>
John Bolton Pleads Guilty To Retaining National Security Information
Can Two Hours Of School Really Be Enough? | MacKenzie Price #491 | The Way I Heard It
Tucker Carlson: "This World Is Not Run By Humans!" Trump Has Supernatural Powers
How They're Building an Off-Grid Community in the Private Realm (Trust + PMA + Ministry)
'Groundbreaking' Potential Lupus Cure Sends Patients into Remission, Allowing Dreams...
Speculations on What Could Show Physics Beyond the Standard Model
SpaceX Orbital Travel and Orbital Hotels Need Starfall – Getting Back Safe and Cheap is Exciting
Lizard-inspired wiggly wheels let Mars rover swim through sand
Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ushers in the Next Frontier of Quantum Innovation
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University just let an AI-guided robot remove a dead pig's gallblad
World's first consumer wing-in-ground effect aircraft takes flight
America's Military Readiness Depends On Deployable Nuclear Power
License Plate Cameras Are About To Start Tracking A Lot More Than Just Your Car
Heads up: Apparently the government is hiding cameras inside fake utility boxes

On the other hand, that 'universal rule' also necessarily stipulates that taxpayers can be absolutely steamrolled by whatever tax hikes are necessary to fulfill the bloated pension benefits that unions promise themselves.
Alas, that one 'universal rule' may finally be at risk as the California Supreme Court is currently considering a case which could determine whether taxpayers have an unlimited obligation to simply fork over whatever pension benefits are demanded of them or whether there is some "reasonableness" test that must be applied. Here's more from VC Star:
At issue is the "California Rule," which dates to court rulings beginning in 1947. It says workers enter a contract with their employer on their first day of work, entitling them to retirement benefits that can never be diminished unless replaced with similar benefits.
It's widely accepted that retirement benefits linked to work already performed cannot be touched. But the California Rule is controversial because it prohibits even prospective changes for work the employee has not yet done.