"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their own selfish purposes." -President Andrew Jackson

People need to first understand those who are guilty of the crimes against the American people and how they operate by doing the unthinkable. That is how they get away with what they get away with because people don’t believe that they would do such things. Well, guess what?  They are.

To prove the point, just look to those who are changing American government to that which is foreign to American government on a daily basis by those who are playing the good guys. This is all being done little by little through incrementalism or a siege (Deuteronomy 28:52).

If only the American people would take the time and read their Bibles and founding documents, how soon they could identify these counterfeits that operate under false pretenses (Jeremiah 6:16), both in the Christian realms, as well as the political realms (Mark 8:14-15).

Look at how Americans have been under heightened attack over the last 2 years by those who have been sold as the good guys to represent them.  Free speech, the right to bear arms, the sodomite agenda, personal and national security, etc. all of this during the tenure of the said good guy.

Then again, the old Communist tactic comes to my aid,

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” -Vladimir Lenin

Today, we see President Donald Trump is sold as the victim by those he fails to prosecute.  Meanwhile, the support that is driven to his base only ensures a victory for his next 4 years in the people's White House. This helps him to further his attacks on his support base.

In other words, Americans are being set up for the fall.

Mark my words.

Just this last week, Fox News, the best that the conservatives have, just put out a fake poll (Causing the enemy, “Americans,” to believe that there is a lot more of them than there really is) stating that their poised and controlled opposition criminal and actor Joe Biden was winning over that of Trump, 49% to 39%.

Have you seen the crowds that go to Donald Trump's engagements? Pretty astounding. There were over 100,000 ticket requests for Trump's presidential 2020 kickoff at the same time that this fake poll came out.

For years, Americans have seen Joe Biden exposed for his perversions. He has the support of no one and Americans know it.

What of lunatic Senator Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts, who endorses a coup against Donald Trump?  Warren also argues the illegal border invasion shouldn’t be against the law.”  How much support do you suppose she has in her efforts against Trump? None!  This is exactly what drives support to Donald Trump. It is called controlled opposition. 

Meanwhile, and on the other hand, President Donald Trump releases 196,000 illegals back into the cities of America.

What of criminal Senator Kamala Harris, who recently said that she would usurp Congress and unconstitutionally change gun laws? Again, this takes all eyes off Donald Trump's administration that is actually doing what she is talking about, and drives support to Trump.

The "establishment" knows that Americans will never get behind Kamala Harris and her criminal actions.  No, the "establishment" transgresses (1 John 3:4) the law with the help of those who have been sold to you the American people as the good guys (2 Corinthians 11:14).

Who has attacked gun rights more than that of Donald Trump's administration?

No one.

Twenty-six states have now passed 55 new gun control policies by a majority of Republican governors. 

What about openly gay presidential contender mayor Pete Buttigieg from Indiana, who claims that he cannot help himself, that he was born that way, and then blames God for the choices that he makes (Deuteronomy 30:19)? Outside of the likes of less than 1.7 percent of the population that engage in homosexual behavior, who do you think is going to support this guy? (Editor’s note: The number of people who identify as gay varies depending on the country you live in, but is generally considered to be within the 1% to 2% range; however, in the U.S., that number appears to be much closer to 4%).  Again, this all drives support to Donald Trump, who in turn supports the agenda to decriminalize sodomy on a global scale.

I hope that you are getting my point here friends, this is the enemy play book and has been for decades in this country (Proverbs 20:12). The right wars against the left (Mark 3:25) and who wins and loses at the end of these contrived unconstitutional wars? Americans lose, and corruption wins every-time.

When will Americans learn?

Furthermore, there are hundreds of other candidates who are running for the White House to serve “We the People.”  Why is it that we have only heard from the MainStream Media and their hand-picked candidates and not from the others? All cameras are to be kept on their global players and pushers of a global agenda.

The global agenda players that the American people are trying to rid themselves from are the very agenda's that President Donald Trump is implementing on his followers (Jeremiah 17:5).

This is how the American people, and that of other countries throughout history that have been destroyed are being undermined (1 Kings 13:33). Nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9).

And just think friends, if I listened to the modern day professed and hypocritical Christians and conservatives of the day we would all be wrong.

-- 

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. 

 

 

 

After a 67 year run, Mad magazine will cease publication and join its one time (and only real) rival publication Cracked magazine in going “the way of the dodo.” Cracked closed shop in 2007 and Mad magazine will no longer publish new content as of next month. 

 

Of course, “no longer publish NEW content” is far from “closing permanently.” Cracked ceased publication but evolved into a highly successful website: Cracked.com. Mad magazine will cease publishing “original content” and instead will revert to publishing “new” monthly issues that contain recycled material from its previous 67 year run. Of course, the “new” issues will still have original cover artwork and it sounds as if the planned end of the year “holiday” issue will actually have new art and new content. The other kicker is that Mad magazine will no longer be widely available in, say - supermarkets or bookstores. In order to receive a copy you will have to either subscribe or visit a specialty comic book shop (Mad magazine is now owned by DC comics).  So, Mad magazine is not exactly ceasing all publication as reported at the beginning of the week. I mean, at least for now. 

 

A subscription based model that reprints recycled bits from Mad’s long history, um … miiiiiight work.  But, probably not. Which is too bad because, like many, I grew up reading Mad (and Cracked) thinking that Mad host character Alfred E. Neuman and his moniker, “What, me worry” was pretty damn cool. Spy vs. Spy was my jam and Mad introduced me to artist Don Martin and all his various characters up to and especially including, The Mad Adventures of Captain Klutz (which was published in the Mad magazine paperback line of books, not the actual magazine itself). 

 

So, it appears as if Mad is not exactly going out of print; however, it is changing to subscription only that reprints previously written material which means that it’s not exactly dead but it might as well be. I mean, if you want to publish collections of old material in a Volume 1, Volume 2 compilation, well - that’s a totally legitimate thing to do. Lot’s of comic runs do that. But, that’s not exactly what is happening here. In fact, I would say just dump the “new” monthly recycled material magazine and only publish a holiday “year in review” with all new content and all new art. Just make it a once a year magazine. Make it an event. Make it something special. 

 

The recycled once a month model really seems to be a - we’re going out of business  but, um not really. But, kind of. But we’re shutting down, but not really. But … you know … we kind of are.  But we also - kind of aren’t. 

 

Which, to be honest - is driving me a bit …. Mad.  =)

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that momentum is building for the U.S. government to subject Google and other Big Tech firms to antitrust scrutiny for fears that they have become too big and too powerful.

In today’s digital ecosystem, politicians, political parties, organizations and media all rely on social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Google and Youtube to get the message out because that’s where consumers by and large go to in order to consume information.

A Pew report found 68 percent of adult Americans use Facebook, or over 170 million. 24 percent use Twitter, or about 61 million. A separate Pew report found 73 percent, or 185 million, use broadband internet. Statista reports that Google’s family of sites are the most popular in America, with 255 million unique U.S. visitors in March 2019 alone.

So, the internet is indisputably a huge part of the way people are getting information nowadays.

Now, conservatives and Republicans have become alarmed as many of these platforms are censoring and restricting speech that does not coincide with Big Tech’s social justice agenda. Deplatforming is real. Actor James Woods has been censored on Twitter, Stephen Crowder has been demonetized on Youtube (owned by Google) and Candace Owens was temporarily suspended on Facebook before the company did a reversal and declared it “an error.”

Political discrimination is destructive as it creates an incentive to silence your political opponents. Suddenly you have countrymen reporting on one another to get them deplatformed. Is this healthy for a society?

But it is not merely the reporting features that are being abused on these platforms.

Project Veritas’ James O’Keefe released a video on June 24 that showed how the algorithms that produce Google search results (and other machine learning) are programmed with algorithmic “fairness” in mind to prevent, per an internal 2017 Google document, “unjust or prejudicial treatment of people that is related to sensitive characteristics such as race, income, sexual orientation or gender, through algorithmic systems or algorithmically aided decision-making.”

Just throw in political affiliation, philosophy or religion, and one can immediately recognize how Republicans, conservatives or Christians might feel marginalized on social media platforms, but Google did not end up looking into that. A study by Google in 2018 on algorithmic fairness stated, “due to our focus on traditionally marginalized populations, we did not gather data about how more privileged populations think about or experience algorithmic fairness.”

As a Google executive in the video who was quoted in an undercover camera noted, “Communities who are in power and have traditionally been in power are not who I’m solving fairness for.”

But if Google had looked at other groups, they would have likely found that supposedly “privileged” populations can feel marginalized, too. The 2018 study unsurprisingly found that participants expressed, “In addition to their concerns about potential harms to themselves and society, participants also indicated that algorithmic fairness (or lack thereof) could substantially affect their trust in a company or product” and that “when participants perceived companies were protecting them from unfairness or discrimination, it greatly enhanced user trust and strengthened their relationships with those companies.”

The thing is, nobody wants to be discriminated against, and if they are it will affect their perception of the company or companies that are doing it. Deplatforming, censorship and manipulating search and news results undermines trust in these Big Tech firms, and suddenly makes them a problem that many want to solve. No need for another focus group.

So, what responsibility does Big Tech have to foster our way of life and our competitive system of representative government, if any?

I would argue just as much responsibility as they feel to tackle the issue of fairness for historically marginalized groups, if for no other reason than it is good, sound business to cater to all comers, particularly in the political and governmental sphere. Why make enemies? It’s provocative.

Many solutions have been proposed to help there to be a level playing field on the Internet. Some are heavy-handed and appear to miss the target, while others are more narrow.

There is the Federal Communications Commission route, which might seek to make public utilities out of Big Tech companies, and all the regulation that comes with that. Net neutrality springs to mind, although that appeared more focused on throttling broadband speeds due to how much data was being used, whereas the issues today appear to focus on content-based censorship.

There is antitrust approach, whether via the Federal Trade Commission or the Department of Justice Antitrust Division, that might envision breaking up these large companies. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has come out for this approach. In a recent statement, she said, “As these companies have grown larger and more powerful, they have used their resources and control over the way we use the internet to squash small businesses and innovation, and substitute their own financial interests for the broader interests of the American people. To restore the balance of power in our democracy, to promote competition, and to ensure that the next generation of technology innovation is as vibrant as the last, it’s time to break up our biggest tech companies.”

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act exempts “interactive computer services” from liability of what their users post, and grants them the power to remove items at their discretion they find objectionable. Some have proposed simply removing the liability protections, which would render sites that allow users to write whatever they want suddenly subject to liability of hundreds of millions of users. It would also effectively destroy the Internet, since nobody would be willing to assume the risk of hosting somebody else’s material that might be defamatory.

Some have called for conservatives to boycott these platforms and to take their business elsewhere or to make their own platforms, but what sort of echo chamber would we wind up with? More to the point, to win elections, Republicans have to appeal to independents and unaffiliated voters. You buy ads where there’s ad space to reach undecideds. Insular practices of exclusively only talking to partisans on your side is a recipe for being in the minority for a very long time. It does not grow a political movement to do that.

This author has posited that perhaps Congress could narrowly expand the franchise of protected groups under civil rights to include politics, philosophy and the like (although excluding employment hiring for exclusive organizations like political parties and organizations) and defining interactive computer services as public accommodations so that services cannot be denied on the basis of partisan differences. Throw in banking, DNS resolution, web hosting and email services as public accommodations while we’re at it for good measure.

From the perspectives of the Big Tech companies, surely they have noticed a marked uptick in calls to regulate their firms? Conservatives complain about censorship. Elizabeth Warren is worried about smaller businesses. The calls for regulation are directly proportionate to how powerful these firms have become. Do any of the above options sound profitable or more like a regulatory headache that will cost millions or billions of dollars to manage?

And these are not even things we would normally consider, but throw in the prospect of censorship and suddenly it’s an existential matter of survival. Republicans who might normally defend these companies from regulation might look the other way when it comes up now. See how that works?

The truth is, I’m taking time out of my column to focus on this issue and so are many other organizations that are worried they too could be censored. The platforms we’re talking about have such market saturation that is so pervasive it could be utilized to discriminate on the basis of politics in order foster conditions conducive to one-party rule, which I believe to be dangerous.

More broadly, groups like Americans for Limited Government and political parties depend on a competitive political system to function. If we and others like us were suddenly barred from posting on social media or hosting a website or sending emails, suffice to say we would not function for much longer.

In a representative form of government, political parties’ access to media and their followers are critical to building and growing constituencies, and in the digital age these represent a digital sort of civil rights, and they must be protected in order for that system to continue to exist. One party systems do not respect civil rights. They squelch dissent to consolidate power and they target political opponents and critics of the system.

The great Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli supposed that there were but two forms of government, republics and principalities, perhaps for that reason. One is ruled by the consent of the governed and the separation of powers, and the other by the will and domination of the state and over time needs to instill fear in order to govern.

There are liberal democracies that foster debate, and then there are one party systems that demand loyalty to the state. There’s not much in between.

The alarming trends we’re seeing with Big Tech companies engaging in censorship in the pursuit of “fairness” look a lot like a bid for one party rule. And the thing about one party systems is, once you have one, it’s really, really hard to get rid of it and there’s no guarantee that your favored class will be represented in its leadership. Sometimes those who support the rise of such a system wind up being marginalized by it. Look no further than Elizabeth Warren to see what lies at the end of that tunnel. Is it worth the risk? Be careful what you wish for.

 

--

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government. He is also a guest contributor to the Penny Press - the conservative weekly "voice of Nevada." You can subscribe here at www.pennypressnv.com. His column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Friday, 05 July 2019 16:39

243 years ago we deposed a whole government

Written by

Assuming you are reading this on the day this electronic newspaper is officially dated, this is the 243rd anniversary of some very brave men telling a king, 3,539 miles away, to stuff it and that they were going to chart their own destiny, create their own nation.

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

 

Back in those days, we had whatever government was installed by that king, 3,539 miles away.  And he enforced his dictates by military “persuasion.”

 

This was the Continental Congressional response:

 

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.”

 

That was then.

 

Today, we no longer have a Continental Congress.  We have a congress in which the House of Representatives is dominated by clowns like Adam Schiff, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar.  We have a Senate dominated by Republicans, some of who have higher political ambitions and some who just want to hold the nation together.  

 

And we have a President who many believe was the instrument that many citizens voted for to fix that government which they believe had become “destructive of these ends.

 

We also have a Supreme Court which recently held that it is not unconstitutional to ask a census question about citizenship BUT they didn’t like the attitude of the Secretary of Commerce so they sent it back to a lower court to try and run out the clock.  How judicial of them.

 

In 2020, we are going to have a referendum on what the citizens actually think of the dysfunction we find in our elected government.

 

The President will stand for re-election, so will most of the various clowns in Congress, as you and I get our official say.

 

My guess is that in the 244th year since those men appended their names to the document in the National Archives, you and I will make it clear what we decided in 2016, which is to say that we had enough.  That our government was becoming oppressive and was beginning—actually well past beginning—to take away from those unalienable Rights.  That is why we sent Donald Trump to Washington.

 

The opposition to the President wants open borders, state sponsored and controlled healthcare, the right to kill unborn babies with their hearts beating, the repeal of the right to keep and bear arms, taxing at obscene rates job creators and a host of other stupid ideas which would cripple the very reasons that those guys in Philadelphia wrote and signed that document.

 

They disguise their desires by couching the unacceptable with misleading words.

 

Gun confiscation becomes gun safety.  Killing babies with detectable heartbeats becomes reproductive health rights.  State sponsored and controlled healthcare becomes Medicare for All.  Open borders becomes sanctuary cities and sanctuary states.

 

These folks use their tongues prettier than the hookers who service some of the men in Congress.

 

Frankly, if we don’t put a stop to this nonsense in 2020, we’ll deserve everything we get.

 

I’ve never blamed the Democrats for Barack Obama.  I blamed the Republicans.  2008 and 2012 were winnable elections.  But you cannot beat somebody with nobody.  And John McCain was Obama light.  Mitt Romney invented Obamacare in Massachusetts when he was governor.  Why elect the diet drink when you can have the real thing?

 

That said, Trump’s opposition has done us a huge favor.  They have shown us who they really are.  It’s our job to vote NO!

 

----

 

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

 
Friday, 05 July 2019 16:29

Don't be civil in politics?

Written by

Here’s what we learned from the first democratic presidential debate last week. Do not fraternize with those you disagree with and never refer to a fellow politician as son, boy or anything similar.  It’s just not “politically correct.”

Former Vice President Joe Biden was roasted for talking about trying to find common ground with conservative southern senators when he served in the U.S. Senate. “At least there was some civility” Biden said about working with segregationists like former Mississippi Senator James Eastland. He should not have been so “civil” says a number of other democratic candidates.

I’ll tell you this. These presidential wannabes have never spent time around the Louisiana legislature.  When I was elected to the Louisiana State Senate back in 1972, I sat in the Senate chambers shrouded by older senators who had served in that body for a number of years.  They included Harvey Peltier from Thibodaux, Jackson Davis from Shreveport, Jesse Knowles, who survived the Baton death march in World War II, and J.E. “Boysie” Jumonville from New Roads.  They all were quite conservative, more so than me.

Many of these senators had served through the segregation era and had opposed any legislation involving civil rights. When I took office, we often disagreed and I did my best to bring them around to my point of view.  But we were always civil and we often socialized and shared a meal when the legislative day was done.

Should I have scorned those who disagreed with me as Joe Biden is accused of not doing.  Of course not. The whole focus of a democracy is to confect workable solutions where a consensus can come together.  Failing to confer with those you disagree with is, in my opinion, a dereliction of one’s oath of office.

I was affectionally referred to by these elder senators, as “the new kid” and “young Brown.” Boysie Jumonville, who sat right next to me, often called me son or boy.  I never took offense, nor did I think his term of “boy” had any racial connotations.  A far cry of the onslaught of criticism Biden is facing today.

Let me tell you how bad the racial tension could have become.  With much humor and gusto, Louisiana’s first black representative, Dutch Moriel from New Orleans, relished telling of his first day at the state capitol in Baton Rouge as a new legislator.  Representatives have seat-mates, with their two desks sitting side by side.  As chance would have it, Dutch sat right next to Representative Jesse McLain, who represented an archconservative district in southeast Louisiana that had been a hotbed of Klu Klux Klan activity.  Now Dutch was from a Creole background and quite light skinned.

Dutch told me that when he took his seat, Jesse leaned over and whispered: “Where’s that N…..? (Yes, the N word.)  Dutch said he just smiled, looked around the room for a minute, then leaned over to Jesse, got right up in his face, and said: “You’re looking at him.” Then he burst out laughing.  A flustered McClain excused himself from the legislature for the rest of the day.

McClain came back the next day and apologized.  Dutch told me that they became friends, and that he worked on McClain for the next four years to make him more enlightened on a number of social issues.

Of course you have to reach out when you are in public office.  We will never agree on all matters, but there is a middle ground on a number of social and economic issues that both make sense and serve the public interest. For some current presidential candidates to argue otherwise is bad policy and bad governing. 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

 

---

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

 

Monday, 01 July 2019 21:23

Two huge upsets at Wimbledon

Written by

A couple of shocking Wimbledon twists for tennis fans. The very well liked and number two ranked Naomi Osaka lost today 7-6 (7-4) 6-2 to Yolia Putintseva (currently ranked 39). This was Putintseva’s first time at Wimbledon. (Editor’s note: Osaka has been in a recent slump and during the Wimbledon match committed 38 unforced errors, to Putintseva's seven.) But the real stunner is that young tennis prodigy Cori Gauff (ranked 313) beat five time Wimbledon champion super star Venus Williams (ranked 10) in round one of the tournament. 

Gauff is fifteen years old playing in her debut tournament where she handedly defeated her tennis idol Williams 6-4 6-4. “It’s the first time I have every cried after winning a match,” Gauff told reporters after. 

Wimbledon is a little different than the other three Grand Slam tennis tournaments as it is the only one played on grass, the others play on hardcourt. 

The Australian Open plays on an acrylic topped hardcourt, the French Open and the US Open play on clay courts. 

Why does this matter, you might ask?  Well, clay courts slow down the ball and produce a high bounce in comparison to grass or hard which means it takes away any advantage of big serves. Acrylic hard courts can vary is speed but generally faster than clay courts but not as fast as grass courts. 

Grass courts, according to Wikipedia: 

 

“Grass courts are the fastest type of courts in common use. They consist of grass grown on very hard-packed soil, which adds additional variables: bounces depend on how healthy the grass is, how recently it has been mowed, and the wear and tear of recent play. Points are usually very quick where fast, low bounces keep rallies short, and the serve plays a more important role than on other surfaces. Grass courts tend to favour serve-and-volley tennis players.

Grass courts were once among the most common tennis surfaces, but are now rare due to high maintenance costs as they must be watered and mown often, and take a longer time to dry after rain than hard courts. The grass surface, however, is the most physically forgiving to the human body because of its softness.”

Wimbledon continues and wraps up mid July with the Women's final on Saturday the 13th and the Men’s final on Sunday the 14th.

 

Update 7/8/19: Alas, Gauff's magical journey came to an end as she just lost 6-3 6-3 in the fourth round to former world number 1 and Grand Slam winner Simona Halep. 

“The first casualty when war comes is truth” - U.S. Senator Hiram Johnson in 1917

 

You have probably heard the question, “Are you willing to die for your country?”  You probably answered in the affirmative.

 

That’s honorable.

 

However, what I want to know is this, would you live for your country?

 

If your answer is yes, then you may want to know what your government is now advocating for concerning Iran, for now is the time to now live for your country by standing up and putting a stop to this warmongering.

 

Here again, the US government and the warmongers are now casting into the minds of the American people through the media propagandists that Iran must now be dealt with, all the while ignoring corruption and crimes in their own country as to how American politicians need to be dealt with lawfully (Amos 5:15; Matthew 7:30-5; 1 Peter 4:17).

 

Furthermore, when the fighting commences, you can rest assured that it will not be the warmongers fighting.  It will be your sons and daughters fighting and bleeding and dying in their unconstitutional wars while making millions for the military industrial complex that we were warned about by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1961.

 

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." –Henry Kissinger

 

Being in the military is honorable yet, it is not honorable when you help war criminals commit crimes against innocent nations (If that nation is innocent).

 

Therefore, make it honorable by upholding the enumerated laws found within the US Constitution (Deuteronomy 25:1; Article 6, Section 2, US Constitution) against all enemies both “foreign and domestic.”

 

The Awful Price of Freedom and Redemption (A Sons of Liberty video)

 

Again, as the media propagandists now begin to ramp up their efforts in brainwashing Americans with a dictator and another country that we need to go to war against, do remember that this was all forecasted many years ago by General Wesley Clark. He had shared with us 18 years ago that Iran will be one of the 7 countries that our military will be used to take down.  After all, he said, “We have a good military and we can take down governments.”

 

General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

 

Maybe that explains why we have 737 military bases in 148 countries today.

 

--

 

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. 

 

 

 

Friday, 28 June 2019 18:28

Democratic Debate: Part II

Written by

Well, this is going to be easy to write. Wednesday night’s Democratic debate (that wasn’t a debate) was pretty tame and stuffed to the brim with a whole lot of “meh.” Last night’s Democratic debate (that was slightly more of a debate) had more fire. Not, much - but a bit. 

And here’s the thing. It was so painfully, clearly obvious that Senator Kamala Harris came out on top that I don’t actually have anything quippy to say. I mean, when the issue of race came up, Harris beat Joe Biden down like he was an amateur. (Editor’s note: This is the same link as the one on the front page). 

Just like Warren on the previous evening’s debates, Harris was razor sharp across the board and was, again (as we always say) … presidential. I think Biden, Warren and Sanders have been the obvious front runners but that’s simply because they’ve raised a lot of money and get a lot of press. Which is important. 

And, while it’s true that I don’t think you can have much of a “debate” when you only allow each candidate 60 seconds to answer questions (because you’re not really going to get to the meat of the deal.)  That being said, when you put ten people up on the stage, sometimes it does become clear - “who is out of their league?” 

And, there was a whole lot of “this candidate is out of their league.” Andrew Yang, who is mainly an “automation is a huge problem” candidate (he’s right); self-help author Marianne Williamson, former Gov. John Hickenlooper; Rep. Eric Swalwell (who had a nice “pass the torch” exchange with Biden); Sen. Kristen Gillibrand; and finally Sen. Michael Bennet - all of which, performed well (except, perhaps for Williamson) but are clearly just “out of their league.” 

Which brings it down to Harris, Biden, Sanders and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Frankly, Biden kind of bungled it. Harris clearly got under his skin and it showed. After her beat down exchange, Biden awkwardly tried to explain his positions but it didn’t matter. From that point on he was stony faced and submissive. He, quite literally, lost -  and he knew it.

Sanders was … well, he was Sanders. He didn’t offer anything that he hasn’t been consistently saying his entire career in politics - free health care, go after wall street and big Pharma, end student loan debt. His usual playbook. BUT THEN, he said something that I thought took guts. When asked if he would “raise taxes on the middle class,” he told the truth. He said, “Yes.” Because - that’s how government pays for things. 

I mean, politicians usually say “no” to that question (and then raise taxes on the middle class anyway). So, at least Sanders is consistent and truthful. And I do like Sanders but, compared to the youth on stage he really did stand out as … old. 

So, I wouldn’t say Sanders lost the debate in the same way that Biden did; however, Sanders, I feel, probably didn’t win over new voters. 

Which brings us to Pete Buttigieg, or “Mayor Pete” as his constituents know him. He’s still not mainstream well known but is considered a rising star on the left. And he is. He’s incredibly smart. He’s extremely well spoken. He’s a veteran having served in Afghanistan. He has governing experience (several years Mayor). And, to be honest - he’s just flat out likable. I don’t see him as a front runner though. He’s just too unknown. But, perhaps a VP pick or a cabinet position?

Anyway, it all comes down to this. Biden has the money. He has the reputation. But he got his butt handed to him by the fiery Senator Harris. Who also has money. Primary’s are still a long way away and anything could happen, but after two nights of hearing twenty candidates, it really does look like these folks are at the head of the pack: 

Senator Kamala Harris, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Senator Bernie Sanders and VP Joe Biden (even though he lost big time last night, I wouldn’t count him out just yet). Then I would add both Julian Castro and Mayor Pete near the top of the race as they appear to be exceptionally good candidates … that probably don’t have a chance to make the top of the ticket.

Thursday, 27 June 2019 17:13

Democratic Debate: Part I

Written by

I probably know what you’re thinking. Either - “I hate all the libtard Democrats and don’t care what they have to say” or, “There are too bloody many Democratic Presidential nominees for me to care what any of the non-front runners have to say (because we all know the three obvious front runners are Biden, Warren and Sanders.)”

Fair enough. But last night’s debate (that wasn’t actually a debate) held a few surprising moments. But, only a few. I mean, Warren basically - crushed everyone. And, I say, “wasn’t actually a debate” because, rarely did the candidates - debate one another and when you only get 60 seconds to answer complex policy questions then, well - it’s not a debate.

Anyway. A few takeaways:

In his after the “debate that wasn’t actually a debate” coverage Trevor Noah was spot on when he said, “This was a chance for many of the unknown candidates to introduce themselves to a national audience. They could go from who is that?” - all the way too … “ooooooh, yeaaah - that guy! (pause). No, I’m not going to vote for him. No.” (It’s probably a bit funnier when Noah says it).   

And it was one hundred percent true! There were at least three people on stage where I had that exact moment of “who” to “oh, him” to “nope.” Let’s call them “the debate that wasn’t actually a debate losers” - Tim Ryan, John Delaney, Jay Inslee. I’m not even going to rank them on their policy choices because, most of the Democrats have similar ideas (in the same way the most Republican’s have similar ideas). These three public figures just, well, quite figuratively - didn’t even need to be at the “debate.”  It’s not like any of them were bad, per say. They, along with Klobuchar, were all fine (even though she kept getting cut off). But all of them were just kind of. “meh.” 

And “meh” will NEVER beat Donald Trump. 

Then, we come to the nights actual loser. And there really is only one actual loser and that’s Beto O'Rourke. He’s been polling fairly high. People seem to like him. I was expecting him to, at the very least - beat out Bill de Blasio in the debate but - nope. De Blasio beat down O'Rourke on multiple occasions and Beto came off as kind of a stammering dolt. De Blasio did what New Yorkers do (I lived there for many years), they shout over you to get their point across, and they expect you to do the same to them to get your point across too! 

I swear, walking the streets of NYC, I’ve seen that exact scenario dozens and dozens of times. Two New Yorker’s, usually men - have a minor dispute over something, then yell at each other to get their point across. And then they’re both like, “Oh, cool, that’s your point. I understand it now.” 

And then they literally shake hands and are like, “We should grab a beer some time,” and walk away from each other.  

Lots of folks outside of NY are appalled by this kind of behavior. Especially if you’re from the passive aggressive Midwest. I think it’s kind of great, TBH. Get it out in the open and then move on. 

Anyway. That’s my take on De Blasio. He’s a typical New Yorker. He might actually do well against Trump. Can you imagine the debates between those two. Because I’m thinking -  Shouting. Match.

Alas, it’s really not going to be De Blasio. He might stick around for a bit but … nope. Not him.  

Moving on. Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker both came out fine, Booker probably more so. In fact, along with De Blasio, I expect both of them to be in the race for a while - until they all drop out and offer their full support for the obvious front runners - Warren, Sanders, Biden. 

Which brings me to the remaining two stand out stars of last nights “way too many candidates on stage” debate (that wasn’t a debate.)

The first, truly great stand out star: Julian Castro. As the kids these days say, Julian Castro - “killed it.” He was razor sharp on policy, he was razor sharp on social reform, he was a charismatic speaker, he was comfortable on stage and he was, as we all like to say - “presidential.” My opinion on this seems to be par for the course because Castro shot up on Google about 4000% and trended himself right to the top of the candidates list. 

But … honestly … it probably won’t matter. Because, the second stand out from last night was Elizabeth Warren. Warren just crushed everyone the first half of the “debate.” The second half she had much less speaking time and so other folks were able to step up more and “meh” the heck out over everyone watching.  

As sharp as Castro was on policy, social reform and being “presidential,” Warren has pretty much been doing exactly that for the last few months. And she continued to do it at last night’s debate.

I would love to see Castro right at the top with the three front runners and the other two popular candidates (Harris & Buttigieg) but I honestly don’t see any of them taking down Warren, Sanders or Biden. 

And, if that’s not enough Democratic candidate talk for you. Well, don’t worry! There are another ten candidates speaking tonight! And only two of them are named Sanders and Biden. You know, the obvious front runners. 

But, then again - you never know who will stand out and who will tank but I guess we’ll find out tonight. 

Wednesday, 26 June 2019 22:45

Too much political correctness!

Written by

I don’t know about you, but I sure am confused about all this current debate over gender equity, gay rights, and transgenders. I keep reading in the newspaper about LGBT. I had to look up the lettering to even know what the abbreviation means. Being “politically correct” has become an obsession with much of the country as well as right here at home in Louisiana.

Now personally, I don’t have a dog in this hunt. Carry on your personal lifestyle as long as you don’t interfere with my way of life or my personal freedoms. Live and let live. But too often today, one lifestyle interferes with that of another. If a baker is in business to make a living, why turn down anyone who wants a cake baked for his or her wedding? On the other hand, if it’s a gay wedding and the baker refuses to bake a wedding cake, why would the gay couple want to do business with someone they consider bigoted?

And this whole transgender bathroom thing? How did transgenders go to the bathroom for the past 100 years? I never really check out someone using the stall next to me. And why all the need for separate men and women’s bathrooms in the first place? Many restaurants in New Orleans have one bathroom for either sex to use. Have you gone to a sporting event and seen a long line for women and none for men? Architects ought to be more creative in designing safe and clean restrooms that can be more efficiently shared by everyone.

I wrote in my column recently about the hypocrisy of hate crimes. Why should any criminal be given a greater sentence because he or she committed crimes based on race, sexuality, sexual identity, or physical ability? If a child is tortured and murdered, is that to be considered less of a crime than if an Asian or a handicapped person is killed? Political correctness should not be a factor.

In Natchitoches Parish this past Christmas, a school principal was suspended for allowing a student-led prayer to take place. There was no sponsorship by the school. The students were just allowed to pray. But this wasn’t politically correct in this day and age. Kids can pray under their breath but not out loud? Nonsense!

I wanted to order the wonderful Disney film “Song of the South” recently to watch with my grandchildren. Remember all those enticing songs like “Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah” and “That’s What Uncle Remus Said?” Uncle Remus was an American Aesop, full of delightful stories (“Don’t throw me into the briar patch”). But the film has been out of circulation since 2000 because some critics say it glorifies slavery, even though the story takes place years after the Civil War. But not to offend anyone, so our kids miss out on a delightful tale of magical fables.

And for goodness sake, don’t attempt to bless anyone if they sneeze or for any other purpose. Up in New Hampshire, an election worker was recently fired for telling voters as they left the voting booth “God bless you.” It was supposedly a form of electioneering. I guess election officials were afraid a voter might have so disconcerted over the candidates running that they might go back into the voting booth and vote for the Good Lord instead.

A person can be sensitive to how others might feel without worrying that their every utterance may cause someone to take offense. Some of us feel it necessary to be more politically correct than do others. But a vibrant and strong country is only as courageous and agile as the sum of its parts.

I’m willing to go just so far to appease the P.C. crowd. Look, I’m a redneck, not someone who is rustically inclined. And we are always going to have hurricanes down here in Louisiana, not "himmi"-canes. Sometimes, things are said where you take personal offense. But we can also go overboard by assuming a “victim mentality.”

 You can be polite, but in doing so, you don’t have to shy away from telling it like it is.  I try to do just that in offering you my perspective in my column each week.

 

Peace and Justice

Jim Brown

 

---

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

 

 

Page 12 of 70