%PM, %02 %996 %2019 %22:%Oct

October is Breast Cancer Awareness month

Celebrities such as Julia Louise-Dreyfus, Olivia Newton-John, Christina Applegate and Cynthia Nixon have revealed their breast cancer diagnoses, helping raise awareness for the most common cancer to affect women.  It’s the second most common cause of cancer death in females. 

How common is breast cancer?

1 in 8 women will develop invasive breast cancer over the course of their lifetime. According to the American Cancer Society, an estimated 268,000 cases of invasive breast cancer are expected to be diagnosed in women in the US with 63,000 cases of non-invasive breast cancer, a rise from last year. 41,700 women and 500 men are expected to die this year of breast cancer. 

What are the risk factors for breast cancer?

Risk factors for breast cancer include:

  • Age greater than 50
  • Family History
  • BRAC1 and BRAC2 genetic mutations
  • Alcohol use
  • Never been pregnant or becoming pregnant for the first time over 35 years old
  • Early menarche at age 11 or younger
  • Obesity, especially after menopause
  • Dense breasts
  • Lack of physical activity
  • Use of oral contraceptives
  • Previous “precancerous” tumors such as atypical hyperplasia
  • DES exposure
  • Previous radiation therapy

How is breast cancer staged?

Breast cancer is staged based on the size of the tumor, if lymph nodes are affected and whether the cancer has spread to distant areas of the body.  Prognosis varies greatly on the stage.

Screen-Shot-2012-09-27-at-9.59.51-AM.png

 

IMAGE ABOVE FROM JOHNSTON HEALTH
 

Is family history a huge factor?

85% of breast cancer cases occur in women with NO family history.

 

Screening of breast cancer

Mammograms are the first line screening tool for breast cancer and are currently recommended biennial for women aged 50-74.  However for those at higher risk, mammogram screening should start earlier, with possible follow-up ultrasound, and be performed more regularly.

 

FullSizeRender (1)

 

3-D MAMMOGRAM IMAGE

---- 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, 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.

 

 

Published in Health

“When government takes away it’s citizens right to bear arms it becomes the citizens duty to take away the government's right to govern." -Accredited to President George Washington

It is interesting how this is playing out in front of the people in this country when it comes to more illegal encroachments or infringements on law-abiding gun owners. Remember, they accuse the law-abiders of the crimes of the law-breakers (1 John 3:12).

Here is how it is played out:  On one side of the divide and conquer aisle (Mark 3:25) we have Donald Trump, sold to you as the Republican, who calls for illegal “red flag laws,” which are not law.  In the end, they will be aimed at their political opposition.

On the other hand, we have those who are sold to you as the Democrats, who are calling for the removal of AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons.

Which do you prefer?  Do you prefer small infringements through Donald Trump, or complete disarmament by Democrats? Either way, you are being disarmed and tyranny wins out.

I would advise everyone to take heed to President George Washington, who is responsible for arming the citizenry that we are to “guard ourselves against the impostures of pretended patriotism” (Matthew 24:5-8; 2 Corinthians 11:14).

If you are paying attention, this is not only leading through “created” opposition, but it's also happening through what is called the Hegelian dialectic (John 8:44).

The Hegelian dialectic is defined as "a framework for guiding thoughts and actions into conflicts that lead to synthetic solutions (of a proposition- having truth or falsity determinable by recourse to experience) which can only be introduced once those being manipulated take a side that will produce the predetermined agenda (Outcome)."

Recently, the mainstream media’s push of un-constitutional debates and their Communist candidates included Beto O’Rourke and his gun confiscation plan.

'No, it’s not voluntary 'It is mandatory,'" O'Rourke said of his proposal. "It will be the law. You will be required to comply with the law." He then went on to say:

"We expect people to comply with the law."

The problem that Mr. O’Rourke is having here is that it is not law nor will it ever be law regardless of what he or any other Communist candidate wants you to believe.

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

Americans, where have these anti-gunners received delegated authority to advance their agenda?  They did not receive it from “We the People.”

Have Americans really become this dumbed down as to believe that representatives change laws that counter our rights? Our rights didn’t come from the state's generosity.  They came from the hand of God, period!

“The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” -President John F. Kennedy

Representatives of government in this country have, in fact, sworn to uphold the laws found in the US Constitution, not to tear it down and recreate it into the ungodly image of the United Nations.

Friends, look to history.  George Mason warned us that those who mean to disarm, mean to enslave. They mean to be your masters while you become their slaves, and the best way to enslave people is to disarm them (Hosea 4:6).

Look to the example, which our forefathers exhibited not just in writing, mind you, but also in action.  Our forefathers armed the people for the very purpose of what is happening in America today.

Americans must come to terms that corrupt politicians are not the type that you can help or rehabilitate.  They are the type that you must lawfully remove, or you will lose your God-given right! (Article 2, Section 4, US Constitution)

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” – President Thomas Jefferson

You must fight for your God-given rights! (Deuteronomy 1:8; James 2:14-26)

It is the difference between a free people and an enslaved people.  There is no in-between (Luke 11:2).

Firearms are second to the Constitution in importance; they are the people’s liberty’s teeth.

Therefore, Americans, it is time to grin  (Romans 12:21) in the face of tyranny.

 

-- 

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. 

 

Published in Opinion
%PM, %25 %909 %2019 %20:%Sep

Envy, the root of many modern evils

To dislike a person because of the color of his skin is racism. To scorn someone because of her same-sex preference is homophobia. To disdain for reasons of gender is sexism. To frown upon people because of their foreign origins is xenophobia. Such manifestations of bigotry, to a person of peace, tolerance, and logic, are shameful and indefensible.

Why?

Color, sex, sexual orientation, and national origin have nothing to do with the content of one’s character. That’s one reason.

Another is that humans are not a blob; each human is a unique individual. If one is to be judged, he should be judged by his choices and behavior—that is, by his own sins and virtues and not by the sins and virtues of others who simply share some accidental resemblance to him.

A third reason is that finger-pointing takes the spotlight off self-improvement. Scapegoating is not a pathway to achievement for either persons or nations. It’s what losers do.

A Politically Acceptable Scapegoat

But suppose you despise and seek to punish an entire class of people because they’re rich or successful. Is that bigotry, or is that the foundation of a political campaign? Sadly, it’s both. Frequently.

Second only to Donald Trump—a specific individual whose sins and virtues we can largely identify and hold him responsible for—the number one punching bag every political season is “the rich.” They are monotonously demonized by candidates who vie for your vote and affection and count on your ignorance and myopia.

It would be both unpopular and stupid to express a dislike for “the poor” as an income group. We all know that among the poor there are both good and bad people. Some are poor through little fault of their own and possess strong personal character. Others are poor because of bad choices and lousy behavior rooted in rotten character. We surely want to determine the difference and render our judgments and reactions accordingly.

Listen to presidential “debates” carefully, and you’ll easily see a very different perspective with regard to the rich. Income bigotry is on full and proud display. Candidates don’t define “the rich” precisely, but they do hope that you’ll think you’re not among them. You’re supposed to be the victim of the rich so the politician can be your savior. The demagogue doesn’t say he wants to sift the good rich from the bad rich and treat them accordingly. He wants to go after them all, just for their richness.

You can be rich because you stole something or used your political connections to get special favors, or you could be rich like most of the rich, that is, because you created and built something; worked long, hard, and smart for what you have; added enormous value to society; invested resources wisely; or just entertained 50,000 happy, paying customers many times at concerts. Doesn’t matter which.

When New York Mayor Bill de Blasio declares with fire in his eyes that he will “tax the hell out of the rich,” he means all of them. His competitors, as well as large swaths of their audiences, cheer because of the perverse satisfaction they derive from just thinking about the punishment. Suggest that “taxing the hell” out of anybody might be counter-productive to philanthropy, job creation, or economic growth, and you’ll quickly be the skunk at the garden party because it’s the punishment that matters, not outcomes.

Envy Is the Root

Welcome to the ugly world of envy, defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant as

“…a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [It] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying other’s good fortune.”

Envy is almost as old as the world itself. It was Cain’s motive for killing Abel. Professor Paul Fairfield of Queen’s University in Ontario describes it as an animosity “that eats away at you from the inside out and that hides itself behind a dubious morality.” It comes in several shades.

The less harmful version, for example, is when you count the other guy’s blessings instead of your own but try to attain them for yourself peacefully—by trade or by emulating the decisions of the successful. A more malicious type takes this form: You despise someone for who he is or what he has and take personal delight in punishing him for it in the hope that you’ll benefit in one way or another. Maybe you’ll get some of his stuff or attain power by vilifying him.

The worst kind of envy shows up when you take action to make sure no one can ever possess what the successful person has because you believe equality in misery is more virtuous than inequality, period.

Perhaps the 20th century’s best book on the subject was the Austrian-German sociologist Helmut Schoeck’s Envy: A Theory of Social Behavior, which appeared in the late ‘60s. Schoeck noted that “to claim ‘humanitarian motives’ when the motive is envy and its supposed appeasement, is a favorite rhetorical device of politicians.”

It’s a tactic that politicians have been using for ages—profoundly evidenced at least as far back as the sad, final decades of the old Roman Republic. I know of no moment in history in which the encouragement or practice of widespread envy produced anything but a bad outcome.

For good reasons, it’s counted as one of the seven deadly sins. It builds nothing up but concentrated state power; it tears everything down from the object of the envy (e.g., the rich) to the very souls of the envious themselves.

Envy Rots the Bones

You don’t have to take my word for it. Several thousand years ago, the tenth of the Ten Commandments warned of envy’s close relative, “coveting.” Many Biblical passages from both Old and New Testaments caution against it, including Proverbs 14:30 (“A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones”) and Ecclesiastes 30:24 (“Envy and wrath shorten the life”).

What follows is a representative sampling of historical wisdom on the matter from across the centuries since.

The pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Democritus noted that a free and peaceful society would actively seek to discourage envy.

The laws would not prevent each man from living according to his inclination, unless individuals harmed each other; for envy creates the beginning of strife.

Seneca the Younger was a prominent Roman Stoic thinker and statesman of the 1st century AD. He was well aware that envy played a key role in the demise of the Republic in the previous century:

It is the practice of the multitude to bark at eminent men, as little dogs do at strangers.

Envy generates an internal struggle in three stages, according to the 13th century’s St. Thomas Aquinas. In the first stage, the envious person attempts to defame another’s reputation; in the second stage, the envious person receives either “joy at another’s misfortune” (if his defamation succeeds) or “grief at another’s prosperity” (if it fails); the final stage sees envy turned into hatred because “sorrow causes hatred.”

Italian poet and author of The Divine Comedy Dante Alighieri saw envy as “a desire to deprive other men of theirs.” In his Purgatory, the envious are punished by having their eyes sewn shut with wire “because they gained sinful pleasure from seeing others brought low.”

Leonardo da Vinci, the quintessential Renaissance Man, wrote:

“Envy wounds with false accusations, that is with detraction, a thing which scares virtue.”

In the 17th century, the English essayist Francis Bacon condemned envy as an enervating attitude that leads directly to deplorable actions:

“A man that hath no virtue in himself, ever envieth virtue in others. For men’s minds, will either feed upon their own good, or upon others’ evil; and who wanteth the one, will prey upon the other; and whoso is out of hope, to attain to another’s virtue, will seek to come at even hand, by depressing another’s fortune.”

A hundred years later, the English theologian Robert South echoed Bacon.

“Of covetousness, we may truly say that it makes both the Alpha and Omega in the devil’s alphabet, and that it is the first vice in corrupt nature which moves, and the last which dies.”

At about the same time, the famous playwright Joseph Addison observed that envious people are usually unhappy people.

“The condition of the envious man is the most emphatically miserable; he is not only incapable of rejoicing in another’s merit or success, but lives in a world wherein all mankind are in a plot against [him].”

When the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville toured America in the early 1830s, he found that one of the country’s strengths was that we were focused on building things and people up instead of tearing either down. Prophetically, he predicted that if envy took root, the result would be suicide.

“I have a passionate love for liberty, law, and respect for rights. Liberty is my foremost passion. But one also finds in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to want to bring the strong down to their level, and which reduces men to preferring equality in servitude to inequality in freedom.”

Equality is a slogan based on envy. It signifies in the heart of every republican: “Nobody is going to occupy a place higher than I.”

Theodore Roosevelt regarded himself as a “progressive” of his day (late 19th and early 20th century), but he understood then what most “progressives” today do not: namely, that envy is the root of much evil.

“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures.”

Philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand was an avowed atheist who would never argue that envy is evil because God says so. But she certainly regarded envy as evil and destructive. She equated it with “hatred of the good,” by which she meant “hatred of a person for possessing a value or virtue one regards as desirable.”

“If a child wants to get good grades in school, but is unable or unwilling to achieve them and begins to hate the children who do, that is hatred of the good. If a man regards intelligence as a value, but is troubled by self-doubt and begins to hate the men he judges to be intelligent, that is hatred of the good.”

Robert Barron is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles and founder of the popular Catholic ministerial organization Word on Fire. In his view:

“Envy is a capital sin. It refers to the sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself, even unjustly. When it wishes grave harm to a neighbor it is a mortal sin: St. Augustine saw envy as “diabolical sin.” [In Augustine’s words,] “From envy are born hatred, detraction, calumny, joy caused by the misfortune of a neighbor, and displeasure caused by his prosperity.”

Rooting out Envy

It would be easy to supply the reader with a thousand more quotes on the subject of envy. The difficult thing would be to find one that defends it. The irony is this: Universally condemned, envy is nonetheless widely practiced. Ayn Rand christened our times as an “Age of Envy.”

Search your conscience. If you find envy within it, expunge it before it does its awful work.

--

Lawrence W. Reed is President Emeritus, Humphreys Family Senior Fellow, and Ron Manners Ambassador for Global Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education. His opinions are his own. The article originally appeared on fee.org reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion

Let me put it plainly: 

 

Joe Biden is a liar, his son is a bumbling crook and any member of our so-called national security team who somehow has access to a Presidential phone call with the leader of another nation and files a whistleblower complaint should be in prison for the rest of his or her life.

 

That clear enough for you?

 

Joe Biden told a reporter that he has not discussed his son’s off shore investments.  When was that?  On Air Force Two when Sonny Boy hitched a ride?  Bullcrap.

 

I don’t care what Andrew Napolitano said on Fox.  The Judge is losing his fastball just like Biden.  What’s happening here is that the Mueller investigation turned out to be a nothingburger as opposed to the smoking gun Democrat like Adam Schiffhead were assuming it would be.

 

And later, the news is that in this case the so-called whistleblower may not even have sat in on the call but heard about it second hand.

 

Did any of that end it?

 

Nope.

 

This President had the discourtesy to beat Saint Hillary in 2016 and the swampmonsters are not going to stop trying to eject him from Washington like a heart transplant which won’t take.

 

The problem they are having is that the American public has wised up to these clowns and no longer accepts the CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC version of things.

 

Democrats want to impeach the President?  Please.  Stop hinting.  Do it.  American voters will make the final decision on the first Tuesday after the first Sunday in November of 2020 because—pure and simple—anything the House does do is merely mental masturbation.  They, quite simply, don’t have enough votes or support to do anything else.

 

Never Trumper Bill Weld (Mitt Romney lite) wants Trump executed for treason?  Honest.  Saw his rant on TV.

 

When pink pigs fly from his butt.

 

Meanwhile, we’ve seen the tape of Joe Biden bragging in 2018 about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Sonny Boy’s company fired or he was going to withhold a BILLION DOLLARS in United States foreign aid,

 

Talk about your quid pro quo.

 

And, by the way, this is what some woman at the Wall Street Journal named Rebecca Ballhaus called “widely discredited” in her story about this set of facts.  The Wall Street Journal! For comparison purposes, I happen to be the CEO of the USA Radio Networks in real life and if any of my news anchors used that phrase, they would be fired before their next newscast.  This bundle of genius is a 28 year old millennial who has already won a Pulitzer prize.  Not exactly Brit Hume.

 

The fact is that these people are unhinged.  This is Trump Derangement Syndrome on steroids.

 

Forget the opioid crisis.  This is a crisis of stupidity involving people who are so busy throwing a tantrum they have no idea how entirely moronic they look.

 

Worse, it’s as big an indication that there IS a deep state which needs to be excised.

 

And the only way to solve the issue may well be arrests—a lot of them—and jail terms.

 

They could load up a whole wing of a Federal Prison with these people—starting with the first batch, James Comey, Andrew McCabe and the FBI lovers, Peter Strozk and Lisa Page.

 

----

 

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. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

 

 

Published in Opinion
%PM, %20 %833 %2019 %18:%Sep

This year’s flu season has begun

Although flu season officially starts in October, public health officials in Riverside, California have already reported the first “flu-related” death this year, a 4 year-old child.

And being that Australia’s flu season began a couple of weeks early, US health experts are bracing for the start of ours this month.

We still, however, cannot predict how “severe” this year’s flu season will be, but here are the answers to the most commonly asked questions about the flu.

When does the flu season begin and how long does it last?

Flu season has begun already. It typically starts in the Fall, and ends late Spring.  So the range is described as October to May with it peaking December to March.

How bad will this flu season be?

It is difficult to predict, but already this early in the season we’ve had a flu-related death.  As the season unfolds, more cases will be reported by the CDC’s Flu View.

What is the flu?  How can one die from it?

The flu is caused by a virus. Multiple strains of virus’ can cause the flu.  The virus itself can be lethal, however the greatest risk comes with what it does to your immune system, thereby putting one at risk of secondary infections.  Pneumonia is the number one cause of flu-related deaths.  Secondly, it can exacerbate existing conditions such as asthma, seizures, even promote preterm birth, hence those who are pregnant or have preexisting medical conditions are urged to get vaccinated against the flu.  Moreover those who qualify should get the pneumonia vaccine as well. 

What does this year’s flu vaccine cover?

According to the CDC, the trivalent vaccine covers for these three strains of the flu virus:

  •  A/Brisbane/02/2018 (H1N1)pdm09-like virus
  • A/Kansas/14/2017 (H3N2)-like virus
  • B/Colorado/06/2017-like (Victoria lineage) virus

Quadrivalent influenza vaccines will contain these three viruses and an additional influenza B vaccine virus, a B/Phuket/3073/2013–like virus (Yamagata lineage).

These vaccines are aimed at providing protection against the Swine flu, and some influenza A and B strains.

What about older individuals?

This year, those over 65 will have three options for their flu vaccine.

Fluzone High-Dose – a higher dose flu vaccine that will hopefully allow their immunity to protect against the flu longer

FLUAD – the trivalent flu vaccine with an adjuvant to stimulate more of an immune response.

Flublock Quadrivalent – provides protection against 4 strains.

What about the nasal spray vaccine?

This year, the CDC allows use of the nasal spray vaccine as it has shown to have improved efficacy from  prior years. However, it is only recommended for  those who are between the ages of 2 and 49 and cannot be given to those who are pregnant or who have compromising medical conditions as outlined by the CDC.

Who should get the flu shot?

All individuals 6 months old and older unless specified by their medical provider.

How long does it take the flu shot to “kick in?”

The average immune system takes a couple weeks of to prime, so we suggest getting the flu shot before the season starts…or peaks.  However, experts recommend to still get the flu vaccine to anyone who missed early vaccination.

What if I’m allergic to eggs?

Most individuals allergic to eggs can still get the flu vaccine, but if the allergy to eggs is severe (anaphylaxis, angioedema, difficulty breathing), the CDC recommends notifying your medical provider and being in a facility to monitor you if you do get the flu vaccine.

Will I get the flu from the flu shot?

No.  The flu vaccine has a “killed” version of the virus meaning it’s not an active virus (as opposed to a live attenuated vaccine, a weakened down version of it).   A “killed” or “inactivated” vaccine merely has the pathogen particles to induce an immune response.  Additionally, when one states they got the flu despite the flu shot it could be that the flu shot only protects against 3 – 4 strains and they were infected with a rare strain not covered by the vaccine.

How effective is the flu vaccine?

The average effectiveness each year hovers around 60%.  Last year’s efficacy was much lower and this year’s has not been predicted as of yet. Australia is still reporting active cases on their Department of Health website.

I feel sick after the flu shot, why?

For some, the immune response that ensues can make one feel mildly ill, but should not resemble the flu. Those who state they got the flu “immediately” after receiving the shot, might have already been exposed and had not had a chance to produce immunity prior to their exposure. 

What are symptoms of the flu? How is it different from a cold?

A cold comes on slower and less severe.  Flu symptoms are more abrupt and can include:

  • Fever
  • Body Aches
  • Cough
  • Sneezing
  • Sore Throat
  • Shortness of Breath
  • Fatigue
  • Headache
  • Nausea
  • Vomiting

Are there medications to treat the flu? Will antibiotics work?

There are antiviral medications available, such as Tamiflu, to treat the flu.  Antibiotics, however, will not work since the flu is not caused by a bacteria but rather a virus. However, if a secondary bacterial infection takes over, antibiotics may be used.

How can I prevent getting the flu?

Besides vaccination, avoid being around those who are sick, thorough hand washing, and take good care of yourself.  A balanced diet, exercise and sleep regimen can help boost your immune system.

Wishing you health this season!!

 

---- 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, 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.

Published in Health

South Tower: “I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn’t realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit. We then realized the building started to come down.” -Carlsen, Craig (9110505)

Just today, while taking my son to the dentist, I scrolled through my media feed and I started to notice post after post with first responders and firefighters telling us of their accounts as to what was happening inside of the Twin Towers on the lower floors after explosions took place on the upper floors.

Here are three firefighters countering mainstream media’s narrative talking to the media (Vulgar Language).

Watch three Firefighters tell media there were THREE explosions after the plane hit the WTC and that they saw a “black airplane” hit the second building. 

http://911-questions.com/firefighters-witnessed-explosions/

I also noticed that there was post after post of the American people questioning the mainstream media’s narrative, and rightly so (Isaiah 5:20).

Learning from history, as well as to how the American mainstream media’s sick and evil game is played out today, let us remember that history is repeating itself in the present (Jeremiah 11:9).

Does this look and sound familiar?

Propaganda Minister under Adolph Hitler Joseph Goebells said,

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

Without further ado, click on this link and read what it was that 156 eyewitnesses accounted for concerning what actually took place on September 11, 2001, and decide for yourselves as to whether or not you have been told the whole truth and nothing but the truth (John 8:36).

 In Plane site Documentary: 

https://www.disclose.tv/911-in-plane-site-306703

 

-- 

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. 

Published in Opinion

In college 50 years ago, I took Introduction to Political Science from Stephan A. Douglas.  Not the short, fat Little Giant who debated Abe Lincoln.  But a very good tall and angular professor at Illinois.

The main thing I remember from his class is his explanation about a compelling revolution in political science and economics that began a decade earlier.  Traditionally, he said, political scientists sought to explain how institutions, practices and people in political and economic processes worked to promote the public interest and the common good.  It was Pollyanna-ish: All for the better.

Then some iconoclasts said that’s not how things work at all.  Most folks in the political and economic spheres aren’t trying to promote the public interest.  To the extent they can, they use institutions and practices to promote their own special interests.  This insight, which today seems obvious, changed political science and helped foster a branch of economics known as public choice theory – which has produced a number of Nobel Prizes in economics.

Against the background of the Viet Nam war and the turmoil in American politics in the 1960s, it was a bracing idea, and it quickly became a formative part of my intellectual make-up.  It has served me well in politics and public service.

Now come our corporate leaders with a perfect example of how political and economic behavior masquerades as public-spirited when it’s really completely self-serving.  The Business Roundtable, an association of chief executive officers of America’s largest companies, issued a new “Statement of the Purpose of a Corporation,” signed by 181 CEOs.

“While each of our individual companies serves its own corporate purpose, we share a fundamental commitment to all of our stakeholders,” reads the key sentence.  It names those stakeholders: customers, employees, diversity and inclusion, suppliers, the communities where they work, the environment and sustainability.  Oh, yes, also “effective engagement with” company stockholders.

Since 1997, their periodic “Principles of Corporate Governance” statements have endorsed the notion of shareholder primacy: that corporations exist primarily to serve stockholders.  In the New York Times Magazine on September 13, 1970, economist Milton Friedman, one of the intellectual giants of the 20th Century, said business executives who pursue a goal other than making money for their equity investors are wrong.

They are, he said, “unwitting puppets of the intellectual forces that have been undermining the basis of a free society these past decades.”  They become “unelected government officials” who essentially tax employees and customers.  They violate their legal and ethical fiduciary duties.

But the new diktat declares all “stakeholders” equal – leaving corporate moguls, our enlightened visionary betters, to decide how to balance their interests via corporate actions.

The concept of corporate stakeholders arose soon after the public choice revolution.  Originally, it was descriptive: It described the groups that were affected by actions of corporations.  But once the term was invented, it morphed into a normative concept suggesting the stakeholders have some kinds of claims on the actions of companies and their decision-makers that legitimately compete with the fiduciary duties owed to those who put their capital at risk by investing in the firm.

Now the CEOs have thrown in the towel and joined these predatory special-interest claimants.  Why?

It’s something I’ve observed the last 40 years in regulation, politics and business.  Essentially, executives are – surprise! – pursuing their own self-serving interests.  They want to be lionized everywhere as great leaders, compassionate souls, visionary intellectuals.  They want to use the resources their stockholders have entrusted to them to buy off everyone – unions, politicians, predatory special interests such as environmentalists, and the lamestream press.

Maximizing long-term discounted stockholder value within ethical norms crimps those aspirations.

This rot is clearest with regulated utilities, where executives can cut implicit (sometimes explicit) deals with regulators: We’ll do almost any foolish thing you want us to, as long as we can pass on the costs to ratepayers.

The problem started a century ago when large corporations were no longer managed by their primary owners, but instead by hired professional managers with their own self-serving agendas.  Ironically, consumers, employees and the real public interest in economic growth and fairness suffer with stockholders in this scheme.  Friedman was more right than he knew.

 

--

 

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. 

Published in Money

“Baby shots” used to be a boring subject, and taken for granted. As the number of vaccines grew from seven in the 1980s to 16 requiring 70 doses now, most parents obediently brought their children to the doctor when shots were “due.” The compliance rate was more than 90 percent. Parents who objected for one reason or another just got an exemption from school-attendance mandates and kept quiet. Every state had a medical exemption, most had a religious exemption, and many had easily obtained philosophical or personal-belief exemptions.

Now that states are repealing exemptions, parents are descending on state capitals en masse, many with severely injured children in tow. Thousands rallied outside an Albany courthouse as a lawsuit challenging an end to religious exemptions was heard.

Despite vociferous objections and attempts to disrupt hearings, the California legislature passed a law (SB 276) severely limiting medical exemptions, the only kind available. “Rogue doctors” were allegedly selling exemptions.

The bill’s author, Sen. Richard Pan, M.D., said that everybody who really needed an exemption would get one. However, 882 out of 882 pediatric practices told a mother that they would not write an exemption for a child who had had anaphylactic shock. This life-threatening allergic reaction, which kills rapidly by closing off the airway, is one of the few allowable indications for an exemption. But now, a parent not willing to risk recurrence cannot send her child to school.

Doctors are no doubt afraid of being targeted by the medical licensure board. SB 276 mandates scrutiny of doctors who have issued more than five exemptions, including exemptions made before the bill takes effect.

Parents are besieging legislators with reports of children who died or experienced devastating illnesses or disability after getting their shots. Interchanges on Twitter are passionate. One juxtaposed a sign saying “Vaccinate your f****** children” with a photograph of a gravestone and the message “We did.”

Whatever happened to hundreds of once-healthy children—it’s impossible to prove that the shot did it—the public-health dogma is: “Vaccines are safe and effective.” So safe and so effective that vaccines should be the exception to the rule that medical interventions are illegal and unethical without informed consent?

Two articles in the fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons challenge the orthodoxy that vaccines should be mandated, overriding patients’ liberties in an effort to eradicate vaccine-preventable diseases.

How much risk can a person be compelled to take, even to save the life of another? In other contexts, such as exposure to radiation or lead, a risk of 1 in 10,000 or even less is considered unacceptable. Yet a much higher risk from vaccines cannot be ruled out. According to the most current information available, only 1 percent of serious side effects (such as death or permanent disability) are likely reported to the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

The 1905 Supreme Court precedent for upholding mandates, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, concerned a raging, deadly smallpox epidemic. Later courts have ignored warnings about the potential abuse of state police power, and permitted mandates to prevent possible future epidemics of much milder diseases. Now, a measles outbreak of some 1,200 cases—thankfully no deaths so far—has triggered the demand for stricter laws, suppression of “anti-vaxxer” information, and harsh measures including $1,000 fines for refusing vaccination in Brooklyn.

Even if at least a few of the tragedies are caused by a vaccine, isn’t it worth it to wipe out dread diseases?

In the 20th century, mankind seemed to be winning the war on microbes. Smallpox was eradicated, and antibiotics were vanquishing infectious diseases. The growing threat of microbial resistance has caused senior public health officials in the UK and the U.S. to be concerned about the “post-antibiotic apocalypse” and the “end of modern medicine."

Parental outrage might cause reexamination of vaccine orthodoxy. It also raises the question of where to draw the line against encroachment of our freedom.

 

--

 

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. This is an edited version of her column, reprinted with permission.

 

 

Published in Opinion

The gospel according to Robert Francis O’Rourke:

 

“Hell yes. We’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47. We’re not going to allow it to be used against fellow Americans anymore.”

 

What a schmuck.  In fairness to our favorite fake Mexican, however, at least he’s honest about it.  Slicker politicos would never admit it.

 

They would not admit it because my neighbors and I would turn our AR-15s on them. That’s why the Second Amendment to the Constitution exists in the first place—so an oppressive government cannot ruin our country.

 

The left HATES guns.  It has a firm belief that anybody who owns a gun must be a terrorist.  Or the police.  Or their private security guards.  

 

They think that guns kill people.  Cars, Ryder trucks, diesel fuel, fertilizer?  Not so much.

 

Back when Chuck Schumer was just a Congressman (and the space between he and a TV camera was STILL the most dangerous place to be in Washington) he made a critical mistake with a witness in a hearing on gun control.  Suzanna Hupp was testifying because she was with her parents at the Killeen, Texas, Lubys’ Cafeteria in 1991, when a shooter killed both of her parents.  She had consciously left her weapon in her car.

 

When she testified in front of Chuckie’s committee, she was asked what sporting purpose a particular weapon had.  Her answer:

 

“I know I’m not making myself popular here. But the Second Amendment is not about duck hunting. It’s about our right—all of our rights—to protect ourselves from all of you sitting up there.”

 

Twenty-Eight years after the shooting, her popularity should be at an all time high—at least among sane people.

 

The simple fact is that no law, no rule, no regulation passed by some overstuffed, egotistic politician masquerading as a Congressman or a Senator—or worse, some nameless, faceless bureaucrat—will stop some nutcase from waking up one morning, taking anything which can be used as a weapon and using it to kill people.

 

No background check will save a life.

 

No weapon ban will stop a shooting.

 

No confiscation will stop the use of anything to kill someone.

 

We probably could work around the edges, but the left has some shibboleths which prevent anything like that from happening.

 

One of those shibboleths is that guns kill people.  It was never true and will never be true.

 

If you put a gun in plain sight and surround it with people, it simply will never stand up by itself and kill someone.  That takes a person who, for whatever the reason, picks the gun up, aims it and bulls the trigger.

 

But the left wants to blame a marvel of engineering as opposed to the moron who picks the gun up and kills someone.

 

Another shibboleth of the left is that law abiding people cannot be trusted to possess guns.  That somehow, owning a gun will turn a perfectly normal person into a bloodthirsty criminal.

 

Do they have empirical evidence?

 

No.

 

In fact, most evidence points the other way.  Whatever else you can say about criminals and even crazy people, they tend not to shoot up places where they might get shot first.

 

How many mass shootings (as the left is wont to call them) happen in cop bars, as an example?

 

Now, we’re never going to convince most of the lefty nutcases with words.  Which is why James Madison made sure we have the law on our side.  And now we have a Supreme Court which has said that gun ownership as a matter of self-defense is a right granted by God and not government.

 

The crazier the left gets, the more it plays into our hands.

 

You want to confiscate guns from law abiding people?  Come and take them.  Speaking for little guys everywhere, see what happens.

 

----

 

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. This is an edited version of his column, reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion

The FDA has announced that samples of ranitidine, an H2 Blocker used for upset stomach, reflux and ulcers sold generically and under the brand name of Zantac, were found to have the contaminant N-nitroso dimethylamine (NDMA).  This is one of the chemicals that prompted the generic ARB blood pressure medication recalls last year.

There have been no reports of users becoming ill and no recall has been suggested at this time. In animals, NDMA is known to cause liver and lung cancer.  In humans its carcinogenic risk is unknown, however the CDC states it may cause liver function impairment and cirrhosis.

The FDA writes:

THE FDA IS NOT CALLING FOR INDIVIDUALS TO STOP TAKING RANITIDINE AT THIS TIME; HOWEVER, PATIENTS TAKING PRESCRIPTION RANITIDINE WHO WISH TO DISCONTINUE USE SHOULD TALK TO THEIR HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONAL ABOUT OTHER TREATMENT OPTIONS. PEOPLE TAKING OTC RANITIDINE COULD CONSIDER USING OTHER OTC MEDICINES APPROVED FOR THEIR CONDITION. THERE ARE MULTIPLE DRUGS ON THE MARKET THAT ARE APPROVED FOR THE SAME OR SIMILAR USES AS RANITIDINE.
CONSUMERS AND HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS SHOULD REPORT ANY ADVERSE REACTIONS WITH RANITIDINE TO THE FDA’S MEDWATCH PROGRAM TO HELP THE AGENCY BETTER UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM:

The investigation is ongoing and more needs to be looked at when it comes to this manufacturing process suspected to result in these “impurities” being made.

Last year NDEA was also found in the generic  blood pressure medications that were the subject of recall, however has not yet been suggested as being present in ranitidine.

N-Nitroso-N-methyl-4-aminobutyric acid (NMBA) was the third chemical detected resulting in the latest two recalls of losartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker commonly used to treat hypertension (high blood pressure).  It is believed to have been created during the manufacturing process of the generic drug.

NMBA, according to Toronto Research Chemicals, is a known carcinogen in a wide range of animal species.

Last Fall, ScieGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. recalled certain lots of Irbesartan, a similar angiotensin receptor blocker used in blood pressure management.

The recalls initially began last summer when FDA recalled a number of lots of valsartan due to an “impurity,” N-nitroso dimethylamine (NDMA) that is known to cause cancer in animals.  Weeks later they additionally found traces of N-nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA).

According to Reuters, earlier last summer, the MHRA, Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, located in the UK, said the appearance of the impurity, N-nitroso dimethylamine (NDMA), came after a change in the process for making valsartan at one facility owned by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals, a company in Linhai, China.

With NDEA, data is limited, but due to its classification as a nitrosamine and its prevalence in tobacco smoke it is classified as a probable human carcinogen.

According to New Jersey Department of Health’s website, NDEA has been linked to liver, lung and gastrointestinal tract cancer in animals.

Losartan, valsartan and Irbesartan are medications in the class of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) used for high blood pressure and congestive heart failure.

Those taking either tablet for their blood pressure are urged to not abruptly stop their medication but rather check with their medical provider and pharmacy to see if their particular prescription is involved in the recall.

I suspect more recalls will follow as processes may be similar across multiple pharmaceutical facilities and NMBA, NDMA and NDEA are byproducts that may not be individually unique to just one “brand” of medication manufacturing.

 

---- 

Daliah Wachs is a guest contributor to GCN news, her views and opinions, medical or otherwise, 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.

 

Published in Health
Page 2 of 35