Podcasts about weaponization

Andrew and Mary launch this week's episode by digging into the details on some of the latest acts of retribution coming out of the Trump administration as Trump targets Harvard, the Jenner & Block law firm gets a decision and Rep. LaMonica McIver gets charged with assault. Afterwards, they review a preliminary decision from the Supreme Court to stay a DC District Court's injunction that paused the firing of Gwynne Wilcox from the National Labor Relations Board, as well as Cathy Harris from the MSPB governing board while they challenge their removals. And lastly, Andrew and Mary get listeners up to speed on the O.C.G. case and the DOJ's continued defiance of Judge Murphy's TRO regarding extractions of migrants to countries they have no ties to.Further listening: HERE is a clip of Rep LaMonica McIver responding to the charges against her.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In this explosive episode, bombshell revelations unfold as host Tara dives into FBI corruption, Chuck Wright's resignation, and investigations into government weaponization. From Elvis Chan's censorship operation and Hunter Biden's bribery cover-up to Tulsi Gabbard's chilling declassifications on how Americans were secretly labeled as domestic extremists for dissenting views — this show connects the dots between censorship, surveillance, and the erosion of civil liberties. Also discussed: Trump's legal battles, NPR funding, Antonio Gracias's kleptocracy warning, and the looming threat of permanent political persecution. A must-listen deep dive into the threats facing democracy.

In Episode 105 of Culture of Change, Ashe in America and Abbey Blue Eyes mark Memorial Day with a powerful mix of remembrance, reality checks, and future-facing debate. Kicking off with a heartfelt discussion about Trump's tribute to fallen soldiers, the hosts reflect on the immorality of unwinnable wars and the manipulation behind America's foreign entanglements. From Biden-era military fears to propaganda-fueled conflict, Ashe and Abbey draw sharp lines between honoring true patriots and rejecting globalist war profiteering. But this episode isn't stuck in the past, it's locked on the future. Abbey dives into the rising tide of robotics and AI, passionately defending Elon's Optimus bots while Ashe pushes back with sharp ethical and military concerns. Together, they debate everything from neural networks and robot dogs to autonomous food delivery and the terrifying potential of AI-based super soldiers. Rounding out the show, the duo explores the psychology of manipulation, the power of story in shaping national consciousness, and how propaganda, like illusionist circles, becomes generational truth. With humor, heart, and fearless honesty, Ashe and Abbey take listeners to the edge of the Golden Age and ask the real question: Can we cross into it without losing our humanity?

With so many issues stemming from President Trump's executive orders now before the Supreme Court, it's tough to know where to begin. So Andrew and Mary start this week with the arguments heard last Thursday from Mary's ICAP team on the courts issuing national injunctions in several birthright citizenship cases. They recap Thursday's highlights and note the Justices' interest in getting to the merits of the birthright issue. Then, they talk through two SCOTUS decisions from Friday and Monday: one on the Trump administration using the Alien Enemies Act to ‘extract' Venezuelan migrants, and the other on their attempt to revoke the protected status of Venezuelans. Last up, Andrew and Mary turn to the specifics of a few of the immigration removal cases, as hearings continue and the lack of due process continues to be challenged.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

In this fiery and unfiltered commentary, the host explores what they view as a double standard in how political violence and protest are perceived, reported, and prosecuted in America. From a Democrat congresswoman caught on camera clashing with ICE agents to James Comey's alleged nod to assassination culture via a suspicious beach photo, the segment dives into claims that left-wing figures are inciting unrest while deflecting accountability. The conversation connects the dots between rising political extremism, the glorification of radicals like Che Guevara, and social media trends celebrating violent rhetoric. With biting sarcasm and blunt accusations, the host warns of a dangerous normalization of political bloodlust disguised as activism—and the media's role in fueling it

Is your Jesus making your sons more radical—or more compassionate? In this scorching conversation, Frank Schaeffer sits down with Rev. Angela Denker to unpack her explosive new book Disciples of White Jesus: The Radicalization of American Boyhood. From Lutheran pulpits to CNN, Denker has tracked how faith, fear, and masculinity are being fused in dangerous ways. This episode exposes how American Christianity is grooming boys for culture war—and what real spiritual courage looks like instead._____LINKShttps://angeladenker.substack.comhttps://www.instagram.com/denkerangela/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmKIdMPvTt9uf3tlGBLFnxQhttps://www.lovechildrenplanet.com/events/it-has-to-be-read-red-state-christians-by-rev-angela-denker_____I have had the pleasure of talking to some of the leading authors, artists, activists, and change-makers of our time on this podcast, and I want to personally thank you for subscribing, listening, and sharing 100-plus episodes over 100,000 times.Please subscribe to this Podcast, In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer, on your favorite platform, and to my Substack, It Has to Be Said. Thanks! Every subscription helps create, build, sustain and put voice to this movement for truth. Subscribe to It Has to Be Said. Support the show_____In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer is a production of the George Bailey Morality in Public Life Fellowship. It is hosted by Frank Schaeffer, author of Fall In Love, Have Children, Stay Put, Save the Planet, Be Happy. Learn more at https://www.lovechildrenplanet.comFollow Frank on Substack, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Threads, TikTok, and YouTube. https://frankschaeffer.substack.comhttps://www.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16https://twitter.com/Frank_Schaefferhttps://www.instagram.com/frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.threads.net/@frank_schaeffer_arthttps://www.tiktok.com/@frank_schaefferhttps://www.youtube.com/c/FrankSchaefferYouTube In Conversation… with Frank Schaeffer Podcast

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.

After years of finger-pointing and false claims of weaponization of the Department of Justice, the Trump Administration turned around and did just about everything they absurdly accused the Biden White House of doing. In this episode, Senator Whitehouse is joined by Senator Adam Schiff to discuss a handful of this administration's many misdeeds. Follow ⁠⁠⁠Senator Whitehouse⁠⁠⁠ ⁠on ⁠Twitter⁠, ⁠Bluesky⁠, ⁠Instagram⁠, TikTok, and ⁠Facebook⁠ for all the latest updates on Making the Case.

The Weaponization of Cancer, The Monkey Virus & The Kennedy AssassinationIn this episode of the Take Your Power Back Show with Kim Yeater, we dive into a provocative and controversial topic: “The Weaponization of Cancer, the Monkey Virus, and the Kennedy Assassination.” Special guest, Judyth Vary Baker—a scientist, a witness, and, by her account, the girlfriend of Lee Harvey Oswald during a shadowy Cold War plot tied to the CIA, Fidel Castro, and perhaps even JFK's death joins us for a timely and eye-opening conversation. Judyth's intimate story bridges science and what some would say conspiracy in ways that challenge what we've been told. This is a must see!!!SUBSRCIBE & SHARE!!https://KimYeater.comhttps://www.TakeYourPowerBackShow.comRumble: https://rumble.com/c/TakeYourPowerBackShowLiveStream: https://rumble.com/TakeYourPowerBackShow/liveX @realkimyeaterFB kimberlyyeater & TakeyourpowerbackshowIG Takeyourpowerback_kimyeaterT takeyourpowerbackshowTake Our Border Backhttps://TakeOurBorderBack. Com (don't connect the .com on FB & IG or they will shadow band)https://rumble.com/c/TakeOurBorderBackX @TobbconvoymainX @TobbconvoycaliforniaX @TobbconvoyarizonaX @TobbconvoytexasTOGETHER WE WILL TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!!

This week, we share a clip from the latest episode of the Courage My Friends podcast series. In this episode, host Resh Budhu sat down with visiting professor and dean of the faculty of agriculture and veterinary medicine at Gaza's Al-Azhar University, Dr. Ahmed Abu Shaban. The two discuss the weaponization of already fragile food systems in Gaza, the acceleration of the climate crisis through conflict and Palestinian resilience under occupation. Listen to the full episode here. And, if you'd like to hear more from the Courage My Friends podcast, please subscribe to Needs No Introduction. Available on rabble.ca, Apple Podcasts, and Spotify.  About our guest  Dr. Ahmed Abu Shaban is a visiting professor at York University in the faculties of liberal arts & professional studies and environmental and urban change. He is also dean of the faculty of agriculture and veterinary medicine at Al-Azhar University in Gaza. His work focuses on food systems and climate vulnerability, particularly the impact of conflict on agricultural production and food security in the Gaza Strip. Dr. Abu Shaban plays a leading role in advancing higher education in crisis settings and co-founded the Emergency Committee of Universities in Gaza. If you like the show please consider subscribing on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube or wherever you find your podcasts. And please, rate, review, share rabble radio with your friends — it takes two seconds to support independent media like rabble. Follow us on social media across channels @rabbleca.

A Grand Jury has INDICTED Milwaukee Judge Hannah Dugan for Obstruction of Justice AND concealing a person wanted for arrest. Hakeem Jeffries is the latest elected Democrat to publicly threaten DHS officials. Ed Martin gives insight on how he will handle his new role with the "Weaponization" group. A Federal Judge is backing Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, but there's a catch. Inflation has hit a four year low.    Join UNGOVERNED on LFA TV every MONDAY - FRIDAY from 10am to 11am EASTERN!    www.FarashMedia.com www.LFATV.us www.OFPFarms.com

Stephen Miller's got some ideas. So this week, Mary and Andrew start with a focus on his recent acknowledgement that the White House is considering suspending habeas corpus altogether for migrants. They talk about what that means, and the reality that it lacks any legal sniff test, which the Supreme Court agrees with. Then, they highlight what happens when due process works, after the release of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts student who was detained by ICE over an opinion piece she wrote for the student newspaper. Next up, a significant decision from Judge Susan Illston out of California, putting a temporary hold on reducing the federal workforce. Mary and Andrew note what she held, including that the administration needs to follow procedure and get congressional buy in. And lastly, they preview the Supreme Court argument Mary's ICAP team is bringing this Thursday on birthright citizenship- not on the merits per se, but on the issue of national injunctions. And a quick eye pop on Trump's decision to swap out Ed Martin as the US Attorney for DC with yet another Fox News host, Jeanine Pirro.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

WMAL GUEST: JOE DIGENOVA (Legal Analyst & Former U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia) REUTERS: Trump Selects Fox News Host Jeanine Pirro as D.C.'s interim US Attorney THE HILL: Trump Taps Martin for DOJ Pardon Attorney, ‘Weaponization’ Role Where to find more about WMAL's morning show: Follow podcasts on Apple, Audible and Spotify Follow WMAL's "O'Connor and Company" on X: @WMALDC, @LarryOConnor, @JGunlock, @PatricePinkfile, and @HeatherHunterDC Facebook: WMALDC and Larry O'Connor Instagram: WMALDC Website: wmal.com/oconnor-company Episode: Monday, May 12, 2025 / 7 AM HourSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dennis Patterson discusses his co-authored book, "The Weaponization of Expertise: How Elites Fuel Populism."

In this raw and impassioned episode of RattlerGator Report, J.B. White introduces “Project De-Weaponization,” a bold cultural initiative aimed at dismantling the power structures surrounding the N-word and the broader manipulation of language. Drawing from personal experience, Southern history, and cultural commentary, J.B. makes the case that the enforced taboo around the word is a mental health issue used to infantilize and control Black Americans. He dives deep into the historical roots of the “Talented Tenth,” the manipulation of identity politics, and how language has been hijacked to divide rather than unite. Blending personal anecdotes, sharp humor, and cultural analysis, J.B. critiques what he sees as performative outrage, the hypocrisy of modern racial discourse, and the media's exploitation of racial tension. From Zora Neale Hurston to Eric Church lyrics, and even a breakdown of Pulp Fiction's power dynamics, this episode is both fiery and reflective. J.B. calls on non-Black Americans to help break the dialectical chains and treat the word as just that, a word. Unapologetically honest, challenging, and often humorous, this episode is a rallying cry for cultural maturity and honest dialogue, inviting listeners to confront uncomfortable truths in pursuit of real healing and unity.

Long established legal norms continue to be challenged by Trump's Justice Department, leading Andrew and Mary to emphasize how the courts have grown increasingly frustrated with the administration's tactics. They begin with last Thursday's ruling from Judge Rodriguez in Texas, that Trump was unjustified in using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan migrants. After a review of what that means for his ‘extraction' efforts, Andrew and Mary go deep on an assessment made public from the National Intelligence Council, that indicates despite Trump's presidential proclamation evoking the Alien Enemies Act, intelligence officials do not see a strong link between the Venezuelan government and Tren de Aragua. And lastly this week, they look at the latest judicial pushback on Trump's attempts to threaten law firms, after Judge Beryl Howell ruled against his targeting of Perkins Coie by executive order.Further reading: Here is the assessment from the National Intelligence Council on the relationship between the Maduro government and Tren de Aragua, courtesy of the New York Times.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Air Date 5/6/2025 The Monthly-ish Mix™ is here to get you caught up on recent news without being overwhelming! This month we look at government surveillance overreach, challenges facing immigrant and refugee communities, the shifting landscape of American culture brought on by Christian Nationalism and the emerging broligarchy, and grassroots movements challenging institutional power. Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes | Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) PART 1: GOVERNMENT POWER & ITS MISUSE #1697 The Trump World Order: Are we the Baddies? (00:27:13) #1699 A Government Of the People, By the People, and Weaponized Against the People (00:41:10) #1704 Weaponization and Capitulation: Trump vs Immigrants, Universities, and Media (01:05:30) #1706 Trump's Kafkaesque Deportation Nightmare is the Shame of the Nation PART 2: VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES & CIVIL RIGHTS (01:29:29) #1700 Dehumanizing Trans People is Always the First Step for Fascists (01:49:55) #1705 Threatened Social Safety Nets Are Foundational to Healthy Societies PART 3: CULTURAL & SOCIETAL TRANSFORMATION (02:03:47) #1702 Destroying Education, Boosting Christian Nationalism: Rewriting the Past and Hamstringing the Future (02:24:21) #1703 The Broligarchy and the Rise of Techno-Feudalism PART 4: OPPOSITION & RESISTANCE (02:39:54) #1698 Resistance is Not Futile: Support the collective revolt against Trumpism (Special Podcasthon!) (02:53:32) #1701 Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way: Installing the Backbone Democrats Need Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com

In this episode, the hosts discuss the Roostergate incident, where a seemingly innocent joke led to serious repercussions for ex-UPS employee Brian. The conversation explores the clash between different generational attitudes towards humor in the workplace, the role of the ethics line, and the broader implications for workplace culture and communication. Brian shares his personal experience, highlighting the challenges of navigating a high-stress environment while maintaining camaraderie among colleagues. The discussion serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of humor in professional settings and the need for clearer communication guidelines. In this conversation, Brian shares his experience with a suspension from UPS due to a joke that was deemed inappropriate. He discusses the investigation process initiated by a fellow driver who called the ethics line, the subsequent union involvement, and the panel hearing where he defended himself against all allegations. The discussion highlights the complexities of workplace culture, the interpretation of company policies, and the implications of calling the ethics line. Brian reflects on the reactions from his colleagues and the broader implications for workplace dynamics, particularly regarding humor and gender relations. Chapters 00:00 Introduction and Setting the Stage 02:55 The Roostergate Incident Explained 11:34 The Impact of Workplace Culture on Communication 20:11 The Ethics Line and Its Consequences 26:12 The Ethics Line Incident 28:29 Suspension and Union Involvement 30:46 The Panel Hearing Process 32:54 The Allegations and Defense 36:58 The Cardinal Sins and Company Policies 40:57 The Ethics Line and Company Culture 44:54 The Aftermath and Reactions 49:38 Reflections on Workplace Dynamics 59:39 The Weaponization of Labor Relations 01:01:02 The Ethics of Conduct and Accountability 01:03:05 Navigating Workplace Dynamics and Gender Issues 01:05:35 The Role of Humor in Coping with Workplace Stress 01:11:49 The Impact of Ethics Lines on Employee Relations 01:19:10 Reflections on Workplace Culture and Future Challenges www.patreon.com/aitdpod https://discord.gg/hm8WMUKVF8 THE OPINIONS EXPRESSED OR VIEWS EXPRESSED ON THIS PODCAST ARE THOSE OF THE HOSTS AND GUESTS AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT ANY DELIVERY COMPANY    

Critics warn that despite President Trump's call to end weaponization of the DOJ, the department has become more politicized in the president's first three months back in office. NPR's Ryan Lucas has the story. Support NPR and hear every episode of Trump's Terms sponsor-free with NPR+. Sign up at plus.npr.org.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Robin Unger returns to the show to pick up where we left off talking about Carroll Quigley. This episode is more about the alternative media landscape generally. A hollowed out shell of what it once was, so much of supposed counter culture is now being used to sell authoritarian technocracy.  Topics include: Mark Carney, establishment leaders, The Age of Transitions video, Truth videos from aughts, Alchemy in Popular Music, Mystery Girl Roy Orbison song, Bono, Themes & Memes, Carroll Quigley, Curtis Yarvin, orbital power, UN as a problem, weapons as unifying political tools, changing alternative media takes, Dark Enlightenment, Libertarian farce, fascism, technocracy, Anglo American Establishment, promotion of dominant minority, Left Hand Path occultism, Zelensky Star Wars fandom, the Dark Side, National Reconnaissance Office, selling counter cultural narratives, QAnon, intel ops, The Storm, Elon Musk, Steve Bannon, MAGA infighting, pretending to be antagonistic, Biosphere 2, stirring the pot, Roger Stone hiding away, Jason Bermas, Australian fronted media companies, supporting political candidates only to disrupt elections, alternative media ventures as a means to mask actual sources of funding, hijacking Truth Movement, Flat Earth, DOGE, Alex Jones support from Musk, The Onion short lived ownership of Infowars, Canadian trucker convoy protest, Bill Cooper, exploiting emergency powers, Patriot Act, PNAC, shilling for new establishment, Tucker Carlson, Curt Weldon, 9/11 Truth, converging interests, Cass Sunstein white paper about weaponizing conspiracy theories, military intelligence, terror acts instigated by feds, Michigan governor kidnapping plot, Operation Gladio, making media about weaponization of alt media, Media Roots, James Corbett, return of Sibel Edmonds, spiritual self improvement

The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have now come to a close. In a live legal special, MSNBC's Ari Melber breaks down the most consequential legal moments of the new administration, including the Trump administration's continued dismantling of key federal agencies, the targeting of private law firms, and the response from the judicial system and the US Supreme Court. Melber is joined by legal experts and insiders, including hosts of MSNBC's Main Justice podcast, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord. Visit msnbc.com for more coverage.

The first 100 days of President Trump's second term have now come to a close. In a live legal special, MSNBC's Ari Melber breaks down the most consequential legal moments of the new administration, including the Trump administration's continued dismantling of key federal agencies, the targeting of private law firms, and the response from the judicial system and the US Supreme Court. Melber is joined by legal experts and insiders, including hosts of MSNBC's Main Justice podcast, Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord. Visit msnbc.com for more coverage.

Andrew and Mary begin this week by acknowledging that, as the Trump administration approaches its 100th day mark, some themes have materialized. One is intimidation, exemplified most recently with the arrest of Wisconsin state court judge Hannah Dugan last Friday, while Trump continues to clash with local authorities over his deportation efforts. Another theme is due process, or the lack of it. Our Main Justice hosts point to a litany of immigration issues front and center this week, including the wrongful deportation of US citizen children, Attorney General Pam Bondi's March memo to law enforcement laying out how to implement the Alien Enemies Act, and what happened when the government was compelled to have a hearing in a Texas case: they fell flat on the merits. And before wrapping up, Andrew and Mary explain why Trump's media policy change, tossing out Biden era protections for journalists, is problematic for a free press.Further reading: Mary's recent Op-ed in the Washington Post: What Alito got right in his El Salvador case dissent.Pam Bondi's March 14th memo issuing guidance for implementing the Alien Enemies Act.Pam Bondi's April 25th memo updating the policy regarding obtaining information from, or records of, members of the news media.A note to listeners: In the Abrego Garcia case, despite the earlier admission in court that his removal was a mistake, the government's current position is that he a member of MS 13, which his lawyers deny.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

        Slam the Gavel welcomes Marineka Bowman to the podcast. Marineka was last on Season 3, Episodes 104, 131, 159, 160, 174 and 184, Season 4, Episodes 22, 48 and 61, Season 5, Episodes 149, 210, 238, 248 and 258. HELLO DOGE.       Marineka came back on the podcast to update her case and discuss retaliation in the form of gang stalking. She was allowed to see her child on Sunday for $14.00/hour, but if she brings the grandmother, it will cost $150.00. Her child is suffering and Marineka wants Judge Natalie Haskins to recuse herself, and Attorney Laura Brooks to be disqualified. Her case is ongoing.To Contact Marineka Bowman: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com***** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.comhttps://ko-fi.com/maryannpetri*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

In this packed episode, Chuck opens with a sobering assessment of President Trump's plummeting approval ratings and questions about his administration's credibility before diving into critical structural concerns about the Department of Justice's independence and the need to expand the House of Representatives. He shifts to Florida politics, where a brewing corruption scandal threatens the governor's race and Republicans are increasingly willing to challenge Ron DeSantis's weakened political standing. New York Congressman Dan Goldman joins for an extended interview about the concept of rule of law before and after his experience during impeachment proceedings. Goldman offers insights into Trump's challenges to fundamental constitutional principles and proposes concrete reforms to better protect America's democratic institutions, including codifying limits on presidential interference in prosecutions, strengthening congressional subpoena powers, and potentially restructuring the Justice Department with Federal Reserve-like independence.The episode's second half features political handicapper Dave Wasserman analyzing the evolving electoral landscape heading into the midterms. Wasserman explains how understanding local communities is crucial to predicting election outcomes, while lamenting the lack of quality coverage in smaller markets. He delivers a forecast that Democrats could see sizable gains in the House, with Trump's tariff policies potentially hurting Republicans in farm states. The discussion explores gerrymandering's changing impact, with both parties now complaining about the practice, and examines how the 2030 census might reshape the electoral map. Finally, they discuss the prospect of a “blue wave” in the 2026 midterm elections and whether we could see one or both chambers of congress change hands.Timeline00:00 Multiple polls show sharp approval rating drop for Trump03:00 Trump's spokespeople are losing credibility05:00 Department of Justice needs more independence 7:30 The House of Representatives needs to be expanded8:45 White House Correspondents weekend was awkward12:15 Corruption scandal looming over Florida governor race13:15 Florida Republicans are no longer afraid of Ron DeSantis15:30 Ron DeSantis may be weaker, but Florida Democrats aren't stronger17:00 The Shedeur Sanders commentary was ridiculous19:10 Congressman Dan Goldman joins the show19:40 What are the highlights of his district, NY-10? 26:35 What did "rule of law" mean to you before and after working on the impeachment proceedings? 30:25 Fundamental tenets of rule of law are being challenged 31:00 Amendments 4-10 are about equal protection under the law, for citizens and non-citizens 34:20 Trump has exposed why government is susceptible to leaders willing to break their oath of office 36:10 We need to codify into law that the president can't weigh in on individual prosecutions 38:40 Enforcement of congressional subpoenas needs legal teeth 41:30 Should we set up Justice with a level of independence like we did with the Federal Reserve? 48:40 If impeachment couldn't hold Trump accountable, why would the justice system? 50:10 Trump's conduct warranted prosecution 52:55 The impeachment process is broken 54:10 Trump has an unexplained infatuation for Vladimir Putin 7:25 The Republican majority in the House has turned all of their authority over to Trump 1:01:40 What can Democratic members of congress do other than speak out? 1:05:25 If Democrats want to win in 2026, what should they be talking about? 1:08:55 Is Andrew Cuomo vs Eric Adams really the best that NYC can do?1:14:45 Chuck's thoughts on his conversation with Dan Goldman1:17:35 Dave Wasserman joins the show! 1:19:35 Mainstreaming interest in political handicapping 1:24:05 Understanding a local community is crucial to handicapping 1:27:05 Smaller markets not getting coverage they deserve 1:28:20 Determining how competitive a race will be? 1:31:05 House map is less skewed than it used to be 1:34:35 Complaining about gerrymandering has become more bipartisan 1:36:05 Democrats could see sizeable midterm gains 1:42:50 How will retirements affect the midterms? 1:4:05 Tariffs will cost Republicans in the farm states 1:45:05 Kansas headed toward swing state status? 1:48:05 Reappropriation from 2030 census could add several new red seats 1:49:35 Can Republicans further gerrymander states like Texas and Florida? 1:53:35 Virginia governor race isn't that competitive 1:58:50 Conventional wisdom is that Democrats shouldn't choose a woman for 28 1:59:50 Is a blue wave developing? 2:01:05 Trump doesn't care about Republicans other than himself2:03:16 Chuck's final thoughts

Get the stories from today's show in THE STACK: https://justinbarclay.comKirk Elliott PHD - FREE consultation on wealth conservation - http://GoldWithJustin.comJoin Justin in the MAHA revolution - http://HealthWithJustin.comTry Cue Streaming for just $2 / day and help support the good guys https://justinbarclay.com/cueUp to 80% OFF! Use promo code JUSTIN http://MyPillow.com/JustinPatriots are making the Switch! What if we could start voting with our dollars too? http://SwitchWithJustin.com

A jihadist attack against mostly Indian tourists in Kashmir has precipitated a crisis that may see two nuclear-armed states go to war again. If that happens, it may be precipitated by the weaponization of water. India holds Pakistan responsible for this act of terrorism and responded by suspending a treaty governing the Indus River's waters. The Pakistanis say interfering with their access to such flows would amount to an act of war.  Ironically, Pakistan's patron and enabler, Communist China, initially denounced India's water warfare. That's particularly rich since the Chinese have diverted water from Tibet for years, creating drought conditions downstream in Myanmar, Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia and Laos.  Beijing is now threatening India's access to river flows, as well.  If shared use of transnational water sources in South Asia is not restored quickly, war – and perhaps a nuclear one – may well ensue. This is Frank Gaffney.

The Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel discussion examining how immigration is used as a political, economic, and strategic tool by governments, non-state, and sub-state actors worldwide. Whether through mass migration crises, policy-driven border surges, or the manipulation of refugee flows, immigration has become a powerful geopolitical weapon and a means of waging hybrid […]

In today's full broadcast, Tara and guests break down explosive revelations about the U.S. government's covert actions to monitor, censor, and penalize American citizens based solely on their political, religious, or ideological views. From John Lott's analysis of newly declassified documents released by Tulsi Gabbard to shocking examples of “debanking,” FBI surveillance of Catholics, and Big Tech collusion, the episode paints a disturbing picture of a government using its power to silence dissent. We also dive into the Biden administration's defiance of the Supreme Court on student loan forgiveness, and the eerie parallels between the U.S. and authoritarian-style censorship laws in Europe. This is a must-listen for anyone concerned about freedom of speech, government overreach, and the future of democracy in America.

The Center for Immigration Studies hosted a panel discussion examining how immigration is used as a political, economic, and strategic tool by governments, non-state, and sub-state actors worldwide. Whether through mass migration crises, policy-driven border surges, or the manipulation of refugee flows, immigration has become a powerful geopolitical weapon and a means of waging hybrid warfare. Examples have included Cuba's use of the Mariel boatlift in 1980 or the more recent efforts by Belarus to coordinate illegal immigration to the EU.This panel explored the concept of immigration warfare – how immigration is leveraged to gain political leverage; influence legislation, elections, and the economy; shape public opinion; and even destabilize a country. Discussion also covered how nations can respond to this growing challenge. The discussion is an activity of the International Network for Immigration Research (INIR), a collaboration among independent policy organizations on three continents sharing the perspective that each sovereign nation has the right to pursue its chosen immigration policies.Mark Krikorian, the Center's executive director and host of Parsing Immigration Policy, moderates this rebroadcast of the Center's panel.HostMark Krikorian is the Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies.GuestsViktor Marsai is the Director of the Migration Research Institute in Budapest.Phillip Linderman is a Retired senior Foreign Service officer from the State Department and a Board Member of the Center for Immigration Studies.Eric Ruark is the Director of Research of Numbers USA.RelatedPanel Press ReleasePanel VideoPanel TranscriptC-Span CoverageIntro MontageVoices in the opening montage:Sen. Barack Obama at a 2005 press conference.Sen. John McCain in a 2010 election ad.President Lyndon Johnson, upon signing the 1965 Immigration Act.Booker T. Washington, reading in 1908 from his 1895 Atlanta Exposition speech.Laraine Newman as a "Conehead" on SNL in 1977.Hillary Clinton in a 2003 radio interview.Cesar Chavez in a 1974 interview.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaking to reporters in 2019.Prof. George Borjas in a 2016 C-SPAN appearance.Sen. Jeff Sessions in 2008 comments on the Senate floor.Charlton Heston in "Planet of the Apes".

In this episode of the Project Unchained Podcast, host Ross Leppala discusses his recent busy schedule and shares his excitement about an upcoming event called the Intentional Athlete. He emphasizes the importance of deriving more than just physical gains from training, suggesting it should also benefit life beyond the platform. Ross then delves into the concept of 'the weaponization of love,' explaining how people on both sides of the political spectrum often misuse and manipulate the idea of love for their own agendas. He calls for a more genuine, inclusive expression of love that acknowledges and respects our shared humanity. Ross invites listeners to reflect on these ideas and looks forward to future episodes featuring guests sharing their stories of mental health triumphs.Connect with your host Ross Leppala!Instagram: ross.leppalaFacebook: Ross LeppalaEmail: theakleprechaun@gmail.comIntro and Outro music credits:"Lost in the Woods" by Gaelynn Leafrom the album "Learning How to Stay"Gaelynn Lea: Violin, VocalsDave Mehling: Guitars, Keyboards, Organ & Auxiliary PercussionAl Church: Electric Guitar, Acoustic Guitar, Piano & Auxiliary PercussionMartin Dosh: DrumsAndrew Foreman: Electric BassHaley McCallum: Vocal Harmony

Andrew and Mary host this week's episode in front of a live audience at Princeton University, starting with the latest in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case where last Tuesday, Maryland district judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to provide among other things, “butts in seats” to explain their efforts to get him back. Then they describe what led up to the Supreme Court's early Saturday decision temporarily blocking the deportation of more Venezuelan migrants, after a flurry of back and forth between the Solicitor General and the ACLU. And being at Andrew's alma mater, he and Mary hold up the absolute necessity of academic freedom and independence in the wake of Trump's attempts to defund universities who do not comply with his demands. Last up, they touch on the Supreme Court granting argument in the birthright citizenship cases- not on the merits, but on whether a nationwide injunction is appropriate in this instance.Further reading: HERE is Judge Harvie Wilkinson's sharply worded opinion, writing for a 3-judge panel in the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, rejecting the Trump administrations effort to stop a lower court's order that the government facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia's return.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Air Date 4/18/2025 Before the election, I heard interviews and statistics about Trump supporters responding to his stated desire to weaponize the government against his political enemies. Their response was that 1) they didn't want him to do that and 2) didn't think he would.  Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes | Transcript BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! KEY POINTS KP 1: Free Mahmoud Khalil with Ben Wizner and Baher Azmy - At Liberty - Air Date 3-26-25 KP 2: News Brief Dem Leaders, 'Free Speech' Warriors Mostly Shrug as Trump Disappears Political Dissidents - Citations Needed - Air Date 4-2-25 KP 3: Trump's Revenge - The Majority Report - Air Date 4-1-25 KP 4: Trump Pauses Tariffs, Businesses Welcome Relief, Trump Targets Former Officials - Up First - Air Date 4-10-25 KP 5: Mahmoud Khalil and a New Red Scare. Plus, Press Freedom Under Threat. - On The Media - Air Date 3-14-25 KP 6: Trumps Attacks on Law Firms, Lawyers, and the Law - Boom! Lawyered - Air Date 3-20-25 KP 7: Trump and the Courts w Samuel Moyn - Behind the News - Air Date 3-7-25 (00:52:02) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR On how racism and anti-intellectualism are a self-inflicted injury to society DEEPER DIVES (00:59:09) SECTION A: COMPLYING ENTITIES (01:46:29) SECTION B: GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZATION (03:01:33) SECTION C: JUDGES AND LEGISLATORS Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X

FDA and Big Pharma Conflict of Interest (0:00) Bayer's Historical Misconduct and Glyphosate Toxicity (2:13) Health Ranger Store's Glyphosate Testing (4:54) Trump's Rejection of Netanyahu's Iran Attack Plan (6:28) Florida State University Shooting and Anti-Trump Protests (11:14) Blue Origin Rocket Launch and Media Fakery (14:29) Microscopy Analysis of Chemtrails and Heavy Metals (26:23) Incubation Results and Potential Pandemic (46:56) Call to Action and Conclusion (51:28) Preparation for a Post-Human Future (52:09) Economic Challenges and Health Ranger Store Promotions (1:16:03) Weaponization of the Air (1:20:17) Historical Context of Climate Change and Chemtrails (1:23:22) Health Implications and Defenses Against Chemtrails (1:30:45) Personal Protective Measures and Future Predictions (1:35:58) Project Paperclip and Nazi Influence in US Institutions (1:46:14) Critique of NASA and Moon Landings (2:07:46) UFOs, MJ 12, and Government Involvement (2:14:18) Health Ranger Store Product Highlights (2:28:10) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport  NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

In this fiery breakdown, we dive into the legal warfare surrounding Donald Trump and New York Attorney General Letitia James. The segment explores Trump's civil fraud case over allegedly inflating property values—despite lenders testifying they weren't defrauded—and contrasts it with bombshell allegations that James herself may have committed mortgage fraud on a Virginia home. From questions about selective prosecution and politicized justice to escalating efforts to target Trump allies with insider trading and contempt charges, this is a deep look into what some call the "weaponization" of the legal system. Is justice blind—or just biased?

The Pink Widow represents an evolutionary leap in relational predation—a masterclass in weaponizing cognitive empathy, codified through Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power (“Never Outshine the Master”) and The Art of Seduction (“Confuse Desire and Reality”). 

The Pink Widow represents an evolutionary leap in relational predation—a masterclass in weaponizing cognitive empathy, codified through Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power (“Never Outshine the Master”) and The Art of Seduction (“Confuse Desire and Reality”).

High-profile politically adjacent actions (including prosecutions, pardons, & dismissals) from both the current and past administrations have inspired increasing concern over the potential weaponization of the U.S. Department of Justice. This concern has led to recent executive actions in this area --President Trump issued an Executive Order on the first day back in office on "Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government," and AG Bondi has created a task force aimed at "Restoring the Integrity and Credibility" of the DOJ. These actions prompt the question: has the DOJ actually been weaponized, and if so, in what ways? What is the role of the DOJ in the criminal justice process, and what responsibility does it have as a part of the executive branch to represent the will of the president? Have the actions of both the past administrations in bringing cases against political opponents, seeking to dismiss charges from potential allies, and shielding friends and family from potential prosecution been a mis-use of the Department of Justice, or appropriate uses of executive discretion? This panel will discuss these questions and more. Featuring: Brendan Ballou, Former Special Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division John F. Lauro, Principal, Lauro & Singer (Moderator) Stephen J. Demanovich, Special Counsel, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP -- This event is the second of four webinars centering on the theme Theories of Presidential Power, previewing the Thirteenth Annual Executive Branch Review Conference, which will be held on May 7, 2025. Please note: this event has been rescheduled from its original time on 04/16 and will now be hosted 04/21 at 11am ET.

The US government's mistaken removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador has captured national attention, and it's as stunning as it is heart breaking. So Mary and Andrew dedicate the bulk of this week's episode to what's happened since the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must follow the lower court's order to facilitate his return. So far, the administration seems to be slow-walking the process, dodging accountability for the fact that Abrego Garcia was never afforded his due process rights, a core American principle. Andrew and Mary go on to explain each consecutive government response, and two habeas petitions that have been granted a TRO since last week's Supreme Court decision. Before wrapping up, they highlight the cancelling of a landmark civil rights deal in Alabama, and Trump's latest retribution in action-- targeting individuals, the Associated Press and Harvard.Further reading: Here is Mary's OpEd in the Washington Post: It's time to compel Justice officials to testify on Abrego García.And please vote for your favorite MSNBC podcasts in this year's Webby Awards:Prosecuting Donald Trump in the Podcasts - Crime & Justice category: VOTE HEREWhy Is This Happening? With Chris Hayes in the Podcasts - Interview/Talk Show category: VOTE HEREInto America: Uncounted Millions in the Podcasts - News & Politics category: VOTE HEREVoting closes this Thursday, April 17th.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Is Israel Prepared to Act Alone Against Iran's Nuclear Threat?In this explosive follow-up, Dr. Bob welcomes back Brigadier General (Res.) Jacob Nagel — former Israeli National Security Advisor and close confidant to Prime Minister Netanyahu — to deliver a sobering warning: Iran is 6 to 18 months away from a nuclear weapon.Nagel lays out the facts:

In this episode of Crazy Wisdom, I, Stewart Alsop, sit down with Trent Gillham—also known as Drunk Plato—for a far-reaching conversation on the shifting tides of technology, memetics, and media. Trent shares insights from building Meme Deck (find it at memedeck.xyz or follow @memedeckapp on X), exploring how social capital, narrative creation, and open-source AI models are reshaping not just the tools we use, but the very structure of belief and influence in the information age. We touch on everything from the collapse of legacy media, to hyperstition and meme warfare, to the metaphysics of blockchain as the only trustable memory in an unmoored future. You can find Trent in twitter as @AidenSolaran.Check out this GPT we trained on the conversation!Timestamps00:00 – Introduction to Trent Gillham and Meme Deck, early thoughts on AI's rapid pace, and the shift from training models to building applications around them.05:00 – Discussion on the collapse of the foundational model economy, investor disillusionment, GPU narratives, and how AI infrastructure became a kind of financial bubble.10:00 – The function of markets as belief systems, blowouts when inflated narratives hit reality, and how meme-based value systems are becoming indistinguishable from traditional finance.15:00 – The role of hyperstition in creation, comparing modern tech founders to early 20th-century inventors, and how visual proof fuels belief and innovation.20:00 – Reflections on the intelligence community's influence in tech history, Facebook's early funding, and how soft influence guides the development of digital tools and platforms.25:00 – Weaponization of social media, GameStop as a memetic uprising, the idea of memetic tools leaking from government influence into public hands.30:00 – Meme Deck's vision for community-led narrative creation, the shift from centralized media to decentralized, viral, culturally fragmented storytelling.35:00 – The sophistication gap in modern media, remix culture, the idea of decks as mini subreddits or content clusters, and incentivizing content creation with tokens.40:00 – Good vs bad meme coins, community-first approaches, how decentralized storytelling builds real value through shared ownership and long-term engagement.45:00 – Memes as narratives vs manipulative psyops, blockchain as the only trustable historical record in a world of mutable data and shifting truths.50:00 – Technical challenges and future plans for Meme Deck, data storage on-chain, reputation as a layer of trust, and AI's need for immutable data sources.55:00 – Final reflections on encoding culture, long-term value of on-chain media, and Trent's vision for turning podcast conversations into instant, storyboarded, memetic content.Key InsightsThe real value in AI isn't in building models—it's in building tools that people can use: Trent emphasized that the current wave of AI innovation is less about creating foundational models, which have become commoditized, and more about creating interfaces and experiences that make those models useful. Training base models is increasingly seen as a sunk cost, and the real opportunity lies in designing products that bring creative and cultural capabilities directly to users.Markets operate as belief machines, and the narratives they run on are increasingly memetic: He described financial markets not just as economic systems, but as mechanisms for harvesting collective belief—what he called “hyperstition.” This dynamic explains the cycles of hype and crash, where inflated visions eventually collide with reality in what he terms "blowouts." In this framing, stocks and companies function similarly to meme coins—vehicles for collective imagination and risk.Memes are no longer just jokes—they are cultural infrastructure: As Trent sees it, memes are evolving into complex, participatory systems for narrative building. With tools like Meme Deck, entire story worlds can be generated, remixed, and spread by communities. This marks a shift from centralized, top-down media (like Hollywood) to decentralized, socially-driven storytelling where virality is coded into the content from the start.Community is the new foundation of value in digital economies: Rather than focusing on charismatic individuals or short-term hype, Trent emphasized that lasting projects need grassroots energy—what he calls “vibe strapping.” Successful meme coins and narrative ecosystems depend on real participation, sustained engagement, and a shared sense of creative ownership. Without that, projects fizzle out as quickly as they rise.The battle for influence has moved from borders to minds: Reflecting on the information age, Trent noted that power now resides in controlling narratives, and thus in shaping perception. This is why information warfare is subtle, soft, and persistent—and why traditional intelligence operations have evolved into influence campaigns that play out in digital spaces like social media and meme culture.Blockchains may become the only reliable memory in a world of digital manipulation: In an era where digital content is easily altered or erased, Trent argued that blockchain offers the only path to long-term trust. Data that ends up on-chain can be verified and preserved, giving future intelligences—or civilizations—a stable record of what really happened. He sees this as crucial not only for money, but for culture itself.Meme Deck aims to democratize narrative creation by turning community vibes into media outputs: Trent shared his vision for Meme Deck as a platform where communities can generate not just memes, but entire storylines and media formats—from anime pilots to cinematic remixes—by collaborating and contributing creative energy. It's a model where decentralized media becomes both an art form and a social movement, rooted in collective imagination rather than corporate production.

As the Supreme Court weighs in on the president's use of the Alien Enemies Act, Mary and Andrew approach this week's developments with both concern and relief. While relieved at the unanimity of the High Court's belief that due process is a necessity, the concern lies with the Trump administration's response to a court order directing them to arrange the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. They also see cause for alarm after the government retaliated against their own lawyer in this case. Andrew and Mary then take a beat to spotlight the DC circuit upholding a judge's decision related to scope of Trump's J6 pardons. And before closing out this week's episode, they detail the lawsuit brought by the conservative leaning NCLA over the constitutionality of the sweeping tariffs the president has announced.Further reading: This is Mary's recent op Ed in the Washington Post: The White House war on Big Law hits some speed bumpsAnd please vote for your favorite MSNBC podcasts in this year's Webby Awards:Prosecuting Donald Trump in the Podcasts - Crime & Justice category: VOTE HEREWhy Is This Happening? With Chris Hayes in the Podcasts - Interview/Talk Show category: VOTE HEREInto America: Uncounted Millions in the Podcasts - News & Politics category: VOTE HEREVoting closes April 17th.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

From March 20, 2024: Since World War II, the United States and its currency, the dollar, have come to play a central role in the broader global economy. And in recent decades, policymakers have used this role as a weapon, cutting off access to malign actors and punishing those who act contrary to U.S. national security interests. But cultivating such primacy has proven to be a double-edged sword, with more complicated ramifications for many Americans. In her new book “Paper Soldiers: How the Weaponization of the Dollar Changed the World Order,” Bloomberg reporter Saleha Mohsin digs into the history of the dollar's role in the global economy and what its increasing weaponization may mean moving forward. Lawfare Senior Editor Scott R. Anderson recently joined Mohsin to discuss her new book and what we should all know about the new economic and political moment we are living through. To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Filling in for host Cliff May is FDD CEO and host of The Iran Breakdown, Mark Dubowitz, joined by former Israeli national security advisor Jacob Nagel, now a senior fellow at FDD.Following President Trump's recent overtures to reopen nuclear negotiations with the Islamic Republic, Mark and Jacob revisit the flaws of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and the  general complexities of Iran's nuclear program. They discuss Iran's current nuclear capabilities and the implications of the program for regional security—and explain why addressing weaponization and delivery systems in any potential deal is of utmost importance.

Dan Schneider, Vice President for Free Speech at the Media Research Center, joins me to discuss Big Tech's censorship of conservative voices and the legacy media's unwillingness to reform in the wake of Trump's 2024 election victory. - - -  Today's Sponsor: Helix Sleep - Go to https://helixsleep.com/klavan to get an exclusive offer.

Six emergency applications have now made their way to the Supreme Court concerning President Trump's executive orders, so Andrew and Mary begin this episode by breaking down the emergency stay motions in several key cases involving birthright citizenship, federal workers, the use of the Alien Enemies Act and canceling education grants. Then, after a review of Trump's latest law firm blacklist targets and the problematic nature of targeting of universities and students, they focus on an executive order aiming to change how U.S. elections are run. And last up, Andrew and Mary decry the lack of accountability over Signalgate, as Trump resists doling out any consequences to his senior National Security leadership.For more on Trump's continued attacks on universities, check out the latest episode of Trumpland with Alex Wagner about the fallout at Columbia University and maintaining free speech on campus.Further reading: Here is the order from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals over Judge Boasberg's TRO pausing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, which includes separate concurring statements of Judge Henderson and Judge Millett and a dissenting statement of Judge Walker.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most polarizing figures in U.S. history. And the seeds he planted as the decades long founding director of the FBI continue to shape much of today's conservative political landscape. Kash Patel, who now leads the FBI, has openly vowed to find ways to punish Trump's political enemies. While that's appalling, it's not the first time an FBI director has used abused institutional power. There's a lot of historical precedent that we can compare and contrast with the current moment. Beverly Gage is a historian at Yale University and the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “G-Man: J. Edgar Hoover and the Making of the American Century.” She joins WITHpod to discuss Hoover's influence, the politicization of the FBI, the abuse of its power, the FBI in Trump 2.0 and more.

On this week's episode, Andrew and Mary start with the major capitulation of the Paul, Wiess law firm to Trump's demands late last week, in exchange for rescinding an EO targeting the firm. This is the chilling effect they've been talking about in action. Then: what are the consequences of the Trump administration defying court orders from US District Chief Judge James Boasberg? The deportation of Venezuelan migrants without due process seems to be careening into that constitutional question, so Andrew and Mary break down the latest on that case, as the government invokes the “state secrets privilege”. And lastly, they detail the legal issues surrounding the now-infamous Signal chat reported by The Atlantic- an extraordinary demonstration of gross negligence when it comes to national defense information. Further reading: Here is Mary's piece on Just Security: Dissecting the Trump Administration's Strategy for Defying Court OrdersAnd here is Andrew's piece, also from Just Security: The New “Blacklists” Work When Law Firms Stay SilentAnd here is the criminal code Andrew and Mary referenced: 18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense informationWant to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

Last Friday, President Trump spoke before a gathering at the Department of Justice to lay out what was seen largely as a grievance fest, singling out individuals and media organizations he perceives as his enemies. Main Justice hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord lay plain the unorthodox nature of a speech like this, especially before a department that is meant to maintain independence from the executive branch. But that was just the start of a wild weekend, after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants, just as a court order blocking their removal was filed. So, Andrew and Mary tackle the latest developments in several buckets before breaking down the Supreme Court's consideration of the request by the president to lift the pause on his birthright citizenship executive action.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.

After news this weekend that Columbia student and permanent legal resident Mahmoud Khalil was arrested by ICE agents, hosts Andrew Weissmann and Mary McCord explain the petition filed from his lawyer and the significance of his case as a harbinger of things to come, as a hearing is set over the effort to deport him. Then, they shift focus to the Trump administration's continued attacks on law firms and universities themselves, after the president cut federal funding to Columbia, and Georgetown was rebuked by the DC US Attorney for teaching principles related to diversity, equity and inclusion. Last up, Andrew and Mary review the latest in the Eric Adams case, with a shocking court filing containing texts from prosecutors, and they break down a few cases making their way through the courts right now: some of which have been touched by SCOTUS, others likely on their way to the High Court.Want to listen to this show without ads? Sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.