs.

Proponents of offal-eating point out that it's just polite to use every part of a beast we've killed .... it's really the least we can doIt's cheap, it's nutritious, it's full of protein - so why are we still steering away from eating every part of the animal, including offalOne of Hannah Miller Childs' go-to bar snacks is chicken hearts."A bit of mustard, you can eat it with a toothpick," she says.You could also chop it up, add it into mince and make it a full nutritious meal.Adding offal to mince in government school lunches last week hit the headlines because parents hadn't been warned it was coming…Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Canada's chief science adviser is recommending that the federal government start tracking information about bizarre sightings in the sky, whether they're Chinese balloons or even UFOs. Proponents, such as researcher Chris Rutkowski, believe that keeping track will allow us to gain a better understanding of what is happening in the upper atmosphere.

Proponents of Artificial Intelligence assure us that everything in life is about to change: Work, education, healthcare, art, and even how we remember our loved ones. But what role can AI actually play in alleviating psychological and emotional suffering, especially when a parent loses a child? Welcome to the mind of author Jayson Greene, who penned the celebrated memoir Once More We Saw Stars back in 2019 after the tragic loss of his daughter Greta, and who's very familiar with how opportunistic companies position AI technology as a solution to avoid feeling the pain of grief and loss. On this episode of Paternal, Greene discusses the AI themes in his debut sci-fi novel UnWorld,  how he's faring 10 years after the death of his daughter, what he's learned about how men connect over grief, and what it's like to receive DMs from strangers who have lost their child. He also examines how he and his wife Stacy dealt with grief differently in the wake of Greta's death, and why he often wonders what kind of person he has become after losing her. Greene previously appeared on Episode No. 38 of Paternal back in 2020.

Today, Sun outdoors reporter Jason Blevins reviews the myriad of policy changes and proposals coming out of D.C. that focus on public lands and how advocates across the outdoor industry are uniting to fight back. Read more: https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/24/gop-plan-to-sell-more-than-3200-square-miles-of-federal-lands-is-found-to-violate-senate-rules/ https://coloradosun.com/2025/06/23/roadless-rule-reversal-colorado-federal-lands/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Saturday, 21 June 2025   and said to Him, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?” Matthew 11:3   “...they said to Him, ‘You, You are ‘the coming,' or do another we anticipate?” (CG).   In the previous verse, it noted that John the Baptist had heard about Jesus' works in prison and sent two of his disciples. Now, it notes that “they said to Him, “You, You are ‘the Coming?'”   One can see the emphatic nature of his question, directly speaking to Jesus with the pronoun su, You, followed by the verb which repeats the thought, You are. John's question about “the Coming” suggests nothing other than the anticipated Messiah. However, it is debated what he is referring to. Several general suggestions are –   * His faith is failing, and he is wondering if his original thoughts concerning Jesus were incorrect. * He has heard of the works of Jesus and is not sure if this is the same Person he baptized. * His disciples need to know that He is the Messiah, and so he sent them to confirm to them that this is the One. * He is trying to spur Jesus to make his proclamation that He is, in fact, the Messiah.   Proponents of these, and various other scenarios, state their reasons for their view. As for John's words, they continue with, “or do another we anticipate?”   The word prosdokaó, to anticipate, is introduced. This anticipation can be in thought, in waiting, in hope, in fear, etc. It is derived from pros, to or toward, and dokeuo, to watch. It is as if someone is leaning forward intently, watching for their anticipation to arrive or materialize. What John asks about concerning this anticipation is “another.”   Here he uses the word héteros, another, but of a distinct kind. The word állos, another of the same kind, is not used. John has heard of the works of the Christ. Hearing of them, he is now confused. The works of Jesus have been clearly presented to him, something Jesus will confirm in His response to John. Jesus' response will imply that He knows John is already aware of those things.   Therefore, John is not questioning his faith in Jesus. He would know full well that this is the same Person he baptized. His disciples also already know He is the proclaimed Messiah. John could have saved them the effort and just reminded them of this.   This is especially so because John 1 records that two of John's disciples heard his words and followed Jesus. The fact was already known and established. There is no reason to assume that John is trying to spur Jesus to proclaim that He is the Messiah. If that were so, Jesus would have responded as He did with His mother, saying that His hour had not yet come.   The use of “the Christ” in the previous verse could have been substituted with “Jesus.” If that were the case, one could assume John was questioning Jesus as the Christ. The use of the word heteros, another of a different kind, is telling us that John is thinking of another Person who will come to do other types of things for Israel, including securing his release from prison as Isaiah prophesied.   John is turning inward just as Elijah and Jeremiah did. He has temporarily misunderstood that God's plans may not include his personal comfort or happiness, and he is wondering if someone else would be coming to fulfill the prophecies that Jesus is clearly leaving unfulfilled. Jesus' response to his petition will confirm this.   Life application: How often do we hear of people prophesying healing, financial breakthrough, the date of the rapture, and so forth? These utterances are complete fabrications without any biblical support for their words. And yet, these are the most popular types of promises, and those who make them generally will have many followers.   Even when their words don't come true, they will just make up more promises and keep stringing people along. Why does this happen? The answer is that people want to be reassured that their suffering will end. They want to be reassured that their financial woes will be remedied. They want release from the pains, trials, and demands of this life and so they listen to rapture predictors who will give them words of exit into eternal bliss.   This is the human condition. It is not limited to Christianity. This is why there are astrologists, horoscope teachers, palm readers, and ear ticklers in any religion around the world. People want something to meet their expectations, and so they will go to any length to obtain words that will provide an acceptable answer to what they seek.   The Bible does not tell us when the rapture will happen. The Bible does not tell us that we can be healed of afflictions by a call from the pulpit. If you want to get out of your financial woes and alleviate your hunger, the Bible tells you to be industrious and work for it (see 2 Thessalonians 3:10 and spend time in the Proverbs).   God does not promise you a life of ease while here on earth. In fact, we can expect the opposite (John 16:33, etc.). God promises us forgiveness of sins and eternal fellowship with Him when we call on Jesus. Until we are brought to Him at the resurrection/rapture, everything else may be good or it may be bad. We have to accept this and press on in the hope of His future promises. Be sure to have this attitude. When you do, you will avoid many mental pitfalls.   Lord God, help us to keep our focus on Jesus as we walk through this difficult and trial-filled world. May we remember to thank You for each blessing we receive, and may we be faithful to not charge You with wrong when difficult times come. Help us to have this attitude until that great Day when we are finally brought to You when Jesus calls. Amen.  

It was the morning after the recent British Sauna Summit in London. Stig Arild Pettersen Secretary General of the Norwegian Sauna Association and I meet up at London's Hackney Baths, which is a perfect backdrop for us to discuss the “Badstu Boom” taking place in Norway and the US. As part of his Secretary General role, Stig heads up the Norweigen version of Sauna Talk – Badstuprat, a title gently borrowed from yours truly and this program. From Britain and beyond Britain, having their own “brilliant” bathing renaissance, drew both Stig from the East and me from the West for the Sauna Summit. Our Sauna Talk podcast on the bench dives into the comparing and contrasting of sauna culture in each of our countries. And within hours of this recording, I flung my backpack over my shoulder to fly from London to Oslo to experience the Badstu boom myself. And, there's something wonderful about talking about a countries sauna boom, then touching down within hours and hitting the bench with some fellow sauna nuts in their native land. Stig and I are kindred spirits on several levels. Proponents of good heat, and positive vibrations of a culture reinventing and rediscovering itself. As example, there are pockets in North America where sauna has been woven into the tapestry for generations – places like the Upper Peninsula Michigan, Northern Minnesota, Thunder Bay Ontario – all places where “the big three” 1. ethnic migration, four distinct seasons, natural cold water elements abound. Norwegian Sauna Association But back to Norway. Stig and I discuss how sauna, badstu is in the DNA of all Norweigens. Like in Finland, a hop skip and jump over Sweden to the East, sauna action can be anthropologically documented back thousands of years. One look at the photos of Norweigen Sauna Association board members – young smiling healthy faces – and you get a flavor of who is helping bolster the Badstu boom. And for me, these are the kind of people I am very comfortable with sharing the sauna bench, and beyond. Lasse Eriksen, with a full page sauna resume and two time guest to Sauna Talk, Ragna Marie Fjeld, Secretary General Oslo Sauna Association, Knut Lerhol – if beers weren't $12 a piece in Norway, and a rental car the equivalent of a monthly salary, well, Norway would be a place to spend a month between 180f. and cold water fjord cold plunges. The Sauna Talk Global series continues.. Good heat knows no borders. And on the bench from London, let's welcome Stig from Norway, special guest hello with Mark from Great Britain, and yours truly from the United States.

207: DO YOU KNOW THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF AN ALKALINE DIET? Proponents claim it can help with a variety of health conditions, so today we are going over what those are, what foods to eat on an alkaline diet, and what foods to avoid. As always, if you have any questions for the show please email us at digestthispod@gmail.com.  And if you like this show, please share it, rate it, review it and subscribe to it on your favorite podcast app.  Sponsored By: Fatty15 | For 15% off the starter kit go to fatty15.com/digest BIOptimizers | Go to bioptimizers.com/digest and use code: DIGEST for 10% off Check Out Bethany: Bethany's Instagram: @lilsipper YouTube Bethany's Website Discounts & My Favorite Products My Digestive Support Protein Powder Gut Reset Book  Get my Newsletters (Friday Finds)

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.  They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions.  Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation.  The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions.  However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement.  The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government's behavior toward non-parties.Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country.  Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s.  Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand.  Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making.  These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class.The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship.  Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies.  He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of. The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.”  Watch this episode https://www.youtube.com/live/sww0QMst_SY-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/ http://tstradio.info/https://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.com EMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

The REAL ID Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in May of 2005, as part of https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/real-id-act-text.pdf (H.R. 1268). Due to costs, logistical issues, legal questions, its full implementation was delayed until 2008, 2011, 2013, and then in 2014 set to be gradually introduced instead. But delays continued into 2020, 2021, and finally until https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2025-04/25_0414_fps_id-requirements-for-federal-facilities.pdf, when it went into full force - kind of.  The REAL ID is a new form of https://www.tsa.gov/real-id/about-real-id. Even after 20 years of preparations, implementation is causing widespread confusion across U.S. airports. Up to 7% of domestic flight customers still do not have the new ID and this, mixed with general confusion about requirements, regulations, enforcement, etc., are causing delays and heightening suspicion of every citizen, especially because of the growing frustration and additional screening procedures put in place. However, those without the REAL ID can still fly. How? Well, they will be subject to additional security and the TSA will have to manually check their regular driver's licenses like they always have. These people may also be subject to additional questioning and documentation checkpoints. https://www.tsa.gov/news/press/releases/2025/04/28/tsa-lehigh-valley-international-airport-gets-new-credential?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd591leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR6mF6CiS3Eva2ofGQGsU3L5tLIhNJkpUFiZAm1K74M_UpSAsEciqQY_oTWBKA_aem_3wMgsHVa4FW3Utc3QwY9qA just introduced new credential authentication technology to improve checkpoint screening procedures, yet another layer of security. https://www.usa.gov/real-id“Yes. If you do not upgrade your license or state ID, you can use a passport or one of these other acceptable forms of identification to fly.” The list provided includes everything from passports to tribal IDs and enhanced driver's licenses or enhanced identification cards, themselves basically state-run programs akin to the federal REAL ID. What it does not say is that you still may be able to fly without any of those additional ID cards. U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that the exemption is not just a temporary measure while the bugs are worked out or a matter of presenting a passport: “If it's not compliant, they may be diverted to a different line, have an extra step, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/.” Without a REAL ID you can still travel, but you will likely be subject to the same, or increased, harassment, demeaning comments, or downright assault, by TSA agents trained to see noncompliants as terrorists. Anyone having ever opted out of the full body scanner knows this to be true. And by definition, this is coercion: “the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.” The same tactics were used from 2020-2023 for health related reasons.A https://www.yahoo.com/news/know-getting-real-id-090257989.html: "Passengers who present a state-issued identification that is not REAL ID compliant and who do not have another acceptable alternative (i.e., passport) can expect to face delays, additional screening and the possibility of not being permitted into the security checkpoint.” Notice that the words “the possibility” and not the actual guarantee itself, i.e., coercion. And coercion is one of the main red lines in the sand for any constitutionality of the REAL ID in the first place, because the anti-commandeering doctrine of SCOTUS prohibits federal authorities form compelling states to enact or administer federal programs - also, see Fourth Amendment and Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states and people. This can be avoided by outsourcing the whole thing, including the database. Each state has a motor vehicle department which collects and stores the data for REAL ID and EDL or EIC. All of that data is this shared with the private nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), run by boards, directors, and other agency affiliations related to the DMV in each state. Also, non-governmental entities, including corporations, nonprofits, local governments, and individual law enforcement agencies, that align with AAMVA's goals but do not have voting rights in governance, run the AAMVA. As of May 21, 2025, reports are making the rounds that the https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/news/2025/05/21/tsa-airport-security-privatization/83767563007/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKd599leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFvaEh4VWJ3RmJadVFVdUhBAR5FprsNQe5xs23YIi93GovLHkVz87_r7qfnoNZEfe15q7-Oznos2DTb5Lwmeg_aem_Uo91GFvr1c-9wZtd0-Rxag. The REAL ID has never fully been challenged due to political compromise resulting in delays, and states slowly adopting the standard. It's not illegal if states and people adopt the policy themselves through a sort of drawn out coercion of threats and the thought that it will never be fully implemented anyways after twenty years. Proponents, of course, argue that it keeps the country safe, linking the lack of these national ID cards to the cause of 911 - argued for under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause. As https://www.yahoo.com/news/real-id-america-now-national-110039671.html, however, “With REAL ID, America now has National ID cards and Internal Passports.”Interestingly, the original bill specifically says the Secretary of Homeland Security can expand the use of REAL ID for “any other purposes” they “shall determine,” with no other authorization. When you https://www.dhs.gov/archive/real-id-public-faqs, they say “No. REAL ID is a national set of standards, not a national identification card. REAL ID does not create a federal database of driver license information. Each jurisdiction continues to issue its own unique license, maintains its own records, and controls who gets access to those records and under what circumstances. The purpose of REAL ID is to make our identity documents more consistent and secure.”In other words, it's not a card but a standard; its not a federal database, but a state database that links to a nonprofit controlled by the federal government; it's about privacy, even though the records are collected as part of a drag net of coercion and threats; it's about ensuring consistency, but each jurisdiction issues its own “unique license” like they always have. Of course, none of this is discussed, debated, or even known by the public. Instead, they read heartfelt stories about https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/a-challenging-real-id-process-is-stranding-immigrants/ar-AA1F7FE9 who are essentially exempt anyways if they have a permanent resident card, border crossing card, foreign issued passport, immigration services card, and the like. Or they hear about https://www.yahoo.com/news/watch-fake-real-id-sites-164059826.html targeting travelers, as if the “real” REAL ID isn't itself a scam and unconstitutional, which is probably the main reason that DHS says https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-homeland-security-chief-says-travelers-without-real-id-will-be-allowed-fly-2025-05-06/” even without it. So what's the point? It's more extortion for profit (like TSA pre-check), security theater (like hygiene theater in 2020), coercive tactics to enforce compliance with illegal and unlawful dictates (like masking), and another step in criminalizing law abiding citizens (like the https://www.newsweek.com/what-quiet-skies-details-about-secret-flight-spy-program-revealed-1047915). Even the name is a scam, the “REAL ID” as opposed to all those fake sate issued ones by the same states that are now going to be forced to issue the true REAL ID. It's like “patriot act” or “big, beautiful bill.” *The is the FREE archive, which includes advertisements. If you want an ad-free experience, you can subscribe below underneath the show description.-https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tst-radio--5328407https://thesecretteachings.info/donate-subscribe/https://x.com/TST___Radio https://www.facebook.com/thesecretteachingshttps://www.youtube.com/@TSTRadioOfficialhttp://tstradio.infohttps://cash.app/$rdgable: $rdgable Paypal email rdgable1991@gmail.comEMAIL: rdgable@yahoo.com / TSTRadio@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-secret-teachings--5328407/support.

After Dark with Hosts Rob & Andrew – Discover a bold, widely debated proposal under Trump's administration offering eligible undocumented residents a free flight and $1,000 one-time payment to voluntarily return to their home countries. Proponents claim this cost-effective, humane approach eases detention burdens, reduces enforcement expenses, and balances toughness with compassion in crafting complex national immigration policy.

Proponents of vaccines have contended with waves of skepticism and controversy in recent years, and even if you're first in line for your booster, the doses have stacked up in a way that inspire questions. Today, Dr. Sanjay Gupta sets the record straight on whether you can ever be too vaccinated. He also answers a question related to menopause and the supplement, creatine.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to the fourth episode in a series called “The Failures of Old Earth Creationism.” Many Christians attempt to fit old earth ideology into their beliefs, adopting uniformitarian or evolutionary pieces into their worldview. While this is often done in an effort to appeal to science, it can cause major logical, scientific, and theological issues. Proponents of biological evolution claim that creatures are evolving upward over millions of years, becoming better and ‘more fit’ to survive with each successive generation through the accumulation of ‘beneficial mutations.’ However, even the most cursory dive into genetics shows something entirely different. In fact, the accumulation of mutations is detrimental, and also causes major problems with the concept of biologically long ages. In today’s episode we’ll explore the evidence in an effort to reveal what’s going on beneath the skin. Join host Renée Dusseau and Dr. Jeff Tomkins as they discuss this topic on episode 96 of The Creation Podcast. Resources: Genetic Clocks Verify Recent Creation --- ... More...