Podcasts about violating

On this episode Samantha Rowe, partner in the London office of Debevoise and Plimpton, joins the podcast to discuss the recent Trump executive order aimed at jumpstarting deep seabed mining, the role of the International Seabed Authority, and evolving custom in the law of the sea.

I've never highlighted a book as much as They're Not Gaslighting You: Ditch the Therapy Speak and Stop Hunting for Red Flags in Every Relationship.  It's my favorite book in 2025! Watch the Video Interview Author Dr. Isabelle Morley gives us a timely book that rejects the reckless proliferation of the following terms:  Sociopath Psychopath Love bomb Narcissist Boundaries Borderline Toxic Gaslighting Who is Dr. Isabelle Morley? Dr. Morley is not a chronic gaslighter trying to convince the world that she doesn't gaslight by writing a book about it. Here's her resume: Author of Navigating Intimacy and They're Not Gaslighting You Co-host of the podcast Romcom Rescue Contributor to Psychology Today Advisory Board Member of the Keepler app Founding Board Member of UCAN Member of the American Psychological Association Certified in Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) The Gottman Method – Completed Levels 1 and 2 Relational Life Therapy – Completed Level 1 PsyD in Clinical Psychology from William James College, 2015 Doctoral project researching hookup culture's impact on relationship formation, 2015 Master's in Professional Psychology from William James College, 2013 Bachelor of Arts from Tufts University, 2011 My Fatima Story I dated a woman for two years. Let's call her Fatima. In the second half of our relationship, Fatima bombarded me with many of the highly charged and often misused words listed above. After she dumped me the fifth and final time, I finally pushed back on her barrage of accusations. I said to her, “So, you truly believe I'm a narcissist? Let's look up the clinical definition of a narcissist and see how I stack up.” She agreed. Perplexity wrote: To be clinically considered as having Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) according to the DSM-5, an individual must exhibit at least five out of nine specific characteristics. These characteristics, as summarized by the acronym “SPECIAL ME,” include: Sense of self-importance Exaggerating achievements and expecting to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements. Preoccupation Being preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love Entitled Having unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations. Can only be around people who are important or special Believing that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions). Interpersonally exploitative Taking advantage of others to achieve their own ends. Arrogant Showing arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes. Lack empathy Being unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others. Must be admired Requiring excessive admiration. Envious Often being envious of others or believing that others are envious of them. These symptoms must be pervasive, apparent in various social situations, and consistently rigid over time. A qualified healthcare professional typically diagnoses NPD through a clinical interview. The traits should also substantially differ from social norms. I asked her how many of these nine characteristics I exhibited consistently, pervasively, and in many social situations. She agreed that I was nowhere near five of the nine. Admittedly, I sometimes exhibited some of these nine characteristics in my intimate relationship with Fatima. I'm certainly guilty of that. However, to qualify as a true narcissist, you must display at least five of these nine characteristics often and with most people, not just your partner. To her credit, my ex-girlfriend sheepishly backed down from that accusation, saying, “You're right, Francis, you're not a narcissist.” Later, I would educate her (or, as she would say, “mansplain”) about another of her favorite words: gaslighting. I mansplained by sending her a video clip of renowned couples therapist Dr. Julie Schwartz Gottman, who explained why standard disagreements and having different perspectives aren't gaslighting. Soon after explaining that, Mrs. Gottman explains why, in some ways, “everybody is narcissistic.” Watch 6 minutes from 1:35:30 to 1:41:30: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9kPmiV0B34&t=5730s After listening to an expert define gaslighting, Fatima apologized for incorrectly using the term. This is what I loved about Fatima: she wouldn't stubbornly cling to her position when presented with compelling evidence to the contrary. This is a rare trait I cherish. Narcissists and sociopaths are about 1% of the population, so it's highly unlikely that all your exes are narcissists and sociopaths. Still, Fatima flung other popular, misused terms at me. She loved talking about “boundaries” and “red flags.” According to Dr. Morley, my ex “weaponized therapy speak.”   Dr. Morley writes, “It's not a new phenomenon for people to use therapy terms casually, even flippantly, to describe themselves or other people. How long have we referred to someone as a ‘psycho' when they're acting irrationally or being mean?” Although weaponized therapy speak isn't new, it's ubiquitous nowadays. Dr. Morley's book sounds the alarm that it's out of control and dangerous. Three types of people would benefit from Dr. Morley's book: People like Fatima: Does someone you know tend to denigrate people using therapy speak? Are they intelligent, rational, and open-minded like Fatima? If so, they must read this book to recalibrate how they use these powerful words. People like me: Are you (or someone you know) accused of being a psychopath, a gaslighter, or a person with OCD? Actual victims: The explosion of use of these powerful words has diluted their meaning. As a result, the real victims of narcissists and sociopaths are now belittled. Their true suffering is minimized when every other person has a sociopath in their life. Their grievances are severe. Let's not equate our relationship problems with their terror. I'll list some of my favorite chapter titles, which will give you a flavor of the book's message: Chapter 4: Are They Gaslighting You, or Do They Just Disagree? Chapter 5: Do They Have OCD, or Are They Just Particular? Chapter 6: Is It a Red Flag, or Are They Just Imperfect? Chapter 7: Are They a Narcissist, or Did They Just Hurt Your Feelings? Chapter 9: Are They a Sociopath, or Do They Just Like You Less Than you Like Them? Chapter 11: Did They Violate Your Boundaries, or Did They Just Not Know How You Felt? I will quote extensively to encourage everyone to buy Dr. Mosley's book. Most quotations are self-explanatory, but sometimes I will offer personal commentary. Excerpts The trend of weaponized therapy speak marks something very different. These days, clinical words are wielded, sincerely and self-righteously, to lay unilateral blame on one person in a relationship while excusing the other from any wrongdoing. ========== Many times, we use these words as protective measures to help us avoid abusive partners and reduce our risk of “wasting” time or emotional energy on family or friends who don't deserve it. But using these terms can also absolve people from taking responsibility for their actions in their relationships. They can say, “I had to do that because of my obsessive-compulsive disorder” or “We didn't work out because she's a narcissist,” instead of doing the hard work of seeing their part in the problem and addressing the issues behind it. As a couples therapist, I'm particularly concerned with how the enthusiastic but inaccurate embrace of clinical terminology has made it harder to sustain healthy romantic attachments. With Fatima, our relationship woes were always my fault because I crossed her “boundaries” and I was a “narcissist.” If I disagreed, I was “gaslighting” her. Or I was being “defensive” instead of apologizing. And when I apologized, I did so incorrectly because I offered excuses after saying I'm sorry (she was right about that). The point is that she used weaponized therapy speak to demonize me, alleviating herself from the burden of considering that perhaps she shared some of the responsibility for our woes. ========== Their friend doesn't agree with their warped view of an event or their disproportionate reaction? The friend is an empathy-lacking narcissist who is actively gaslighting them. ========== In one memorable session of mine, a client managed to accuse their partner of narcissism, gaslighting, love bombing, blaming the victim, lacking accountability, having no empathy, and being generally abusive, manipulative, and toxic . . . all within twenty minutes. Although Fatima and I went to couples therapy, I don't remember Dr. Mosley being our facilitator, but that sure sounds like Fatima! LOL! ========== I'm certified in emotionally focused couples therapy (EFCT), which is a type of couples therapy based on attachment theory. ========== For example, if you feel like a failure for letting your partner down, you might immediately minimize your partner's feelings and tell them they shouldn't react so strongly to such a small issue. (For anyone wondering, this isn't gaslighting.) That makes them feel unheard and unimportant, so they get even more upset, which makes you dismiss their reaction as dramatic, and round and round it goes. Welcome to my world with Fatima! ========== You could claim your partner is toxic and borderline because they're emotionally volatile and unforgiving. You could say their feelings are disproportionate to the problem, and their verbal assault is bordering on abusive. But your partner could say that you are a narcissist who is gaslighting them by refusing to acknowledge their feelings, showing no empathy for the distress your tardiness caused, and shifting the blame to them (just like a narcissist would!). You'd both be wrong, of course, but you can see how these conclusions could happen. ========== Weaponized therapy speak is our attempt to understand people and situations in our lives, yes, but it is also a strategy to avoid responsibility. It puts the blame solely on the other person and allows us to ignore our part. ========== However, the vast majority of partners and friends are not sociopaths, narcissists, or abusers. They're just flawed. They're insecure, demanding, controlling, emotional, or any number of adjectives, but these traits alone aren't pathological. ========== But doing such things now and then in our relational histories, or doing them often in just one relationship, doesn't mean we have a personality disorder. These diagnoses are reserved for people who exhibit a persistent pattern of maladaptive behaviors in most or all of their close relationships. ========== I wasn't an abusive partner. I was a messy newcomer to relationships, as we usually are in our teens and twenties, trying my best to navigate my feelings while following bad examples from television and making plenty of other blunders along the way. Stonewalling was immature and an unhelpful way of coping, but it wasn't abuse. ========== If we're looking for a partner who will always do the right thing, even in the hardest moments, we're only setting ourselves up for disappointment. As I mentioned before, really good people can behave really badly. ========== If we don't know the difference between abusive behavior and normal problematic behavior, we're at risk for either accepting abuse (thinking that it's just a hard time) or, alternatively, throwing away a perfectly good relationship because we can't accept any flaws or mistakes. Alas, Fatima threw away a perfectly good relationship. I was her second boyfriend. Her lack of experience made her underappreciate what we had. She'll figure it out with the next guy. ========== Disagreeing with someone, thinking your loved one is objectively wrong, arguing about what really happened and what was actually said, trying to find your way to the one and only “truth”—these are things that most people do. They are not helpful or effective, but they also are not gaslighting. ========== “What? I didn't say yes to seeing it, Cece. I said yes to finding houses we both liked and visiting them. Sometimes you just hear what you want to and then get mad at me when you realize it's not what I actually said,” Meg answers. “Stop gaslighting me! Don't tell me what happened. I remember exactly what you said! You told me yes to this open house and then changed your mind, and I'm upset about it. I'm allowed to be upset about it; don't invalidate my feelings!” Cece says, her frustration growing. Meg feels surprised and nervous. She didn't think she was gaslighting Cece, which is exactly what she says. “I didn't mean to gaslight you. I just remember this differently. I don't remember saying I would go to this open house, so that's why I don't understand why you're this upset.” “Yes, you are gaslighting me because you're trying to convince me that what I clearly remember happening didn't happen. But you can't gaslight me because I'm positive I'm right.” ========== Cece's accusation of gaslighting quickly shut down the conversation, labeling Meg as a terrible partner and allowing Cece to exit the conversation as the victor. ========== I find gaslighting to be one of the harder labels to deal with in my clinical work for three reasons: 1. Accusations of gaslighting are incredibly common. I hear accusations of gaslighting at least once a week, and yet it's only been accurate about five times in my entire clinical career. Boyfriend didn't agree with what time you were meeting for dinner? Gaslighting. Spouse said you didn't tell them to pick up milk on the way home, but you swear you did? Gaslighting. ========== You could say, “I want you to know that I really understand your perspective on this. I see things differently, but your experience is valid, and it makes sense. I'm not trying to convince you that you're wrong and I'm right, and I'm sorry if I came across that way.” WHAT IS VALIDATION? Validation is another word that suffers from frequent misuse. People demand validation, but what they're really asking for is agreement. And if someone doesn't agree, they call it toxic. Here's the thing, though: Validation is not the same as agreement. ========== You can disagree in your head but still validate how they feel: “Hey, you're not crazy. I see why you'd feel that way. It makes sense to me. I'd probably feel that way too if I were in your shoes, experiencing our interaction the way you did. I care about your feelings.” ========== “I bet it felt really awful to have me challenge your experience and make you feel like it wasn't right or valid.” I regret I learned this lesson too late with Fatima. I was too slow to validate her feelings. We learn something in every relationship. Ideally, our partner is patient with us as we stumble through the learning process, often repeating the same error until we form a new habit. However, Fatima ran out of patience with me. I couldn't change fast enough for her, even though I was eager to learn and dying to please her. By the time I began to learn about proper validation and apologies, she had given up on me. ========== My husband, Lucas, hates it when lids aren't properly put on jars. You know, when a lid is half on and still loose or haphazardly tightened and askew? I, on the other hand, could not care less. I am the only perpetrator of putting lids on wrong in our house. I barely screw on the top to the pickles, peanut butter, medications, water bottles, or food storage containers. I don't even realize that I do it because I care so little about it. This drives Lucas absolutely crazy. I love this example because it's what I would repeatedly tell Fatima: some habits are hard to break. Dr. Mosley knows her husband hates half-closed jars, but she struggles to comply with his wishes. We're imperfect creatures. ========== Is your partner always leaving a wet towel on the floor after showering? Red flag—they're irresponsible and will expect you to clean up after them. Is your friend bad at texting to let you know when they're behind schedule? Red flag—they're selfish, inconsiderate, and don't value your time. It's all too easy to weaponize this term in a relationship, in hopes that it will shame the other person into changing. ========== People aren't perfect. Individually, we're messy, and in relationships, we're much messier. We all make mistakes, sometimes repeatedly for our entire lives. Instead of labeling all unwanted behaviors as red flags and expecting change or running away altogether, try a new approach: Identify why those behaviors hurt you and share that with your loved one instead. ========== When confronted with the knowledge that we've hurt someone, many of us become defensive. We hate the idea of hurting the person we love and since we usually didn't intend to hurt them, we start explaining why our actions weren't that bad and why they shouldn't feel upset. It comes from a place of inadequacy, self-criticism, and remorse. If the other person responds like this but you can tell they care about your pain, this may be a good time to give them some grace in the form of empathy and time. Wait a few hours or even a few days, then try the conversation again. For every criticism I had about Fatima's behavior, she had 20 criticisms about my behavior. As a result, I had many more opportunities to fall into the trap of becoming defensive. It's so hard to resist. I'm still working on that front. ========== We all have a touch of narcissism, which can get bigger at certain points in life, ========== Conflicts are upsetting, and we've all developed ways of protecting ourselves, whether it's getting loud to be heard or emotionally withdrawing to prevent a panic attack. Underneath these less-than-ideal responses, though, we feel awful. We feel scared, insecure, inadequate, unimportant, and alone. We hate fighting with our loved ones, and we really hate that we've hurt them, especially unknowingly. We're not being defensive because we have a narcissistic belief in our own superiority; we're doing it because we're terrified that the person won't understand us and will see us negatively, so we need to show them our side and explain to them why we aren't to blame. ========== But whether it's an inflated ego, vanity, self-absorption, or just unusually healthy confidence, these traits do not make a narcissist. To have NPD, the person must also require external validation and admiration, and to be seen as superior to others. This is the difference between a big ego and grandiosity. Grandiosity goes several steps beyond confidence—it's a near-delusional sense of importance, where someone exaggerates their achievements and expects others to see them as superior. ========== Some people suck. They're immature, mean, selfish, and unremorseful. Some people don't respect other people in their lives. They lie and they cheat, and they don't care that it hurts others. But they can be all these things and still not be a narcissist. There's a lot of room for people to be awful without meeting the criteria for a personality disorder, and that's because (you guessed it!) people are flawed. Some people feel justified in behaving badly, while others just don't know any better yet. Our growth is messy and not linear. ========== The reality is that anyone who genuinely worries that they are a narcissist, probably isn't. That level of openness and willingness to self-reflect is not typical of a narcissist. Plus, narcissists don't tend to believe or care that they've hurt others, whereas my clients are deeply distressed by the possibility that they've unknowingly caused others pain. ========== As with gaslighting, I have rarely seen people accurately diagnose narcissism. To put it bluntly, I have never seen a client in a couples therapy session call their partner a narcissist and be right. In fact, the person misusing the label usually tends to be more narcissistic and have more therapy work to do than their partner. ========== person involved with a narcissist to accurately identify the disorder because people with NPD are great at making other people think they are the problem. It's an insidious process, and rarely do people realize what's happening until others point it out to them or the narcissist harshly devalues or leaves them. Now, you might be in a relationship with someone who has NPD, but instead of jumping to “narcissist!” it's helpful to use other adjectives and be more specific about your concerns. Saying that a certain behavior was selfish or that a person seems unremorseful is more exact than calling them a narcissist. ========== Love bombing can happen at any point in a relationship, but it's most often seen at the start. ========== Love bombing is also a typical follow-up to fights. ========== Humans are a complicated species. Despite our amazing cognitive capacities and our innate desire to be good (well, most of us anyway), we often cause harm. People act in ways that can damage their relationships, both intentionally and unknowingly, but that doesn't make them sociopaths. In fact, anyone in a close and meaningful relationship will end up hurting the other person and will also end up getting hurt at some point because close relationships inevitably involve a degree of pain, be it disappointment, sadness, anger, or frustration. Even when we're doing our best, we hurt each other. We can't equate normal missteps and hurt with sociopathy. ========== People love to call their exes sociopaths, just like they love calling them narcissists. Dr. Mosley focuses on the term sociopath because it's more popular nowadays than the term psychopath, but they both suffer from misuse and overuse, she says. If your partner (or you) use the term psychopath often, then in the following excerpts, replace the word “sociopath” with “psychopath.” ========== calling someone a sociopath is extreme. You're calling them out as a human who has an underdeveloped (or nonexistent) capacity to be a law-abiding, respectful, moral member of society. And in doing so, you're saying they were the entire problem in your relationship. Unless you were with a person who displayed a variety of extreme behaviors that qualify as ASPD, that conclusion isn't fair, accurate, or serving you. Again, you're missing out on the opportunity to reflect on your part in the problem, examine how you could have been more effective in the relationship, and identify how you can change for the better in your next relationship. If you label your ex a sociopath and call it a day, you're cutting yourself short. ========== Let the record show that I have never seen someone use the term sociopath correctly in their relationship. ========== some boundaries are universal and uncrossable, but the majority are personal preferences that need to be expressed and, at times, negotiated. Claiming a boundary violation is a quick and easy way to control someone's behavior, and that's why it's important to clarify what this phrase means and how to healthily navigate boundaries in a relationship. Fatima loved to remind me of and enforce her “boundaries.” It was a long list, so I inevitably crossed them, which led to drama. ========== There are some boundaries we all agree are important and should be uncrossable—I call these universal boundaries. Violating universal boundaries, especially when done repeatedly without remorse or regard for the impact it has on the other person, amounts to abuse. ========== The main [universal boundaries] are emotional, physical, sexual, and financial boundaries ========== Outside of these universal, uncrossable boundaries, there are also individual boundaries. Rather than applying to all people, these boundaries are specific to the person and defined by their own preferences and needs. As such, they are flexible, fluid over time, and full of nuance. If they are crossed, it can be uncomfortable, but it isn't necessarily abuse. ========== boundary is a line drawn to ensure safety and autonomy, whereas a preference is something that would make you feel happy but is not integral to your sense of relational security or independence. ========== While a well-adjusted person might start a dialogue about how to negotiate an individual boundary in a way that honors both partners' needs, an abusive person will never consider if their boundary can be shifted or why it might be damaging or significantly limiting to the other person. Instead, they will accuse, blame, and manipulate their partner as their way of keeping that person within their controlling limits. ========== The point is that as we go through life, our boundaries shift. As you can see, this is part of what makes it difficult for people to anticipate or assess boundary violations. If you expect and demand that the people close to you honor your specific boundaries on certain topics, but you're not telling them what the boundaries are or when and how they've changed, you're setting your loved ones up for failure. ========== And again, people unknowingly cross each other's individual boundaries all the time. It's simply inevitable. ========== It will create an unnecessary and unproductive rift. 3. We Mistake Preferences for Boundaries Boundaries protect our needs for safety and security. Preferences promote feelings of happiness, pleasure, or calm. When someone crosses a boundary, it compromises our physical or mental health. When someone disregards a preference, we may feel annoyed, but it doesn't pose a risk to our well-being. ========== You've Been Accused of Violating a Boundary If you're in a close relationship, chances are you're going to violate the other person's boundaries at some point. This is especially likely if the person has not told you what boundaries are important to them. However, you might also be unjustly accused of violating a boundary, perhaps a boundary you didn't know about or a preference masquerading as a boundary, and you'll need to know what to do. ========== I never thought of telling Fatima that she was “borderline.” It helps that I didn't know what the term meant. Dr. Mosley says that a person must have several of the “borderline” characteristics to have borderline personality disorder (BPD). Fatima only had one of them, so she did not have BPD. Here's the only BPD trait she exhibited: Stormy, intense, and chaotic relationships: Have relationships that tend to be characterized by extremes of idealization and devaluation in which the person with BPD idolizes someone one moment and then vilifies them the next. Because they struggle to see others in a consistent and nuanced way, their relationships go through tumultuous ups and downs, where they desire intense closeness one minute and then reject the person the next. Fatima promised me, “I will love you forever,” “I want to marry you,” “I will be with you until death,” “I'll never leave you,” and other similar extreme promises. Three days later, she would dump me and tell me she never wanted to get back together. Two days later, she apologized and wanted to reunite. Soon, she would be making her over-the-top romantic declarations again. She'd write them and say them repeatedly, not just while making love. Eventually, I'd fuck up again. Instead of collaborating to prevent further fuck ups, Fatima would simply break up with me with little to no discussion. This would naturally make me question her sincerity when she repeatedly made her I-will-be-with-you-forever promises. You might wonder why I was so fucking stupid to reunite with her after she did that a couple of times. Why did I always beg her to reconsider and reunite with me even after we repeated the pattern four times? (The fifth time she dumped me was the last time.) Humans are messy. I expect imperfection. I know my loved one will repeatedly do stupid shit because I sure will. So, I forgave her knee-jerk breakup reaction because I knew she didn't do it out of malice. She did it to protect herself. She was in pain. She thought that pulling the plug would halt the pain. That's reasonable but wrong. That doesn't matter. She's learning, I figured. I need to be patient. I was hopeful we'd break the pattern and learn how to deal with conflict maturely. We didn't. I'm confident she'll figure it out soon, just like I learned from my mistakes with her. ========== If I had to pick one word to describe people with BPD, it would be unstable. Fatima was unstable in a narrow situation: only with one person (me) and only when the shit hit the fan with me. Aside from that, she was highly stable. Hence, it would have been ludicrous if I accused her of having Borderline Personality Disorder. Luckily, I never knew the overused borderline term; even if I did, I wouldn't be tempted to use it on her. ========== Just as with red flags, we all exhibit some toxic behaviors at times. I don't know anyone who has lived a toxic-free existence. Sometimes we go through tough phases where our communication and coping skills are down, and we'll act more toxically than we might normally; this doesn't make us a toxic person. Indeed, many romantic relationships go through toxic episodes, if you will (should we make “toxic episode” a thing?), where people aren't communicating well, are escalating conflicts, and are generally behaving badly. We need to normalize a certain level of temporary or situational toxicity while also specifying what we mean by saying “toxic.” This is the only way we can determine whether the relationship needs help or needs ending. ========== trauma is itself a heavy, often misunderstood word. Its original meaning referenced what we now call “big T” trauma: life-threatening events such as going to war or surviving a car crash. Nowadays, we also talk about “little t” trauma: events that cause significant distress but aren't truly life-threatening, like being bullied in school or having an emotionally inconsistent parent. ========== Avoiding relationships with anyone who triggers hard feelings will mean a very lonely existence. ========== a trauma bond is the connection that survivors feel with their abuser. ========== A captured soldier who defends his captors? That person is, in fact, trauma bonded. ========== soldiers aren't trauma bonded after going to war together; they're socially bonded, albeit in an unusually deep way. A captured soldier who defends his captors? That person is, in fact, trauma bonded. ========== None of us get to have a happy relationship without hard times and hard work. It's normal and okay to sometimes struggle with the person you're close to or love. When the struggle happens, don't despair. Within the struggle are opportunities to invest in the relationship and grow, individually and together. ========== If you determine your relationship is in a tough spot but not abusive, now's the time for some hard relational work. A good cocktail for working on your relationship is specificity, vulnerability, and commitment. ========== Making a relationship work requires you and your loved ones to self-reflect, take responsibility, and change. This process won't just happen once; it's a constant cycle you'll go through repeatedly over the course of the relationship. You'll both need to look at yourselves, own what you've done wrong or could do better, and work to improve. Nobody is ever finished learning and growing, not individually and certainly not in a relationship. But that's what can be so great about being in a relationship: It's a never-ending opportunity to become a better person. And when you mess up (because trust me, you will), be kind to yourself. As I keep saying, humans are wonderfully imperfect. Even when we know what to do, sometimes we just don't or can't do it. ========== In this world of messy humans, how do you know who will be a good person for you to be with? My answer: Choose someone who wants to keep doing the work with you. There is no perfect person or partner for you, no magical human that won't ever hurt, irritate, enrage, or overwhelm you. Being in close relationships inevitably leads to big, scary feelings at times, so pick someone who wants to get through the dark times with you. Remember that when people are behaving badly in a desperate attempt to connect—not control—they'll be able to look at themselves, recognize the bad behavior, and change. Pick someone who has the willingness to self-reflect and grow, even if it's hard. Someone who will hang in there, even during your worst fights, and ultimately say, “Listen, this is awful, and I don't want to keep arguing like this, but I love you and I want to figure this out with you.” Wow. So well said. And this, in a paragraph, explains where Fatima and I failed. I dislike pointing fingers at my ex when explaining why we broke up. I made 90% of the mistakes in my relationship with Fatima, so I bear most of the responsibility. However, Fatima was the weaker one on one metric: having someone who wants to collaborate to make a beautiful relationship despite the hardships. The evident proof is that she dumped me five times, whereas I never dumped her or even threatened to dump her. I always wanted to use our problems as a chance to learn and improve. Fatima used them as an excuse to quit. She tried. She really did. However, she lacked the commitment Dr. Mosley discussed in that paragraph. Perhaps another man will inspire Fatima to find the strength and courage to bounce back and not throw in the towel. Or maybe she will mature and evolve to a point where she can be with someone less compatible than I was for her. She would often declare, “Francis, we're incompatible.” I'd say, “No, we are compatible; we have incompatibilities. Everyone has incompatibilities. We just need to work through them. If there is a willingness to collaborate, we can solve any incompatibility. The only couples who are truly incompatible are the ones where one or both individuals refuse to budge or learn. We can overcome countless incompatibilities as long as we both want to be together.” ========== We have wounds and scars and bad habits. We rely on ineffective but protective coping mechanisms. We push others away when we're hurt or scared. ========== Everyone behaves badly sometimes. But even then, odds are they're not gaslighting you. Conclusion I'll repeat: They're Not Gaslighting You: Ditch the Therapy Speak and Stop Hunting for Red Flags in Every Relationship is my favorite book in 2025! Buy it! Feedback Leave anonymous audio feedback at SpeakPipe More info You can post comments, ask questions, and sign up for my newsletter at http://wanderlearn.com. If you like this podcast, subscribe and share!  On social media, my username is always FTapon. Connect with me on: Facebook Twitter YouTube Instagram TikTok LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr My Patrons sponsored this show! Claim your monthly reward by becoming a patron at http://Patreon.com/FTapon Rewards start at just $2/month! Affiliate links Get 25% off when you sign up to Trusted Housesitters, a site that helps you find sitters or homes to sit in. Start your podcast with my company, Podbean, and get one month free! In the USA, I recommend trading crypto with Kraken.  Outside the USA, trade crypto with Binance and get 5% off your trading fees! For backpacking gear, buy from Gossamer Gear.

Bible Discussion: Marriage is a sacred covenant before God, requiring both spouses to die to self and become one. Just as covenants in Scripture required sacrifice to become effective, the marriage covenant requires both spouses to give up their independence, past lives, and bodily autonomy in service to one another. Violating this covenant—particularly through adultery or neglecting marital duties—brings spiritual consequences. Even when a marriage begins without God's direction, it must still be honored because God holds us accountable to the promises we make to our spouse. The authority of this covenant is why divorce is not an option and why faithfulness and sacrificial love are non-negotiable. As believers under the New Covenant, we are called back to God's original design: one man, one woman, for life. Partner with Us: https://churchforentrepreneurs.com/partner Connect with Us: https://churchforentrepreneurs.com                  

On Yom Kippur atoning for sin, regardless of a person's regret. With a dive into Rabbi Yehudah vs. Rebbe (Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi), as to the extent of the atonement and what happens with unrepented sins. And which view underlies or agrees with the mishnah? Also, the sacrifices atone - but only with repentance, so isn't that going to be the case with Yom Kippur too? But even if Yom Kippur does atone without teshuvah, what happens if the thing to atone for is the violation of Yom Kippur itself?

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former NBA player Iman Shumpert wants his ex-wife, Teyana Taylor, to be jailed and held in contempt of court for violating their divorce agreement by releasing the terms of the divorce. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Pakistan and India have accused each other of violating the truce which ended four days of attacks. Also: Syrian Jews return home, and some confusion over the return to Earth of parts of an old Soviet spacecraft.

SUPPORT MY WORK:SUBSTACK: https://dersh.substack.com/The Dershow staring Alan Dershowitz* APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dershow/id1531775772SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7Cx3Okc9mMNWtQyKJZoqVO?si=1164392dd4144a99_________________________________________________________FOLLOW ME:TWITTER: https://twitter.com/AlanDershRUMBLE: https://rumble.com/user/Sav_saysLOCALS: https://dershow.locals.com/YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDershowWithAlanDershowitz________Youtube: @thedershowwithalendershowitz

UPenn found GUILTY of VIOLATING Title IX! Must STRIP Lia Thomas of ALL RECORDS and CHAMPIONSHIPS!

News for the week of April 21: • First teacher disciplined for violating Florida's parental rights law (1:39) • Tesla arson suspect may face up to 40 years in prison (15:06) • RFK Jr. goes on unhinged tirade against autistic people (27:10) • DOJ takes action against Maine: 'This is ridiculous!' (34:46)

Volodymyr Zelensky said that Russia is trying to create a “general impression” of an Easter ceasefire but is still attacking Ukraine.

This Day in Legal History: Maryland Toleration Act PassedOn April 21, 1649, the Maryland Assembly passed the Maryland Toleration Act, a landmark piece of colonial legislation that granted freedom of worship to all Christians in the colony. Also known as the Act Concerning Religion, it was one of the first legal efforts in the American colonies to protect religious liberty through statutory law. The act was enacted under the leadership of Cecil Calvert, the second Lord Baltimore, who sought to maintain peace in Maryland's religiously diverse population, which included both Catholics and Protestants.The law's preamble acknowledged the dangers of religious coercion, stating that "the inforceing of the conscience in matters of Religion hath frequently fallen out to be of dangerous Consequence." To preserve harmony, it declared that no Christian should be "troubled, Molested or discountenanced" for practicing their faith, provided they did not threaten the colony's civil government or the authority of the Lord Proprietor.While progressive for its time, the Act's protections were limited to those who professed belief in Jesus Christ, excluding Jews, atheists, and other non-Christians. Violators of the law's religious tolerance provisions faced harsh penalties, including fines, public whipping, or even death for blasphemy.The Act was repealed just five years later during a period of Protestant ascendancy, reflecting the fragile nature of religious tolerance in colonial America. Nonetheless, it remains significant as an early attempt to codify the principle that faith should not be a basis for persecution.A federal judge has ruled that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can no longer direct the termination of probationary federal workers based on performance-related justifications that were, according to the court, misleading. U.S. District Judge William Alsup called OPM's use of standardized termination letters citing performance as the reason for firing thousands of employees a “total sham.” He emphasized that falsely attributing the dismissals to performance could harm the affected workers' reputations and career prospects for years to come.The ruling affects employees at six federal agencies and prohibits further terminations under these pretenses. Judge Alsup's decision underscores that these workers were dismissed under false narratives while still in their probationary period—either newly hired or recently promoted—and should not have been labeled as underperformers without proper evaluation or process.Though Alsup's ruling offers protection against future actions, he declined to issue a preliminary injunction requested by the state of Washington, stating the state lacked standing because it could not show concrete harm from the federal firings, such as a clear loss of federal services.This legal challenge comes amid a broader judicial tug-of-war. In March, Alsup had initially ordered the reinstatement of 16,000 workers pending resolution of a lawsuit. However, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked that injunction on April 8, suggesting that nonprofit organizations representing federal workers may lack the legal standing to sue on their behalf. Following that, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals also halted a separate injunction from a Maryland judge that would have reinstated probationary employees in 19 states and Washington, D.C.Despite the limits imposed by the higher courts, Alsup's decision focuses on the reputational harm caused by labeling the dismissals as performance-based, rather than procedural or administrative. He signaled that the government must correct the record for those terminated workers.Performance-Based Federal Worker Layoffs a ‘Sham' Judge RulesThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear a major challenge to a provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare, that mandates insurers cover certain preventive medical services—like cancer screenings and diabetes testing—without cost-sharing by patients. The case centers on the constitutional validity of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), a panel of medical experts that identifies which services should be covered. The panel's 16 members are appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) but are not confirmed by the Senate.A group of Texas-based Christian individuals and businesses filed the lawsuit in 2020, arguing that the USPSTF wields too much authority and must therefore comply with the U.S. Constitution's Appointments Clause. This clause requires that significant federal officers—known as "principal officers"—be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The plaintiffs claim the task force has evolved from a purely advisory body to one that effectively imposes binding legal obligations on insurers, all without proper accountability.In 2024, the conservative-leaning 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling the task force's structure unconstitutional. The federal government appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court. The Biden administration originally filed the appeal, and it was later continued by the Trump administration. Government lawyers argue that the task force should be classified as comprising "inferior officers," since their recommendations are only made binding when approved by the HHS Secretary, who can remove task force members at will.The plaintiffs, however, maintain that the Secretary lacks actual power to stop recommendations from taking effect, making the task force's authority effectively unchecked. They also argue that this lack of oversight elevates the members to principal officer status, necessitating Senate confirmation.Before narrowing the lawsuit to the appointments issue, the plaintiffs also challenged the ACA's requirement to cover HIV prevention medication on religious grounds, asserting it promoted behaviors they opposed. The appeals court declined to sever portions of the law that might otherwise save the provision, another aspect now before the Supreme Court.If the Supreme Court upholds the lower court's decision, key preventive healthcare services could become subject to out-of-pocket costs like deductibles and co-pays, potentially deterring millions from accessing early detection and prevention tools. The Court's decision, expected by the end of June, could reshape how health policy is implemented under the ACA and may further weaken one of its core patient protections.US Supreme Court to hear clash over Obamacare preventive care | ReutersIn a rapidly unfolding legal confrontation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the deportation of a group of Venezuelan migrants from Texas, sparking a strong dissent from Justice Samuel Alito. The court intervened early Saturday morning, acting on urgent filings by detainees' lawyers who said the migrants were already being loaded onto buses for imminent deportation to El Salvador. The migrants were accused of gang affiliation, but their legal team argued they hadn't been given fair notice or time to challenge their removal. The administration attempted to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime law, to justify these expulsions.Justice Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, sharply criticized the majority's decision, calling it "unprecedented and legally questionable." He argued that the Court acted without giving lower courts adequate time to review the claims and issued its order with limited evidence and no explanation. The justices' ruling paused deportations “until further order of this Court,” leaving room for future legal developments.The Trump administration quickly responded, filing a motion urging the Court to reverse its stay. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued the detainees' lawyers bypassed proper procedure by going directly to the Supreme Court and that lower courts had not yet had a chance to establish key facts. He maintained that the migrants received legally sufficient notice, though reports suggested the notices were in English only and lacked clear instructions.The administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged gang members is highly controversial. Originally passed in 1798 during hostilities with France, the law has been used sparingly and almost exclusively during wartime. The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether its application in this immigration context is constitutional. Migrants' advocates, including the ACLU, maintain that many of the men deported or at risk of deportation are not gang members and were denied due process.The legal conflict reflects a broader tension between Trump's immigration enforcement efforts and judicial oversight. Last month, Trump ordered the deportation of more than 200 men to a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, reportedly ignoring a judge's oral order to halt at least two flights. The White House has not signaled any intent to defy the current Supreme Court stay but remains committed to its immigration crackdown.The case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, now becomes a focal point in ongoing disputes about executive authority, due process rights for detainees, and the scope of immigration enforcement under rarely invoked legal provisions. As the Court weighs further action, the lives of dozens of migrants hang in the balance, caught between legal technicalities and broader political pressures.Supreme Court's Alito Calls Block of Deportations ‘Questionable' - BloombergAlito criticizes US Supreme Court's decision to 'hastily' block deportations | ReutersTrump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Lift Deportation Halt - BloombergA federal judge in Boston ruled that the Trump administration's passport policy targeting transgender and nonbinary individuals is likely unconstitutional. The policy, which followed an executive order signed by President Trump immediately after returning to office, required passport applicants to list their biological sex at birth and allowed only "male" or "female" markers. This reversed prior policies that permitted self-identification and, under the Biden administration, had allowed the use of a gender-neutral "X" option.U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick issued a preliminary injunction that bars enforcement of the policy against six of the seven plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit. She held that the policy discriminates based on sex and reflects a bias against transgender individuals, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection. Kobick described the administration's approach as rooted in "irrational prejudice" and said it runs counter to the Constitution's promise of equality.Despite finding the policy likely unconstitutional, Kobick declined to issue a nationwide injunction, stating that the plaintiffs did not justify the need for broad relief. Still, the ruling marks a significant legal setback for the administration's broader effort to redefine federal gender recognition policies.The executive order at the center of the case mandated all federal agencies, including the State Department, to recognize only two sexes—male and female—based on biology at birth. The State Department then revised its passport application process to align with this directive.The case is part of a wave of legal challenges to Trump's rollback of gender recognition policies. Lawyers for the plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU, vowed to continue fighting to expand the ruling's protections to all affected individuals.Trump passport policy targeting transgender people likely unconstitutional, judge rules | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Democratic politician Chris Van Hollen is facing legal scrutiny after interfering with former President Trump's foreign policy agenda in El Salvador. The case involves potential violations of the rarely invoked Logan Act, a federal law prohibiting unauthorized negotiations with foreign governments. The Green Room - https://rumble.com/playlists/aa56qw_g-j0 BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Join The Discord Server - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL #LoganAct #TrumpPolicy #ElSalvador #DemocratCharges #ForeignPolicy #BreakingNews Democrat Faces CRIMINAL CHARGE For Violating Trump Foreign Policy In El Salvador, Logan Act Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports on a federal judge finding probable cause for holding the Trump administration in contempt.

In January – just one day after Trump was certified as the next president by Congress, a massive Border Patrol raid took place in Bakersfiled, California. Seventy-eight migrant workers were detained under the guise of a crack down on criminals, but when the dust settled the data revealed that only one out of the 78 people detained had any criminal record. Joining us to discuss are Bree Bernwanger, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California and lead attorney on United Farm Workers v. Noem, a lawsuit which claims the Border Patrol violated the plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as their Fifth Amendment right to due process, and other federal laws, during the raids described above. We're also joined by Sergio Olmos, an investigative reporter for CalMatters, whose latest reporting, along with our next guest, focuses on the same Border Patrol actions in Bakersfield that are being challenged in the lawsuit that I previously mentioned. And we're additionally joined by Wendy Fry, a multimedia investigative journalist who reports on poverty and inequality for the California Divide team at CalMatters, who has been collaborating with Sergio in covering the Border Patrol Bakersfield raids. Check out the CalMatters coverage of this story here: https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/04/border-patrol-to-retrain-hundreds-of-california-agents-on-how-to-comply-with-the-constitution/ Learn more about the lawsuit UFW v. Noem: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/united-farm-workers-v-noem — Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/   The post Border Patrol Sued Over Violating Bakersfield Immigrant Rights w/ Bree Bernwanger, Sergio Olmos & Wendy Fry appeared first on KPFA.

Arrest stories from first amendment auditor.Check out Rouge Nation https://www.youtube.com/@RogueNationAuditsFollow me on all socials!Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/insidetruecrime/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@mattcoxtruecrimeDo you want to be a guest? Fill out the form https://forms.gle/5H7FnhvMHKtUnq7k7Send me an email here: insidetruecrime@gmail.comDo you want a custom "con man" painting to shown up at your doorstep every month? Subscribe to my Patreon: https: //www.patreon.com/insidetruecrimeDo you want a custom painting done by me? Check out my Etsy Store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/coxpopartListen to my True Crime Podcasts anywhere: https://anchor.fm/mattcox Check out my true crime books! Shark in the Housing Pool: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0851KBYCFBent: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BV4GC7TMIt's Insanity: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08KFYXKK8Devil Exposed: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08TH1WT5GDevil Exposed (The Abridgment): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1070682438The Program: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0858W4G3KBailout: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/bailout-matthew-cox/1142275402Dude, Where's My Hand-Grenade?: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BXNFHBDF/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1678623676&sr=1-1Checkout my disturbingly twisted satiric novel!Stranger Danger: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BSWQP3WXIf you would like to support me directly, I accept donations here:Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/MattCox69Cashapp: $coxcon69

Part 2 - Malik Sekou and Ed Brown speak with Neville, as the White House is violating a 109-year-old agreement to not interfere with Denmark's rule over Greenland, a vital precursor to the United States acquiring the Danish West Indies. Violating the treaty could have real implications for the U.S. Virgin Islands.

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO SUPPORT THE SHOW - https://castbrew.com/ Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com Host: Tim Pool @Timcast (everywhere) Guests: Goodlawgic  @GoodLawgic  (YouTube) PiscoLitty @PiscoLitty (X) Producers:  Lisa Elizabeth @LisaElizabeth (X) Kellen Leeson @KellenPDL (X) My Second Channel - https://www.youtube.com/timcastnews Podcast Channel - https://www.youtube.com/TimcastIRL

A gag order, also known as a judicial gag order, is a legal order issued by a judge that restricts or prohibits certain individuals involved in a legal case from speaking about or disclosing certain information to the public or the media. It is typically employed to ensure a fair trial or to protect the integrity of ongoing legal proceedings.The purpose of a gag order is to prevent potential prejudice or bias that may arise from pretrial publicity or excessive media coverage.By limiting the dissemination of information, a gag order aims to safeguard the right of the accused to a fair trial and maintain the impartiality of the jury.A judge may impose a gag order on various parties involved in a case, including the prosecution, defense attorneys, witnesses, and even the media. The specific terms and scope of a gag order can vary, but it commonly restricts individuals from discussing case-related details, evidence, or opinions outside of the courtroom.Gag orders can be broad, prohibiting all communication on a case, or they can be more specific, focusing on certain topics or individuals. Violating a gag order can result in contempt of court charges, fines, or other legal consequences.While gag orders are intended to protect the legal process, they can also raise concerns about freedom of speech and the public's right to information. However, judges may consider the potential impact on the fairness of the trial or the privacy rights of those involved when deciding to issue a gag order.In this epsiode, we are diving into the court documents once again and we are taking a look at the amended gag order, order graning motion to take judicial notice of press coverage, order granting motion to intervene for limited purpose and the order reserving the issue of cameras in the courtroom.(commercial at 8:10)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:06232023 Revised Amended Nondissemination Order.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Granting Motion to Take Judicial Notice of Press Coverage.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Granting Motion to Intervene for Limited Purposes.pdf (idaho.gov)source:06232023 Order Reserving Ruling on the Issue of Cameras in the Courtroom.pdf (idaho.gov)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

SBS Sinhala correspondent and senior journalist Mr Manoj Udatiyawala presents homeland highlights from Sri Lanka on 25 March 2025 - අද - මාර්තු මස 25 වනදා SBS සිංහල සේවය ගෙනෙන "මවුබිමෙන් පුවත්" - මාධ්‍යවේදී මනෝජ් උදටියාවල ශ්‍රී ලංකාවේ සිට වාර්තා කරයි

All Family Pharmacy https://allfamilypharmacy.com/HermanBe prepared for when you need medicine the most. Don't go to urgent care YUCK. Use code HERMAN10 to save 10% on your order. Alan's Soaps https://www.alansartisansoaps.comUse coupon code TODD to save an additional 10% off the bundle price.Bioptimizers https://bioptimizers.com/toddEnter promo code TODD to get 10% off any order.Bonefrog https://bonefrogcoffee.com/toddThe new GOLDEN AGE is here!  Use code TODD at checkout to receive 10% off your first purchase and 15% on subscriptions.Bulwark Capital https://bulwarkcapitalmgmt.com/radio-show/Get a second opinion on the health of your retirement portfolio today. Schedule your free Know Your Risk Portfolio review go to KnowYourRiskRadio.com today.Renue Healthcare https://renue.healthcare/toddYour journey to a better life starts at Renue Healthcare. Visit https://Renue.Healthcare/ToddWhat would a Christian response to these judges violating their own codes of conduct be? Secrets Kill families, too many secrets kill nations. What is Christ the king of?Bill Maher pushes back at Don Lemon after he suggests that people love AOC and Jasmine Crockett, and that Democrats should push them in front.Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she'll continue to speak out against DOGE and that Elon Musk may take "the next billion dollars that he makes off of Starlink and put it directly against" her.Pam Bondi discusses with Hannity why the Esptein documents weren't released on FridayJews funded the ‘Christ is king is antisemetic' study. Jordan Peterson willingly added his brand to add credence to the study.  They're doing it to turn people against Christians, and soft-headed Christians against Christians. Thought you should know!”I need to warn you about something! The term CHRIST IS KING has been a declaration of shared Christian values for generations, but shocking research by @ncri_io at @RutgersU compiled in a report I co-authored with Dr. @jordanbpeterson demonstrates that this iconic phrase is being hijacked by antisemitic extremists to manipulate Christians…We collaborated with @Us_The_Story

The first brown bear to undergo brain surgery wakes from hibernation, 380-million-year-old fossils tossed into the dump over an unpaid bill, and the Mary Molone statue in Dublin may be moved to stop people from “violating” it. Plus, on This Day in History, the standard time act of 1918. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this News Brief, we detail the struggle to continue framing Israel as a reluctant, defensive peace-seeking party despite its openly genocidal rhetoric and acts.    

A Pontiac mother accused of abandoning her three children in a townhouse for years has now been accused of violating a Judge order in the Oakland County Jail. WWJ's Tony Ortiz and Tracey McCaskill have this afternoon's top news stories.

Trump & company aren't even attempting to create a pretext for why they're punishing the free speech of political opponents. They are basically confessing in writing to violating the First Amendment. At the same time, the administration claims it's throwing a Hamas supporter out of the country in the name of fighting antisemitism—while giving jobs to the 'right kind' of antisemites. Plus, MAGA turns on Amy Coney Barrett, Trump sees Canada as 'our Ukraine,' and we're looking at a party that is governing like it will never give up power. David French joins Tim Miller for the weekend pod. show notes David's column on Trump's attack on the First Amendment (gifted) Post that David referenced that was retweeted by Jessica Riedl Tim's playlist

Send us a textTEXAS LAW DAWGS!!!! Join Dray, Stilly, Phil, and the Administrative LT Brandon for an episode that should have been titled THE ENEMY! We talk a little bit about how current policy is out of hand, complaints, the alleged Brown Book, and how Stilly still holds the record for most complaints in the dept!  Enhance your body worn camera during bathroom breaks and find out who has tentacular cancer from erasing all those old VHS tapes with the giant magnet! Lots of info in the one! LAW DAWGS!!!!     

In this episode, Sarah J. Hink and Ava K. Jennette from New Direction Family Law discuss the procedural steps involved in obtaining a domestic violence protective order (DVPO) in North Carolina. They offer advice on resources such as local domestic violence resource centers and highlight the essential details needed in the complaint form, including specific allegations and dates. The discussion includes what to expect during the ex parte hearing, service of the abuser, and the return hearing. They also cover the potential consequences of violating a DVPO, the importance of including all relevant incidents in the complaint, and the role of Legal Aid in assisting victims. The episode provides comprehensive guidance for those looking to pursue or defend against a DVPO, emphasizing the importance of legal representation.00:00 Introduction to the Episode00:30 Understanding Domestic Violence Protective Orders01:39 Filing for a Protective Order02:25 Details and Allegations in the Complaint06:30 The Ex Parte Order Process08:47 Preparing for the Return Hearing09:57 Defending Against False Allegations13:17 Consequences of Violating a Protective Order17:56 Renewing a Protective Order19:56 Final Advice and ResourcesLearn more about New Direction Family Law: https://newdirectionfamilylaw.com/contact-us-today/

I Just got off a 30 minute interview with the Detroit News about the pandemic.I made sure to mention that, in my humble opinion, they're nothing more than the propaganda arm of the radical left.I always record these interviews to ensure they can't twist my words—transparency matters.Not surprising that they were unaware of many things Governor Whitmer said and did during the pandemic.Welp, it's on record now:“Google a haircut.”“Implore one another to wear the mask—if not, do it forcefully.”Sneaking down to see her sick dad on a private jet while we weren't allowed to travel.Violating her own orders by going out to eat with 16 friends.CDC changed the definition of what a vaccine does from “provides immunity to provides protection.”PCR test is hot garbage.And the list goes on…Fit, Healthy & Happy Podcast Welcome to the Fit, Healthy and Happy Podcast hosted by Josh and Kyle from Colossus...Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

In our news wrap Sunday, Israel delayed the release of 620 Palestinian detainees it was supposed to free on Saturday, Musk’s team asked more than 2 million federal employees to explain their work or risk losing their jobs, the pope remains in critical condition with early signs of kidney failure, and U.S. skiing star Mikaela Shiffrin became the first skier to win 100 World Cup races. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

In our news wrap Sunday, Israel delayed the release of 620 Palestinian detainees it was supposed to free on Saturday, Musk’s team asked more than 2 million federal employees to explain their work or risk losing their jobs, the pope remains in critical condition with early signs of kidney failure, and U.S. skiing star Mikaela Shiffrin became the first skier to win 100 World Cup races. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

4pm: John on Why Working in Radio Isn’t About the Money (as he tries to convince Arron and Joe NOT to become traffic flaggers) // Island County Republican charged with felony for violating mask mandate. Is it politically motivated? // Spring Training Starts today! // Mariners starting rotation ranked #1 in MLB , but they have a 2.3% chance of winning the world series // Aaron Granillo gives us his 2025 predictions // Indian Youtuber sparks outcry in country over a joke considered tame by American standards

An Eastern Conference contender will be without a key contributor after a positive drug test. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh reports.

Trump is doing what he said he would–undermining the U.S. Constitution to expand his own power. The question is, what recourse is there? And is it too late to save U.S. democracy?

It's Monday, February 17th, A.D. 2025. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 125 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus 18-year-old Catholic woman escapes Pakistani Muslim man An 18-year-old Pakistani woman has been reunited with her Catholic family after six months of captivity, forced conversion to Islam, and coerced marriage to the Muslim who abducted her, reports Morning Star News. Huma Allah Ditta's ordeal began when she failed to return home from her job at a call center in Lahore  on June 28. Her distraught parents began a desperate search after police failed to lift a finger. On August 4th, her parents discovered that she had been abducted by a Muslim man named Abdul Basit Butt.  2 Corinthians 4:4 says, “Satan, who is the god of this world, has blinded the minds of those who don't believe. They are unable to see the glorious light of the Good News. They don't understand this message about the glory of Christ, who is the exact likeness of God.” The Catholic mother said, “My husband and I decided to put this matter in God's hands and started praying vigorously for our daughter's return.” The couple's prayers were answered on January 16th, when Huma managed to escape from Butt's custody and was reunited with her family. JD Vance slams Europe for violating free speech of pro-life Christians Last Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance used a speech addressing European leaders at the Munich Security Conference in Germany to slam Europe for violating the free speech and religious rights of pro-life Christians, reports LifeNews.com. VANCE: “When I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. … Perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons, in particular, in the crosshairs. “A little over two years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith-Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 meters from an abortion clinic and silently praying for three minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. “After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply it was on behalf of the unborn son he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now, the officers were not moved. “Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 meters of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution.” Vice President Vance expressed disappointment that the United Kingdom had penalized so-called thought crimes. He warned European leaders against censoring pro-lifers. VANCE: “Now, I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off, crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person. But no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish Government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so called ‘safe access' zones, warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government urged readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. “In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat.” RFK, Jr. vows to implement Trump's pro-life policies Last Thursday, February 13th, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was confirmed in a 52-48 vote and sworn in as President Donald Trump's Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), reported The Epoch Times. Prior to that, during the Senate Health Committee hearing, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri asked Kennedy about whether he would implement President Trump's pro-life policies. Listen to their exchange. HAWLEY: “Under the first Trump presidency, HHS stopped new [National Institutes of Health] research that involved human fetal tissue from elective abortion. You said, ‘Stem cell research today can be done on umbilical cords. You don't need any fetal tissue.'  -- which is correct. My question to you is, ‘Will you reinstate President Trump's policy that ensures that no federal research and no federal tax dollars is conducted on fetal tissue taken from elective abortions?'” KENNEDY: “Yes.” HAWLEY: “Fantastic! Let me ask you just about Title X which prohibits the funding of the use of federal taxpayer funding for abortions or to flow to entities like Planned Parenthood that perform abortions or refer people to abortions. You were asked yesterday if you would support President Trump's rule that says, ‘No Title X funding for those who perform abortions or refer people to abortions.' I think your answer was, ‘Yes. You would reinstate that rule.' I just want to be sure I'm right about that. KENNEDY: “Yes.” HAWLEY: “Fantastic! Last point that I have for you. On mifepristone, the chemical abortion drug, you said yesterday that you would study its safety. I think that's good. I want to make an additional point here just about how the Biden administration changed the rules on mifepristone that I hope that you'll take into consideration because you pointed out that we need to honor the wishes of voters in states and their right to set life policy. “The Biden administration's rule on mifepristone, which they did after the Dobbs decision, means that in any state, including ones like mine [Missouri], where voters or state legislators say, ‘We don't want abortion performed after a certain point,' if the Biden administration rule on chemical abortion stands and you can mail in these abortion drugs without a doctor visit or referral, that means no state ban, no state decision, no voter decision is going to matter. We're going to have a one-size-fits-all policy set here in Washington. I hope you'll take that into consideration.” KENNEDY: “I will implement President Trump's policies.” Valentine's Day birthed through Christian martyr's death And finally, have you ever wondered why we just celebrated Valentine's Day on February 14th, this past Friday? Well, Pastor Valentine or Valentinus was a clergyman in the Roman Empire who lived during the reign of Claudius Gothicus or Claudius II. Because the Emperor was having difficulty getting young men to volunteer to serve in the army to fight his wars, he prohibited marriage which would further hurt the conscription rate. Pastor Valentine, who celebrated God's love and Biblical love between husband and wife, secretly married Christian couples in the forest which ultimately led to his arrest and imprisonment.  While Claudius took a liking to Pastor Valentinus, the bold preacher tried to convert the Emperor which resulted in a sentence of death. In Romans 10:14, the Apostle Paul asks, "How, then, can they call on the One they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?” Valentine was beaten with clubs and stones.  And when that failed to kill him, Valentine was beheaded on February 14th, A.D. 269. And now you know the rest of the story. Get the children's book entitled Valentine: God's Courageous Evangelist. Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, February 17th in the year of our Lord 2025. Subscribe by Amazon Music or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Once again, investigative journalists — aka “bloggers,” “viral podcasters,” “spewers of bilious screed” and “self-proclaimed journalists”— Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell have to tear up the script as their usual onslaught of breaking news hits on production day … but this time, they only have themselves to blame. On Tuesday, Mandy received a tip that thrice-accused rapist Bowen Turner, of Orangeburg, South Carolina, had been at his county golf course that morning throwing back beers in direct violation of his latest parole conditions. With receipts in hand, Mandy immediately went to the authorities and ole Bowen Turner was arrested that evening.  On today's episode, Mandy and Liz talk about the behind the scenes of Bowen's latest run-in with the law and what happens next, plus they share recordings of Bowen talking with his parents in the days before and after his latest parole hearing this past September. One thing they learned? Bowen's dad had predicted Bowen's golf club demise on Tuesday.  Also on the show, the latest in the Mica Francis case and JP Miller's collection of frivolous lawsuits against peaceful protesters — including an email that JP sent to three of the defendants' lawyer, offering his unsolicited ideas on how they can settle his cases against them.  Premium members will get an extended episode cut, featuring Bowen Turner's latest attempt as getting off the sex offender registry.  Let's dive in...

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration is violating a restraining order the judge issued previously requiring the administration to lift the freeze on billions of dollars in federal grants.Attorneys General from 22 states brought suit against the Trump administration asking the court to order Trump to lift the freeze on federal funds that had been allocated to the states. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., found in favor of the states, ruling that the "sweeping freeze of federal funds is . . . likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to case irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country."However, the Trump administration failed to comply with the original court order. So the states filed a Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order. In granting the states' motion, Judge Jackson wrote:"It is a basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly . . . Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect."However, the judge stopped short of holding the Trump administration in contempt, rather ordering them to comply.Trump seems determined to plunge our nation into a constitutional crisis. Glenn exposes what might happen next it Trump continues to defy lawful court orders.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2X aka Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Take The Free IEP Assessment: https://iep-assessment.com/Behind The Mic:Scott HowellAaron DuggerJacob HeppnerIEP Programs:◼️Strength Program: https://iepstrength.com/◼️Speed & Power Program: https://iepspeedandpower.com/◼️Capacity Program: https://iepcapacity.com/◼️Performance Track: https://iepperformance.com/Download In Extremis Performance Free Guides:◼️https://iep-guides.com/Follow IEP:◼️Website - https://inextremisperformance.com/◼️Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/inextperformance/

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration is violating a restraining order the judge issued previously requiring the administration to lift the freeze on billions of dollars in federal grants.Attorneys General from 22 states brought suit against the Trump administration asking the court to order Trump to lift the freeze on federal funds that had been allocated to the states. Judge John J. McConnell, Jr., found in favor of the states, ruling that the "sweeping freeze of federal funds is . . . likely unconstitutional and has caused and continues to case irreparable harm to a vast portion of this country."However, the Trump administration failed to comply with the original court order. So the states filed a Motion for Enforcement of the Temporary Restraining Order. In granting the states' motion, Judge Jackson wrote:"It is a basic proposition that all orders and judgments of courts must be complied with promptly . . . Persons who make private determinations of the law and refuse to obey an order generally risk criminal contempt even if the order is ultimately ruled incorrect."However, the judge stopped short of holding the Trump administration in contempt, rather ordering them to comply.Trump seems determined to plunge our nation into a constitutional crisis. Glenn exposes what might happen next it Trump continues to defy lawful court orders.If you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support us and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2X aka Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A judge just extended the deadline for federal workers to accept or reject the Trump administration's so-called “buyout” offer. Thousands of government employees are in limbo right now as the court weighs whether the plan is legal. Plus, the White House is being accused of failing to comply with court orders to unfreeze federal grants and to reinstate USAID staffers.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

U.S. Rep. Val Hoyle announced last week she’s leaving the Department of Government Efficiency House caucus. She was one of few Democratic members of DOGE, the new efficiency effort led by Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of Tesla and other companies. She told OPB that President Donald Trump has given enormous power to billionaire Elon Musk – including control of the government's finances - and that they are operating “unconstitutionally and illegally.” Hoyle says Musk’s access to Social Security numbers and other personal information of U.S. citizens, along with names of U.S. agents abroad, represents a grave threat, both domestically and internationally. On Saturday, a federal judge blocked Musk from accessing Treasury department records containing Americans’ personal data. Hoyle joins us from D.C. to talk about the details and what she’s hearing from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

2/4/25 Hour 2 The metro blocks off a seat in every bus and train to “reserve” it for Rosa Parks. AOC calls Elon Musk one of the most unintelligent billionaires that exist. ABC interviews a USAID employee who explains how she had to take down her pride flags as DOGE entered the building. Employees at CDC are crying because the official federal policy is that sex is a real thing. Vince speaks with Ian Prior, Senior Advisor at America First Legal, about the complaint AFL just filed to the Department of Education requesting a federal investigation into five Virginia school districts over radical “gender identity” policies that violate Title IX and Trump’s order ending indoctrination in K-12 schools. For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm. To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese. Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Is NCAA violating their own ruleSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The US Bishops stand to lose billions of dollars of revenue due to the shift in politics in the US. Sponsored by Fidei Email:https://www.fidei.email Sources: https://www.returntotradition.org Contact Me: Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.com Support My Work: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStine SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-tradition Buy Me A Coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStine Physical Mail: Anthony Stine PO Box 3048 Shawnee, OK 74802 Follow me on the following social media: https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/ https://twitter.com/pontificatormax +JMJ+

The US Bishops stand to lose billions of dollars of revenue due to the shift in politics in the US. Sponsored by Fidei Email:https://www.fidei.email Sources: https://www.returntotradition.org Contact Me: Email: return2catholictradition@gmail.com Support My Work: Patreon https://www.patreon.com/AnthonyStine SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.net/return-to-tradition Buy Me A Coffee https://www.buymeacoffee.com/AnthonyStine Physical Mail: Anthony Stine PO Box 3048 Shawnee, OK 74802 Follow me on the following social media: https://www.facebook.com/ReturnToCatholicTradition/ https://twitter.com/pontificatormax +JMJ+

Local DA's are damned if they do when it comes to California's sanctuary state lawSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Tonight on The Last Word: Donald Trump violates the law in his mass purge of inspectors general. Also, the Justice Department fires the officials involved in Jack Smith's Trump probes. Plus, Democrats condemn Trump firing inspectors general. And a new book, “The Sirens' Call,” tackles the world's most endangered resource – attention. Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Brendan Ballou, Andrew Weissmann, Rep. Jamie Raskin, and Chris Hayes join Lawrence O'Donnell.

Today's Topics: 1) Gospel - Mark 3:7-12 - Jesus withdrew toward the sea with His disciples. A large number of people followed from Galilee and from Judea. Hearing what He was doing, a large number of people came to Him also from Jerusalem, from Idumea, from beyond the Jordan, and from the neighborhood of Tyre and Sidon. He told His disciples to have a boat ready for Him because of the crowd, so that they would not crush Him. He had cured many and, as a result, those who had diseases were pressing upon Him to touch Him. And whenever unclean spirits saw Him they would fall down before Him and shout, “You are the Son of God.” He warned them sternly not to make Him known. Memorial of Saint Vincent, Deacon and Martyr Memorial of Saint Marianne Cope, Virgin Saints Vincent and Marianne, pray for us! Bishop Sheen quote of the day 2) You Are the Salt of the Earth Men's Conference, at Christ Cathedral, Orange, CA https://www.catholicmen.org/events/2025/super-saturday-2025-you-are-the-salt-of-the-earth 3) Vatican promises stiff penalties for illegal aliens crossing its border https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/16/vatican-promises-stiff-penalties-for-illegal-aliens-crossing-its-border/ 4) While strictly enforcing Vatican border laws, Pope Francis calls Trump's reported plans for mass deportations a "disgrace" https://cforc.com/2025/01/pope-francis-calls-trumps-reported-plans-for-mass-deportations-a-disgrace/