There’s a song called “Video Killed The Radio Star.” If video killed the radio star, Insecurity Killed The Republic!
The COVID scamdemic, the out-of-control Department of Injustice, and the subjugation of American law to international organizations are merely symptoms of a more serious problem, American insecurity.
There was a time in America when a man’s home was his castle, and he was expected to defend it. A time when we were expected to pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Not that we never needed help, but that one was primarily responsible for themselves. If someone cheated you, you bore some responsibility for not protecting yourself.
All of that changed as we turned our lives over to government, especially the feds, all of those responsibilities. We don’t expect to have to protect ourselves; that’s what we have police for. We don’t need to make sure what we buy is safe and effective; that’s what we have regulator agencies for. And we don’t have to worry about being cheated; we have regulations to prevent crimes before they can happen. But all of that has failed.
The government does not keep you safe, it does not provide for you very well, and the American people are regularly cheated in spite of all of those laws and regulations that were supposed to prevent it.
When life made us insecure, we turned to the government to be our nanny.
Now, that same government is doing to us ⏤ what we wanted them to protect us from. And because we were too insecure to teach ourselves or our children, the very idea of standing up for ourselves has dissipated in America.
https://www.americaoutloud.com/insecurity-killed-the-republic/
Who is in charge of your children? That has been a perennial question that has grown in importance over the last few years. When I was a child, it was understood that, with rare exceptions, parents were in charge of a child’s upbringing. This included medical, religious, and educational decisions. However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts. What happens when the goal of the experts differs from those of the parents? Who decides the future of the rising generations? It was understood that the state acted in loco parentis, in place of the parents, only for the safety of the child. A recent case in U.S. District Court shows that be it health departments, child services, schools, or even the courts. Government not only believes they know better than the parents, they are more than willing to act in loco parentis tyrannis.
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8897
With the release of ChatGPT and other artificial intelligence (AI) applications, there has been a lot of speculation and downright assertions about our future. With over 30 years of experience in Information Technology (IT), not more than a passing understanding of AIs, I've come to the conclusion that much of what I've heard is more science fiction than fact. A recent court case decided in the D.C. District Court revolved around one very important question. Do AIs have rights?
In this third installment of the three-part series on the branches of government, we look at the role of the third and weakest branch. At least that is what our Founding Fathers thought of it. What is the role of the federal judiciary? What are the extent of their powers, how do they related to the other two branches of government, and why is a proper understanding of the role of the judiciary critical if the United States is to remain a constitutional republic?
https://constitutionstudy.com/?p=8575
We all have things we wish for. Maybe a car, a home, or a nice vacation. While those are generally safe wishes, we really should take some time to consider the second and third-order consequences of those wishes. Which leads to the axiom, “Be careful what you wish for, you may just get it.” - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
Recent actions by the Trump Department of Justice are a sharp turn from what we’ve seen over the past few years. Are these attempts to correct pervious errors, or are they just more political activism in federal law enforcement? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
When is discrimination not discrimination? While the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals would have you think that reverse discrimination is not only legal, but OK. However, discrimination is discrimination, even when it’s used in an attempt to right some past wrong.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/06/30/480-ames-v-ohio-department-of-youth-services/
