Opinion

Opinion (127)

Gee, the Chinese seem to want a trade war.

 

That should raise the blood pressure of the Chicago School of Economics students.

 

Why should you care?

 

The truth is that the Democrats want you to care only because they sense a vulnerability they might be able to exploit in the 2020 election.  Of course, what they know about business you could stuff in a thimble and still have room for the 20 mental midgets who want a chance to get the losing party’s nomination.  Elizabeth Warren indeed.

 

If you were to add the IQ of the 20 candidates for the Democrat nomination together, it would not equal one American steelworker—and it is not my intention to insult steelworkers.

 

The other reason one might care is that your really cheap flat screen TVs will have to be made in Korea or Viet Nam in the future.

 

Here’s the fact.

 

China has been ripping us off since President Nixon went to China.  We’re the bank they have been robbing.  If we catch a cold, they get pneumonia.

 

They tax the hell out of our manufacturers one way or another, they keep their markets essentially closed to us and they steal our intellectual property.  And we’re supposed to allow them to continue?  Their next step is to try and replace the dollar as a primary currency.

 

The truth is that a little pain—slightly more expensive cheap Chinese crap, as an example—probably won’t hurt us.

 

In case you haven’t seen past the Shepard Smiths and Rachel Maddows of the world, things are pretty good right now for the middle class.  However, economic hucksters on cable tv would like you to think we’re headed to 2008 all over again.  Remember, when the market drops 700 points in one day, they get more viewers.  

 

Of course, in 2008, crooks on Wall Street and crooks on Main Street had been deliberately making crappy home loans, packaging them up as securities, selling those securities to each other and betting against them.

 

When it all blew up, they turned to us, the taxpayers, for a bailout and got it.  That solved Wall Street’s problem.

 

But on Main Street, the credit markets seized and millions of people found themselves with mortgages worth more than their houses because the market values of those houses crashed.  Those with incomes could power through.  Those who got loans which nobody in their right minds would have made, got evicted.  And it represented a great buying opportunity for those who got bailed out.

 

Fast forward to today.

 

We have a real businessman in the White House—not a community organizer.

 

If Goldman Sachs and their buddies came to Donald Trump for a bail-out, they might get it but the terms would be much more onerous than the days when Barack Obama was there.  Think of our President as negotiating for US in such a situation.  We’ve never been in such good hands.

 

Now is not a good time for Wall Street to come begging.

 

So, they won’t.  They will keep things under control.

 

There will be no securitization of NINJA (no income, no job or assets) loans like lenders were encouraged to make before 2008.

 

When you see the amateur economists—like the people responsible for the last crash—predicting another economic crash, remember two things.

 

One is that we can develop new markets for our exports.  

 

Second, Chinas’ biggest market is us.

 

As far as China goes, how can they replace us?  Especially if we stick with the President in keeping the pressure on.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions 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. 

 

 

 

“As long as you remember that if you get involved in politics, you have to be very careful that your leader is Allah.  You get involved in politics because politics are a weapon to use in the cause of Islam.” –Siraj Wahhaj

No matter how many times one tells of the affiliations of terror-tied Muslim groups in America like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), many look on as if what you are saying is somehow fictitious or even untrue.

Former CAIR Minnesota Government Affairs Coordinator: I Wish Hitler Was Alive To F**k Up The Jewish People & Add More To The 6 Million He Killed”

(Editor’s note: The above statement is a factual quote from former CAIR affairs coordinator Sadiqq Abu Osman. For additional context, Sadiqq, was a young teenager when he wrote the post on FB. Many years later he was hired at CAIR but has since left. Approx. a year after Sadiqq left CAIR the above post was uncovered in FB archives (it has now since been deleted.) CAIR responded and basically said, “We didn’t know this FB post existed when we hired him, alas, this is all moot since he no longer works with us. But, if he did work with us, we would fire him.” Which may or may not be true, but that's what they wrote.)  

“CAIR officials or former officials have been arrested on charges related to terrorism yet all it offers is silence and stonewalling in discussing what are its real motives.” -Paul Weyrich 

You have heard the saying, "truth is stranger than fiction" (Jeremiah 5:20) and sad to say, this is the case with many today.

Friends, I am not speaking here to a third world country.  I am speaking to America.

Remember all of the conspiracy theorists (Jeremiah 11:9) that were demonized about 50 years ago for telling you that this was coming to America if Americans did not repent (Matthew 3:2; Acts 20:21) before a just and holy God (Leviticus 26:14-46; Deuteronomy 28:15-68)?

How does one deny such truths when it comes out of their own mouths? They cannot.

And they are not just talking about what they are, in fact, doing.

The Media Attempting to Divert Muslim Primary Victories- Victory Speeches in Arabic! (Video)

Federal prosecutors bring terror charges against group arrested in New Mexico compound case

 

-- 

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 an edited version of an op-ed originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

 

The truth has been acknowledged by Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s own chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti The Green New Deal is not primarily about greening the planet or controlling the climate. It’s about socialism, as the people from whom she plagiarized it have said all along. It’s a fundamental transformation of our way of life.

Since everything you do leaves a “carbon footprint,” the GND encompasses literally everything—especially your medical care.

The first question is whether you should be alive at all. In his sensational 1968 book, The Population Bomb, entomologist (insect specialist) Paul Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. That bomb fizzled, but he still believes that civilization is doomed within decades, as humanity places inexorable burdens on our Planet’s life support systems. The optimum population of the planet is less than 2 billion, he thinks, or 5.6 billion fewer than we have now.

Once you’re here, Ehrlich and his acolytes would apparently tolerate your presence, although the decline in U.S. life expectancy for the third consecutive year would likely be good news. But having children is another matter. The demographic legacy of one person, calculated over the average time for that person’s lineage to die out, is about 6 person-lifetimes in the U.S., with eventual emission of 9,441 tons of carbon dioxide. So, “reproductive health” ideally means no reproduction for most people, and many millennials (and celebrities) seem to embrace that idea. Predictably, unrestricted or even free abortion is an article of faith among Democrat candidates. And the LGBTQ agenda, also favored by all, tends to contribute to the goal of population reduction.

Ironically, politicians still talk about “our children and our grandchildren,” though they may work to assure that many of us don’t have any.

The U.S. health care sector is said to account for around 10 percent of the CO2 generated in the U.S. and thus “could be implicated” in 10 percent (20,000) of the nearly 200,000 premature deaths attributable to air pollution annually in the United States. (There are about 3 million annual deaths in the U.S., and it is impossible to identify even one as being premature because of air pollution; the argument is purely statistical.) Thus, hospitals are supposedly killing people, albeit indirectly, by using carbon-based energy for heating, air conditioning, elevators, lighting, ventilators, etc.

Surgery is a special problem, beyond the use of electricity, because anesthetic gases that might have a greenhouse effect are vented to the atmosphere. So, are anesthesiologists to worry about a hypothetical tiny effect on the climate 50 years from now, instead of the best treatment for the patient?

“Social determinants of health” are the trendiest subject in “healthcare reform.” GND prescriptions would profoundly affect those. Diet would be mostly plant-based foods, with meat limited, ultimately to 1 oz per day. Living space would be restricted, some propose to 320 sq ft per person, with no single-family homes allowed except for trailers. Energy efficiency standards would entail restrictions on entry of outside air, without regard to effects on indoor air pollution, including bacteria and viruses. (More than 300 people in a huge Hong Kong apartment building were infected with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome [SARS] because of this.) Transportation would be mostly walking, bicycling, or public transport. Private vehicles, except possibly electric, might be banned entirely, with roads converted to parks and walkways. It is not clear what emergency responders would do. If electricity came mostly from wind and solar it would be scarce, unreliable, and many times more expensive than now. (Already tens of thousands of deaths in the UK are attributed to inability to afford adequate heating, as costs of “renewable” electricity soared.)

The Democratic presidential debates, except for some squabbling over things like alleged racism, were a display of groupthink. Everybody raised a hand in favor of the GND and universal health care. Some are more radical than others; Kamala Harris insists that we have a “climate crisis,” not just “climate change.” What Americans need to know is the gritty detail behind the virtuous-sounding platitudes. How will their choices be constrained? How much will costs go up—for rent, utilities, fuel, food, and, of course, taxes? How will their standard of living be affected? And how will their actual medical care and health—as opposed to their health insurance card—be affected?

 

Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views and opinions are her own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN.  Her column can often be found at www.pennypressnv.com. Her column has been reprinted in full, with permission.

%PM, %06 %747 %2019 %16:%Aug

The Deep State and the Dumb State

Written by

The pencil neck geek who is the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiffhead (read into that what you will), more than adequately illustrates what’s wrong with American government these days.

 

In short, the deep state and worse, the dumb state.

 

Schiff represents both.

 

And, worse, he’s NOT from Somalia.  He’s from the People’s Republic of California.

 

Years ago, when I was in college, we ran a very small college radio station which broadcast local city council meetings, gavel to gavel.

 

I did color commentary.

 

Then, I would go home and wake up the next morning and read the daily paper’s report on the meeting.

 

I often wondered whether we were broadcasting the same meeting I was reading about.

 

Watching the Democrats spin it, I have the same problem with the testimony I saw from Robert Mueller before Schiff’s House Intelligence Committee (yeah, believe it or not, they still call it that). Also before that clown Jerrold Nadler’s Judiciary Committee.

 

What these idiots did was try to get Mueller to whittle a gun into a bar of soap.

 

The report from the special prosecutor was pretty clear that the President did not “collude” with the Russians nor did he attempt to obstruct the investigation.  Period, full stop.  And, by the way, “colluding” is not a crime.

 

Prosecutors DO NOT “exonerate” people.  They indict them.  Even the morons in the House have probably watched the real Adam Schiff (well, he’s more real than Congressman Schiffhead) on Law and Order for 10 years (actually Steven Hill) and probably know how it works.

 

Mueller refused to talk about how the investigation got its start. The FACT that the FBI used a completely discredited “dossier” compiled by a company which, it turns out, had been hired by the Democrat National Committee to ask for a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) secret court.  That document had been made up by a foreign spy which should tell you a lot.

 

The fact that 14 of the 18 investigators Mueller hired were registered Democrats should tell you even more.

 

And even after two years and $30-MILLION of our dollars that Mueller could not bring any action against President Trump should tell you all you need to know.

 

Did the President use some foul language?  No more foul than I would have.

 

Did some people involved in the campaign get indicted for crimes totally unrelated to the campaign?

 

Absolutely.

 

Did Trump do anything illegal?  Not according to Mueller.

 

Mueller bumbled and stumbled through hours of testimony and looked like he is beginning to suffer from dementia.  I felt bad for him.  It was painful to watch.

 

Now, more importantly, did the Russians do anything illegal to manipulate the 2016 election?

 

Well, they bought a lot of facebook ads.

 

Facebook says that roughly 126 million Americans may have been exposed to content generated on its platform by the Russian government-linked troll farm known as the Internet Research Agency between June 2015 and August 2017.  Keep in mind that the election was in November of 2016.

 

“This equals about four-thousandths of one percent (0.004%) of content in News Feed, or approximately 1 out of 23,000 pieces of content.  Put another way, if each of these posts were a commercial on television, you’d have to watch more than 600 hours of television to see something from the IRA,” Facebook told CNN.

 

And then, consider the source.  Who in the hell takes Facebook seriously?  In many ways, it is just as stupid as the Democrats in the House.

 

That’s meddling in the election?  Then what about NBC, CBS and ABC?

 

All of the queen’s men couldn’t kill off the Trump campaign.

 

That’s largely because Queen Hillary called half of America “deplorable”.

 

Mueller didn’t “investigate” that.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions 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. 

On Wednesday, July 24th, former special prosecutor Robert Mueller testified before two Congressional committees - the Judiciary in the morning, and the House Intelligence later in the afternoon. Democrats were salivating that Mueller was going to unload a heap of Trump’s impeachable crimes that had somehow been omitted from his special investigation. But basically Mueller just stuck to the script and repeated things that were already detailed in his 448 page report. So, it was really nothing new to anyone who, you know - actually read the report. (I should note that I’ve read half of it and skimmed half of it.) And Mueller pretty much testified exactly what he wrote: 

  1. The Russians interfered in the 2016 Presidential election. Like - a lot. They committed multiple acts of cyber terroism, stole thousands of documents and had (something like) several thousand Russian employees creating multiple fake American social media profiles in order to spread Anti-Clinton propaganda, made up conspiracy theories and outright lies, all in favor of Donald Trump for President. The Russians did so because they felt a Trump presidency would be much more favorable to Russian interests. 
  2. The Russians then contacted the Trump campaign and said, “We have a bunch of stolen materials that will help you win the presidency - do you want it?” The Trump campaign said “Yes!” and had multiple meetings with Russians to obtain stolen information but …
  3. Since there was no long term coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians there was legally no “conspiracy.” And then … 
  4. President Trump tried to obstruct justice and interfere in the investigation a total of nine times but each and every time when Trump ordered a staffer or employee to obstruct justice … get this … the staffer refused to do so knowing that it was illegal. 
  5. Finally, Mueller concluded that the report did not find conspiracy due to the fact there was no long term coordination but also that it does not exonerate the President because he did in fact try to obstruct justice, which is a crime but since he is the sitting President and can not be indicted (because a sitting President can not be indicted) then Mueller would leave it up to the Attorney General to charge him. 
  6. The Attorney General declined to charge the President with obstruction of justice. 
  7. President Trump, Fox News and conservatives everywhere claim, “No collusion. Total exoneration.”  

Which is not even close to what the actual report said. Anyway, you know all this if you read the report. You do not know any of this if you watch Fox News. And remember as soon as the report came out and Barr delivered his four page memo to congress with the “No collusion. Total exoneration” tone a lot of Democrats were skeptical. And then Trump and Fox News said, “Mueller’s a stand up guy! He knows what he’s doing! He did his job! No collusion. Total exoneration.” 

It sounds to me that the “No collusion, total exoneration” kind of stuck in Mueller’s craw and so he felt the need to clear up the general tone of his report for anyone who still thinks that it said any thing like, “No collusion. Total exoneration.” 

And so Mueller said he would testify before congress. And suddenly Fox News and President Trump were like, “Mueller’s an incompetent hack! Don’t trust anything he says! He should have been fired!”

Funny how quickly folks change their mind, eh? 

Anyway, Mueller went to Congress and testified. For several hours. But the additional smoking gun that Democrats were hoping for - never arrived. As mentioned he really just said the same exact things that were in his report. And Mueller refused to answer something like 200 questions -  mainly about sitting A.G. Barr and the Steele dossier.

Okay. I’m not exactly sure why Mueller didn’t answer any of those questions but I guess he had his legal reasons. To be honest, the entire thing played out like Mueller was there to polish his reputation which he felt had been tarnished by Barr “mischaracterizing” his report. Mueller didn’t really give the committees anything new they couldn’t have just gotten from reading the report. 

Honestly, I don’t really see what the point was. But hey, I guess it made for entertaining television for a few hours as Republicans tried to paint Mueller as a hack and Democrats fell all over themselves thanking him for being a veteran and we audience members kept hoping a smoking gun was just around the corner. Which - it wasn’t. 

But still, the actual report is kind of interesting. You should read it. The only time it mentions “no collusion” is in the intro when Mueller discusses how collusion has no real legal meaning so he won’t be trying to prove “collusion.” Instead he was trying to prove coordination and conspiracy. 

And it one hundred percent does not say “total exoneration.” It says the exact opposite, in fact. But I’m no longer sure that facts matter. And that’s a crying shame.

%PM, %24 %920 %2019 %21:%Jul

Numbering you won't stop the opioid crisis

Written by

People are dying all over the country from opioid overdoses. There’s a movement to have the antidote naloxone available in all ambulances and even over the counter. This temporarily reverses the fatal effect of opioids, which stop the patient’s breathing. First responders themselves may need a dose because of contact with a tiny amount of fentanyl, an extremely potent narcotic, while attending a patient.

No, the fentanyl does not come from the patient’s bottle of legal prescription drugs.

Rep. Bill Foster (D-Ill.) introduced a proposal that he claims would “go a long way to fight the practice of doctor shopping for more prescription pain pills amid a deadly opioid crisis.” Doctor shopping “involves visiting multiple doctors.” Hardly new, this proposal, now passed by the House of Representatives as an amendment to a $99.4 billion Health and Human Services appropriations bill, lifts the ban on funding a Unique Patient Identifier (UPI).

The UPI is part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996. You don’t have one yet because former congressman Ron Paul, M.D., (R-Tex,) sponsored a prohibition on funding it as part of a 1999 appropriations bill. Rep. Foster’s amendment repeals Dr. Paul’s prohibition.

So how is this 1996 idea supposed to work? And why would it be better than the Prescription Drug Monitoring Programs (PDMPs) now in effect in nearly every state? Every prescription for a controlled substance must be reported to the PDMP, and the doctor must check it before writing a prescription, to be sure the patient is not lying about having prescriptions from other doctors. This costly program that creates time-consuming hassles for doctors has not prevented opioid deaths.

PDMPs are ineffective because doctor shopping is not the cause of the problem. Only 2.5 percent of misused prescription pain medicine was obtained by doctor shopping. And this small percentage apparently increased after PDMPs. More than 97% of misused medications are obtained from a single physician—or from an illicit source. The spike in opioid deaths after 2013 was caused by illicit fentanyl, as Dr. John Lilly concludes from painstaking analysis of official data.

If Rep. Foster’s amendment is not removed, you might have to have a UPI to get legitimate medical care—“no card, no care”—but the drug cartel won’t mind. You can shop drug dealers as much as you like. There is a flood of fentanyl, mostly from Mexico or China, coming across our borders. Rep. Foster is apparently unaware of the armed lookouts protecting the smuggling routes in the Tucson sector. And once here, the drugs go to distributors—such as illegal aliens protected in sanctuary cities.

So, what about the other touted benefits of the UPI? “Specifically, assigning a unique number to a patient would give doctors a way to immediately identify a patient’s medical history,” said Rep. Mike Kelly (R-Pa.). He says it “would lower the cost of medical mix-ups due to misidentification.” His elderly father was nearly given the wrong medication.

To prevent medical errors, you need alert nurses and doctors—and the UPI is not going to fix the hazards of the electronic health record. The EHR, touted as the solution that will bring efficient, quality care, has created its own type of errors.

There is no guarantee that a UPI will improve access to the record, and critical information will still be buried in voluminous, repetitious data of dubious reliability, some of which may have been cut-and-pasted from another patient’s record. There may be critical gaps as patients withhold information they don’t want in a federal database. The new problem that brings the patient to the hospital won’t be in the old record—but may be the result of an old misdiagnosis that should be corrected instead of copied.

Patients need to be able to shop for doctors, especially if the one they have has not solved their problems. Some of them desperately need opioids, which are increasingly difficult to obtain. They do not need a UPI, and neither does their doctor.

The UPI is ideally suited for government tracking and control of all citizens. People like J. Edgar Hoover or Lois Lerner might find it very useful. But it would be the end of privacy, and the foundation for a national health data system.

 

Jane M. Orient, M.D. obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. Her views and opinions are her own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of GCN.  Her column can often be found at www.pennypressnv.com. Her column has been reprinted in full, with permission.

 

 

A few years ago, where I live (in rural Nevada), we thought there was going to be a neighborhood tragedy.

 

The 7-11 store which served my rural area started falling on hard times.

 

First, they got out of the gas business.  The powers that be, told the owner that he needed to replace the underground tanks.  He couldn’t justify the expense.  And then, it became public knowledge that Dollar General had purchased the land across the street.

 

The 7-11 franchisee fled.  He was replaced by a remarkably similar independent operator who got a Valero gas franchise and called his store 24-7.

 

And Dollar General built a pretty nice store across the street.

 

The reason for that story is a headline on the CNN Business site:

 

“Dollar stores are everywhere. That’s a problem for poor Americans”

 

That’s right.  The Chicken Noodle News network a/k/a the Trash Trump Net is all of a sudden worried about “poor” Americans.

 

The thrust of the story is that members of a number of city councils are restricting new dollar stores—which can be roughly defined the same way they define “assault weapons”—because many of them only sell fast frozen food thus creating a “food desert”, allegedly because big grocers do not wish to compete.  

 

CNN says, “Advocates of tighter controls on dollar stores say the big chains intentionally cluster multiple stores in low-income areas. That strategy discourages supermarkets from opening and it threatens existing mom-and-pop grocers, critics say.”

 

Of course, that’s also the strategy of McDonalds.

 

““The business model for these stores is built on saturation,” said Julia McCarthy, senior policy associate at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest and a critic of dollar stores. “When you have so many dollar stores in one neighborhood, there’s no incentive for a full-service grocery store to come in.”

 

“Opponents also express concerns that dollar stores don’t offer fresh produce. Dollar General and its dollar store rivals mostly sell snacks, drinks, canned foods and vegetables, household supplies and personal care products at rock-bottom prices.”

 

Imagine that… snacks, drinks, canned foods and vegetables, household supplies and personal care products at rock-bottom prices.

 

How terrible is that?

 

Hey MORONS! (that’s you CNN).  If you don’t have a lot of money, snacks, drinks, canned foods and vegetables, household supplies and personal care products at rock-bottom prices is a GOOD thing.

 

I’m sorry to tell you that Oklahoma City, where I once owned KOKC and Tulsa where I used to own KTRT passed legislation limiting new dollar store openings.  But only in the “poor” neighborhoods.

 

Ahh, the Nanny State.

 

If you can’t afford to buy a lot, we’ll make you drive to a rich neighborhood to buy it cheap.  Only the oil producers in Oklahoma would like that.

 

The thought in the heads of the libs who lobby for this crap is that if you kill off the dollar stores in the neighborhoods who need them the most, Kroger or Albertsons will take the risks and move right in.

 

Sure they will.  When their shareholders don pink pig suits and fly.  That’s what happens when the Jihad Squad followers get themselves elected to city councils.  Maybe Congress, if we let it continue without opposition.

 

We’ll check into what happened in my former stomping grounds in a few years and see if the libs were right.  Here’s a hint.  Find a bookie who will book a long term future bet.  Bet they won’t.  Make sure that bookie can pay off.

 

Oh…to finish the story about my neighborhood, both stores are doing well, several years later.  Which goes to show the truth of the old saying that the best place to locate a shoe store is across the street from another one.

 

FRED WEINBERG

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions 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. 

 

“Who is attacking your First Amendment through illegal censorship more than big tech companies that the government is working with hand in glove? No one!”

First, there was Trey Gowdy, then there was Daryl Issa and Jason Chaffetz, and the latest to come on board with the great American appeasers is Ted Cruz.

The headline delivered by "today’s conservatives, yesterday’s liberals" was “Ted Cruz Grills Google on Censorship of Conservatives”

The show goes on, the people are appeased, and in the end, there is no justice!

One would think that if Teddy here were truly seeking answers from Google on this magnitude, he would have had a panel of top executives within the company answering these questions. Instead, he settles for an incompetent employee.

Notice with me that Ted starts out saying, “As you know, Google enjoys a special immunity from liability under section 230 under the Communications Decency Act.” A special immunity given to Google from whom, I ask?

Americans, did you give delegated authority to your representatives in giving favor to those who are now censoring you today? No, I know that I did not!

Furthermore, the First Amendment of the US Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law.”

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

So, I ask, where did Congress receive lawful authority to hand over to Big Tech companies a privilege in censoring free speech?

Ted then goes on and said that this special immunity to Big tech companies was predicated upon a neutral platform, and over and over again this incompetent employee of Google makes up excuses for her lack of preparedness.  She said that it was a busy day as she chuckles it off.

Ted Cruz is merely an appeaser in the circus of politics, the fox that is guarding the chicken coop in protecting the criminals rather than prosecuting them.

When will Americans learn the lesson (Hosea 4:6) that they are in on the censorship, censoring those who would dare criticize anyone in government who is transgressing the Constitution that they swore to uphold? This is how they are allowed to tear down the laws and destroy the nation.  They just leave off justice (Amos 5:7). This is not a grilling indictment on Google, it is a message to appease the conservatives of the day who take it for face value.

Just ask the bad actress congresswoman, Frederica Wilson, who last week told Americans what is going on, and in her confusion, she blurted out the truth.

“Those people that are online making fun of members of Congress are a disgrace. We're gonna shut them down and work with whoever to shut them down, and they should be prosecuted.”

You would think with all the corruption found within the career politicians, that Americans would figure out why there are no indictments brought forth when it comes to those who are doing the “grilling.” Oh, how Americans love to be entertained by these actors in the circus of politics.

Yet, Americans are conditioned through these appeasers via hearing after hearing, investigation after investigation, and in the end, Americans settle for no indictments and no resolve when it comes to the justice which guards American liberties.  They merely get talk (Isaiah 59).

Appease is defined as, “to bring to a state of peace, quiet, ease, calm, or contentment; pacify; soothe: to appease anger.”

So, what are the purposes and what is the outcome of such appeasements? It creates a nation of pacifists. Instead of prosecuting the criminals, they simply put on a show (WWE at its very worst) to appease, only to say to the American people through their inactions, “Just go back to sleep, we have got this" (Amos 5:7). Americans then drink the Kool-Aid and do as they are told to do (Isaiah 59:5-15) and God-given rights and freedoms then dissipate into thin air, which further enslave their posterity.

Remember that soft judges create hardened criminals, and that is what the American politicians have become, hardened criminals toward the American institution of our constitutional republic (Article 4, Section 4 of the United States Constitution) as they are given a free hand to transgress, at will, without any consequence whatsoever. Meanwhile, Americans are then laughed at behind closed doors and again, justice is left undone which breeds more injustice.

When Americans decide to be the strength of the US Constitution and begin to enforce the laws which apply to all of us, then things will change, but not until then (Jeremiah 6:16).

 

-- 

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 an edited version of an op-ed originally published by Sons of Liberty Media at www.sonsoflibertyradio.com. Reprinted with permission. 

“Job growth was about 227,000 in June but 46 percent of the people surveyed say they are not better off.  Democrats claim the 50 percent growth of the stock market does not help the common people because most do not invest in stocks, except those with 401(k) plans.  But the stock market indicates companies are willing to invest, which leads to job growth.  Please explain.”

Good points from a thoughtful reader.

June job growth of 227,000 was good, and recent upward revisions of prior-month figures likewise.  However, longer-term job growth hasn’t been very robust, even though unemployment is at record lows.

Some people who were dropped from the job market during the Great Recession and tepid recovery that followed it simply haven’t returned.  But some are beginning to.  Some are seniors who entered retirement early and aren’t being welcomed back by hiring managers.  And some are millennials who retired to their parents’ basements or similar quarters.

Dems err when they claim securities market price gains don’t help common folk.  Beyond 401(k) plans and personal portfolios, the much larger impact is that the vast majority of those people depend on retirement plans that are invested in the markets.  Given the poor management of most plans, members need markets to soar, for otherwise their golden years may not be so rosy.

And stock market rises don’t necessarily indicate strong investment by firms, so long-term job growth has been weak, as noted above; however, in the last decade, things have changed significantly from the pre-recession decades: thus, the “new normal.”  And I think those long-term changes explain our national ennui and sourness.

The key fact is that, even after a decade of recovery and stock market growth, our economy is growing significantly slower than in previous decades.  So, people’s incomes and wellbeing are rising much slower than they did during most adults’ lives, when annual per-person real growth of 2.0-2.5 percent meant that standards of living doubled every generation.  Now, the generational growth is only about 40 percent, instead of doubling.

Although people don’t much consciously think or talk about that, it greatly conditions their sense of wellbeing and their outlook.  For example, living space in the average home has doubled over about 40 years, and home amenities have also greatly improved.  So, people are less burdened by preparing and cleaning up after meals with microwave ovens and dish washers.  And they enjoy more TV options on much bigger and higher quality screens.  Life seems better, and it is.

Although they don’t think about per-capita real growth having been cut in half, they do get a sense the last decade that things aren’t getting better the way they had come to expect from life-long experience.  The fact they don’t know the exact reason for that is itself discomforting.

In my controller’s annual reports the last four years, I explained some key reasons for the new-normal slow growth.  Government excess – spending, taxes, and debt rising continuously relative to the economy, plus continuously proliferating regulations of all kinds – all slowed growth ever more.  Labor force participation grew before the turn of the century, helping growth, but has slowed since.

Debt of all kinds grew unsustainably before the recession, accelerating growth, but has stalled since then.   And increasing trade and international investment, plus strong world economic growth, all helped us before the recession, but those trends too have reversed since then.

These are the important drivers people don’t see, but they definitely feel their effects of slow growth of productivity, jobs and incomes.

As noted above, people generally don’t think consciously about then versus now, although such considerations may play a subconscious role in their outlooks.  Instead, regardless of how much their lives have improved, they always focus on us versus them: They are acutely aware of how well off they are compared to other folks.

And when they feel things aren’t going well for them, they look for scape goats and others to blame.  When they don’t understand the economic complexities and long-term issues, they look for single-factor causes and immediate trends.  

 

--

 

Ron Knecht is a contributing editor to the Penny Press - the conservative weekly "voice of Nevada." You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This is an edited version of his column which has been reprinted with permission. 

 

Humor me for a minute.

 

Let’s say that someone sues me in Federal Court over something I said or wrote and the Federal Judge in his or her infinite wisdom puts a gag order on the defense.

 

So, I hold a press conference and the judge threatens to hold me in contempt.

 

I tell the judge, “It’s too late your honor, I already am in contempt of YOUR court.”

 

How do you think I would be spending the next week?

 

OK, let’s look at the million or so illegal aliens roaming around the United States who are already under the orders of a Federal Judge to leave the United States and simply ignore the order.

 

Are they being rounded up and deported?

 

Are they being arrested and held in “contempt” of a Federal Court?

 

Unless President Trump goes through with his plan to round them up, the answer is no.

 

So, let’s review.

 

If I mouth off to a Federal Judge, I get to see the inside of a cell.  But if someone who has already been through the system, is here illegally and is ordered out just ignores the order, nothing happens.  And that’s the way Nancy Pelosi and the Democrat clown show want it?

 

Now the truth be told, over the last 40 years, I’ve had a few lawyers who would have gladly stuffed a sock in my mouth when I was standing in front of a Federal Judge, but I’ve never quite gone as far as my hypothetical example above, largely because not waking up in a cell is usually among my priorities.  (Or a sitting Federal Judge hasn’t made me mad enough.)

 

But it seems to me that we have two systems of justice.  One for citizens of the United States. And a wholly different one for a class of people the establishment wants coddled. Like illegal aliens. Hell, the Democrat clown show doesn’t even want me to call them illegal aliens.  As if undocumented immigrants makes it OK.

 

Folks.

 

What part of illegal do we not understand?

 

Perhaps, when President Trump of overwhelmingly re-elected in 2020, they’ll get the message.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a columnist and the CEO of USA Radio Network. His views and opinions 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 10