Gravy train: a much exploited source of easy money – Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.
If there is one thing the Department of Government Efficiency has shown, it’s the amount of waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in the federal government. The reaction to DOGE’s efforts to expose and get rid of this waste shows just how many people and organizations survive on this gravy train.
To paraphrase a common saying, “Better to keep your mouth shut and the thought a greedy money grubber, than to open your mouth and prove it.” - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
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 However, over the last few decades, the role of the parent in these decisions has been replaced by experts.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
The old saying goes, “There are only two certainties in life, death and taxes.” While that may be true, it should surprise no one some of the issues the Trump administration has been going through. I’ve already talked about using private applications for policy discussions, along with several of the lawsuits filed to obstruct Trump’s agenda. Today I want to point out a couple of unconstitutional actions proposed by Trump and some other actions taken both in court and outside of it. - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
As a lifelong gun owner, I understand the awesome responsibility of owning a weapon. After getting my concealed carry license many years ago, I came to understand the greater responsibility of having a deadly weapon on my person. But as a constitutional scholar, I’ve come to realize just how badly states are infringing on our rights, simply because we decide to exercise one of them.
Today, I want to talk about “duty to inform” laws. After all, if the presence of a firearm is a threat to officer safety, than the officer’s firearm is a threat to my safety.
https://constitutionstudy.com/2025/03/31/467-duty-to-violate-your-rights/
One of the reasons I don’t jump on current news here on the Constitution Study is the need to both collect all the facts that we can, and have time to process them. This story about Trump’s National Security team accidentally including The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief in a Signal chat about the Houthis is a perfect example. There has been plenty of recriminations about how Mr. Goldberg was added to the chat, and even a few questions about the discussion happening on an open-source platform like Signal. But what I haven’t heard or read about is a much more serious question. Did Trump officials having policy discussions on non-government communication channels break the law? - Live 4PM ET with Host Paul Engel @CyberEngel @OutLoudNews
LIVE http://rdo.to/TALKLOUD
iHEART RADIO http://bit.ly/2mBrCxE
