Whenever I hear some left-wing wacko spewing moronic hatred for President Trump, I think, Wow!  If this President can make a whack-job like that hate him, he must be doing a pretty good job.

 

Think about it.

 

Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, Jerrold Nadler, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Juan Williams, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarboro, Mike Brezinski, Rachel Maddow, Chris Cuomo, Peggy Noonan, George Conway, Peter Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Hillary Clinton, Max Boot, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Gerson, Bill Kristol, Peter Wehner, Trevor Noah, Tom Hanks, Shakira, Russell Simmons, Rosie O’Donnell, Ricky Martin, Miley Cyrus, Mac Miller, Louis CK, John Oliver, John Legend, JK Rowling, George Clooney, Eva Longoria, Demi Lovato, Chrissy Teigen, Chris Brown, Joe Walsh (not the Eagles’ Joe Walsh, the phony politician Joe Walsh.)

 

Whew!  And that’s mostly the rookie league. (Maybe Pelosi is AA.)

 

We haven’t yet gotten to the Democrat politicos running for the Democrat nomination. (Triple A)

 

There, you have one billionaire (Tom Steyer) who called Trump a “failure” in a TV spot he’s paying for himself, hopefully to get past 1 percent.

 

Then you have another billionaire, a former New York Mayor who just “apologized” for the stop and frisk policy he inherited from his predecessor—Trump’s personal lawyer—but cannot otherwise explain the dramatic drop in violent crime during his term.

 

If you look at just the list above, there are some common threads.

 

First are the overstuffed Hollywood types—some of whom I’ve only briefly heard of—who just know so much about politics that we should be overwhelmed by their intelligence quotients.  Then we have the writers and TV personalities who fall into the category of “pundits”.  They are trying to make a living by badmouthing the President.  And, finally, we have the politicians who are green with envy.  They should have his political skills.

 

Why do they hate this guy so much?

 

Well, he stands for the concept that this is the United States of America, as my father used to say, and any little boy or girl can grow up to be President or accomplish anything they want to accomplish by simply putting one foot in front of the other and moving forward.

 

Contrary to what the clowns on the list above would have you believe, Donald Trump is not successful because his father was rich.  In fact, he went against the wishes of his father when he went into Manhattan real estate.

 

He’s successful because he took some giant risks.

 

Not everything he did worked.

 

His experience in Atlantic City as an example.  Hillary Clinton famously asked in a debate, “I mean, ask yourself, how can anybody lose money running a casino? Really.”

 

Of course, she demonstrated her ignorance of that business because she asked that question without knowing that one of the two largest casino companies in the nation, Harrahs, was almost two years into Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.  That’s right, the company now known as Caesars Entertainment because, yes, it happened to own Caesars Palace in both Las Vegas AND Atlantic City.

 

Caesars today operates approximately 47 casinos in 13 U.S. states and five countries, including the Caesars, Harrah’s, Horseshoe and Bally’s brands.  When stupid people ask stupid rhetorical questions, they often get they asses handed to them.

 

I mean, ask yourself, how can you take any of the clowns I have listed above seriously?

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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
Thursday, 28 November 2019 02:09

Dr. Lee is NOT President Trump's doctor!

After a period of silence, Dr. Bandy Lee and her committee of mental-health “experts” have again burst onto the scene, angling to participate in the impeachment of President Trump. They are defying the Goldwater Rule, which holds that it is unethical for physicians to diagnose patients they have not personally examined. They claim that President Trump is a such a serious threat to the nation that they are allowed to violate rules.

“We don’t believe there is the need for any further evaluation, and we are making ourselves available for the impeachment hearing because we believe that mental health issues will become critical as pressures from the impeachment hearings mount,” Dr. Lee told the Washington Examiner. “In other words, the more successful the impeachment proceedings become, the more dangerous the psychological factors of the president will become.”

Obviously, the thing to do is to increase the psychological pressure on a person you declare to be unstable.

Dr. Lee’s “medical assessment” of the President’s “mental capacity to fulfill the duties of his office” includes the examination of tweets, public appearances, and the 448-page Mueller report. “There is very little that a personal examination will add,” Lee said.

She denies that she is actually making a diagnosis. Indeed, “unfitness for office” is an opinion, a conclusion that is not in the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of currently defined psychiatric diagnoses.

Regardless of one’s opinion about President Trump, this self-appointed “Independent Expert Panel for Presidential Fitness” should concern all Americans. Where does a group of academic experts get the ability or the authority to determine whether the President is “capable of keeping the country safe”?

The U.S. Constitution provides several methods of “regime change,” which is what Congressional Democrats, the mainstream news media, and this Panel seem

determined to achieve. The first is elections. In 2016, Americans voted for a change from the policies of Obama and Clinton and the imbedded bureaucracy. Ever since then, the losers have been seeking to nullify this result. Attacks on the President by the press have been unrelenting. Unlike Abraham Lincoln or Woodrow Wilson, this President has not imprisoned any journalists or shut down any newspapers. But he does make sarcastic remarks—and his opponents would like to deny him the forum of social media.

Second is the 25th Amendment, which provides for the removal of a President for incapacity. This might have removed Woodrow Wilson after a devastating stroke had it been in existence at the time. It requires action by the Vice President and a majority of executive officers or a body appointed by Congress—not a few activist academics. This has so far been a non-starter.

Finally, there is impeachment, for “high crimes and misdemeanors.” In American jurisprudence, proceedings are supposed to be triggered by a crime—not by the Soviet KGB method of “show me the man, and I will name his crime.” Or worse, “KGB Plus”—show me the man, and I will invent his crime.

In a world where there are so many ever-changing rules that everyone might be inadvertently committing “three felonies a day,” anyone could be prosecuted. But one is at least supposed to have certain rights: confronting the accuser, assistance of counsel, access to all the evidence, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses. And knowing exactly what the charges are.

Why should psychiatrists be intruding themselves into this legal process? Are there Thought Crimes that they have a special ability to discern?

Ordinary Americans should be very concerned. If this can happen to the President, it can happen to them. And it does.

One alarming example is the “fitness for duty” evaluations to which physicians may be subjected by people who for some reason want to destroy them. There are virtually no due-process rights. The examiner has the status of a physician, but no obligation to act in the “patient’s” (target’s) best interest. Some psychiatrists may presume to have god-like power to judge a person’s emotions, intentions, and capacity—asserted in the name of safety or “security.” “Red flag” laws are another example.

President Trump may be right in saying: “They’re not coming for me. They are coming for you. I’m just in the way.”

Bandy Lee and associates are showing us a method to remove undesirables if legal process fails.

 

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 are her own. This is an edited version of her column that originally appeared in pennypress.com. Reprinted with permission. 

Published in Opinion

f the Democrat jihad against President Donald Trump has shown us anything about the so-called Deep State it is that there is a class of professional bureaucrats—so called “experts”—who think they're accountable to…nobody.

 

Certainly not the President.

 

And they think of us as “the American People” in the pejorative.  Not that they work for us.  No, they work for some mythical country in which “the people” don’t get a vote because we’re far too stupid to have any actual say in things like foreign affairs, or military issues or trade or the law.

 

They populate the Departments of State, Justice, Defense and, even the White House itself.

 

And many of these people don’t have the common sense that God gave a goose.

 

That was all on display during the Schiff Show, the last two weeks.  The question you need to answer, now that the arrogance of these people has been fully on display is where do we go from here?

 

There is still some question—not much—as to whether or not Nancy Pelosi is willing to endure the inevitable results of an impeachment.  Assuming she is—or just cannot avoid it—Donald Trump will most likely be re-elected for the same reason he won in the first place.  That is, to drain the swamp of the arrogance exhibited by the so-called deep state.

 

A swamp that the House Democrats put on full display through their patron saint Adam Schiff.

 

And, like the Kremlin, this group of governmental super studs has their own newspaper.  Only, instead of Pravda, theirs is the Washington Post.  With headlines like “Trump’s GOP support hardens despite damning impeachment testimony”.

 

Seriously?

 

Had I written a headline like that DURING WATERGATE, I would have been hustled off to a public relations firm if I wanted to continue my career in the media.  The writers and editors at the Post have become nothing but pimps and pimpettes (call them “presstitutes” like they do in the Phillipines) for the group of deep staters and Democrats I have described above.

 

But, again, they all seem to have forgotten that this is a very large nation with a huge silent majority that has simply had enough.

 

You can take a map of the United States and find the WalMarts where you can “smell the Trump support” West of the Hudson River, South of the Cook County line and East of the Los Angeles County line.  In the last election that produced 63,000,000 votes AFTER NBC leaked a private conversation with Billy Bush which would have certainly disqualified most candidates.

 

How bad a light does that cast the deep state?

 

The fact is that you, I and our neighbors have had enough.  We are tired of being called stupid and not well educated.  We are tired of a world where common sense is derided as “impeachable” by geniuses like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell.

 

And to put the cherry on top of the sundae, the President saw that the rules of engagement for the wars we are fighting in the Middle East were being used to ruin the lives of service members (but never those with stars on their shoulders) who actually killed the enemy.  We wanted to have a war but make actually killing the enemy illegal.

 

So, he issued two complete pardons and a commutation.

 

Immediately upon those actions, some two star pissant admiral in the Navy told a Navy Seal who had his sentence overturned by the President that he would face a board to remove him from the Seals.

 

That board will convene shortly.  Or not. What do you think will happen?

 

Can you say “military-industrial complex”?  Well President Trump can say “civilian control” and did.  Ask the now former Secretary of the Navy.

 

Want to try and remove him?  As they used to say on a game show—which is what this really is—COME ON DOWN!

 

Indeed. 

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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
Thursday, 21 November 2019 17:53

Are House Democrats thinking about self immolation?

If you ever wondered why Donald J. Trump was elected our 45th President, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

If you ever wondered what Washington based bureaucrats do to represent us, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

And, if you ever wondered why real Americans refer to Washington as a swamp which needs to be drained, you only needed to watch the testimony last week of William Taylor, George Kent, and Marie Yovanovitch.

 

Taylor, Kent and Yovanovitch aren’t inherently bad people.  But they live in their own little worlds where what they think is more important than what the President—whose pleasure they serve at—thinks.  And they are an integral part of what former (and the late) President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about on his way out—the military, industrial complex.

 

They have—and freely admit—zero first hand experience of the subject matter allegedly being “investigated” by Adam Schiff.

 

Now, diplomacy—in context—is a good thing.  In theory, that is what keeps mushroom clouds away from Peoria, Illinois, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Reno, Nevada among other places where you can “smell the Trump support” at the local WalMart Supercenter.  But it is the President and Commander in Chief who gets to set our foreign policy—not some diplomat at State who serves at the pleasure of the President.  Any more than an FBI director who also serves at the pleasure of the President.  And the real world is not an episode of Madam Secretary or the West Wing.

 

The truth is that impeachment is purely political.

 

The House, if it has the votes, can impeach the President because it does not like the cut of his suit.

 

Ask the dumb Republicans who impeached Bill Clinton in 1998.

 

How do you impeach a President who has less than two years left in his second term?  But Newt Gingrich did it and ended up bringing dishonor on the institution for no good reason.  And did I mention that the Senate told him to pound sand?  In an almost predictable vote mostly along party lines, the Senate fell way short of the 67 votes necessary to remove him from office.

 

So, let’s assume that the currently sitting House goes ahead with impeachment.

 

What do you think might happen to these guys—Adam Schiff et al—who have such a flimsy case against Trump in a Republican controlled Senate?

 

The Senate vote will be utterly predictable.  And that’s assuming the Senate doesn’t dismiss the charges without a trial.  (If this is what passes for an impeachment investigation, who’s to say the Senate cannot hold a 20 minute trial to dismiss the charges?)

 

The anger from the 63,000,000 voters who elected Trump and told both the media and the Washington establishment, “Enough already!” will be palpable enough to elect him again and take that anger out on the House.

 

People like Schiff and his little buddy Eric Swalwell may not realize this, but they are doing their best to make the House of Representatives irrelevant to the real Americans outside of the swamp.  It would appear that these guys were beat up every day when they were freshmen in college by the seniors and now, they are going to show all of us.

 

I wasn’t in the room when our founding fathers wrote the impeachment clause, but I read a lot and I have serious questions that Adam Schiff’s version—along with Rashida Tliab’s “impeach the motherf**ker”—were what they had in mind.  I’m pretty sure when they wrote the term “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” they weren’t thinking about a President doing his job.

 

So my question is simple.

 

What will the left do when what I have predicted actually happens?

 

Self immolation?

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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
Friday, 15 November 2019 17:52

Will CNN tank AT&T's management?

Apparently, AT&T bought CNN thinking it was some kind of an entertainment outlet.

 

It is, but only to those of us who understand that Ted Turner’s creation has devolved into something which no longer resembles, in any way, journalism.

 

How bad is CNN’s coverage of the President?

 

Well, depending on who you choose to believe, studies from Harvard to the Media Research Center place the ratio of positive to negative coverage between 91% negative to 93%.  Every media analyst agrees.  CNN’s coverage is so biased that it can hardly be called coverage.

 

And it seems to be cheerfully brought to you by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company.  At 208 S. Akard Street in Dallas, Texas.  CEO Randall Stephenson and Chief operating Officer John Stankey.

 

When these guys bought Directv, I was a fan.  When they brought out Directv Now (Now ATT TV Now) as a streaming service I was and still am a fan.  When they bought Warner Media, I was OK with that.

 

I figured that CNN was already so screwed up, it had only one way to go—up.  I was wrong.

 

I was against the Justice Department’s antitrust action.  Still am.

 

That said, who knew that the two executives I listed above (along with their emails) were closet liberals?

 

My suspicion still is that they’re not.  What they, are, I think, is scared to death—like the dog which caught the car.  They have no idea what to do.  Owning HBO is one thing.  You can always disavow Bill Maher.

 

But a news outlet?  That involves editorial judgment and CNN already had less than none.  It needs grown-ups to instill some discipline.  Stephenson and Stankey are supposed to be those adults.  Only nobody told them.  They were too busy getting Hollywood elite sweet nothings blown up their skirts.

 

On one hand, they don’t want to make the left mad.  After all, the left controls show biz—right?  On the other hand, they really don’t want to have to choose up sides against a President who could easily be re-elected.  Much of their communications business is heavily regulated.  And, just to make things interesting, an activist management company, Elliott Management, took a $3.2-billion position in AT&T and wants change as well as seats on the Board.

 

So, wouldn’t the smart money be to make those clowns in Atlanta actually run a news outlet as opposed to taking virtually every opportunity to tilt to the radical left?

 

Apparently, Mr. Stephenson’s testicles were there when he bought into the entertainment business, but seem to have softened when it comes to making tough decisions regarding the content of his acquisitions which could ultimately send his share price plummeting.

 

Here’s a hint as to how another executive has handled it.

 

Apple’s Tim Cook—hardly a Trump fan—has kept an open channel to the President even though he supported Trump’s 2016 opponent.  

 

That makes sense, considering their common interests, especially where it comes to China, trade and intellectual property.

 

Do you really think Trump would refuse Stephenson’s call?

 

As long as his company is channeling Nancy Pelosi, it is probably a difficult call to have.

 

But if Stephenson and Stankey could say, with straight faces, that they are aiming to make CNN a “just the facts” news outlet, you can bet Trump would take that call.

 

It’s high time the folks on Akard Street in Dallas started worrying about their shareholder value.  They could fix CNN in two weeks.  Nobody is asking that they try and duplicate Fox.  Just be fair.  If they don’t, and 63,000,000 Trump voters take offense, well, they don’t make fallout shelters deep enough to protect them from the economic consequences.

 

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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 big story at the beginning of the week was the chilling deaths of nine American citizens in Mexico—apparently at the hand of either one or two drug cartels.

 

And we’re worried about ISIS?

 

And the Democrats want open borders?

 

Now, let’s put this in context. This was a group of people who are part of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints.  They are at war with the state of Utah over polygamy and I’m not personally a fan of their interpretation of LDS orthodoxy because I covered the arrest of Warren Jeffs and the aftermath when I was with a national TV network.

 

That said, they were residents of Mexico, American citizens,  not taking welfare from either Arizona or Utah and didn’t deserve to be caught in a drug cartel ambush.

 

And, frankly, the silver or lead philosophy which is prevalent in our neighbor (that is, take our silver or our lead) to the south is killing many Americans because that is where heroin and fentanyl comes from and flows to those “sanctuary” cities and states where the so-called leadership does everything possible to protect these thugs from deportation.

 

This just happens to be such an egregious case that it screams for extraordinary action.

 

My solution?

 

Drone strikes.  Let’s wipe them out the same way we wiped out ISIS.

 

Those folks at Creech Air Force Base in Indian Springs, Nevada (40 miles North of Las Vegas) can take out a terrorist halfway across the world with a Hellfire missile launched from a Predator drone.  

 

I can hear our so-called “State” department screaming now, but why should we let some scumbag like El Chapo (or his son) wreak horrifying violence on United States citizens when we’re perfectly willing to use our military resources to wipe out a scumbag like Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in Syria.  The fact is that no matter how nicely we discuss the concept of sovereignty the Mexican government has been bought and paid for by the drug cartels just as surely as ISIS became a state unto its own in the Middle East.

 

If we’re going to place the lives of young American soldiers, sailors and airmen in harm’s way, at least they should be protecting the lives of Americans.

 

And if the cartels wish to fight back…they’ll discover exactly what we spend over $700-Billion a year on.

 

Now, theoretically Mexico is a sovereign nation.

 

So we need to give them fair warning.

 

President Trump can tweet that warning and then act on it the next time we see a problem.

 

What’s going to happen?

 

The Mexican Army will come across the border?  They’ll cut off our access to Cabo?  Cancun?  

 

To steal a line from W.C. Fields, “On the whole, I’d rather be in Philadelphia”.  

 

The truth is that Mexico has long been a nation which is at a level of corruption that even Bugsy Siegal's Las Vegas never approached.  Even Chicago has never been quite as corrupt as Mexico. Even Joe Biden’s son apparently hasn’t taken any money from them.

 

The only thing stopping the President might well be the Obama holdovers in the State Department.  Just like those clowns who testified against the President in secret, performing for Adam Schiff.

 

To hear them tell it, the President shouldn’t be allowed to set our foreign policy.

 

I’d like to see the President at this exact time, go to Congress and ask for a declaration of war not against Mexico but the drug cartels.  Let’s see who votes against that.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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

Until last Sunday night, I was still an agnostic World Series fan.

 

I have had connections with the Kansas City Royals and the Anaheim Angels over the years I have owned radio stations and I grew up between the Cubs and the Cards.

 

I have absolutely zero connections with either the Washington Nationals or the Houston Astros.  When they both got into the series, I looked forward to a “may the best team win” kind of series.

 

But when the President attended Game 5 in Washington’s taxpayer-built stadium, he was introduced.  And booed.

 

Those self-entitled Washington dumbasses weren’t actually booing the President as much as they were booing the 63,000,000 of us in real America who elected him.

 

Washington is a town which is packed with people who want things one way.  Their way.  They don’t want us interrupting their making a fine living at our expense.  Even if it comes down to a baseball game.

 

Now the President took it very well.  He wasn’t the first President to be booed and certainly won’t be the last.

 

But I’m still more than a little bit pissed off.

 

Not for the disrespect to the office, which I would have resented for any President.

 

But for the disrespect to America.  That America which is called “flyover country” by those who were doing the booing.

 

Who, exactly, do these idiots think they are?  It looked to me like Washington, D.C. giving the rest of America—at least that part west of the Hudson River, East of the LA County line and South of the Cook County line—an upraised middle finger.

 

Now, if it were simply about baseball, well, where I grew up, you had to choose up sides between the Cubs and the Cards.  I could take it.  But we all know it’s not.  It’s about the swamp.  It’s about people who make a lot of money on our backs both in and out of government but almost always with money which comes from the very people they were booing.

 

These are the people who—like fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok—say things like “Just went to a Southern Virginia Walmart. I could smell the Trump support.” Which he texted on an FBI cell phone, which we paid for, to his illicit lover, FBI lawyer Lisa Page, prior to the 2016 election.

 

Truth be told, they think that Houston is flyover country.  Just another place where you could “smell” the Trump support.

 

Baseball is thought of as our national pastime.  Apparently everywhere but Washington DC, where politics is a blood sport and anything which advances those politics goes.  In my media life—which started as a sportswriter—I have only seen umpires booed at a baseball game.

 

And I would have a hard time enumerating the baseball games I have seen save to say it is a very large number. Into five figures.

 

It’s just not a sport which lends itself to that sort of behavior.

 

Which makes what happened enough to want to see the Nationals move—perhaps to Las Vegas.  D.C. doesn’t deserve a team.

 

As this is being written, the Nationals have forced a game seven and the series will be won or lost in Houston.

 

Understand that the players were not booing the President or us.  Baseball players can be traded, sent down to the minors or cut at the whim of a General Manager.  Indeed, some Washington players GREW UP in Houston.

 

That said, the Nationals would perform just as well if not better with Las Vegas or any other city except the swamp emblazoned on their jerseys.

 

And any more stupidity from the so-called “fans” of the Nationals should tell Major League Baseball that such a move would probably not offend the 63,000,000 people who voted for this President.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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

I’m not an expert on foreign affairs.

 

I live in rural Nevada amongst people who believe in America First, Donald Trump, the Second Amendment, self-reliance, generosity, limited government and God.  

 

We are the people about who Barack Obama once said,  “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”  In short, we’re Hillary’s “deplorables”.  The 63,000,000 people who elected Donald Trump.

 

That said, I’ll bet I know at least as much as the talking heads on TV who know nearly nothing but sure want to tell us how President Trump should conduct an endless war in the Middle East.

 

Let’s put the Kurds versus Turkey in perspective, as an example.

 

The Kurds have been fighting the Turks for hundreds if not thousands of years.  That’s what they like to do in the Middle East.  They’ve been fighting each other so long they probably could not tell you why.  They are the Arab version of the Hatfield's and the McCoy's.

 

Nobody has any real number of how many of each other they have killed.

 

But, it’s a lot.  Maybe as many as a million.

 

So, our President asked a reasonable question.  What are our interests there and why is it worth the life of a single American soldier?

 

He came up with a reasonable answer.  Now that we are a net exporter of oil, we have very limited interests there and they are not worth a warm bucket of spit much less the life of a single American soldier.  And, if we need to choose our friends, we have only one true friend in the region—Israel, which we helped found.  Occasionally, we can count the Saudis in that category as well, when it suits them.

 

As for the rest of the area, the historical truth has always been that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  When they need us, they become the enemies of our enemies and suck us into their intramural battles so we can have young American men and women killed to suit their needs—whatever they may be.

 

Is any of that worth even a single bandage on, much less the life of one American soldier?

 

It’s not worth a bandage on, much less the life of, one bomb sniffing dog.

 

So, why are we there?  Because we are afraid to fight wars to win them.  We apparently learned that in Viet Nam.

 

After the 9-11 attacks, we—and I mean BOTH sides—made some bad decisions, not the least of which was NOT using weapons to wipe out Al Qaeda which would leave such a lasting scar that these morons would NEVER attack us again.  Do we have small tactical nuclear weapons designed to turn a Al Qaeda or ISIS training camp into glass?  Of course we do.  Unfortunately, we have a State Department which is part of the deep state and would counsel the President such a move would end the world.  Why it would be a “violation of the rules of war.”  Rules of war?  Who are they kidding?

 

One thing is sure.  Like the death penalty, it would make sure that these killer clowns would never harm an innocent civilian again.

 

And, for the record, 1,600,000 people live today in those two cities we bombed in 1945.

 

But Harry Truman had the cojones to end the war.  I’m guessing that Donald Trump does as well.  I’m also guessing he will exhaust every alternative before he reaches into our arsenal that deeply.

 

By NOT having a President who is part of the failures since Viet Nam, our chances of coming up with both new and old solutions is greatly enhanced.

 

Of course, I’m not an expert in foreign affairs.

 

----

 

Fred Weinberg is a guest 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

Well, the Hillary “Lock her up!” Clinton email conspiracy has finally come to an end. I hope. I hope it’s finally come to an end.  In a multi year investigation by the State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security, run by Republicans and led by President Trump just what did they uncover? Well, are you guys old enough to remember when Geraldo Rivera opened Al Capone’s vault?  It was hilarious! You know why? Spoiler Alert: Because it was empty. 

So what did the investigation into Hillary’s emails find? Well, I’ll let the report speak for itself, “ … there were some instances of classified information being inappropriately introduced into an unclassified system in furtherance of expedience, by and large, the individuals interviewed were aware of security policies and did their best to implement them in their operations … there was no systemic or deliberate mishandling of classified information by (Clinton) or department employees.” 

That’s it. That's the entirety of it. 

And this isn’t the first time an investigations said all this. Remember, the FBI came up with the same conclusion two years ago. Not that facts and investigations seem to matter these days. 

I mean, there are people living in 2019 that argue the earth is flat. We literally have pictures, from space - disproving them. We also have science, common sense and reason to disprove them, but they ignore all that, so, you would think … actual pictures of the Earth being round would persuade them. Right?  

But, nope. They just pretend the pictures are fake. 

*sigh*

Just like this email investigation! It was clearly nothing. Multiple investigations have now said, ‘It’s nothing. No, seriously. It’s nothing.” But too many people are just going to pretend that the investigations are all fake and that Hillary Clinton, once again, got away with another devious scheme! 

You can dislike H. Clinton as much as you want. I’m not a huge fan of hers, either. But, I can’t help but notice the stony silence from the WH about the investigation findings. I mean, if they had found anything … and I mean any dirt on Hillary at all … don’t you think they would have screamed it from the rooftops, by now?

Instead … crickets. 

You can read the full ten page unclassified report here.

Published in Politics

For better or worse, it seems clear that Senator Elizabeth Warren is the frontrunner to become the Democratic nominee in the 2020 election against President Trump. It’s not just me saying it. Pretty much every website that covers politics says it too. And the other candidates certainly believe it, because on Tuesday evening (the 15th of October) at the CNN debate they all went after Warren the way you do when there is an obvious front runner. Most of it didn’t stick, although I do think Warren needs to answer some specific questions about her Medicare plan as in, who’s paying for it? Because lots of folks ask her and so far, she kind of dodges. 

Other than that, I think she’s a fine candidate. Warren does not have the negative baggage that Hilary Clinton had and conservatives seem to be overly, “meh” about Warren. It’s not like the targeted conservative rage that men seem to have for AOC or Representative Omar. It's more of a dismissive dislike against Warren and they seem to regard her as nothing special outside of being another “stupid libtard.” 

But Liberals love her. They really do. But, can Warren win over undecideds and moderates? Well, that there is the winning ticket, ain’t it?  And … well … I don’t know. Again, she doesn’t have the Clinton baggage, I mean, there were lots of folks that hated Hilary! Some of the reasons to dislike Hilary Clinton were warranted, most were not. I think Warren is generally going to be recognized as a much more likable Hillary. If you’ve heard any of Warren’s speeches she actually just comes off as honest and good natured. That’s a huge plus.  

Moody’s doesn’t seem to think it matters much, though. Their analytical department has been fairly accurate predicting presidential races since 1980 and they see Trump winning in all scenarios except for one - extremely high voter turnout. (On the other hand, it should be noted that they had Hillary Clinton winning against Trump. So, there’s that). But that’s interesting. Their fairly accurate analytics department is pretty sure Trump is going to win, unless, of course, a HUGE number of people turn out to vote, and then they’re pretty sure the Democratic nominee will win. 

I’ve been hearing this my entire adult life. If more voters turned out, it becomes less likely that modern Republicans would win. I am making no judgement one way or another I’m just saying that I think that’s interesting. And it’s nothing new. 

So far I don’t see the fear mongering against Warren that usually happens in elections. You know what I mean, attack ads with scary music that say things like, “She’s the most liberal nominee ever and she’s coming for your guns, your bibles and your dinosaurs!”  =)

Of course, she’s not the nominee yet. She’s just the front runner, which may or may not change. Once the actual nominee is in, I’m sure the fear mongering attack ads will come. 

But they really don’t need to because, here’s the thing, the fear mongering ads, on both sides of the aisle - very, very rarely, if ever - come true! I hesitate to say never but in all honestly it’s probably a lot closer to never than rarely. They do seem to scare folks though. They just never come true. (Hardly, ever). 

Look, Warren is smart. She’s an academic, she’s a former professor and she’s been in the Senate for several years. In the same way that McCain defended Obama at one of the republican rallies from a voter who said she couldn’t trust Obama because he’s an “Arab,” conservatives should be pretty okay with the idea of an incredibly smart, academic politician in the oval office. She’s not some Lex Luthor-esq super villain looking to turn the U.S. into 1970’s communist Russia.

No one, and I mean NO ONE wants to turn the entire country into a communist socialist regime. There are people that want some socialized programs. Considering we already have a bunch of them - the police department, emergency rooms, the fire department, the DMV, public libraries and even, get this … the NFL.

That’s right, except for the Dallas Cowboys who bought themselves out in the 1970’s, all the other teams evenly split money that goes into the NFL, so that no single team has a money advantage over any other team. Which, is kind of like socialism and it’s not scary. It actually makes sense to do it that way.

I mean, it’s not exactly socialism, but close enough that any reasonable person who watches the NFL but rages against any kind of government program being socialized, should at least go, “Hmmm. Maybe a couple government programs could be socialized without the country going to hell in a handbasket.” 

Here’s a fun thought, how many republican NFL fans do you think will actually stop watching the NFL, if they were to find out that NFL is pretty socialist? 

Probably, not many. Mostly likely, none. But that’s just a guess. 

Anyway, all I’m trying to say is that Elizabeth Warren is not some scary socialist loon that’s going to strip away all your private rights and hand them over to the government. Keep in mind that there was a time when Democrats said things like, “We should try out Social Security & a G.I. Bill” and Republicans lost their minds and said the country would fall apart if you did either of those treasonous, libtard socialist programs! 

Looks like they were wrong. While it's true that the Baby Boomer generation is putting social security at risk, can you honestly tell me that it’s been a bad idea and /or that the G.I. Bill is a crazy socialist plot? I mean, think about that, there were once Republicans that raged against the idea of FDR’s G.I. Bill. 

If universal health care passes in the United States, I have almost no doubt that fifty years from now, when most of us are gone, the vast, overwhelming majority of the country will be like, “Can you imagine that people used to rage against the idea of universal health care? I mean, if you tried to take my universal health care from me or my family, they would have to pry it out of my cold, dead hands.” 

Indeed.

Published in Politics
Page 1 of 7