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. 

Published in Opinion

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. 

 

 

 

Published in Opinion

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. 

 

 

Published in Opinion

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. 

Published in Opinion

I have a question for those screamers who claim to be students of the Chicago School of Economics. Or have a gig at one of the business television networks.

 

What part of the Bill of Rights says “Congress shall make no law or allow no tariff abridging the right of citizens to gather at Walmart and buy cheap Chinese crap”?

 

To listen to most of the folks on CNBC, Fox Business and Bloomberg, you’d think they replaced the Second Amendment with that.

 

I’ve been in business, negotiating deals, for most of my adult life.  A bad deal is when you memorialize being taken advantage of.  A good deal is when all parties to the deal get something they want.

 

Our trade deal— from the beginning of modern time to date—with China can generously be called a bad deal.

 

Apparently we want the cheapest flat screen television sets so badly we’re willing to give up our rights to sell stuff in China to get them.  And if President Trump thinks that’s a bad deal and wants to impose tariffs to correct it, the companies importing and selling those sets scream that the American consumer is going to take a beating.  As opposed to the American worker, who of course, are one and the same.

 

Then, when it all is sorted out by the Wall Street Journal, that beating appears to be about $800 a year per family.  And, keep in mind that the Journal is also populated by many of the same screamers on TV.

 

The big weekend story was that Apple could be hurt because most of its products are assembled in China.

 

As an iPhone user (in fact, I use just about every Apple product except the Mac) my humble suggestion to Apple CEO Tim Cook would be build your products in, say, Viet Nam or, here’s a real idea: how about Minnesota, down the street from where Mike Lindell makes My Pillows?  No matter how much you say the words multi-national, living in Cupertino has to be nicer and more efficient than Beijing.

 

At some point you have to realize that the word “nationalism” is not a four letter word.

 

Steve Jobs and Bill Gates started their companies because you can do that in the United States.  They expanded to markets like China in a search for new markets.

 

And, let me tell you a little about our “friends” in China.  They owe me and millions of other Americans millions of dollars in defaulted bonds which their government doesn’t want to pay.  Those bonds were issued before China became Red China and many of us either bought them or inherited them.  (You can read about that at the American Bondholders Foundationhttp://www.americanbondholdersfoundation.com)  They were sold by Wall Street firms who today are still selling Chinese debt.

 

So, I’m not very sympathetic to the words “trade war” because I doubt that the Chinese have the economic muscle to cause us much pain—not nearly as much as the folks on business TV would like us to believe.

 

Simply put, President Trump is right and these guys are wrong.  After all, God, it is said, invented Economists to make Astrologers look good.

 

And if it costs us $800 a year per family—or even significantly more—to make that point to the leaders of Red China, buy less cheap Chinese crap and more stuff made in America.  It will strengthen our hand and, in the long term, make our lives better.

 

Trump advisor Larry Kudlow explained the issues very succinctly to Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.  “Intellectual property theft has to be fixed. Forced technology transfer and ownership of American companies has to be fixed. Cyber interventions have to be fixed. Tariff and nontariff barriers have to be fixed. And there have to be very, very strong enforcement provisions.”

 

To say that none of this is worth taking strong steps like tariffs is exactly like the Democrat House saying that there’s no crisis on the border.

 

This President fixes things.  The Chinese aren’t used to dealing with a President who fixes things.

 

They will learn soon enough.

 

In the meantime, while they are dancing, pay attention to Kudlow’s observation about that, “Some of the Chinese officials have said the agreement was too unbalanced.  No.  The relationship has been too unbalanced and because of these problems of unfair and sometimes unlawful trading practice, we have to have a very strong agreement to correct, to right, these wrongs before we would be satisfied.”

 

----

 

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. 

Published in Opinion

Watching President Trump host a national day of prayer at the White House—immediately after Nancy Pelosi spewed impeachment talk at her press conference—reminds me of a favorite story about my late friend, Oral Roberts.

 

President Roberts was, of course, the biggest fan of the Oral Roberts University basketball team, for which my then Tulsa radio station, KTRT, created a network to distribute the broadcasts which we originated.  But ORU was an independent at the time and had to hire referees from the Big Ten, Missouri Valley and other conferences.  Sometimes, they didn’t get the best refs.

 

One of the features at an ORU home game was an invocation, usually given by a student in the divinity school.  As students are wont to do, the invocations began getting longer and longer until they began to irritate President Roberts.  The kids were spending time blessing everything in the building…the hardwood, the rims, the band etc.

 

One night, prior to a fairly big game, President Roberts caught me in the hallway of the Mabee Center and asked if we cut away during the invocation and the National Anthem.  The answer was an emphatic no, we did not because I always found that carrying a message to God and to our nation is also good business and was unashamed then and now. (That is our policy even today.)

 

He smiled and said, “good, tonight will be interesting.”

 

At the appointed time, public address announcer Doc Blevins waited for the lights to go down and said something like, ladies and gentlemen, giving tonight’s invocation is the founder, President and Chancellor of Oral Roberts University…Oral Roberts!

 

The spotlight went on, President Roberts strode to the center of the court, put a microphone to his mouth and said, “Heavenly Father, please bless the referees’ eyesight. Amen” And walked off the court.

 

Then, he came over to our table, sat down next to me, smiled and asked, “How did I do?”

 

He later told me that he never prayed for a win.  That God doesn’t determine wins and losses.  He just gives you the talent to win.  Winning is up to you.

 

But things which stood in the way of winning—poor officiating, as an example—were fair game.

 

To a great extent, that’s where President Trump finds himself today.

 

He is a very talented individual who won the Presidency against all odds.  God gave him that talent. Think of the Democrat controlled House as a mediocre referee who has a decided vendetta against a very non-establishment, independent public official.

 

The House is trying to use every opportunity to make a call against the President.

 

As usual, when officiating gets in the way of the game, there are no immediate winners and almost everybody involved loses.

 

Frankly, the House Democrats are just like the refs who screwed the Vegas Golden Knights in the last game of round one of the Stanley Cup Playoffs.  And the results are most likely the same in the long term because it is the fans (the voters in this analogy) that get to make the ultimate decision.  In sports, the decision shows up in attendance and TV ratings over the long term.  Think Colin Kaepernick and the NFL.

 

Do you really think that the Democrats, running on investigating the President, will be successful?

 

So far, they are not only out of control on investigations but on the positions being staked out by the 20-some candidates who think they have what it takes to become President.

 

You can’t beat a horse without an equally talented horse—unless some state employee gets involved (think last week’s Kentucky Derby) and we’ve already been through that in the past two years.

 

I guess it all gets down to Oral Roberts’ position that you never pray for a win.

 

That’s what the Democrats are doing because the only reason any of them can give to get elected is that they are not Donald Trump.  Americans are not that stupid.

 

----

 

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. 

Published in Opinion

So, Sunday morning, I opened the electronic version of the only local newspaper I subscribe to and trust, the Las Vegas Review Journal, and I see, buried on page A8, a story headlined “Poll shows Democrats more trusted with health care”

 

Which was true…sort of.  Because I’m pretty sure the story reported the numbers of the poll accurately.

 

The “poll” was an “Associated Press-NORC Center” poll which, you had to read seven paragraphs to the bottom of the story—by the Associated Press—to find out that “The poll of 1,108 adults was conducted April 11-14 using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points.” Let me be the first to ask the question:  If that factoid had been in the headline or in the first paragraph, would anyone take this seriously? What if the story read like this:

 

“A poll of 1,108 adults paid for by the company selling this story to news outlets says that Democrats are more trusted to handle healthcare in the United States.  The pollsters say that the 1108 adults can predict the sentiments of the 128,824,246 voters who cast a ballot in 2016 with a margin of error of 4.1 percent.”  

 

Would anybody actually believe—especially after the 2016 election—that a sample of .0000086 percent of the voting electorate has a margin of error of 4.5 percent? But, in my favorite local newspaper, it is presented as fact. If this kind of polling were accurate, why did virtually every pollster predict Hillary by 7 points on the day of the 2016 election.

 

Polling used to be easier because, for most purposes, you could at least get a sample which was demographically sound.  We could tell roughly where you lived by your telephone number and who you were. Today, with the advent of cell phones and cheap VOIP services, we cannot even tell with certainty what state you are in. Further, there is the built-in bias of many news organizations which sponsor such polls.  If you believe that the AP is some kind of neutral news behemoth, guess again.  Ditto for CBS, NBC, CNN, ABC and, yes, even Fox.  They all come at stories from a predominately liberal viewpoint (with the occasional exception of Fox) so why would you believe that their polling selections would be much different?

 

Then, there’s the “if you see it in the media it must be true” school of thought. It’s today’s version of Hitler’s propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels’ Big Lie theory which, simply stated, says if you tell a lie big enough, many people will have to believe it. Inevitably, these “polls” are presented by the same people who populate organizations like the White House Correspondents Association and are soooo offended by the term Fake News and the President’s assertion that those who willfully present Fake News are the enemies of the people.

 

But the truth is not only is President Trump correct, but the average voter knows bullcrap when he or she sees it.  Journalists have a tendency to see themselves as more knowledgeable and more important than average voting citizens.  Many times, in conversation, journalists use terms like “them” and “those people” to describe and differentiate average voters.  As if journalists, somehow, fall into a different category. Like Hillary and the word deplorable.

 

Want some proof? Watch those panels on FNC and CNN.  Watch the Sunday morning shows.

 

It’s that sort of hubris which allows them to write headlines and lead paragraphs like the one I referred to above—even in my favorite local newspaper. (And I’m not kidding about that.) I’ve been in this business since I was 12.  But I live about 2,600 miles from Washington and my neighbors remind me daily that I’m pretty average.  I would hate for it to be any other way.

 

----

 

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 here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Published in Opinion

Here is a message to Democrat dim bulbs everywhere who, after the Mueller report’s release, cannot, as one of their favorite organizations is so aptly named - move on.

On November 8, 2016, Donald John Trump whupped your collective ass.

On April 18, 2019, your collective ass got whupped again—this time by your own designated agent, Robert Mueller.

You still don’t understand that the average American voter thinks you are full of crap. That the reason Hillary lost was not the Russians but that she called half of America, “deplorable.”

No, you want to get rid of the President by any means possible - or impossible.

Go ahead and impeach the President. Please. Let cocky little jerks like Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiftless rule the day with their pseudo-intellectual bullcrap. Paraphrasing the immortal words of the late George Wallace, I’ll bet they couldn’t even park a bicycle straight. Both of these clowns are like the freshman in college who got beat up every day by the seniors and now, they’re going to show us.

Meanwhile, we DO have a crisis at the border.

And the economy IS doing quite well.

A classic episode of a TV show, WKRP in Cincinnati, ends with the station manager saying, “As God is my witness, I swear I thought turkeys could fly.”

Who would have thought that the writers in 1978 could have imagined today’s Democrats 41 years later.

We know a few things.

One is that turkeys CANNOT fly.

Two is that Democrats in the House of Representatives are auditioning to be turkeys.

In 448 pages, (available on pennypressnv.com) you see a President who has little or no patience for fools and has never been afraid to say so to anyone who paid attention.

The fact is that Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  If the President wishes to fire anyone in the executive branch at any time for any reason, it may be a political firestorm, but not a legal one. Richard Nixon fired Archibald Cox. The firing stuck because Nixon was the President and in charge of the executive branch.

Had Trump fired Mueller or Jeff Sessions, it might have caused him political agita, but I’d put money on this Supreme Court ruling out obstruction of justice if it ever got that far.

And, as far as these clowns - yes, clowns - who chair various committees in the House go, if I were the Attorney General I would not answer their demands with nice letters.  I would call a press conference and tell them to blow it out their…anal orifices. Or something like that. But that’s just me.

Although, I would observe that many of my fellow average American voters tend to feel the same way and use the same or similar language in their unguarded moments.

And as far as impeachment goes, the aforementioned clowns are playing with the possibility of going years before Democrats ever win an election in many places again.  If they’re that stupid.

First, we know for a fact that impeachment would just be a symbolic gesture.  There is NO WAY they get 67 votes in the Senate to remove the President.  And if Indian imposter Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren thinks her call for impeachment will help her run for the Democratic nomination, we sure hope the Democrats ARE that stupid.

We’ll see.

Having spent 20 years of my life in Las Vegas, I wouldn’t put any money on either side of that proposition.

 

----

 

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 here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Published in Opinion

After everything we’ve seen, politically, since Donald Trump announced his campaign for President in 2015, is it unreasonable to believe, today, everything he has said about the Washington swamp?

 

In a word, no.

 

In fact, believing Trump and disbelieving pencil neck Adam Schiftless and his ilk is as reasonable as believing that baseball season started last week and the Stanley Cup playoffs start this week.

We have created a class of people in Washington, New York and other large Democrat controlled urban areas who simply do not care about what we, the people who actually own America, want. We didn’t intend to create this class of people—call them the Swamp class.

 

It happened because Americans are so in awe of our experiment in self-government, we have, over the last 200 years, forgotten that when you give people access to a vast treasury, many of them seem to want some of it for themselves.  In short, we trusted them but we didn’t verify their intentions.  It’s kind of like trusting that nice man who owns a casino in Las Vegas to play you with even odds.  Not going to happen.  Seriously.  How is it that people who have served in the House or Senate almost their entire professional lives, emerge from public service as multi millionaires?  How indeed, Harry Reid?

 

Ironically, it took a billionaire—who actually made his money in business—from, of all places New York City, to tell the public the truth.

 

We have a lot of great support, far more than you think,” said President Trump.  “But where we really have the support are the voters that pull that handle, or whatever the hell they are pulling, they are pulling it for us.  So, the Russia hoax proves more than ever that we need to finish exactly what we came here to do. Drain the swamp!  The Democrats have to now decide whether they will continue defrauding the public with ridiculous bullshit — partisan investigations, or whether they will apologize to the American people, and join us to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, bring down the cost of health care.

 

So, when these clowns get caught trying to manipulate the system to their advantage with their panties down around their ankles, why are they amazed that our pitchforks are out for them?

 

Donald Trump may be a little crude, but he’s certainly been effective.

 

Ask any member of the Washington Swamp class.  After they get done sputtering.

 

Their newest scam is to insinuate the Mueller Report is, somehow, flawed.  CBS is trumpeting a report that certain unknown members of Mueller’s team are “unhappy” with Attorney General Bill Barr’s summary of the report.

 

It’s not enough for them to have spent more than $25-million of our money to try and unelect a duly elected President they hate. Now, they need to trash their own work. Or, the Democrats do. (Maybe that’s one and the same.) Think about it. This Attorney General has spent an entire career building a sterling reputation.  He didn’t need this job.  Mueller is exactly the same.

 

Do you seriously think they would endeavor to ruin their reputations by involving themselves in a bizarre conspiracy to protect Donald Trump?

 

Do you seriously think that either of these two would allow their names to be used in some illicit scheme to tilt the results of this investigation? If you do, we have bigger problems than Adam Schiff.

 

----

 

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 here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Published in Opinion
%PM, %04 %963 %2019 %22:%Apr

Opinion: Lucy Flores, spare us the BS

After a weekend full of Lucy Flores, the time has come to ask why the former gang banger, Nevada Assemblywoman and two time Nevada political loser found it necessary to wait four and a half years and then come after Joe Biden for alleged hair sniffing.  Or alleged back of head kissing. Or alleged shoulder holding.

 

All while Biden, then the Vice President of the United States of America, was lending his support to what would soon become her massive loss in 2014 for Light Gov.

And, did I mention that it was four and a half years before she trotted out Biden’s “crime?”

“I had never experienced anything so blatantly inappropriate and unnerving before,” she (or someone) wrote in New York Magazine.

 

Seriously?

 

You mean the abortion you had when you were gang banging at age 16 was perfectly appropriate?  The fact that your solution to becoming pregnant was to kill the baby?  That was appropriate?

 

Or does it mean you have a very short memory?

 

Let me refresh it from your own website:

 

“By 15 I was on juvenile parole and by 17 I had dropped out of high school.”

 

Now, Lucy.  I’m NOT kicking you when you are down.  In fact, the exit you made from that life is impressive.  It shows that President Trump is on the right path with his criminal justice reform efforts—which, thankfully, your Democrat buddies seem to be supporting.

Also, I’m not here to make Joe an example of who I would like to see as President, since we already have a perfectly good President in Donald Trump.

 

But, he is, at least, the sanest of the Democratic candidates so far and is a decent man who doesn’t deserve the negative publicity you and the lamestream media have whipped up, presumably at the request of one of the other crazed Democrat candidates.  Further, you seem just a tad too concerned with your political relevance which is actually somewhere between that of Jussie Smollett and Hillary Clinton.

 

And as far as this #MeToo crap goes, count me out.

 

As I have said in this space before, my Father took me aside when I was about 13 and told me that I had a Mother and two Sisters and I had better treat women the way I expected others to treat my Mother and two Sisters.  Left unsaid was what would happen if I violated those strictures but it wouldn’t have been pleasant.

 

Somehow, given your gang banging background, if you had been all that offended at the time, Biden might have suffered a groin injury (although the Secret Service might have been upset).  Something tells me you didn’t say a word at the time because you are full of crap.

You appreciated his trip to attempt to bail you out of a horrible campaign back then and you feel like there’s nothing he can do for you today.

 

In short, madam, cut the crap.

 

You don’t deserve any of the time the lamestream media has wasted on you and, if you want to be an example to troubled youth, maybe you should endorse the President’s First Step Act and get on with it.

 

Or you can continue to act like Jussie Smollett and become even more irrelevant than you are now.

 

----

 

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 here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Published in Opinion
Page 1 of 2