Podcasts about united states scotus

Many believe the Biden administration, happily and now an historical footnote, fostered an anti-Christian approach to politics, culture, and lifestyle generally. That was so even though Biden was a self-proclaiming Catholic Christian.In the Biden administration, there really were none in high positions who were publicly confessing Christians. That of course, under the Trump administration, has significantly changed, and changed for the better. There are those in leadership in America now who come to their awesome responsibilities as public citizens and representatives of WE THE PEOPLE with a biblical influence in their lives, even an outright Christian testimony. What a blessing that is for America, for Christianity, and for:FREEDOM OF RELIGIONfor all Americans, the FIRST AMENDMENT really at work!I do hope and pray that you know by heart, by memory, those First Amendment freedoms. They include and especially so:THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION.The freedom to practice any religion of choice. Or, none at all. Your call. But there can be no restriction on religious freedom and worship of any kind, so says the First Amendment. Let people believe and worship as they please. We The Christians, born again, evangelical, denominational, Roman Catholic, are free not only to worship as we please, but to believe as we please. Few countries in this modern age allow that, and so many nations abridge that freedom, attack it, attempt to control it, or even eliminate it. Not so with the Trump administration. Trump has pledged to reinvigorate the old Christian America, to respect Christianity and all its forms, and to make absolutely certain that there is no persecution, disrespect, or attempts to control this precious faith.And the same for Jews. Antisemitism is on the rise, one of the most ugly things in the entire history of mankind and now even resurrected today. So many politicos, academics, and even many in business and higher up in corporations turn a blind eye or actually foster antisemitism. That will all end under the Trump administration. Amen to that.And there is absolute freedom to worship for all other religions, including Islam, the Hindu religion, and any other legitimate religion. That is the American promise, the Constitutional guarantee, that sacred Frist Amendment freedom and it will be respected more than ever, more than under the administration of Obama or Biden, as the Constitution has always promised.That beloved First Amendment also guarantees freedom of speech and press. More than ever, that will be reinvigorated and protected. Both such freedoms are absolutely essential with regard to the full and free practice of religion.And the same for the other First Amendment freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, namely freedom of assembly and freedom of petition. Churches, gatherings, services, the congregations of people in worship can feel the old constitutional freedoms under the Trump administration more than ever. Amen to that. Make it happen President Donald J. Trump, MAKE IT HAPPEN!DEFENSE. Our Department of Defense needs change, even radical change back. It has become woke, socialized, racially concerned, all to the detriment of its clear and primary priority and mission, namely, the development and growth of the greatest military, army, navy, and marines, and more, that the world has ever known. We need an aggressive, remade and revitalized Department of Defense and branches of the military. We have threats to our great country like never before, threats from China, especially China in this modern day and age, and our old nemesis Russia, and North Korea, a rising nuclear power, and of course Iran, which literally hates the Great Satan, the America we love. All four and more would love to see the end of America and given the right circumstances, whether all-out war, or terrorism, or limited combat, they are ready, hatred brimming, to destroy America or as much of it as they can.Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, intends to change the department, bring in new leadership, develop meaningful financial budgets and the support of Congress and develop the weapons, offensive and defensive, which our country desperately needs, especially to keep pace with China. It seems inevitable that we will have warfare of some sort with China sometime in the future, perhaps the near future.We, America, must be ready!THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM. More than ever judges at any level of the federal judiciary and all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will play an important and primary role in the development of the philosophy, policies, and future of our country. There are many, very many, judgeships unfilled and can be filled by the appointments of the president of the United States. President Trump intends to do just that. He is well aware of the need to appoint judges and the right kind of judges, fair thinking judges who will make the right decisions for America. In the first Trump administration, 2017-2021, Trump nominated three Supreme Court justices, all were confirmed by the Senate, and all were fair minded or conservative leaning. They were the outstanding scholars including:1.Neil Gorsuch2.Anthony Kennedy3.Amy Coney BarrettMuch litigation will be decided by the Supreme Court, critical for America, and there will be many emergency hearings on the basis of critical and immediate need of our country, which will be decided upon by the Supreme Court in short order. Trump has issued dozens of Executive Orders, many are being challenged by liberals, radicals, and democrats, and the Supreme Court will be more active with emergency hearings perhaps than in any other administration. We can only hope for fair results, for the vast majority of those executive orders are exactly what America needs, they are legal, thorough, and they create the change-back which again, our country desperately needs. We were under Biden on a pathway to Socialism, even Marxism, and so many of these executive orders put a stop to so much of that. I say Amen to that, and I trust you do as well. What do you think of the first six weeks in office of Donald J. Trump?Franklin Graham, the marvelous evangelical evangelist and pastor, son of perhaps the greatest evangelist ever in the history of America, Billy Graham, prays himself that President Trump will surround himself with men and women who will give him Godly counsel and advice, and urges us, we the Christian people of America, to do the very same. I do hope and pray that you will. President Trump will be challenged the world over, and especially by China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. But Trump is tough, no nonsense, determined, and not at all intimidated, and no nation or foreign leader will intimidate him no matter what they do. As world events unfold in the next four years, WE THE PEOPLE should both:WATCH AND PRAY.We should follow the advice of the Apostle Paul in I Timothy 2:1-3, where this God-sent apostle admonishes us as follows:“THEREFORE, I EXHORT FIRST OF ALL THAT SUPPLICATIONS, PRAYERS, INTERCESSIONS, AND GIVING OF THANKS BE MADE FOR ALL MEN, FOR KINGS, AND ALL WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY, THAT WE MAY LEAD A QUIET AND PEACEABLE LIFE IN ALL GODLINESS AND REVERENCE FOR THIS IS GOOD AND ACCEPTABLE IN THE SIGHT OF GOD OUR SAVIOR.”So, my fellow Christians, prayers. And intercessions. And giving of thanks. So that WE THE PEOPLE may lead a quiet and peaceable life, and be assured of the rights in the Constitution which are justly ours. Why? Because this is good, says Paul, and not only acceptable in the sight of God our savior, but what this God, our Lord Jesus Christ wants for us.So, my fellow Americans, pray for President Trump, and all who advise him, all of our leaders, secretaries of various departments, our Congress, House, and Senate, our courts and our Supreme Court, pray for all of them. Pray for anyone who is in authority and who works for us. Pray that the wisdom of God Almighty will guide President Trump and all political others so that America can be great again. Pray thatthe promises of Donald J. Trump will be fulfilled that indeed, the four years of the second Trump administration will:MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN (MAGA)!

Title: Election Experts Warn of 'Destabilizing Unrest' amidst Trump Case: A Call to the Supreme Court A tumultuous climate of potential 'destabilizing unrest' has been forecasted by legal scholars if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) fails to arrive at a swift decision concerning the Trump case, underlining the urgency of an escalating situation that holds the potential to stir a constitutional crisis. This stark warning was issued through an Amicus Brief to SCOTUS, emphasizing that the chance of a full-blown constitutional crisis is 'disturbingly high.' The lawyers raising this warning registered their deep concerns about the directional course of the nation. Highlighting the potentiality of an unsettling clash between different arms of the government, they painted a scenario that unarguably threatens the bedrock of constitutional democracy.Former President Donald Trump, who currently finds himself in the eye of the storm, continues to be a dominant figure in American politics, with his trail of controversies tending to follow suit. The case in point, causing a significant stir among legal and political scholars alike, seeks to assess whether Trump misused his executive powers while in office, an issue that holds dire implications for American democratic institutions if left unresolved.Parallel to these developments, independent commentators like Jack Smith have also weighed in on the situation. Smith, a respected political analyst, delineates the case amongst his followers as a crucial precedent-setter. He rights that "the vigour with which this case is addressed and resolved by the Supreme Court can impart conspicuous message about the rule of law in the United States."As Smith points out, the stakes are high as the case goes beyond Trump as an individual and touches upon the broader implications for executive power and constitutional democracy in the United States.Caught between a fast-approaching constitutional crisis and the need to uphold democratic norms, commentators, legal scholars and the general public alike wait with bated breath for the SCOTUS ruling. The case underscores the delicate balance that the country's top court is mandated to maintain – safeguarding democratic institutions while resolving fiercely contested issues in the fabric of the nation's politics.As the tension mounts, the nation braces for a landmark judgment that will shape the course of American democratic practice in the years to come. From political celebrities to common citizens, all eyes rest on SCOTUS, underscoring the urgency of a swift, fair, and just ruling.

Guessing the outcomes of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) can be challenging, and, sometimes, the court's decisions leave you scratching your head. Jack and Gonzo discuss our current court's propensity to rule in favor of popular conservative causes. If the casinos in Vegas took bets on how SCOTUS were to decide a case, the odds makers probably wouldn't give long odds, because you pretty much know how the justices will rule by their political affiliation. Oh, sure, the justices are supposed to look at each case objectively, but we're all subject to subliminal inclinations and beliefs that guide us. Even the justices.Jack and Gonzo take a look at two cases to explain. The first concerns Marcellus Williams, a black man of humble means, who was convicted of murder. His attorney asked SCOTUS to stay Williams' execution (legal speak, for temporarily stopping the execution) because of multiple problems with the case. It wasn't a matter of asking the court to overturn Williams' conviction, just a pause. SCOTUS was asked to intervene so as to avoid the very real possibility that the state of Missouri might execute an innocent man. Even the prosecuting attorney for the county where Williams was convicted was advocating for a stay, and the family of the person who was murdered stated that Williams should not be executed.But a majority of justices (all appointed by Republican presidents) couldn't be bothered and didn't grant the stay. And Williams was executed.The second case concerns how SCOTUS handled the Trump immunity case. With nothing in the constitution about presidential immunity—literally, not a single word or even an inference about immunity—the court held that presidents have immunity for just about everything they do. Respected constitutional lawyers were stunned. The court couldn't be bothered to stay the execution of a black man who grew up in an impoverished and dysfunctional household, but the court went out of its way to protect a man of privilege. The two cases really make you question where the court is.

**Whole Whale Podcast Episode: Innovations, Advocacy, and the Future of Nonprofit Strategy** In this enlightening episode of the Whole Whale Podcast, George Weiner, alongside digital strategist Nick Azoulay, unravels a series of compelling updates and discussions that span the gamut of nonprofit innovation, legal advocacy, and strategic insights aimed at navigating the dynamic landscape of the nonprofit sector. **Whole Whale's Google Ad Grant Cohort Announcement** George Weiner kicks off the episode with exciting news about Whole Whale's Google Ad Grant Cohort. Despite initial hesitance due to a busy schedule, the overwhelming interest from nonprofits has led to the program's return this summer, starting July 17th. Limited to 25 organizations, with priority given to internal clients, this initiative has been pivotal in advancing nonprofits' capabilities in managing the $10,000 a month Google Ad Grant. The cohort is designed to significantly boost participants' proficiency in digital advertising, akin to training them as members of the Whole Whale ads team. **Supreme Court's Examination of Homelessness Criminalization** The conversation shifts to a critical legal development as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) scrutinizes the criminalization of homelessness, spotlighting a contentious case from Grants Pass, Oregon. This case challenges anti-camping laws under the Eighth Amendment, questioning the constitutionality of penalizing the unsheltered when no adequate shelter options are available. Activists and major advocacy organizations argue that such laws exacerbate the homelessness crisis, urging for more humane and inclusive solutions. This discussion underscores the complex, systemic issues surrounding homelessness, with George and Nick expressing deep concerns over the punitive approach and its implications. **FCC Restores Net Neutrality** The episode then delves into the FCC's landmark decision to restore net neutrality, a move that has sparked debate across political and business spectrums. This reinstatement ensures that broadband providers are classified as common carriers, promoting a free and open internet. While some critics fear it may hinder innovation and increase regulatory burdens, George and Nick highlight the broad support for net neutrality among nonprofits and advocacy groups, emphasizing its importance for equitable access to information and digital rights. **M&R Benchmarks for 2024** George and Nick analyze the latest M&R Benchmarks report, revealing trends in nonprofit marketing and fundraising. Key findings include a slight decline in online revenue, a significant increase in monthly giving, and the continued dominance of desktop devices for larger donations despite the prevalence of mobile traffic. The data presents a mixed bag of challenges and opportunities, with a notable shift towards increased advertising investments, particularly in radio spending. This segment offers valuable insights for nonprofits looking to refine their marketing and fundraising strategies. **The Pitch: A Philanthropic Spin on Shark Tank** Ending on a high note, the episode highlights "The Pitch," an innovative event hosted by the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas in North Texas. This philanthropic twist on Shark Tank sees five local nonprofit startups competing for $275,000 in funding, presenting their solutions to community issues before celebrity judges and a live audience. George and Nick applaud this creative approach to fundraising and awareness, recognizing its potential to foster community engagement and spotlight the impactful work of nonprofits. In closing, the episode not only informs but also inspires, urging nonprofits to embrace innovation, advocate for justice, and strategically navigate the challenges and opportunities ahead. With a blend of humor and heartfelt discussion, George and Nick provide a comprehensive overview of the latest developments affecting the nonprofit sector.

**Whole Whale Podcast Episode: Innovations, Advocacy, and the Future of Nonprofit Strategy** In this enlightening episode of the Whole Whale Podcast, George Weiner, alongside digital strategist Nick Azoulay, unravels a series of compelling updates and discussions that span the gamut of nonprofit innovation, legal advocacy, and strategic insights aimed at navigating the dynamic landscape of the nonprofit sector. **Whole Whale's Google Ad Grant Cohort Announcement** George Weiner kicks off the episode with exciting news about Whole Whale's Google Ad Grant Cohort. Despite initial hesitance due to a busy schedule, the overwhelming interest from nonprofits has led to the program's return this summer, starting July 17th. Limited to 25 organizations, with priority given to internal clients, this initiative has been pivotal in advancing nonprofits' capabilities in managing the $10,000 a month Google Ad Grant. The cohort is designed to significantly boost participants' proficiency in digital advertising, akin to training them as members of the Whole Whale ads team. **Supreme Court's Examination of Homelessness Criminalization** The conversation shifts to a critical legal development as the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) scrutinizes the criminalization of homelessness, spotlighting a contentious case from Grants Pass, Oregon. This case challenges anti-camping laws under the Eighth Amendment, questioning the constitutionality of penalizing the unsheltered when no adequate shelter options are available. Activists and major advocacy organizations argue that such laws exacerbate the homelessness crisis, urging for more humane and inclusive solutions. This discussion underscores the complex, systemic issues surrounding homelessness, with George and Nick expressing deep concerns over the punitive approach and its implications. **FCC Restores Net Neutrality** The episode then delves into the FCC's landmark decision to restore net neutrality, a move that has sparked debate across political and business spectrums. This reinstatement ensures that broadband providers are classified as common carriers, promoting a free and open internet. While some critics fear it may hinder innovation and increase regulatory burdens, George and Nick highlight the broad support for net neutrality among nonprofits and advocacy groups, emphasizing its importance for equitable access to information and digital rights. **M&R Benchmarks for 2024** George and Nick analyze the latest M&R Benchmarks report, revealing trends in nonprofit marketing and fundraising. Key findings include a slight decline in online revenue, a significant increase in monthly giving, and the continued dominance of desktop devices for larger donations despite the prevalence of mobile traffic. The data presents a mixed bag of challenges and opportunities, with a notable shift towards increased advertising investments, particularly in radio spending. This segment offers valuable insights for nonprofits looking to refine their marketing and fundraising strategies. **The Pitch: A Philanthropic Spin on Shark Tank** Ending on a high note, the episode highlights "The Pitch," an innovative event hosted by the United Way of Metropolitan Dallas in North Texas. This philanthropic twist on Shark Tank sees five local nonprofit startups competing for $275,000 in funding, presenting their solutions to community issues before celebrity judges and a live audience. George and Nick applaud this creative approach to fundraising and awareness, recognizing its potential to foster community engagement and spotlight the impactful work of nonprofits. In closing, the episode not only informs but also inspires, urging nonprofits to embrace innovation, advocate for justice, and strategically navigate the challenges and opportunities ahead. With a blend of humor and heartfelt discussion, George and Nick provide a comprehensive overview of the latest developments affecting the nonprofit sector.

Join T, Fortenberry, and Marty as they discuss the headlines of the day and their personal adventures.The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decides that Trump cannot be left off the ballot!Fortenberry shares his adventures in Dallas!Marty meets a Bourbon Icon Freddy!

What happens if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) dismantles decades of government agency discretion? Recent cases at SCOTUS indicate that this could happen. But what would be the consequences?During the next live edition of the long-running Internet radio broadcast Monitor Mondays, RACmonitor's own physician and attorney Dr. John K Hall will consider the ramifications of the demise of the so-called “Chevron Deference” currently enjoyed by federal agencies.Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Adam Brenman, federal legislative analyst for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.

What happens if the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) dismantles decades of government agency discretion? Recent cases at SCOTUS indicate that this could happen. But what would be the consequences?During the next live edition of the long-running Internet radio broadcast Monitor Mondays, RACmonitor's own physician and attorney Dr. John K Hall will consider the ramifications of the demise of the so-called “Chevron Deference” currently enjoyed by federal agencies.Broadcast segments will also include these instantly recognizable features:• Monday Rounds: Ronald Hirsch, MD, vice president of R1 RCM, will be making his Monday Rounds.• The RAC Report: Healthcare attorney Knicole Emanuel, partner at the law firm of Nelson Mullins, will report the latest news about auditors.• Risky Business: Healthcare attorney David Glaser, shareholder in the law offices of Fredrikson & Byron, will join the broadcast with his trademark segment.• Legislative Update: Adam Brenman, federal legislative analyst for Zelis, will report on current healthcare legislation.

YOU DECIDE 2024 coverage continues as today, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will hear arguments in the matter of the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling that former President Trump is ineligible for office per the 14th Amendment insurrection clause.

National Polygamy Advocate ™ Mark Henkel provides the INTRO (as Part 1) to new multi-part mini-series of the Reynolds v. United States Decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 1878. In previous episodes, Mark Henkel has shared Step 1, Step 2, and "The INTERIM" of the originating 4 steps of the "Government Subterfuge of Anti-Polygamy Laws." For this Step 3, "SCOTUS Decision: Reynolds v. United States of 1878," Mark Henkel will share all of Step 3 as a multi-part mini-series of several podcast episodes. In this Part 1 / INTRO episode here, Mark Henkel shares the specific "6 questions" that the 1878 SCOTUS was asked to address in the case. To be more fully prepared for this mini-series, listeners will want to have first listened to Episode #306 (the last previous one) for the RECAP. ⁠⁠http://www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nationalpolygamyadvocate/support

Brett Edkins, Managing Director, Policy & Political Affairs at Stand Up America, agrees that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), is the most undemocratic portion of our government. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicsdoneright/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/politicsdoneright/support

In late June, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) struck down the Biden administration's plan to forgive student debtThe Biden Administration has vowed to move forward with loan forgiveness under separate legal authoritiesWhat's Next?The SCOTUS decision follows a three-year pause in loan repayments for millions of American students that began in March 2020If you have federal student loans, interest will start accruing on Sept. 1, 2023, and the first payments are due in October, according to the US Department of Education Given the high expected volume of calls to loan servicers, now is the time to get organized to restart your student loan paymentsWhat if your loans were in default before the loan pause began in 2020?Average total published charges for full-time undergraduates at four-year US colleges and universities, 2022-23:o Total tuition, fees, room and board at public in-state: $10,940o Total tuition, fees, room and board at public out-of-state: $28,240o Total tuition, fees, room and board at private in-state: $39,400Education Planning Options for ParentsConsider funding 529 accounts for kids or grandkidsCustodial accounts give the child more control over the money Set up a Coverdell Education Savings Account for simpler needs Take advantage of federal tax breaks +++You can also find a wealth of educational resources related to today's topic on our new webpage at wealthenhancement.com/yourmoney.Clients of Wealth Enhancement Group have access to our Roundtable of financial experts, who have specialized expertise in investments, asset allocation, tax and estate planning, education planning, and more. Learn more about the Roundtable by visiting wealthenhancement.com.

This week, we're recapping recent contentious rulings by the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS” or the “Court”) that are expected to take a toll on employers across the nation. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw308 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Dr. Greg Carr, on the campus of Morehouse College, walks us through the latest decision by The Supreme Court of the United States (#SCOTUS) to overturn #AffirmativeAction. #inclasswithcarr #knubia For more breadcrumbs (and a full meal) JOIN KNARRATIVE: https://www.knarrative.com it's the only way to get into #Knubia, where these classes are held live with a live chat.To shop Go to:TheGlobalMajoritySee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued rulings that will have a dramatic impact on our nation. Ken welcomes Dr. Gilbert Walton for a wide-ranging conversation around Affirmative Action, higher education, and the roles of Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Clarence Thomas. Ken and Gilbert met on the Civil Rights Tour of the South. Dr. Walton was a featured contributor to Ken's podcast series, Truth Quest, an in-depth look at the journey that took their fellow travelers from New Orleans to Birmingham - an intense exposure to the history of Civil Rights in America. Dr. Walton shares his perspective as a medical professional who benefited from Affirmative Action. His academic career began on the campus of Fisk University, an historic black university (HBCU) where he earned a bachelor's degree. It was in graduate school where A.A. opened doors to complete first an M.A. in microbiology and then his M.D. in medical school. He shares both the benefits and the challenges he faced, achieving high honors as a military officer and physician. Together, they unpack the social and political implications of the decidedly conservative SCOTUS. Ken offers his reflections on the Federalist Society, founded in 1982 during the Reagan era, which gave us six of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court and every one of Donald Trump's appointees to the Federal bench.Support the show

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made the decision to stop allowing college admissions across the nation to use Affirmative Action. Since 1978, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of affirmative action as one factor for admissions until today even though colleges throughout time have proven time and time again that the use of holistic admissions has many factors not just one. On this day, it is important that we all understand that research and data have shown time and time again that diversity (race, experience, background, and ideas) benefits not one, but ALL.We need to continue to move onward and upward TOGETHER despite the decision. As colleges must follow the law like how the UC's and Cal States did when CA voters voted to ban affirmative action in our public system -- it is imperative for all of us to remind students to still honor the stories of students who have illustrated their passions despite it all, demonstrate their strengths despite it all and rise above despite it all. WE MUST! So everyone can get a fair shot and rise above so we as a nation can rise. Bob Schaeffer, a long-time warrior and advocate for equity took some time to discuss college admissions, testing, affirmative action, and more. He shared his wisdom with us on the ongoing changes in college admissions in this interview. Bob has served as Public Education Director of FairTest, since its founding in 1985, and is a member of its Board of Directors. Previously, he was Editorial Writer at the NBC-TV affiliate in Boston, Research Director of the Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs, and worked for several years as a research associate at the Education Research Center of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of Standardized Tests and Teacher Competence (School Voices, Fall, 1996) and coauthor of Standing Up to the SAT (ARCO/Simon & Schuster, 1989). He has also coauthored many FairTest publications, includingTesting Our Children: A Report Card on State Assessment Systems, Standardized Tests and Our Children: A Guide to Testing Reform, Implementing Performance Assessments, The SAT Coaching Cover-Up, Test Scores Do Not Equal Merit, and Sex Bias in College Admissions Tests: How Women Lose Out.

On June 29, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) made the decision to stop allowing college admissions across the nation to use Affirmative Action. Since 1978, the Supreme Court has upheld the use of affirmative action as one factor for admissions until today even though colleges throughout time have proven time and time again that the use of holistic admissions has many factors not just one. On this day, it is important that we all understand that research and data have shown time and time again that diversity (race, experience, background, and ideas) benefits not one, but ALL.We need to continue to move onward and upward TOGETHER despite the decision. As colleges must follow the law like how the UC's and Cal States did when CA voters voted to ban affirmative action in our public system -- it is imperative for all of us to remind students to still honor the stories of students who have illustrated their passions despite it all, demonstrate their strengths despite it all and rise above despite it all. WE MUST! So everyone can get a fair shot and rise above so we as a nation can rise. Bob Schaeffer, a long-time warrior and advocate for equity took some time to discuss college admissions, testing, affirmative action, and more. He shared his wisdom with us on the ongoing changes in college admissions in this interview. Bob has served as Public Education Director of FairTest, since its founding in 1985, and is a member of its Board of Directors. Previously, he was Editorial Writer at the NBC-TV affiliate in Boston, Research Director of the Massachusetts Legislature's Joint Committee on Human Services and Elderly Affairs, and worked for several years as a research associate at the Education Research Center of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is author of Standardized Tests and Teacher Competence (School Voices, Fall, 1996) and coauthor of Standing Up to the SAT (ARCO/Simon & Schuster, 1989). He has also coauthored many FairTest publications, includingTesting Our Children: A Report Card on State Assessment Systems, Standardized Tests and Our Children: A Guide to Testing Reform, Implementing Performance Assessments, The SAT Coaching Cover-Up, Test Scores Do Not Equal Merit, and Sex Bias in College Admissions Tests: How Women Lose Out.

It seems like this happens every week; Friday, that is. Regardless, welcome to another streamed installment of the best law podcast anywhere, Law and Legitimacy. We thank all our loyal #LALiens new and veteran alike. We're having a lot of fun. Speaking of fun, the Celtics seem to be having some of that. The C's defended the Garden last night to bring the NBA Eastern Conference Finals series with the Miami Heat to a 3-2 mark. Mike extends his gratitude to the Celtics for the lesson the organization is giving to kids watching everywhere. Today, Norm and Mike keep the bright line theme of legitimacy alive with several intriguing developments across United States law, politics, and culture: › Vivek Ramaswamy took to Twitter to shed light on LinkedIn's efforts to censor his content. Vivek is perhaps the only candidate that can break through to a voting base via a professionals-only platform such as LinkedIn, so the story is notable on that front and several others. › Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, was sentenced yesterday—18 years. Norm shares his observations from the sentencing and his expectations for the Proud Boys defendants convicted of the same crime just a few weeks ago. › The Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") issued its ruling in Sackett v. EPA yesterday. In a 5-4 decision, Samuel Alito wrote for the majority to tell the Environmental Protection Agency its interpretation of the Clean Waters Act was of profound stupidity resulting in egregious violations of real property rights. Join us. For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › Twitter: https://twitter.com/PattisPodcast Subscribe and turn on notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

It seems like this happens every week; Friday, that is. Regardless, welcome to another streamed installment of the best law podcast anywhere, Law and Legitimacy. We thank all our loyal #LALiens new and veteran alike. We're having a lot of fun. Speaking of fun, the Celtics seem to be having some of that. The C's defended the Garden last night to bring the NBA Eastern Conference Finals series with the Miami Heat to a 3-2 mark. Mike extends his gratitude to the Celtics for the lesson the organization is giving to kids watching everywhere. Today, Norm and Mike keep the bright line theme of legitimacy alive with several intriguing developments across United States law, politics, and culture: › Vivek Ramaswamy took to Twitter to shed light on LinkedIn's efforts to censor his content. Vivek is perhaps the only candidate that can break through to a voting base via a professionals-only platform such as LinkedIn, so the story is notable on that front and several others. › Stewart Rhodes, the Oath Keepers founder convicted of seditious conspiracy in connection with the events of January 6, 2021, was sentenced yesterday—18 years. Norm shares his observations from the sentencing and his expectations for the Proud Boys defendants convicted of the same crime just a few weeks ago. › The Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") issued its ruling in Sackett v. EPA yesterday. In a 5-4 decision, Samuel Alito wrote for the majority to tell the Environmental Protection Agency its interpretation of the Clean Waters Act was of profound stupidity resulting in egregious violations of real property rights. Join us. For the rest of the year, creators will receive 100 percent of the revenue from the purchase of monthly subscription badges, which Rumble recently launched for the price of $5 per month. Please consider purchasing a subscription badge to LAL and be assured that LAL will receive every penny of that subscription through the end of the year. Your consideration and patronage is most sincerely appreciated! Daily livestreams beginning at 8:00 am EST on: › Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/LawandLegitimacy › Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@lawandlegitimacy › Twitter: https://twitter.com/PattisPodcast Subscribe and turn on notifications! Support Law and Legitimacy: - Locals: https://lawandlegitimacy.locals.com/ - Twitter: @PattisPodcast, @PattisNorm, and @MichaelBoyer_ - Subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Google Play, Audible, Spotify, or wherever you receive podcasts and rate LAL 5 stars. - Subscribe here on our Rumble and Youtube channels, give us a Rumble, and join our active community of free-thinkers, contrarians, and the unafraid on Locals!

A Pennsylvania Christian had worked for the U.S. Postal Service until he faced multiple employment repercussions for refusing to work on Sundays due to his religious convictions. This case regarding First Amendment claims goes to the U.S. Supreme Court, with the justices hearing oral arguments this Tuesday (April 18). Gerald Groff of Lancaster County had sought work with USPS because it would be an employer where he would not be asked to work Sundays. That changed when USPS launched a new contract with a private corporation that wanted Sunday deliveries. In 2019, Groff resigned from his position as a rural mail carrier after years of -- he says -- being harassed, targeted and disciplined for refusing to work Sundays so that he could abide by the Third Commandment, to “keep holy the Sabbath day.” Groff then sued USPS for violating his religious rights. After his claims were denied by both a Pennsylvania district court and the 3rd Circuit Court, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) agreed to take up his appeal on Jan. 13. He is being represented by the First Liberty Institute.   First Liberty attorney Jeremy Dys gave Family Life's Abigail Hofland a preview of the arguments to be made in the nation's capitol. Groff's first-person story is here.  Other coverage of the issues in this case: FNN.  ABC.  CNA.

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is hearing cases with important implications for gender equity and reproductive rights this term. In today's episode, Gender Justice Legal Director Jess Braverman, Special Projects Advisor Erin Maye Quade, and OutFront Minnesota Board Member Jared Mollenkof discuss an upcoming case before the Supreme Court, “303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis” and what it means for LGBTQ+ rights. ** Please note that this is a previously recorded live discussion, recorded on December 5th, 2022, the day the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments regarding the 303 Creative case.** ### Visit the "Gender Justice" Website here and "Unrestrict Minnesota" here. The Gender Justice Brief is hosted by Erin Hart, Communications Director at Gender Justice The GJB is produced by Gunther Michael Jahnl & Audra Grigus. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/genderjustice/message

EPA Defines WOTUS Before SCOTUS Decision Understanding Kansas Lease Laws The Beef Cattle Institute's Ask the Experts     00:01:16  — EPA Defines WOTUS Before SCOTUS Decision:  We begin with K-State and Washburn University School of Law professor, Roger McEowen. He joins us to share his take on the EPA recently releasing a “final ruling” on what they define as a water of the United States (WOTUS) and what this means for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and their own ruling in an upcoming relevant case. Link to Roger's latest blog posts   00:12:08 — Understanding Kansas Lease Laws: Kansas lease laws are quite unique when it comes to the rules put in place to protect both landowners and leasers alike. To break down everything listeners should know about the sometimes confusing topic, K-State agricultural economist Robin Reid and LaVell Winsor from the Farm Analyst program join us while also previewing their upcoming 4-part workshop for landowners in January and February.   00:23:05 — The Beef Cattle Institute's Ask The Experts: We end with K-State experts Brad White, Bob Larson, and Phillip Lancaster for this week's Beef Cattle Institute's Ask the Experts. This week they answer a listener question on whether or not unrolling hay is the best method when feeding cattle. They discuss the method's benefits and downfalls. BCI Cattle Chat Podcast To have your beef cattle questions answered by the BCI Ask the Experts team - send them an email at bci@ksu.edu   Send comments, questions, or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu. Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Samantha Bennett and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan.

Hour 1 * Guest: Panola County, TX Sheriff Cutter Clinton, I am an experienced Texas Lawman and want to serve you as Sheriff of our County. * Trump rebuked for call to ‘terminate' Constitution over 2020 election results – He made the claim over the weekend on his Truth Social media platform. * “A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote. * Make Way for the Killer Robots: The Government Is Expanding Its Power to Kill – John and Nisha Whitehead. * “In 1980, there were roughly 3,000 SWAT team-style raids in the US. By 2014, that number had grown to more than 80,000 SWAT team raids per year.” By now, the number probably exceeds 120,000 raids. Almost every community has a SWAT team nowadays. * 82-Year-Old Black Woman in Valley City, AL Arrested Over Her Unpaid $77 Trash Bill – Martha Menefield was handcuffed, briefly taken to jail. * What Is the Difference Between Criminal Law and Civil Law? * Sensible Gun Logic (for The Choir) – Terry Sanderson. * If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry, USA. * The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement. * Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it. * The House Republican Conference voted Wednesday to continue including earmarks in spending bills, as the Tea Party era recedes further into the GOP's rear-view mirror. Hour 2 * Guest: Loy Brunson, Knowing the US attorneys would be able to get the courts to dismiss the following cases, my two brothers and I planned from the get-go, to take all cases we would file, to the United States Supreme Court where the final decision could be made by a majority – 7Discoveries.com * Brunson Bros. drain the swamp – Currently, there are two lawsuits identical to each other. The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court. The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Docket #22-380, where 9 Justices in conference will vote (only 4 needed) to move to a hearing. * Supreme Court Conference date set for January 6, 2023 regarding Brunson. * Beijing's Eye Always Trails Protesters. By Paul Mozur, Claire Fu and Amy Chang Chien, NYT – After a weekend of protests, the authorities in China are using the country's all-seeing surveillance apparatus to find those bold enough to defy them. * Mr. Zhang went to protest China's strict Covid policies in Beijing, he thought he came prepared to go undetected – He wore a balaclava and goggles to cover his face. When it seemed that plainclothes police officers were following him, he ducked into the bushes and changed into a new jacket. He lost his tail. That night, when Mr. Zhang returned home without being arrested, he thought he was in the clear. But the police called the next day. They knew he had been out because they were able to detect that his phone had been in the area of the protests. * As the authorities seek to track, intimidate and detain those who marched in defiance of the government's strict Covid policies last weekend, they are turning to powerful tools of surveillance the state has spent the past decade building for moments like this, when parts of the population turn out and question the authority of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/loving-liberty/support

* Guest: Loy Brunson, Knowing the US attorneys would be able to get the courts to dismiss the following cases, my two brothers and I planned from the get-go, to take all cases we would file, to the United States Supreme Court where the final decision could be made by a majority – 7Discoveries.com * Brunson Bros. drain the swamp - Currently, there are two lawsuits identical to each other. The first One, filed by Loy Brunson is still held up in the Utah Federal Court. The second one, filed by Raland J. Brunson has made it to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Docket #22-380, where 9 Justices in conference will vote (only 4 needed) to move to a hearing. * Supreme Court Conference date set for January 6, 2023 regarding Brunson. * Beijing's Eye Always Trails Protesters. By Paul Mozur, Claire Fu and Amy Chang Chien, NYT - After a weekend of protests, the authorities in China are using the country's all-seeing surveillance apparatus to find those bold enough to defy them. * Mr. Zhang went to protest China's strict Covid policies in Beijing, he thought he came prepared to go undetected - He wore a balaclava and goggles to cover his face. When it seemed that plainclothes police officers were following him, he ducked into the bushes and changed into a new jacket. He lost his tail. That night, when Mr. Zhang returned home without being arrested, he thought he was in the clear. But the police called the next day. They knew he had been out because they were able to detect that his phone had been in the area of the protests. * As the authorities seek to track, intimidate and detain those who marched in defiance of the government's strict Covid policies last weekend, they are turning to powerful tools of surveillance the state has spent the past decade building for moments like this, when parts of the population turn out and question the authority of the ruling Chinese Communist Party. * Police have used faces, phones and informants to identify those who attended protests. * It is the first time the surveillance state has been directed squarely at large numbers of middle-class people in China's most affluent cities. While many have experience with censorship - and this week proved they can sometimes get around it - a police visit at home is less common, and more intimidating. 'We're hearing stories of police turning up on people's doorsteps asking them their whereabouts during the protests, and this appears to be based on the evidence gathered through mass surveillance,' said Alkan Akad, a China researcher at Amnesty International. * Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Nov. 22 after it failed to complete a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request into communication records regarding alleged online censorship during the 2020 presidential election. * “We've had these disclosures essentially over the last year that federal agencies, especially DHS, hav been working to censor Americans… either directly or indirectly,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

In this second episode in our series on reproductive rights in America, we will examine the events leading to the case of Roe v. Wade. Through the examination of the events and the review of the ruling passed down by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) we will be able to follow the direction that reproductive health progressed. We will review the arguments made by both the pro-life and pro-choice movements, assess the laws restricting reproductive health within the confines of the decision of Roe, and identify why those restrictions came to be. We will end with the events leading to the decision passed down by Dobbs v. Jackson. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Season 2, Episode 10 of A View from the Left Side focuses on the fight to maintain abortion rights in the United States. [This podcast was recorded before the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court decision on abortion.] Senator Nancy Barto brags that Arizona is the #1 "Pro-Life" state in the country. That's because, for years, Arizona Republican politicians have followed the extreme anti-abortion agenda laid out by Cathi Herrod of the Center for Arizona Policy. Barto often sponsors these repressive reproductive rights bills, like the recent 15 week abortion ban.If the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) strikes down the landmark abortion rights case, Roe v Wade, in the coming weeks, Arizona's  "Pro-Life" label will come back to haunt many residents as they find their right to body autonomy removed by state law. Arizona Republicans passed the contentious 15 week abortion ban in 2022, but there are many abortion-related laws on the books. Some Territorial Era statutes criminalize doctors and patients for abortion. Controlling reproductive rights and sexuality are popular topics for Republican legislation. Rep. Walt Blackman is running for Congress on a strong anti-abortion platform and has made at least three campaign-style anti-abortion speeches on the Floor of the House this year. If Roe goes down, the women of Arizona should brace themselves for an onslaught of more repressive laws from the Republicans, as long as they control the government. Arizona currently has 61 places in statutes that mention "abortion," but ZERO statutes that limit the reproductive rights of men. That is obviously state-based discrimination against women. Arizona needs a statewide Equal Rights Amendment.  Abortion care is NOT a states' rights issue. A person's reproductive rights should not change when they cross state lines. The government has no right to meddle in a person's medical, financial and family planning decisions. Will people move out of repressive states like Arizona, Texas, Mississippi and Florida -- or just not move in? Arizona touts sunshine and low taxes, but it also soon will have forced pregnancy and no water.The US Senate should dump the filibuster and protect reproductive rights (and voting rights). The filibuster is a roadblock to progress. It's time for systemic change to save our country. Bans Off Our Bodies Rallies NationwideIn May and June, there were rallies and marches around the country to protest this ideological strike against women's rights and body autonomy by a Supreme Court packed with appointees from a discredited President.The second half of the podcast includes two of the speeches from the Tucson Bans Off Our Bodies rally on May 14, 2022 -- one by Congressman Raul Grijalva and the second one by State Senator Stephanie Stahl Hamilton. Grijalva calls out Arizona Senator Kyrsten Sinema for clinging to the filibuster and for ignoring reproductive rights and voting rights. Rev. Stephanie's speech will bring tears to your eyes. The age, gender, ethnic and racial diversity of the Tucson crowd shows the diversity of the abortion rights issue. An estimated 1000 people showed up for the Tucson rally. Time StampsSeason 2, Episode 10 Introduction  | 0:42PPH Commentary: Abortion Care Severely Limited in Arizona if SCOTUS Strikes Down Roe v Wade June 8, 2022  | 1:26 Bans Off Our Bodies Rally at Armory Park in Tucson May 14 2022  | 6:16 Congressman Raul Grijalva's remarks at Bans Off Our Bodies Rally  | 7:16 Grijalva calls out Senator Kyrsten Sinema for her support of the filibuster  | 8:56 State Senator Stephanie Stahl Hamilton's remarks at Bans Off Our Bodies Rally  | 11:46 Rev. Stephanie says Nothing good can come from government-mandated pregnancies!  | 13:22

The decisions made by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) during this past session raised some concerns about how certain classes of people and situations will be different treated from state to state. Cianna shares some initial thoughts about steps to take related to advance directives and other concerns around death and dying moving forward.

Guest: Ryan Bangert, Alliance Defending Freedom Hope y'all have a wonderful 4th of July! On July 4th, Americans celebrate the passage of the Declaration of Independence, which reads in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a monumental decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) case that effectively overturned the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision where the Court had found a woman's right to an abortion was a Constitutionally protected right. Overturning Roe means that the “right to an abortion” is now no longer secured by the federal courts and is subject to the determination of the governed - just as the Framers had intended our governmental process to work. So whether you're “pro-abortion” or “pro-life,” Dobbs returns the power to influence the legislative process back to the citizens of each state to decide through their elected representatives, a right which the Court had usurped from citizens in the Roe decision. As Christians, what does the Dobbs decision mean? A large percentage of women seeking abortions are single women who already have other children, but because of financial or other considerations, feel that they are unable to support another child. Men should be part of this consideration and equation and not leave the burden and responsibility to raise children entirely on the shoulders of the mothers of their children. Before abortion becomes a legislative or legal issue, it is a personal responsibility issue and men need to be personally responsible for their children. Women facing the decision over abortion or birth are looking for wisdom and guidance and men have an opportunity to support pregnancy centers in their community to give women the needed support to choose life. If you're in the DFW area, look to support the Prestonwood Pregnancy Center. If you live in other areas of the country, visit the resource list made available from The Heidi Group. The Human Coalition is also a great organization to know about and support. As more women look to give birth to their children, there may be an increased opportunity for men to step up in terms of adoption and foster care. Even if you're not looking to bring a child into your family, you can support others who are willing. Learn more from CHOSEN: Christ's Hope for Orphans: Supporting, Embracing, Nurturing. Don't forget about post-abortive resources for women struggling with the trauma and anxiety that often comes from having an abortion. Check out the resources available from Focus on the Family for post-abortive care.  

Guest: Ryan Bangert, Alliance Defending Freedom Happy July 4th! On July 4th, Americans celebrate the passage of the Declaration of Independence, which reads in part: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a monumental decision in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (Dobbs) case that effectively overturned the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision where the Court had found a woman's right to an abortion was a Constitutionally protected right. Overturning Roe means that the “right to an abortion” is now no longer secured by the federal courts and is subject to the determination of the governed - just as the Framers had intended our governmental process to work. So whether you're “pro-abortion” or “pro-life,” Dobbs returns the power to influence the legislative process back to the citizens of each state to decide through their elected representatives, a right which the Court had usurped from citizens in the Roe decision. As men, what does the Dobbs decision mean? A large percentage of women seeking abortions are single women who already have other children, but because of financial or other considerations, feel that they are unable to support another child. Men should be part of this consideration and equation and not leave the burden and responsibility to raise children entirely on the shoulders of the mothers of their children. Before abortion becomes a legislative or legal issue, it is a personal responsibility issue and men need to be personally responsible for their children. Women facing the decision over abortion or birth are looking for wisdom and guidance and men have an opportunity to support pregnancy centers in their community to give women the needed support to choose life. If you're in the DFW area, look to support the Prestonwood Pregnancy Center. If you live in other areas of the country, visit the resource list made available from The Heidi Group. The Human Coalition is also a great organization to know about and support. As more women look to give birth to their children, there may be an increased opportunity for men to step up in terms of adoption and foster care. Even if you're not looking to bring a child into your family, you can support others who are willing. Learn more from CHOSEN: Christ's Hope for Orphans: Supporting, Embracing, Nurturing. Don't forget about post-abortive resources for women struggling with the trauma and anxiety that often comes from having an abortion. Check out the resources available from Focus on the Family for post-abortive care.  

Pastors' Point of View Ep. 217 with Drs. Andy Woods & Jim McGowan"SCOTUS Victories"God may not be finished with the United States of America yet! Why? Well, the current Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just laid out 4 landmark decisions that reverse years of legal positivism and interpret the constitution in accordance with the founding fathers' intentions for a limited government and a citizenry free of government tyranny.Thanks for listening!

We want to take a moment to address the June 24, 2022 Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decision to overturn Roe versus Wade. This decision stripped away the right to have a safe and legal abortion in the United States. Everyone should have the right to decide what's best for themselves and for their families, including when it comes to ending a pregnancy. This decision potentially has dire consequences for individual health and safety and could have harsh repercussions for other landmark decisions. Restricting access to comprehensive reproductive care, including abortion, threatens the health and independence of all Americans. Thank you to Arielle Nissenblatt, the founder of the EarBuds Podcast Collective (https://www.earbudspodcastcollective.org/), for starting this movement. Podcasters from around the world are making this announcement at the top of their podcasts in a time where people really are looking for help, looking for unity, and looking to know what to do. This is an amazing movement to show how many of us are concerned and how important it is to unite over this very important topic. We encourage you to speak up, take care, and spread the word. Thank you to the Viewfinders who continue to serve others and share their love and compassion with all.

Today Rich debunks the January 6th Committee's 'bombshell witness' at their surprise hearing. Then Ghislaine Maxwell is sentenced for sex trafficking for pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Plus, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) rules on free speech and religious liberty.Portions of today's program are brought to you by PolitiWeek.com. Comment and follow on Facebook, Twitter, GETTR, and Truth Social or visit us at RichValdes.com

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) overturned the 1973 Roe v Wade judgment, which effectively bans abortions. While this could be implemented only in some states, what will be the side effects? What can India learn #roevwade #India #WomenRights #Abortion #FamilyPlanning #FertilityRate

On May 2, 2022, the website Poltico posted a story attributed to Josh Gerstein and Alexander Ward sharing a leaked first draft of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) majority opinion on Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization addressing the constitutionality of a Mississippi law restricting abortion after the 15th week of pregnancy. The majority opinion draft, authored by Associate Justice Samuel Alito, overturned Roe v Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992), releasing the stranglehold the judicial branch has held over abortion and sending the issues to the individual states to settle the abortion laws within their borders through local democratic efforts and elections. Chief Justice John Roberts almost immediately verified the document's authenticity announcing the breach in secrecy which generally surround the deliberations of the Supreme Court would be met by an internal investigation. The draft and the decision were real. The outcry from both sides of the issue was immediate and intense. Most of the loudest objections to the draft center on emotional appeals and anecdotal testimonies about women who need abortions and will be forced to compromise their safety and freedom to carry an unwanted child to term. The idea that Roe v Wade will be overturned produced a wave of fear, anger, and anti-religious vitriol. How could 50 years of legal precedent defending Roe suddenly be swept aside?This Postmodern Realities episode is a conversion with JOURNAL author Jay Watts about the leaked SCOTUS opinion in Dobbs vs Jackson Women's Health Organization and about his online-exclusive article, “The Leaked Draft: Is this the Fall of Roe v. Wade?” https://www.equip.org/article/the-leaked-draft-is-this-the-fall-of-roe-v-wade/Starting in February 2021, online-exclusive articles, have been locked and are only available for Journal subscribers as noted below; however, given the time sensitive nature and global importance of this subject, our editorial board decided to make this available to the public as soon as possible. Also consider this a free preview of the quality and in-depth research that goes into our online-exclusives. To learn more about subscribing and gaining early access to future online-exclusive articles, please see our FAQ section on Early Access to Online-Exclusive Articles by clicking here https://www.equip.org/early-access-to-online-exclusive-articles-faqs/ and subscribing by clicking here. https://www.equip.org/product/online-early-access-subscription-options/Locked articles are online exclusive content that are only available to subscribers. There are three subscription options to access our online exclusive content.1. Subscribe ($33.50) to the print edition of the Christian Research Journal which includes all online exclusive content.2. Pay a monthly fee ($4.99) for Christian Research Journal online exclusive content. This does not include online versions of current print edition articles or receiving the print issues.3. Pay an annual fee ($24.99) for Christian Research Journal online exclusive content. This does not include online versions of current print edition articles or receiving the print issues.For more information and to subscribe please click here.When you to subscribe to the Journal, you join the team of print subscribers whose paid subscriptions help provide the resources at equip.org that minister to people worldwide. These resources include our ever growing database of over 1,500 articles, as well as our free Postmodern Realities podcast.Another way you can support our online articles is by leaving us a tip. A tip is just a small amount, like $3, $5, or $10 which is the cost for some of a latte, lunch out, or coffee drink. To leave a tip, click hereOther articles and Postmodern Realities podcasts featuring this authorEpisode 284 What Attorney Mary Ziegler Gets Wrong About Pro-Life TacticsWhat Attorney Mary Ziegler Gets Wrong About Pro-Life Tactics Episode 274 Filipovic's Confused Claim that the Pro-Life Community Must Champion ContraceptionFilipovic's Confused Claim that the Pro-Life Community Must Champion ContraceptionEpisode 249: Do Abortion Politics Hurt Women Enduring Miscarriage?Do Abortion Politics Hurt Women Enduring Miscarriage?Episode 230: Is it Ethical for Pro-Life Christians to Receive Covid-19 Vaccines?Is it Ethical for Pro-Life Christians to Receive Covid-19 Vaccines?Episode 190 Assessing the Confession of Norma McCorvey in AKA Jane RoeAssessing the Confession of Norma McCorvey in AKA Jane RoeEpisode 134 Are Laws Restricting Abortion Forced Organ Donation? A Review of Beyond RoeAre Laws Restricting Abortion Forced Organ Donation? A Review of Beyond RoeEpisode 117-Unplanned: An Imperfect but Brave Film Unplanned: An Imperfect but Brave FilmEpisode 007: Rape and Sexual Violence on the College CampusRape and Sexual Violence on CampusDon't miss an episode; please subscribe to the Postmodern Realities podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Please help spread the word about Postmodern Realities by giving us a rating and review when you subscribe to the podcast. The more ratings and reviews we have, the more new listeners can discover our content.

Marketing is an ever-changing target for decorators. We found three rock stars who have their fingers on the pulse. Marj Easterling of Big Lick Screen Printing LLC, Deanna Smith of N the Zone Ink, and Amber Penny Massey of Tshirts for Hope Screenprinting will be joining in for our quarterly Women in Garment Decorating show. The topic will be the marketing of your business and of yourself plus a whole lot more. Listen in to hear how these successful women from our industry promote their own businesses and build their brands through the latest tools available to them.  Brought to you by: Our Success GroupOur regular listeners know this, but 2 Regular Guys are all about garment decorating, a bit of fun, and no rants or lectures or selling. We are not doing this for our employers, but rather for our industry. Since February 2013, The 2 Regular Guys have been the first and the most listened to garment decorating industry podcast on this planet! We are humbled by all of you tuning in each week. We work hard to bring you information that will make your business better, and our industry better. Take a look at our incredible weekly guest list and you'll understand where this industry goes for news, interviews, and the heartbeat of garment decorating. Thanks for listening! News Printing United Alliance and MADE Lab partner to bring latest in education to the decorated apparel community. PRINTING United Alliance has announced a collaborative partnership with MADE (Modern Apparel Decoration and Education) Lab. This partnership will highlight year-round support and on-site education at each organization's respective industry conferences and events. US Supreme Court Announces Decision for On-Premises Signage - The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announces it has come to a decision regarding the signage-focused case, City of Austin, Texas v. Reagan National Advertising of Texas Inc. The court's report has ruled that the traditional regulatory distinction between on-premises signs and off-premises signs (billboards) is content-neutral and constitutional. Dad Joke: You've heard of Murphy's Law right? But have you heard about Coles Law?It's a bunch of thinly sliced cabbage with a mayonnaise-based dressing. Talking Marketing Terry: Thanks for coming on the show today. Tell our listeners about yourself and your business. Marj, Deanna, AmberErich: We want to talk marketing today. Let's start by discussing how you market your business. Has it changed in the age of Covid?Terry: In our new world of business, we all need to tell our story. How do you market yourself personally?Erich: You all have very strong voices and do a wonderful job sharing the story of your business. How have you developed that voice?Terry: How about some brass tacks information for the #Regulators? When it comes to marketing, and the time spent on social media, live videos and all the amazing sharing you all do, how do you determine the return on investment? Marj, Deanna, AmberErich: Tell us a little more about what is going on in your world right now. Share with the #Regulators one new and good thing.Terry: Where can our audience find you if they'd like to follow up or hear more about what you offer? Facebook Live Video #5Things Be Part of #5Things If you would like to present your 5 Things, five quick points on any subject whether it be advice or five instructional steps, we would love to hear from you. You can come on the show and present them yourself, or we will share your list with our listeners or even play a recorded video of you sharing 5 things. Whatever is easiest. https://www.2regularguys.com/5things/  Other Events The Half - 11:30 AM CST every Friday. Erich Campbell and Aaron Montgomery. 30 minutes of Q&A. And this is the one time in Erich and Aaron's life that 30 minutes is 30 minutes. Tune in at www.liveosg.com. See past episodes and support the show - thehalf.club. Complete Screen Printing Business Course with Workhorse Products in ...

Special Episode: Last week, as discussed with our Resident Sociologist- Dr. Taura Taylor  Last week was EPIC! The passing of the "Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair" Act (C.R.O.W.N Act) in the House (now on to the Senate, then Executive) with all but 14 Republicans voting against the measure, calling it "unnecessary and a distraction", claiming that protections against hair discrimination already exist in several federal laws...clearly, the interpretation of those protections, at the discretion of the law, have proven to be ineffective, anti-purpose and plainly put- lacking. Also, (drum roll please!) the Senate confirmed Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (the first) to the highest court in the land; FOR A LIFETIME; the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with a 53-47 vote (shout out to L. Murkowski (Alaska), S. Collins (Maine) and M. Romney (Utah)- didn't have to but you did; K. Harris was on standby (President of the Senate). Enjoy and ask questions- Dr. Taylor is here to stay! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/smalltalkbignames/message

9 people, my fellow Americans, make the most fundamental decisions which guide and affect your life, 9 PEOPLE!The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is comprised of 6 men and 3 women. The most pressing, difficult decisions, the fundamental issues of our Country are brought to them for resolution. How fair, objective and constitutional they are determines how we live. Our Supreme Court is now in session and this term, the cases to be decided are some of the most weighty in the history of the court. For example, the Biden Administration, its secretaries and agencies have begun to issue one order or mandate after another whether or not it is constitutional. Our society, our culture, WE THE PEOPLE are being flooded with Executive Orders (the President), mandates from the Justice Department (Attorney General Garland), the US Department of Education, the EEOC, HUD (Housing and Urban Development), just to name some. Many of those orders and mandates are unconstitutional, so say so many of our fifty states, private and nonprofit agencies and individuals. Our Federal Government attempts in every way possible to grow itself, take as much control as possible and in this case, the Biden Administration, turn the Country, actually veer it sharply to the left, the radical progressive left no matter the Constitution. Recently, just weeks after the administration all but admitted that a mandate with respect to vaccination, an Executive Order from the President would “not be the role of the Federal Government”, Biden announced that he would impose a national vaccine mandate on all employers with 100 or more employees. The Federal Agency OSHA began immediately attempting to force any and all private employers with 100 or more employees to require their employees to be vaccinated, and/or tested, and wear masks. An organization of states, along with private nonprofit legal entities such as ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM persuaded the Supreme Court to halt the OSHA order, introduce a legal stay, and take the case for decision at the highest level. In this term, the Supreme Court will decide this COVID matter and that a vaccination, testing and masking among others. What, I wonder my fellow Americans, is your position on vaccination. Many well–meaning Christians have refused to be vaccinated for various reasons. Many more others have in fact received both COVID vaccinations (Pfizer, Moderna) and even the booster. The question is whether you or I, as a matter of conscious and personal decision (freedom) have the right not to be vaccinated. What do you think? These 9 individuals will tell us.And another one. There comes now a case CHRISTIAN EMPLOYERS ALLIANCE V. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (EEOC). There were two Biden Administration mandates which ordered (forced) nonprofit employers to pay for or perform gender transition surgeries and other treatments that violate their religious beliefs, no matter that so many of them held sincere beliefs that God created humans as biological male or female and that a person's biological sex is immutable. But the EEOC went full speed ahead in an attempt to force the mandates upon religious employers, requiring them to pay for and provide health insurance coverage for gender transition surgeries. This case as well now comes before the Supreme Court in this term and these 9 fellow citizens will tell us what will be. If entities or individuals, especially doctors and surgeons, refuse to perform gender transition procedures on any patient, they can be punished with huge financial penalties, loss of federal funding and even the removal of their ability to practice medicine. What a world. And then there is another case pending. THE STATE OF TENNESSEE V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION essentially states that women and girls deserve to compete on a level playing field and biological men no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation should be allowed to so compete. Now these males, self–proclaimed females, are allowed to compete, and, so long as they identify as transgender, to not only compete on female athletic teams but also to use female showers, bathrooms and locker rooms. I find that simply unbelievable, don't you? 6 men and 3 women, only 9 of We The People 340 million of us, will be told whether or not that is constitutional. And then there is COLLEGE OF THE OZARKS V. BIDEN. The College of the Ozarks, one good and strong Christian college, is suing the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as it attempts to force religious schools to open dorm rooms and shared shower spaces to members of the opposite sex. This good college implores the Supreme Court that the government cannot strip a private faith–based institution of its constitutionally protected freedoms to recognize the strong biological distinctions between male and female. And then there is ARLENE'S FLOWERS V. STATE OF WASHINGTON. Arlene's Flowers was originally owned by Barronelle Stutzman, who refused to make a custom floral arrangement for a same–sex wedding. The US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit ruled that a Colorado law, the very same one used to target Jack Phillips, baker, can require the new owner Lorie Smith to create custom websites promoting messages that violate her religious beliefs. The Supreme Court this term will decide that one. And then comes DOBBS V. JACKSON WOMEN'S HEALTH ORGANIZATION. The good organization Alliance Defending Freedom went alongside the state of Mississippi to defend the Gestational Age Act before the Supreme Court, a law which eliminated abortion after 15 weeks of gestation, with the hope that such a case might lead the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. What a fascinating case that will be. And more. There are more cases, more critical issues, more of the constitutional issues which now come before our United States Supreme Court this term for decision by these 6 men and 3 women. You should watch carefully, my fellow Americans and Christians, the legal action which occurs this term at our Supreme Court. The decisions these 9 make will affect our lives for years to come. The Biden Administration moves forward in its aggressive and merciless attack upon so many things Christian, in defense of radical, progressive, LGBTQ assaults on tradition and history and there is no other option for faithful Christians but that of standing up and FIGHTING THE FIGHT OF FAITH. We should be ready to thank God for the preservation of constitutional protections or we should be ready to stand up and resist for it may well be time for us to determine whether or not we truly serve God or man. I am ready for this fight in whatever form it comes and I hope and pray you are also. Real biological men and women, like you and me cannot compromise or surrender. WE CANNOT! Pray, pray more but be ready to do more, much more. The fight of faith is on. DON'T BACK DOWN!

This week on POMM, I discuss the possible nomination of a prospective black woman to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). And, of course the racism behind the unannounced nominee.

Robin Craig, the Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in Law at USC Gould School of Law and long-time water law professor, joins us to discuss the background, arguments and holding in Mississippi v. Tennessee, and provides some insights on what the case might mean for State water policy moving forward. In this session, you'll learn about: Robin's extensive background in water lawThe factual background of Mississippi v. TennesseeThe procedural history of Mississippi v. TennesseeWhy Mississippi sued Tennessee and not the actual entity pumping the waterWhat Mississippi's claim wasWhat the briefings revealed about the parties' positionsThe issues the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) probed during oral argumentsWhat the SCOTUS held in Mississippi v. TennesseeWhat equitable apportionment isHow equitable apportionment interfaces and impacts compacts between the StatesHow the SCOTUS' holding might impact State compact negotiations over water rights (and potentially other natural resources)How the holding of Mississippi v. Tennessee might impact other conflicts among the States over groundwater Resources and links mentioned in or relevant to this session include: Robin's LinkedIn PageRobin's bio on the USC Gould School of Law Faculty PageThe Supreme Court of the United States Opinion in Mississippi v. TennesseeRobin's blog post on SCOTUSblog about the case Thank You! Thanks to each of you for listening and spreading the word about The Water Values Podcast! Keep the emails coming and please rate and review The Water Values Podcast on iTunes and Stitcher if you haven't done so already. And don't forget to tell your friends about the podcast and whatever you do, don't forget to join The Water Values mailing list!

On the Best of Mark Levin, Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, joins the show to give his first reaction to President Biden's 2nd press conference of his Presidency. Trump said he really wants Biden to do well if he can. Trump commented on Biden's weakness indicating that he expected Vladimir Putin to take advance into Ukraine. Trump also mentioned that there was no vaccine hesitancy during his Administration, surmising that the American people simply don't trust Biden because of his initial anti-vaccine rhetoric. Then, Trump said Biden's reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan is the lowest moment in the history of our country. Trump criticized the 2020 election as a third world election adding that Democrats must be stopped from conducting a federal takeover of US elections. Nancy Pelosi's son Paul Jr. is connected to several companies investigated by the FBI and the media is barely reporting on it. One of the biofuel companies even defrauded investors. Paul Jr is frugal but nowhere near being strapped for cash. A special counsel's criminal investigation into all of the Pelosi's dealings is definitely warranted. Then, CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) attacks the talk radio industry but defended and advocated for the release of Aafia Siddiqui. CAIR has enormous influence with members of Congress, the FBI, and the DOJ. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) got it right when they struck down President Biden's unconstitutional federal vaccine mandate enforced by OSHA, and got it totally wrong on the healthcare case where SCOTUS ruled that healthcare workers in facilities receiving federal funds may keep their mandates in place. Then, the Democrat party is the party of the KKK, racism, and segregation. They were that way during the civil war, and they are that way today. Chuck Schumer and his razor-thin majority will peddle every lie they can to convince people that the Democrats' voting bill does something more than weaken a citizen's right to vote. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On Wednesday's Mark Levin Show, Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, joins the show to give his first reaction to President Biden's 2nd press conference of his Presidency. Trump said he really wants Biden to do well if he can. Trump commented on Biden's weakness indicating that he expected Vladimir Putin to take advance into Ukraine. Trump also mentioned that there was no vaccine hesitancy during his Administration, surmising that the American people simply don't trust Biden because of his initial anti-vaccine rhetoric. Then, Trump said Biden's reckless withdrawal from Afghanistan is the lowest moment in the history of our country. Trump criticized the 2020 election as a third world election adding that Democrats must be stopped from conducting a federal takeover of US elections. Later, in breaking news, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has just issued a decision to deny Trump's request for executive privilege on records that might pertain to January 6th; Every justice except for Justice Clarence Thomas declined Trump's request. The politicized Court has now opened the door for every future former president to have their sealed records subpoenaed by congress. Afterward, Democrats insist on destroying the voting system in the name of voting rights. One more lie to gain political power under the guise of preventing, what they call, the death of democracy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join us at NSTA: The Bus Stop, as Curt Macysyn, NSTA Executive Director, calls upon Rich Kelly, Esq., President and Founder of RC Kelly Law Associates, and NSTA Counsel, to speak about the recent Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruling on the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on the employer Covid-19 vaccine mandate from January 13, 2022. Rich provides an overview of the case and potential impact a successful ETS could have had on the current school driver shortage. Rich and Curt then delve into how the court ruling makes sense from a legal standpoint, and then how health edicts, like this, can emanate from local jurisdictions. Finally, the duo talk about how rulemaking procedures like this one, and local edicts, can affect private school bus operators contracts with school districts. School transportation professionals rely on NSTA: The Bus Stop for their information. Add it to your library of podcasts today!Support the show (http://www.yellowbuses.org/membership/)

Episode #133This episode discusses the truth about vaccine mandates and why they are an absolute violation of our rights, the constitution and federal and state powers. Ryan also talks about religious exemptions and what states like Iowa are doing to push back against the federal power overreach. The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recently heard two cases that came against the Biden Administration and OSHA, which led to conflicting rulings. Mentioned in the show:Children's Health Defense (legal resources): childrenshealthdefense.org/legal/legal-resources 24 Attorney's General Write to Biden Opposing Vaccine Mandate on private citizen: Click to read50-state Update on Pending Legislation Pertaining to Employer-mandated Vaccinations: Click to readClinicalTrials.gov - NIH National Library of Medicine: Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals: Click to readNuremberg Code (US Holocaust Memorial Museum): Click to readOther Links:Click here to sign up for our FREE 5-day BOOT CAMP.Visit ryanshoward.com/freedownload to learn more and download 21 Days to a New Workplace You to set your FAITH ON FIRE and jump start your faith at work journey today.

On Thursday's Mark Levin Show, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) got it right when they struck down President Biden's unconstitutional federal vaccine mandate enforced by OSHA, and got it totally wrong on the healthcare case where SCOTUS ruled that healthcare workers in facilities receiving federal funds may keep their mandates in place. Later, Senator Mike Lee joins the show to discuss the 84 million Americans who were victorious in today's Supreme Court decision. Lee added that the Democrats are happy to take whatever they want to gain power. If Democrats succeed in destroying the filibuster, they will change election laws to make sure Democrats win and they will pack the court too. Then, the Department of Justice has indicted the founder of the Oath Keepers and 10 others with seditious conspiracy. Even this charge does not meet the legal standard to define January 6th, 2020 as an insurrection. The founder of the Oath Keeper is on record saying, "All I see Trump doing is complaining. I see no intent by him to do anything. So the patriots are taking it into their own hands.” This information only helps illustrate that Trump was not involved in any planned attacks. Not a single person has been charged with an attempt to overthrow the government.  Afterward, Marxism labeled as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) continues to seep into our culture under the guise of preventing racism. Amazingly, bigotry now has an academic veneer. Universities are now attempting to hire tenured staff based on race because of this movement. Yet there will be no effort for diversity of thought, ideology, or political perspectives. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gerald Horne, professor of history at the University of Houston, author, historian, and researcher, joins us to discuss the Pandora Papers. A trove of 11.9 million documents containing financial information on some of the world's richest and most powerful people has been released by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. The documents have already created embarrassing situations for powerful politicians in Ukraine and England.Dr. Yolandra Hancock, board-certified pediatrician and obesity medicine specialist, joins us to discuss covid. Drugmaker Merck is about to release a powerful new antiviral medicine that is believed to be a breakthrough tactic for addressing the covid pandemic. Also, the winter approaches and observers expect the delta variant to begin spreading rapidly soon.Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute, joins us to discuss censorship. The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity temporarily lost their YouTube channel last week and no reasonable excuse was given by YouTube. Also, former President Donald Trump has filed papers in a Florida court arguing that Twitter acted on behalf of Democrat operatives in removing his personal account.John Burris, civil rights attorney, joins us to discuss the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The conservative SCOTUS is scheduled to make major decisions regarding issues that have both political and social ramifications. The major cases on the SCOTUS docket will address gun control, abortion, religious liberty, national security, and capital punishment, among other issues.George Koo, journalist, social activist, international business consultant, and chemical engineer, joins us to discuss China. China has shocked the US military planners with its aggressive response to the Taiwan threat. China has begun regularly flying warplanes in and around Taiwan, and has stated that they will be prepared to attack whenever the order is given. Also, they have admonished the EU to "mind their own business" regarding China's internal affairs.John Kiriakou, journalist, author and host of The Back Story, joins us to discuss a Common Dreams article on torture. The article addresses the issue of torture. Guantanamo Bay is discussed, but the article also speaks of another little-known remote torture site in Poland. Leo Flores, Latin America coordinator for Code Pink, joins us to discuss the Global South. An interesting war of words is taking place between Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro and the former prime minister of Spain, José María Aznar. Maduro has recently argued that Spain should apologize for its colonial rampage of genocide and slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean, while Aznar simply laughs off the demands for acknowledgment of the evil deeds.Scott Ritter, former UN weapon inspector in Iraq, joins us to discuss Centcom. In his latest Responsible Statecraft article, Andrew Bacevich argues that the very existence of the Central Command and its 10 sister command centers is a horrible mistake for the US empire and the world. Bacevich goes on to point out that regional stability has decreased since the development of the command system.

In a new entry in our Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) series, we take a look at the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), how exceeding "authorized access" to a computer doesn't appear to mean what it says, and just when it's totally fine for a police sergeant to sell the personal information of a stripper out of the law enforcement database. You think you know where the story is going and then...BOOM, "Footnote 8" comes out of nowhere…in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/rWcFSfpxlJo #VanBuren #Computers #SCOTUS *** SUPPORT THE CHANNEL PATREON - https://www.patreon.com/VirtualLegality STREAMLABS - https://streamlabs.com/richardhoeg STORE - https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store *** CHAPTERS 00:00 Introduction 03:28 Van Buren v United States 07:32 The Majority Opinion 29:23 The Dissent 39:04 Conclusion *** Discussed in this episode: Van Buren v United States Decided June 3, 2021 (SCOTUS) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-783_k53l.pdf "Fraud and related activity in connection with computers" 18 USC 1030 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States of America. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a narrow range of cases, specifically "all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". The Court holds the power of judicial review, the ability to invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution. It is also able to strike down presidential directives for violating either the Constitution or statutory law. However, it may act only within the context of a case in an area of law over which it has jurisdiction. The Court may decide cases having political overtones, but it has ruled that it does not have power to decide non-justiciable political questions. Established by Article Three of the United States Constitution, the composition and procedures of the Supreme Court were initially established by the 1st Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. As later set by the Judiciary Act of 1869, the Court consists of the chief justice of the United States and eight associate justices. Each justice has lifetime tenure, meaning they remain on the Court until they resign, retire, die, or are removed from office. When a vacancy occurs, the president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints a new justice. Each justice has a single vote in deciding the cases argued before it. When in majority, the chief justice decides who writes the opinion of the court; otherwise, the most senior justice in the majority assigns the task of writing the opinion. The Court meets in the Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C. Its law enforcement arm is the Supreme Court Police. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

ESPN writer Dan Murphy joined the Higher Ed Athletics podcast w/ Travis Smith for a conversation about what is shaping up to be one of the most transformational years in the history of the NCAA. Murphy has been covering the big agenda items of Name Image and Likeness (NIL) and the involvement of both Congress and the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Consider this episode a way to catch up on NCAA governance issues. Follow Dan (@DanMurphyESPN) and Travis (@TravisHigherEd) on Twitter and be sure to subscribe to the Higher Ed Athletics podcast.

Written by Laurie Higgins The left always plays hardball. The right rarely does. With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG), it's now game time for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). People are speculating--rightly in my view--that if President Trump nominates a replacement for RBG, then leftists (mostly violent rioters) will do what they do best. People are speculating too--rightly in my view--that if President Trump is re-elected, then leftists (mostly violent rioters) will do what they do best. Read more...

Written by Laurie Higgins The left always plays hardball. The right rarely does. With the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg (RBG), it’s now game time for the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). People are speculating–rightly in my view–that if President Trump nominates a replacement for RBG, then leftists (mostly violent rioters) will do what they do best. People are speculating too–rightly in my view–that if President Trump is re-elected, then leftists (mostly violent rioters) will do what they do best.… Continue Reading

Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District's earlier decision to maintain Arkansas' statute regulating PBMs' drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states' rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District's decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District’s earlier decision to maintain Arkansas’ statute regulating PBMs’ drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states’ rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District’s decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/policies/listener for privacy information.

Georgia House of Representatives Earl L. “Buddy” Carter joins CEO of RxSafe Bill Holmes to summarize the The Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS) has rescheduled the Rutledge v. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association (PCMA) hearing for October 6, 2020.1 The initial April hearing date had been postponed due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19) Rutledge v. PCMA revolves around whether states have the right to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMS). Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge has petitioned the court to overturn the US Court of Appeals for the Eight District's earlier decision to maintain Arkansas' statute regulating PBMs' drug reimbursement rates. In a legal brief filed in February 2020, however, Rutledge argues the statute is preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.3 At least 4 pharmacy groups, The American Pharmacists Association, The Arkansas Pharmacist Association, The National Alliance of State Pharmacy Associations, and the National Community Pharmacists Association have publicly expressed their support for states' rights to regulate PBMs.3 According to an earlier report, these 4 groups have jointly argued that unregulated PBM business practices limits access to pharmacists care and prevents the optimal use of medications.3 In April 2020, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy (AMCP) filed an amicus brief in support of the Eighth District's decision.4 The brief argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge will drive up health care costs, and also will have a big effect on patients too by limiting their ability to access affordable medications, hindering health outcomes.4 The AMCP brief also argues that ruling in favor of Rutledge can lead to issues at the administrative level, and can lead to varying and possibly contradictory state laws as well.4 Supreme Court to hear Rutledge v. PCMA Oct. 6 The US Supreme Court has released its October 2020 oral argument calendar, with Rutledge v. PCMA now scheduled to be heard on Tuesday, Oct. 6. The case was originally scheduled to be argued in April but was postponed due to the coronavirus pandemic. Rutledge v. PCMA is a landmark case on whether states can adopt meaningful regulations on pharmacy benefit managers. If you would like to contribute to the NCPA Legislative/Legal Defense Fund, your support would be much appreciated. Resources Brief of Arkansas Pharmacists Association, National Community Pharmacists Association, American Pharmacists Association, National Alliance Of State Pharmacy Associations, and Fifty-One Other Pharmacist Associations As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioner Latest Information on Rutledge v. PCMA NCPA Analysis of Rutledge v. PCMA Rutledge v. PCMA: 15 Years in the Making See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled 5–4 against President Trump's attempt to repeal former President Obama's executive order on Immigration, known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals). In this episode, John Anthony Dunne and Rev. Daniel Parham are joined by Jon Garcia, a PhD student in Religion at USC. Over the course of our conversation we talk about the implications of this ruling, President Trump's possible determination to try to repeal DACA once more, the relationship between immigration policy and growing nationalism in America, the nature of the conservative argument in favor of voting for Trump in 2016 on the grounds of gaining conservative justices given the two rulings from last week that went against certain conservative positions (i.e. regarding LGBT rights and immigration), and how certain cultural and societal trends have particularly led white evangelicals to be disinclined towards seeing immigration as a subject worth Christian reflection and action.

If anything is to be learned from this pandemic it is how woefully unprepared the United States has been in many areas. Americans are starving, as the country deals with food shortages particularly in urban areas. A recent poll taken shows 37 % of Unemployed Americans ran out of food in the Month of April. If you can't work and make money, how do you buy food to live? Native People are also a part of this percentage who also live in urban areas. We look at this poll.Also, despite the pandemic, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is back in operation, and working virtually. One of their cases may affect the jurisdiction of Oklahoma as it pertains to the 5 tribes within the borders of the state. At stake... Did the United States Congress dissolve the Muskogee Creek reservation, and remand jurisdiction to the state of Oklahoma? We take a look at Federal Indian Law, as well as potential scenarios that could play out for this case.

NVidia's streaming video game project GeForce Now has seen publishers big (2K, Activision Blizzard, and Bethesda) and small (Hinterland Studio - The Long Dark) alike ask Nvidia to remove their content from the project. But many think such publishers should not be permitted, by law or by contract, to effect such removal. What are some of the arguments these game players (and industry observers) are making? What are the strengths and weaknesses of these arguments? And has the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) already decided here through it's ruling in "ABC v Aereo, Inc."? To Aereo is human, to forgive divine...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/JKjxfDJXV1E #Nvidia #GeForceNow #Aereo *** Discussed in this episode: ""The Long Dark" of Licensing: Nvidia's GeForce Now (Virtual Legality #184)" YouTube Video - March 3, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/sN7nZDCVuD0 GeForce Now Website https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/ "The Long Dark Developer Asks Nvidia to Take Game Off GeForce Now, Saying Company Didn't Ask Permission to Host It on Their Service" IGN - March 2, 2020 - Joseph Knoop https://www.ign.com/articles/long-dark-nvidia-geforce-now-streaming-takedown "Sorry to those who are disappointed you can no longer play #thelongdark on GeForce Now." Tweet - March 1, 2020 - Raphael van Lierop (@RaphLife) https://twitter.com/RaphLife/status/1234181315840229376 "Why ‘The Long Dark’ Developer Is Wrong To Pull The Game From GeForce Now" Forbes - March 3, 2020 - Erik Kain https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2020/03/03/why-the-long-dark-developer-is-wrong-to-pull-the-game-from-geforce-now/#a5cdf39ad2d8 "The controversy over GeForce Now, explained" PC Gamer - March 4, 2020 -Wes Fenlon https://www.pcgamer.com/the-controversy-over-geforce-now-explained/ "Remote Play Together is a particularly fascinating one because it basically disproves damn near everything you've said in one easy link:" Twitter - March 6, 2020 - Rick Huddy (@ThatFuzzyTiger) https://twitter.com/ThatFuzzyTiger/status/1236120379166470144 "Steam Remote Play" Steamworks Documentation https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features/remoteplay "Steam Subscriber Agreement" https://store.steampowered.com/subscriber_agreement/ Zenimax/Bethesda EULA https://bethesda.net/data/eula/en.html GeForce Now Terms of Use Updated: November 12, 2019) https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce-now/terms-of-use/ "Exclusive rights in copyrighted works" 17 USC 106 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106 "ABC v. Aereo, Inc." 573 U.S. 431 (2014) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/431/ "Definitions" ("publicly") 17 USC 101 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF THE SERIES HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

It's rare for a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) to publicly dissent from the Court's denial of review (certiorari), and rarer still for such public dissent to formally rebuke their own previous thinking (and court holding). But that's exactly what happened when Justice Clarence Thomas indicated his desire to revisit his holding in "Brand X". What was the Court's holding in the Brand X case? How did it rely on the concept of Chevron Deference (and what is that anyway)? And how would a change in the Court's deference to executive branch agencies change the landscape of modern US governance (including interpretations as far reaching as COPPA, Net Neutrality, IRS deadlines, and more)? Deference to deference is no defense...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/jlRorkusYVY #COPPA #Chevron #Deference *** Discussed in this episode: "Clarence Thomas regrets ruling that Ajit Pai used to kill net neutrality" Ars Technica - February 26, 2020 - Jon Brodkin https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/02/clarence-thomas-regrets-ruling-that-ajit-pai-used-to-kill-net-neutrality/ "Justice Thomas rues missed opportunity to curtail government power" The Hill - February 24, 2020 - John Kruzel https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/484375-justice-thomas-rues-missed-opportunity-to-curtail-government-power Baldwin v US Denial of Cert; J. Thomas Dissent https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-402_o75p.pdf "Chevron Deference" Legal Information Institute https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF THE SERIES HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

National Polygamy Advocate ™ Mark Henkel was on Understanding the Law with Peter Lamont, on UTLradio.com, on June 29, 2015. On the Monday weekly 2-hour legal review that the host would present each week with co-host Bob Hughes, this episode was coming after the 3-days-earlier historic decision by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), Obergefell v. Hodges (6/26/2015), that formally legalized same sex marriage. The host is an attorney who self-identified as a Christian (Russian Orthodox) who defends equality and fairness. The co-host is a Republican who self-identified as non-religious. The host and co-host interviewed Mark Henkel on this episode between the times of 12:56 and 41:34. The show opened with a reading and detailing of the Court's Opinions & Dissents from Obergefell v. Hodges. The host then welcomed Mark Henkel to answer the fundamental question that both conservatives and liberals have to consider in the wake of that SCOTUS Decision. How can it then still be possible, or fair, or even about equality if this decision still allows government to still deny and even criminalize UCAP, Unrelated Consenting Adult Polygamy? Mark Henkel's gave answers that were so helpful and definitive that the two co-hosts continued talking about the matter for 15 additional minutes afterward. Their continued conversation (without Mark Henkel) is included here to demonstrate the impact for history and future researchers of this history. Truly, this interview is one for all liberals and conservatives alike to listen, learn, contemplate, and take action. http://www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/nationalpolygamyadvocate/support

National Polygamy Advocate ™ Mark Henkel was interviewed on July 10, 2003, for an article in "Whistleblower" magazine, published by WorldNetDaily of WorldNetDaily.com, by freelance writer, Allyson Smith, for the August 2003 edition. As the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had just decided the Lawrence v. Texas case 2 weeks earlier on June 26th, that magazine that served a Christian and Conservative audience sought to get a report on the pro-polygamy response to the Court's decision. Knowing that he was speaking to that specific audience, Mark Henkel intentionally used that consitituency's rhetorical "commonplace" terminology, in order to more successfuly persuade them of how their own values would compel them to see how the Bible never banned polygamy and how limited government means not using government for such a ban. Anyone who believes in a Christian or Conservative political paradigm will recognize that this is "no liberal" argumentation (which they know would otherwise dissuade them). As well, anyone with a liberal or progressive political preference hearing this interview will hear things to which they might not agree, but also which have no bearing on their agreement on the issue of polygamy itself. Smarter liberals will understand the benefit of using this interview to learn how to use those arguments (regardless of other disagreements) to successfully persuade Christians and Conservatives too, so that it becomes a face-saving Win-Win for everyone. This interview occurred over a decade ago - a dozen years, actually - before same sex marriage was later legalized, using the rhetoric of that past era. Mark Henkel declared, "Polygamy Rights is the next civil rights battle." After Mark Henkel commented about how most people are often surprised when they learn and self-realize that he is using valid arguments, the writer interjected, "Yeah. They ARE valid - definitely so." http://www.NationalPolygamyAdvocate.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/nationalpolygamyadvocate/support

While the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)  unanimously (9-0) put to bed all of the arguments against the effectiveness of a notice of rescission under 15 U.S.C. §1635, Jesinoski v. Countrywide Home Loans, 135 S. Ct. 790 (2015), all inferior and lower courts have been ruling the other way. Any dispute raised by anyone, even if they have no legal standing to do so, is taken as an excuse for the lower courts to impose conditions not included in the TILA Rescission statute and banned or barred by SCOTUS. Join me tonight as we discuss what to do about rebellious judges and how to preserve your interest in real property despite a negative ruling from a trial judge, even if it is affirmed by an appellate court other than SCOTUS, the highest court in the land.

In this breaking news update, CFC President Jonathan Keller is joined by John Gerardi of Right to Life of Central California to discuss today's vote by the U.S. Senate to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Jonathan and John discuss how SCOTUS nomination fights got to be so acrimonious, why today's vote is so pivotal, and what this means for the future of the pro-life movement.