When an FBI confidential informant met with Burisma executives in Austria in 2016, he strongly advised them against plans to buy a U.S. oil company – chiefly because the controversial Ukrainian energy firm with Hunter Biden on its board was under investigation in Ukraine.
He further suggested that Burisma first spend about $50,000 litigating the corruption investigation in Ukraine.
Then-Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky laughed, according to a newly released, unclassified FBI document. He wasn’t laughing because the number was so small, the informant said. Rather, he laughed because the suggestion had the number five in it.
“It costs 5 (million) to pay one Biden, and 5 (million) to another Biden,” the unclassified 1023 form quotes Zlochevsky saying at the 2016 meeting, a reference to then-Vice President Joe Biden and to son Hunter Biden, who was serving on the board of Burisma.
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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
At the presidential debates in Atlanta this week, Biden and Trump will duel for the position of the “best of the worst'' of the major candidates that are running for president. CNN aims to improve efficiency with muted mics and an empty audience, but it’s difficult to see how a debate between a dementia patient and an egotistical liar isn’t doomed to be, at best, a lukewarm exchange of prepared talking points and, at worst, a “hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck.” At this point, only one person can salvage the debates and restore them to the pedestal of national discourse that they once were: Independent presidential candidate RFK Jr.
Alexis De Tocqueville famously said “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money”. Not only has Congress learned this lesson, but state and local governments have as well. However, not everything can be gained by the carrot of bribery. Sometimes governments need the stick of intimidation to bend people to their will. Before you start picking at the speck in the eyes of others, perhaps you should start looking at the beam in your own eye. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
Probably the most powerful instinct as a parent is to protect our children. Parents work hard, sacrifice, and sometimes risk their own lives to protect their children. Most parents believe the government is there to help them protect their children, but is that true?
Take, for example, the case of Parents Protecting Our Children UA v. Eau Claire Area School District Wisconsin. Parents Protecting, an association of parents, sued the Eau Claire Area School District to prevent them from enforcing guidelines that interfere with a parents right to make decisions for their child. However, both the District and Circuit Courts denied the parents, claiming that no child had yet been harmed by the school policy, and therefore do not have the right to petition their government for a redress of their grievance. If a court can tell parents they are not allowed to protect their children, then who is? Because it is not the school district.
