I am frequently amazed when people who do not trust big corporations place all of their trust in the federal government. Some think that a federal agency, unlike a private corporation, would not bow to money or political pressure. Others act like simply bestowing someone with a government job, and a government paycheck, means they will “look out for the little guy”, rather than themselves. History is full of examples showing that government actors are just ordinary men and women, with all of the grace and faults of all of us. This attitude that somehow government actors are perfect, or at least better than the rest of us, may explain why people are shocked to find out that large corporations have undue influence over our vaunted regulatory bodies, and those bodies have an undue control over out lives.
What is the solution to this problem? Is it to further regulate those regulatory agencies? Maybe it’s to remove some of their regulatory power? Better yet, how about we realize that most of the agencies are unconstitutional, and therefore do not legally exist. You see, if we actually read the Constitution, then we would not have allowed our representatives in Congress to create these agencies in the first place. Perhaps, if we educated our elected representatives, we could get rid of this problem at the source, by first defunding then getting rid of these illegal agencies. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
@MalcolmOutLoud.
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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/
