Opinion

Opinion (104)

%PM, %15 %732 %2019 %16:%Jun

Father’s Day - Do’s and Don’ts

Written by

This Sunday is Father’s Day and millions of Americans celebrate it the wrong way.  Why? Because no one asks Dad what he wants, and Dad is too nice to say.

Father’s Day falls on the third Sunday of every June.  Although first celebrated in 1910 when Sonora Smart Dodd wanted to honor her veteran father like mothers are on Mother’s Day, Father’s Day became an official holiday in 1972 by  President Richard Nixon.

Although Father’s Day is supposed to honor Dads, retailers and even families seem to miss the mark.  Here’s some Do’s and Don’ts for this Father’s Day.

Rethink the BBQ celebration

Whenever a BBQ gets planned, someone needs to prepare the backyard, clean the grill, bring out the furniture, work the grill, serve the food, clean up the grill, clean up the backyard……and guess who that is…Dad.  And its hot, super hot outside. Not the most fun way to celebrate one’s day.  Go out to eat instead. Retailers like it and no one has to do the lifting.

The extended family is coming

Many households this Sunday will see Dad and the in-laws in the same room at the same time. For some this could be a pleasant occasion.  For others, uncomfortable and stressful.  Wives feel conflicted as they want to celebrate with their Father, but make the day spectacular for hubby.  If an issue, I recommend splitting up the day where Grandpa has a Father’s Day brunch and Dad celebrates a Father’s Day dinner.  Or designate a different day to celebrate each.

Buying Dad the wrong gift

Avoid the following gifts for Dad:

Grill tools or BBQ Apron– remember the BBQ is a lot of work, don’t remind him of it

Cologne –  most men don’t like “parfuming” up….. they wear it for others but it’s not for them

Lawn Mowers – unless its a ride-on, lawn mowers remind Dad of lawn work.

Dress/ Suit Shirts – button-up neck-constricting linens are not one’s most cherished gift. Unless they save him a trip to the department store, buy him something more comfortable.

Funny Underwear – underwear should never be a gift, its underwear….

Personal Hygiene/Shaving Products – this equates to getting a disposable razor for Mother’s Day.

Instead, opt for the following…

Let Dad Have a Real Day Off – Take the kids out and give Dad a day to himself.  Sure the kids could give Dad his gifts during brunch or dinner but allow Dad to spend the day how he wants to:  in his underwear, taking a much needed nap, going for a drive, fishing, etc.  Too bad there’s no skiing in June.

Ask Dad what He Wants – this doesn’t seem to get done all year round.  Why not start on Father’s Day?  Maybe he wants a Google Home or the next video game installment. Which brings us to….

Gift Cards Make the Best Gift – he can buy what he wants, and not feel awkward asking for it.

A Big Hug and Kiss Hits the Mark – despite any level of macho-ness, Daddies love this.  Make him feel special.

Happy Father’s Day!!!  Enjoy!

 

---- 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, if expressed, are her own. Doctor Wachs is an MD,  FAAFP and a Board Certified Family Physician.  The Dr. Daliah Show , is nationally syndicated M-F from 11:00 am - 2:00 pm and Saturday from Noon-1:00 pm (all central times) at GCN.

I’m not part of the conservative club any more than I’m part of the liberal club.  If I call them more conservative than liberal, that’s because it is the way I happen to see things.

 

The reason for that is my late father, Philip Weinberg.

 

He always taught by example, led from the front and encouraged me to act a little like Howard Cosell, telling it like it is and letting the chips fall where they may. So if you wonder why I don’t spout anybody’s party line except my own, it is because he taught me how valuable independence can be.

 

Included in that lesson was also doing the right thing no matter who you anger.

 

The older you get, the more that you realize Father’s Day may not just be a ploy by the greeting card manufacturers to sell more cards and retailers to sell more stuff but should just be taken at face value as an opportunity to thank and honor the man who raised you.

 

This Sunday will be the seventh Father’s Day since his death and those lessons he taught become clearer with every passing year. (Also becoming clearer is that getting old is not for sissies.)

 

Unlike the late Tim Russert I can never imagine calling my father, “Big Phil.” But he was.

 

Philip Weinberg’s public title on the day he died in 2012 was Professor Emeritus at Bradley University.

 

The title barely began to cover his career and his public life.

 

But growing up in his shadow gave me a perspective on life that many people, for many reasons, will never get.

 

He rarely lectured my sisters and me. His example was usually enough. He continuously taught by example that this is the United States of America and any little boy or girl could grow up to be President, or publish a newspaper, run a radio network or swing any bat you’re big enough to want to pick up.

 

He was the living embodiment of the concept that ordinary people can do extraordinary things by simply putting one foot in front of the other and moving forward. If that were all he taught me in 60 years, it would have been plenty. But he also taught me that when you do get where you want to go, grace and humility can take you even farther. And, trust me, that’s a difficult lesson to learn no matter who is trying to teach it.

 

It is possible—although I’m not sure he would have admitted it—that he learned some or all of these things as he was raising his children and that the Phil Weinberg when he left us was as much the product of having raised three children as those children are the product of having been raised by him and my mother.  It also occurs to me in hindsight that much of what he taught us was as difficult for him to implement as it was for us.

 

Kids don’t come with operating manuals and my father was an engineer by training. But the lessons he taught—intentionally or otherwise—have become so valuable that I can only hope that I’m capable of passing at least some of them on to my own millennial stepchildren.

 

As valuable as the lessons, are the memories. I vividly remember standing outside an apartment complex in Brooklyn with him telling me, “Son, there used to be a baseball stadium here and a real baseball team played there.” He never acknowledged that the Dodgers had moved to LA and abandoned Ebbets Field.  And, given the choice between the Dodgers and the Angels when I owned a Las Vegas radio station, I chose the Angels because he would have been horrified had I consorted with dem bums…

 

I remember him showing me my first mainframe computer in the early 1960s and his precise explanation of how the monster IBM System 360 worked.

 

I remember coming home one Friday in 1963 to the death of John Kennedy and his explanation that the country is bigger than just one man and things would be just fine because that is the genius of this nation’s founders. And I also remember the summer trips we were able to take so he could graphically illustrate exactly how big this nation is.

 

He might have missed a few little league games (I never got past the minors in the Richwoods Little League anyway) but he never missed a crisis. You could tell when something was relatively unimportant—he wouldn’t hesitate to yell at you. But when the chips were down, there was nobody you would rather have covering your back. Until almost the day he died, he was the first call I and my sisters made when there was a problem. However difficult the problem was, his calm analysis was always dead on and his advice and support were invaluable.

 

In the immortal words of Michael Corleone, “what better consigliore can I have than my father?”

 

Indeed.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

%PM, %06 %807 %2019 %18:%Jun

New Progressivism: statism: Part I

Written by

Progressivism was a set of related movements in the U.S. after the Civil War up to World War II.  Modern progressives emphasize movements related to government corruption, women’s suffrage, municipal administration, education, promoting abortion, child and pro-union labor laws, conservation, internationalism, culture and especially activist judges promoting a “living constitution” against originalism.  Also, aggressive economic regulation and anti-trust law, much of which has been discredited by experience. 

They studiously overlook as embarrassing progressivism’s first cause, eugenics (“scientific” racism); plus alcohol prohibition; and opposition to prostitution and voter fraud – because they’re not popular with today’s progressives.  But where they used to soft-peddle governmental coercion and socialism as unacceptably harsh, modern progressives now proudly trumpet them.

Prohibition of alcohol and prostitution were greatly rooted in traditional religion, but many other progressive causes – especially scientific racism and opposition to basic principles of America’s founding – were rooted in disdain for religion.  So, progressives experienced much cognitive dissonance.

The original progressive causes quickly found their natural partner, liberal statism. This 19th Century term stands for extensive government intervention in economic and social matters and not leaving much room for traditional and voluntary social, economic and political institutions and practices. Statism gave progressivism its key means: the mushrooming administrative state.

The movement was bi-partisan. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson were the main leaders.

Progressivism was somewhat a reaction to the 19th Century rise of industrial and urban society.  It’s called a reform movement because it sought to create new social and political means to preserve the positions of many groups – especially labor, farmers and whites – against new developments. Hence, much populist progressivism is reactionary. 

An even larger part of the progressive movements was based on two related ideas.  First, that there is an arc of history moving society toward ever better practices, policies and institutions – ergo, progress.  Second and even more important, that the small socio-political elite fraction of the population, via the use of science (especially emerging social sciences) and their asserted natural intellectual and ethical superiority, would discern that arc of history and should therefore be given the power to effect their vision of it. 

Thus, the disdain for traditional democratic means and religion and for the founding principles based on them. 

A third key ingredient was arrogance due to their ignorance of possible unintended consequences and their stupidity in assuming they could remake the world and human beings, and everything would work just as they intended.  Racism is the most obvious part of their ignorance and stupidity.  But what we know today about their misplaced faith in rampant economic intervention (including labor law), internationalism and substitution of judicial for political means also drives home this point. 

Ditto, their belief that government action is inherently benign (because it will be guided by the progressives implementing the arc of history, of course), and government won’t be co-opted by predatory special interests to prey upon the people and the public interest.  The Founders understood the true nature and risks of government, so they designed a constitution to protect people and the public interest from them.  These ideas were anathema to progressives. 

Even more than FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society was the apogee of progressivism and statism in the 20th Century. Then they subsided somewhat. 

However, in this century, they have gained a new life, now replacing the good early causes with identity politics; radical economic egalitarianism; socialism; political correctness and suppression of free speech; environmental catastrophe dogma; and opposition to real science. 

Classic failures of progressivism such as judicial activism are now joined by these predatory special interests as major parts of the sad legacy we’re leaving. Plus, of course, long-term slow economic growth and thus diminished human wellbeing and fairness. 

Next time, examples and a few solutions.

 

--

 

Ron Knecht is a contributing editor to the Penny Press - the conservative weekly "voice of Nevada." You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted, with permission. 

 

Robert Mueller IS a hack.  

 

He proved it in nine minutes last week when he did exactly what prosecutors never do which is to say to the world that he wasn’t exonerating President Trump from obstructing the investigation of what wasn’t a crime in the first place.

 

Prosecutors have exactly one decision to make in the charging process.  Either charge or don’t charge.  And they can empanel a Grand Jury so they actually don’t have to make the decision themselves.  But they do NOT and CANNOT exonerate.  It is judges and juries who make decisions as to guilt.  And even there, “not guilty” simply means the prosecution couldn’t prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

The reason for that is because our legal system assumes you are innocent unless PROVEN guilty.

 

You never saw Jack McCoy in Law and Order (Sam Waterston) call a press conference and say that a defendant had been exonerated.  He (or his predecessors) might have, in 456 episodes, dropped the charges, but prosecutors do NOT exonerate.

 

Mueller was appointed to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 election and, specifically, did the Trump campaign collude with the Russians.  The facts now coming to light about the origins of that appointment are—to say the least—odd. In fact, President Trump appears to be right to say out loud that it was an attempted “take-down” of a duly elected President.

 

Mueller spent somewhere near $34-million, hired 19 lawyers (the “angry Democrats” as the President called them) used 40 FBI agents, empaneled a Federal Grand Jury and came up with bupkis where Trump, his family and his campaign were concerned.  If you don’t understand Yiddish, that means nothing, nada.

 

And now what is loosely called the “intelligence community” is outraged that President Trump has given the nation’s top law enforcement official the authority to declassify and investigate the sequence of events that led to Mueller’s investigation.

 

Well, here’s a reasonable question.

 

Assuming the Russkies did, in this country, what Barack Obama (actually his lackeys) did unsuccessfully in Israel—distribute fake information during election season—exactly what laws did they violate?  We do have a First Amendment in this country which protects everyone against government censorship.  A few Russians buying Facebook ads and distributing fake news?  How is that different from CNN International?  Or any number of US based shortwave radio stations aimed at other countries.

 

Is it now illegal to take sides in an election if you are not a citizen of the United States?

 

And then there is the hacking of DNC bigshot John Podesta’s email.  I never heard Podesta say he didn’t write them.  Yes, it’s illegal to hack someone else’s email, but it’s not like Mueller charged the Trump campaign or anyone connected with it.

 

Also suspect is Hillary’s lack of understanding that when you call half of America “deplorable” they may, possibly, vote against you.

 

Apparently, she failed to learn that little factoid during her time in Arkansas which happens to be a state where real people live waaay outside the beltway.

 

The problem with Democrats—with the left in general—is they have pioneered the concept of getting their way no matter what it takes.

 

If we in Middle America vote for Donald J. Trump, they say screw him.  They will use whatever they have—legal or illegal, logical or illogical—in an attempt to take him down.

 

The “Russian” investigation was just another piece of the game.

 

It’s hard to call yourself a patriot when you commit treason against America because you lost an election.  The 2020 election should remind the left, writ large, of that.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

 

 

 

%PM, %04 %730 %2019 %16:%Jun

Opinion: There ARE Obama judges!

Written by

We are facing a constitutional crisis. Through the use of nationwide injunctions, a group of liberal federal district judges are fighting to maintain Obama era policies until President Donald Trump leaves office.

And now, President Donald Trump is fighting back as his administration seeks a case to be brought in federal court against the practice.

These judges’ actions are an attack on our system of government undermining the value of voting and the public’s trust in the impartiality of the judicial branch. These injunctions must be halted, either by the Supreme Court or by legislation.

Nationwide injunctions, which are also called universal or national injunctions, are issued by federal district judges and prohibit the federal government from enforcing laws or policies against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case.

There have now been 37 nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump Administration, which is significantly more than were issued in the entire 20th century. In contrast, there were only two nationwide injunctions during the first two years of the Obama Administration; and there were no nationwide injunctions issued during the first 175 years of our Republic.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a speech attacking nationwide injunctions, saying that the bar for getting one from a district judge is too low: “When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table — we must win every case.  The challengers, however, must find only one district judge — out of an available 600 — willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.”

And this is bad for democracy, Barr said, “Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law.”

Barr is not the first prominent conservative to take aim at these injunctions. Barr’s predecessor, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has also denounced the injunctions. Sessions stated, “Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country…. This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law…”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated his skepticism of the legitimacy of the injunctions. Thomas wrote, “These [universal] injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions… They appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on … the power of Article III courts.”

Elections must have consequences. Members of Congress and Presidents are elected to set and implement federal laws and policies; and unelected, unaccountable lower court judges must not be allowed to obstruct the policies of the elected branches of the government indefinitely. The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on nationwide injunctions and make it clear to district court judges that they have no authority to issue these injunctions.

If the Court fails to do so, then it will fall to Congress to enact legislation to end these acts of judicial tyranny once and for all.

 

Richard McCarty is the Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation and a contributor to the pennypress.com, the conservative weekly voice of Nevada. His views are his own. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

%PM, %04 %723 %2019 %16:%Jun

We need to do more to serve our country

Written by

I hope everyone enjoyed their recent Memorial Day weekend.  Many Louisianans were vacationing over the long holiday or enjoying a cookout with family and friends.  Many stores held sales advertising for us to have a “Happy Memorial Day.”  All well and good, but what about the real purpose of this special day?

Many of us don’t even know the difference between Memorial Day (honoring those who died defending our country) and Veterans Day (honoring all service men and women).  Only 5% of Americans attended local military events or parades.  I joined a sparsely attended gathering Memorial Day at the USS Kidd in Baton Rouge.  Is it enough to holler USA at sporting events, or to say “Thank you for your service” when you see a service man or women in uniform?  Should Americans be required to do more?

In 1967, I was 27 years old and newly married with my first child on the way. So I was draft exempt, with no legal requirement to join the service.  Maybe I did not have a legal obligation, but what about a moral responsibility to serve my country in the time of war?

I come from a long line of distinguished military officers who never hesitated to serve their country. They did not try to find ways to sidestep such service like so many others, including most of our politicians today as well as several recent presidents.

Relatives on both sides of my family served their country with honor and distinction.  My first father-in-law Dick Campbell who was an ace fighter pilot, rose to the rank of full colonel in the Army, and twice escaped from German prison camps. My Dad stayed stateside coordinating military transportation coast to coast for the Army.  Second father-in-law Teddy Solomon was sent by the Army to the South Pacific. My younger brother Jack volunteered and joined the National Guard for a six-year hitch.

My mother’s brother had quite a navel military career.  In the final months of World War II, Commander Jack Gentry was flying a reconnaissance mission over the Pacific when his flight cameras captured photos of the Japanese flotilla. He made the cover of Life Magazine as his pictures allowed a direct attack on the enemy fleet that sped up the ending of the war with Japan. He went on to command the battleship USS Enterprise until his retirement from the Navy in the 1960s.

With this strong family military background, I felt an obligation to continue the service to my country. I make no bones about the fact that I feel every American should either serve in the military or perform voluntary service in the city or state where they live. The American flag flies outside my home 365 days a year. I wear my military dog tags while I broadcast my syndicated radio program each week (NG25520050).

 This is not an effort to pat myself on my back. Like so many other young men and women who love their country, it was something I felt a strong obligation to do. So despite the fact that I was draft exempt, I signed up for service in the Army, then stayed for ten additional years in the Louisiana National Guard.

Our nation has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan going on two decades.  Yet many Americans look on war as a spectator sport.  So few have any real skin in the game.

 I recently read a book by military scholar George Wilson called “The Mud Soldiers,” where he laments over the problems with an all-volunteer army.  He quotes Vietnam veteran Col. Steve Siegfried who states: “Armies don’t fight wars. Countries fight wars….. Yes a country fights a war. If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t send an army.

War should be every citizen’s business.  We should all perform some volunteer service, military or otherwise.  This should be an easy decision if we love our country and care about our freedom.

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

 

---

Jim Brown is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. His column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show, Common Sense, each Sunday morning from 9:00 am till 11:00 am Central Time on the Genesis Communication Network.

“The problem with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide.”

My son recently was looking for a company to work with concerning content that was needed for the videos that he would soon create. As he was doing so, I told him to find a package deal so it will be all-inclusive with music, images, fonts, etc.

A short while later, and in his excitement, he said that he found a company with which to work. I asked him how much the package was and if it was all-inclusive?

He said, "Dad, it is only $29.95 a month."

I said, "For everything?"

He then went on to say that you could even cancel at any given time.

I said, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

I then told him to call the company and ask if there are any hidden costs and, again, does everything come with that $29.95?

Well, he called and the first mistake that the company made was that they didn’t have a real person answering the phones. When you see when companies that use computers to do their selling for them you can rest assured that they are on their way out. If a business wants to slap a customer in the face, this is usually the first thing that they do.

When he received his call back, he found that the deal of the century was a year contract!  Otherwise, the cost would be $69.95 and you can cancel at any time.

Friends, this is not what their page stated, at least not in big print.

The sad fact of the matter is that this country no longer operates under the banner of “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:17).

I have found that a good number of the companies in America today are not serving the customers, but rather the almighty dollar and themselves (1 John 5:2).

I ask, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

Let me share some of my experiences with you.

About 15 years ago, I was in a health foods GNC store where they sold a large selection of vitamins. When I grabbed some ginseng and was going to check out, a man that was at the cash register was ready to pay for his items when the lady behind the counter said to him that he owed 2 times more than what it said on the price tag. The man told her that the price was right on the sticker while pointing at the items.  She replied that those prices were for members only. Right next to the big price numbers were little tiny numbers to the right of it where it said that these prices apply to members only.  How deceptive. The man was rightfully angry and he walked out, leaving the products on the counter.  I followed in close pursuit.

No one likes to be sold with deceptive and deceitful tactics.

The Bible says, “making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?” (Amos 8:5)

Another time, we walked into a local Midwest favorite called “Old Country Buffet.”  It was one of those restaurants in which you could eat and when you were done, felt like you got yourself a good deal.  You were treated like a favored customer and left feeling satisfied. About 5 years ago, we went in as usual, and right when we were going to pay for our food, the lady behind the register asked if we wanted something to drink, which by the way was always a part of the price when paying for the buffet.

I responded, "What about if we want something to drink?  Of course, we want something to drink.  That is why we just entered into your eatery."

She said that would be a separate charge and I responded, "Well, it is not going to be long before your place of business will be shut down. You are gouging, and people are going to catch on and that will be it for your restaurant."

Sure enough, 6 months later, they were done.

How prevalent this has become today: charge your customers more by separating the meal from the drinks. This applies to "business as usual" today in America across the boards.

The airlines have now been found guilty of this every step of the way, literally. You now pay a surcharge for handling on the phone when you purchase your ticket, and when you check in, you then have to pay for your bags. Before boarding, you now have to pay for your seating, and when you get into the plane, you have to pay for your drink and your food. Treating customers like they are now doing them a favor.

Another experience that I had was another place called “Timberlodge” restaurant in Minnesota. They started out right by giving bigger portions at a fair price.  However, soon after their food chain became big enough, they started to charge more with smaller portions.  I told my wife that they needed to quit this or they are going to be a thing of the past. In this particular situation, I called the management and told them people are seeing what they were doing in their restaurants and it wasn't good.

"I know that you are really doing very well with your food chain, but it is coming across as you only care about the money here," I told him.

I added that they needed to either get back to customer service first or they would be gone within a year.

A week later, they put up a sign at one of their stores that read “We're not going anywhere.” I'm not kidding.

I told my wife that they were done. Two weeks later, the restaurant was shut down.

Deceptive business owners can only take advantage of people for so long before people catch on.  People are not stupid. If people do not feel like service is being done on their behalf and that they are getting their money's worth and feel like they are being taken granted for, again, you can mark my words, that’s it for your business.

I can also tell you that when I and my family detect this with a business, we are done with that company in whatever capacity it may be. It usually is a good sign that a company's efforts to get a little more out of you means that it is no more about the customer, but about what they are getting from their customers.

Furthermore, if their product and service is everything that they claim it to be, then do they have to lie or deceive (Hidden costs) in the process of selling it (Proverbs 19:9)?

--

 

Bradlee Dean is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions are his own and do not reflect the views and opinions of the Genesis Communication Network. Bradlee's radio program, The Sons of Libertybroadcasts live M - Sat here at GCN. This is a shortened version of an op-ed originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

Since when did murder become a “political” issue?

 

Liberals tell us that in their phony baloney bleating about “climate change” they believe in “science”.  Many of those same libs want to deny that a fetus—a baby—with a heartbeat which can now—through real science—be detected, is somehow NOT a person and can be killed at the whim of the mother.

 

They still call this crap “reproductive rights.”

 

Roe v. Wade happened while I was still in college.  Every young male in college back then could probably tell you exactly what Planned Parenthood charged for an abortion.

 

Most of us have grown up since then.

 

Roe was a classic example of a Supreme Court which read the opinion pages of the Washington Post.

 

One of the differences between 1973 and today is that we have much more science—real science as opposed to the junk science “consensus” the climate folks believe in—which tells us exactly the development of a baby.

 

Once a baby has a heart and it is beating, how can you not call it a person?

 

And if you kill it, how can that not be murder?

 

OK, like the President, I get the health of the mother.  Maybe, under some circumstances, rape or incest.

 

But.

 

Murder is against the law in all 50 states. Following the twisted logic of Roe does a woman have a right of “privacy” to kill her three year old?  Her husband?

 

And to politicize this is simply moronic.

 

If you are a Democrat and you follow their political orthodoxy, you are, in my humble opinion, condoning, on the campaign trail, murder.

 

One of the problems in this debate is that there is simply no debating most supporters of legalized abortion. Their position is that it is a “right” and that’s that.

 

So to break that down, killing a baby is a right?

 

We don’t treat puppies like that.

 

We have plenty of ways to stop conception.  If you are not responsible enough to prevent conception, then you should have to carry the baby to term.  If you don’t want the baby, then there are plenty of people who are willing to adopt and raise the baby.

 

If the pregnancy takes nine months out of your life, then be more responsible.

 

But you do NOT have a “right” to kill a baby for your convenience. What you do have a right to do is to be responsible in your sex life. Which is why, in some circumstances, I’m sympathetic to rape and incest exceptions, since there was no choice in those situations.

 

Somewhere along the way, abortion proponents began branding themselves as “pro choice.”

 

What’s the choice?

 

Between felony murder and a baby?

 

Here’s a choice:

 

Don’t want a baby?  Have your tubes tied.  Then, you won’t be in a position to murder a baby.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

 

 

%PM, %24 %794 %2019 %18:%May

The long road to forgiveness

Written by

Louisiana Congressman Steve Scalise says he is still struggling over whether to forgive the man who shot him two years ago.  “I’ve never, internally, formally forgiven the shooter from the baseball shooting,” he said. “It’s something I’ve struggled with as a Catholic.”

 It would be hard for many, including me, to forgive such a transgression. I’m still personally quite bitter over wrongs that happened to me some years back. So I understand the reluctance to forgive.

But what about turning the other cheek, and forgiving one’s enemies as we read in scripture throughout the New Testament?  Can we suffocate our bitterness and a feeling that some form of retribution is unnecessary?  Does continuing anger and hostility become tantamount to suffocating oneself emotionally? “The effects on one’s health from bottled up anger and resentment can range from anxiety and depression to blood pressure and increased risk of heart attacks,” says professor of medicine Amit Sood at the Mayo Clinic. “Forgiveness, by contrast, allows one to focus on more positive thoughts and relationships. It allows you to free up the real estate in your brain taken up by negative thinking.”

Forgive and forget, so goes much of the conventional wisdom. Move on with your life and just chalk it all up to tough lessons learned.  But isn’t it possible to continue with the positive aspects in one’s life, learn from past mistakes, and continue to grow, putting aside the bitter feeling that you suffered a terrible wrong?  Simply put, don’t maintain continuing anger, but don’t forget.

 In the fall of 2015, Pope Francis sent the body of St. Maria Goretti on a limited U.S. tour.  The youngest canonized Saint has a compelling story of suffering and forgiveness.  St. Maria was born into poverty and raised in Corinaldo, a beautiful medieval village in central Italy. Maria, whose father died when she was nine, raised her five siblings when she was only eleven while her mother worked in the fields.  One day, a twenty-year-old neighbor accosted her and, as she fought him, he brutally stabbed her repeatedly.

Maria died the next day, but her last words were, “I forgive Alessandro Serenelli (her attacker) and I want him with me in heaven forever.” Alessandro was so overcome that he lived the converted life of holiness in prison and eventually became a Franciscan lay brother.

One of the stops on St. Maria’s U.S. pilgrimage was Baton Rouge, where the coffin with her remains was to be displayed in veneration at Lady of Mercy Catholic Church for three days. Crowds of worshipers were expected to visit the Saint from a number of states. The pastor there, Father Cleo Milano, has been a good friend and I called him to see if there was a possibility of any quiet time with St. Maria.  He suggested I come by the church close to midnight after the doors were locked down for the night.

As the sanctuary was about to be bolted and the lights were dimmed, I made my way down the center aisle of the church and sat beside the remains of St. Maria. I touched her coffin and prayed for my family. And then, I thought to myself, this beautiful child, now a Saint, was brave and open-hearted enough to forgive the cruel demon that took her life. Although I too was wronged in ways that I felt were so unjust, should I not be empathetic and compassionate enough to forgive those who so aggrieved me?

I thought about it for good while.  I guess I even prayed over the decision. After much contemplation, I quietly got up from my pew and walked out of the church. So what was my decision? Could I forgive those transgressions?

 Often, your adversaries, by their impertinence, bring themselves down and destroy their own reputations. In my case, nemeses that caused me harm have themselves been damaged and suffered humiliation.  So what to do? Forgive them? In my case, I decided just to wait them out.  They ended up destroying themselves. What’s the old saying:  If you stand by the river long enough, your enemies will come floating by.

  I’d urge the Congressman to take his time and be sure that forgiveness is something he really wants to give.  If not, just bide his time.  After all, revenge is a dish best served cold. 

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

 

---

Jim Brown is a guest contributor to GCN news. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own. His column appears each week in numerous newspapers throughout the nation and on websites worldwide. You can read all his past columns and see continuing updates at http://www.jimbrownusa.com. You can also hear Jim’s nationally syndicated radio show, Common Sense, each Sunday morning from 9:00 am till 11:00 am Central Time on the Genesis Communication Network.

 

If you ever want to see what a bunch of worthless pukes who inhabit the lamestream media produce, put the “news” app on your iPad and read it every morning.

 

It is SUPPOSED to be a compendium of reporting.

 

It IS a compendium of anti-Trump horse crap.

 

Fox News and the Wall Street Journal are the token sort-of-conservative news providers.  The rest are mostly designed to bring to mind the words “enemies of the people.”

 

The reason I read this crap is that one should always read what the other side is saying.  Even if it makes your head want to explode.

 

Washington is full of people—many in the media—who no matter where they come from lose their affinity with the average American—you and me—as soon as they arrive.

 

Back in the days we owned KTRT in Tulsa, we had a regular caller named Jack Jackson.  He used to tell our on-air hosts that once someone got elected to the School Board, the County Commission or the City Council, they arrived at the Courthouse, City Hall or the School headquarters, saw the receptionist with the 10 button phone, took a breath of that pink gas and they were never the same.

 

He was right.

 

And it applies even more to wannabes like “journalists” and staffers.  Those folks are even more dangerous because we can get rid of bad elected public officials at an election.  People who spread fake news and the faceless staffers who work in government seem to have lifetime appointments.

 

The cure for this is not more government regulation.

 

I’m a big believer in the First Amendment.

 

The cure for this is eternal vigilance.  We need to vote with our channel changer and our subscription dollars.  We need to question everything.

 

As an example, the other day Fox News Channel did a poll that they said showed that Joe Biden had widened his “lead” over the Democrat 2020 field. And that he would beat the President in a general election.

 

Here is what they didn’t tell you on TV.  In fact, you have to do a pretty thorough web search of their site to get:

 

“Interviews were conducted May 11-14, 2019 among a random national sample of 1,008 registered voters (RV). Landline (231) and cellphone (777) telephone numbers were randomly selected for inclusion in the survey using a probability proportionate to size method, which means phone numbers for each state are proportional to the number of voters in each state.”

 

In other words, this is the same crap that said Hillary was going to win by seven points the day of the 2016 election.  And, worse, it’s from FOX!

 

Did they exit poll 10,000 people leaving a big event?  No.  They look you in the eye and talk about this stuff like it is true.  They don’t even tell you the methodology on screen—just what they think is the “margin of error”.

 

Now one thing you need to know.  Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.  Occasionally, these guys get lucky.  But the science behind what they do has been rendered useless by the new digital landscape which makes it very difficult to find a real sample.

 

So thinking Americans—you and I—do our research at coffee shops, neighborhood gatherings, on Southwest Airlines and places where real people gather.

 

My best guess, from those sources, is that we are pretty happy with the President.  He should win handily in 2020.

 

That’s NOT an excuse for complacency.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions, if expressed, are his own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN. Fred's weekly column can be read all over the internet. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Page 2 of 8