The latest potentially deadly challenge sweeping social media is the “Vacuum” or “Trash Bag” Challenge.

In this feat, one climbs into a garbage bag, while a friend or parent sucks air out of the plastic bag until the inmate topples over.

Bringing people to the point of falling (or if putting the bag over their face) of asphyxiation can cause a plethora of health issues including fractures, respiratory failure, stroke and death.

And even if parents appear to be supervising or performing the challenge and the child comes out unscathed, dangers lurk as the child could try to reproduce the challenge with their friends, this time putting the bag over one’s head.

This Spring another stupid challenge swept social media called the “Shell On” challenge in which teens Snapchat videos of themselves eating through fruit skin, cardboard boxes and plastic bags containing their food.

Although this appears to not be as dangerous as the Tide Pod or Boiling Water Challenge, it can cause choking and asphyxiation.

What other dangerous challenges are out there?

Last year we learned of the “Boiling Water Challenge” in which kids drink boiling water from a straw or have it poured all over their body. Then they topped it off with a more dangerous challenge, the “Fire Challenge.”

The Fire Challenge is executed by pouring rubbing alcohol on one’s body and then setting oneself on fire.  A video records the victim running into a tub or shower to wash it off, and this trend has gone viral.

Unfortunately it’s one of the most dangerous.  A 12 year-old girl from Detroit who participated in this challenge is undergoing multiple surgeries to repair burns afflicting close to 50% of her body.

Multiple cases of the “Fire Challenge” have been reported over the years, including a 12 year-old boy from Georgia.

One would think children, especially teens, innately know that fire is dangerous but maybe the younger generation has been so protected that they haven’t experienced the basic concepts of danger and inadvertently underestimate its force.

Challenges that involve dangerous stunts have been around for some time.  The Choking Challenge induced children to suffocate themselves for the high of feeling asphyxiated.  The Tide Pod Challenge tempted kids to put colorful cleaning packets in their mouths, hoping they wouldn’t burst.

The Cinnamon Challenge sparked thousands to inhale the common kitchen spice and cough till they puked.  Then the Condom Challenge offered two options where one dropped a condom filled with water on a friends face, or snorted one through the nose.

We adults can’t for the life of us figure out what the reward is in performing these challenges, but presume its fame and awe among friends and social media followers.  But these challenges prove dangerous and in some cases deadly.  Unfortunately the YouTube Clips never show the after effects of these pranks…maybe they should.

 

---- 

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

Tuesday, 04 June 2019 16:32

Opinion: There ARE Obama judges!

Written by

We are facing a constitutional crisis. Through the use of nationwide injunctions, a group of liberal federal district judges are fighting to maintain Obama era policies until President Donald Trump leaves office.

And now, President Donald Trump is fighting back as his administration seeks a case to be brought in federal court against the practice.

These judges’ actions are an attack on our system of government undermining the value of voting and the public’s trust in the impartiality of the judicial branch. These injunctions must be halted, either by the Supreme Court or by legislation.

Nationwide injunctions, which are also called universal or national injunctions, are issued by federal district judges and prohibit the federal government from enforcing laws or policies against anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case.

There have now been 37 nationwide injunctions issued against the Trump Administration, which is significantly more than were issued in the entire 20th century. In contrast, there were only two nationwide injunctions during the first two years of the Obama Administration; and there were no nationwide injunctions issued during the first 175 years of our Republic.

Recently, U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr gave a speech attacking nationwide injunctions, saying that the bar for getting one from a district judge is too low: “When Congress passes a statute or the President implements a policy that is challenged in multiple courts, the Government has to run the table — we must win every case.  The challengers, however, must find only one district judge — out of an available 600 — willing to enter a nationwide injunction. One judge can, in effect, cancel the policy with the stroke of the pen.”

And this is bad for democracy, Barr said, “Nationwide injunctions undermine the democratic process, depart from history and tradition, violate constitutional principles, and impede sound judicial administration, all at the cost of public confidence in our institutions and particularly in our courts as apolitical decision-makers dispassionately applying objective law.”

Barr is not the first prominent conservative to take aim at these injunctions. Barr’s predecessor, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, has also denounced the injunctions. Sessions stated, “Increasingly, we are seeing individual federal district judges go beyond the parties before the court to give injunctions or orders that block the entire federal government from enforcing a law or policy throughout the country…. This trend must stop. We have a government to run. The Constitution does not grant to a single district judge the power to veto executive branch actions with respect to parties not before the court. Nor does it provide the judiciary with authority to conduct oversight of or review policy of the executive branch. These abuses of judicial power are contrary to law…”

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has indicated his skepticism of the legitimacy of the injunctions. Thomas wrote, “These [universal] injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system—preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch. I am skeptical that district courts have the authority to enter universal injunctions… They appear to be inconsistent with longstanding limits on … the power of Article III courts.”

Elections must have consequences. Members of Congress and Presidents are elected to set and implement federal laws and policies; and unelected, unaccountable lower court judges must not be allowed to obstruct the policies of the elected branches of the government indefinitely. The Supreme Court will soon weigh in on nationwide injunctions and make it clear to district court judges that they have no authority to issue these injunctions.

If the Court fails to do so, then it will fall to Congress to enact legislation to end these acts of judicial tyranny once and for all.

 

Richard McCarty is the Director of Research at Americans for Limited Government Foundation and a contributor to the pennypress.com, the conservative weekly voice of Nevada. His views are his own. You can subscribe at www.pennypressnv.com. This column has been reprinted in full, with permission. 

Tuesday, 04 June 2019 16:22

We need to do more to serve our country

Written by

I hope everyone enjoyed their recent Memorial Day weekend.  Many Louisianans were vacationing over the long holiday or enjoying a cookout with family and friends.  Many stores held sales advertising for us to have a “Happy Memorial Day.”  All well and good, but what about the real purpose of this special day?

Many of us don’t even know the difference between Memorial Day (honoring those who died defending our country) and Veterans Day (honoring all service men and women).  Only 5% of Americans attended local military events or parades.  I joined a sparsely attended gathering Memorial Day at the USS Kidd in Baton Rouge.  Is it enough to holler USA at sporting events, or to say “Thank you for your service” when you see a service man or women in uniform?  Should Americans be required to do more?

In 1967, I was 27 years old and newly married with my first child on the way. So I was draft exempt, with no legal requirement to join the service.  Maybe I did not have a legal obligation, but what about a moral responsibility to serve my country in the time of war?

I come from a long line of distinguished military officers who never hesitated to serve their country. They did not try to find ways to sidestep such service like so many others, including most of our politicians today as well as several recent presidents.

Relatives on both sides of my family served their country with honor and distinction.  My first father-in-law Dick Campbell who was an ace fighter pilot, rose to the rank of full colonel in the Army, and twice escaped from German prison camps. My Dad stayed stateside coordinating military transportation coast to coast for the Army.  Second father-in-law Teddy Solomon was sent by the Army to the South Pacific. My younger brother Jack volunteered and joined the National Guard for a six-year hitch.

My mother’s brother had quite a navel military career.  In the final months of World War II, Commander Jack Gentry was flying a reconnaissance mission over the Pacific when his flight cameras captured photos of the Japanese flotilla. He made the cover of Life Magazine as his pictures allowed a direct attack on the enemy fleet that sped up the ending of the war with Japan. He went on to command the battleship USS Enterprise until his retirement from the Navy in the 1960s.

With this strong family military background, I felt an obligation to continue the service to my country. I make no bones about the fact that I feel every American should either serve in the military or perform voluntary service in the city or state where they live. The American flag flies outside my home 365 days a year. I wear my military dog tags while I broadcast my syndicated radio program each week (NG25520050).

 This is not an effort to pat myself on my back. Like so many other young men and women who love their country, it was something I felt a strong obligation to do. So despite the fact that I was draft exempt, I signed up for service in the Army, then stayed for ten additional years in the Louisiana National Guard.

Our nation has been at war in Iraq and Afghanistan going on two decades.  Yet many Americans look on war as a spectator sport.  So few have any real skin in the game.

 I recently read a book by military scholar George Wilson called “The Mud Soldiers,” where he laments over the problems with an all-volunteer army.  He quotes Vietnam veteran Col. Steve Siegfried who states: “Armies don’t fight wars. Countries fight wars….. Yes a country fights a war. If it doesn’t, then we shouldn’t send an army.

War should be every citizen’s business.  We should all perform some volunteer service, military or otherwise.  This should be an easy decision if we love our country and care about our freedom.

 

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.

“The problem with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends entirely upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide.”

My son recently was looking for a company to work with concerning content that was needed for the videos that he would soon create. As he was doing so, I told him to find a package deal so it will be all-inclusive with music, images, fonts, etc.

A short while later, and in his excitement, he said that he found a company with which to work. I asked him how much the package was and if it was all-inclusive?

He said, "Dad, it is only $29.95 a month."

I said, "For everything?"

He then went on to say that you could even cancel at any given time.

I said, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

I then told him to call the company and ask if there are any hidden costs and, again, does everything come with that $29.95?

Well, he called and the first mistake that the company made was that they didn’t have a real person answering the phones. When you see when companies that use computers to do their selling for them you can rest assured that they are on their way out. If a business wants to slap a customer in the face, this is usually the first thing that they do.

When he received his call back, he found that the deal of the century was a year contract!  Otherwise, the cost would be $69.95 and you can cancel at any time.

Friends, this is not what their page stated, at least not in big print.

The sad fact of the matter is that this country no longer operates under the banner of “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:17).

I have found that a good number of the companies in America today are not serving the customers, but rather the almighty dollar and themselves (1 John 5:2).

I ask, “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36)

Let me share some of my experiences with you.

About 15 years ago, I was in a health foods GNC store where they sold a large selection of vitamins. When I grabbed some ginseng and was going to check out, a man that was at the cash register was ready to pay for his items when the lady behind the counter said to him that he owed 2 times more than what it said on the price tag. The man told her that the price was right on the sticker while pointing at the items.  She replied that those prices were for members only. Right next to the big price numbers were little tiny numbers to the right of it where it said that these prices apply to members only.  How deceptive. The man was rightfully angry and he walked out, leaving the products on the counter.  I followed in close pursuit.

No one likes to be sold with deceptive and deceitful tactics.

The Bible says, “making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit?” (Amos 8:5)

Another time, we walked into a local Midwest favorite called “Old Country Buffet.”  It was one of those restaurants in which you could eat and when you were done, felt like you got yourself a good deal.  You were treated like a favored customer and left feeling satisfied. About 5 years ago, we went in as usual, and right when we were going to pay for our food, the lady behind the register asked if we wanted something to drink, which by the way was always a part of the price when paying for the buffet.

I responded, "What about if we want something to drink?  Of course, we want something to drink.  That is why we just entered into your eatery."

She said that would be a separate charge and I responded, "Well, it is not going to be long before your place of business will be shut down. You are gouging, and people are going to catch on and that will be it for your restaurant."

Sure enough, 6 months later, they were done.

How prevalent this has become today: charge your customers more by separating the meal from the drinks. This applies to "business as usual" today in America across the boards.

The airlines have now been found guilty of this every step of the way, literally. You now pay a surcharge for handling on the phone when you purchase your ticket, and when you check in, you then have to pay for your bags. Before boarding, you now have to pay for your seating, and when you get into the plane, you have to pay for your drink and your food. Treating customers like they are now doing them a favor.

Another experience that I had was another place called “Timberlodge” restaurant in Minnesota. They started out right by giving bigger portions at a fair price.  However, soon after their food chain became big enough, they started to charge more with smaller portions.  I told my wife that they needed to quit this or they are going to be a thing of the past. In this particular situation, I called the management and told them people are seeing what they were doing in their restaurants and it wasn't good.

"I know that you are really doing very well with your food chain, but it is coming across as you only care about the money here," I told him.

I added that they needed to either get back to customer service first or they would be gone within a year.

A week later, they put up a sign at one of their stores that read “We're not going anywhere.” I'm not kidding.

I told my wife that they were done. Two weeks later, the restaurant was shut down.

Deceptive business owners can only take advantage of people for so long before people catch on.  People are not stupid. If people do not feel like service is being done on their behalf and that they are getting their money's worth and feel like they are being taken granted for, again, you can mark my words, that’s it for your business.

I can also tell you that when I and my family detect this with a business, we are done with that company in whatever capacity it may be. It usually is a good sign that a company's efforts to get a little more out of you means that it is no more about the customer, but about what they are getting from their customers.

Furthermore, if their product and service is everything that they claim it to be, then do they have to lie or deceive (Hidden costs) in the process of selling it (Proverbs 19:9)?

--

 

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

 

Saturday, 01 June 2019 18:07

The National Spelling Bee ends in eight way tie

Written by

The 92 annual Scripps National Spelling Bee wrapped up Memorial Day weekend. In the previous 92 spelling bees, there have been eight six winners and six two-way ties. This year was something else. After a Thursday evening round that went 5 ½ hours Bee organizers began to feel that there would be a large number of competitors at the top, which led pronouncer Jacques Bailly telling them, "We do have plenty of words remaining on our list. But we will soon run out of words that will possibly challenge you, the most phenomenal collection of super-spellers in the history of this competition."

 

He was  not wrong. After another three rounds the eight kids at the top never missed a beat and went 24-24. Often times the parents of the competitors seemed rattled and seriously stressed out but for the most part the kids handled the pressure well.

 

For the first time ever, it was an eight way tie. Normally, the spelling bee champion wins $50 thousand dollars and the trophy. In the past, when there were two way ties, the money was split. This year, instead of splitting the prize money eight ways, bee organizers decided that each of the kids would receive $50 thousand and each will take home a trophy of their own.

 

As usual at the National Spelling Bee, the kids were largely supporting each other with high fives and hugs when their competitors friends got words correct. Sportsmanship at its very best, it’s actually really lovely to watch. The video linked to the front page is the very final round where they were told, if you get this final word correct - you’ll tie for the top spot as Bee Champion. Their were eight competitors left. All eight of them got their word correct.

 

One by the one the kids, in this order and the word they had to spell.

 

Rishik Gandhasri, 13, of San Jose, Calif.: auslaut.

Erin Howard, 14, of Huntsville, Ala.: erysipelas.

Saketh Sundar, 13, of Clarksville, Md.: bougainvillea.

Shruthika Padhy, 13, of Cherry Hill, N.J.: aiguillette.

Sohum Sukhatankar, 13, of Dallas: pendeloque.

Abhijay Kodali, 12, of Flower Mound, Tex.: palama.

Christopher Serrao, 13, of Whitehouse Station, N.J.: cernuous

Rohan Raja, 13, of Irving, Tex: odylic.

 

I don’t get to watch the National Spelling Bee every year but ever since the fantastic 2002 Academy Award nominated documentary Spellbound hit the theaters, I would certainly say the Bee is always on my radar. You should check the documentary out. I believe you can watch it free on YouTube.

 

And to the 2019 winners, all eight of you - well done!

Since when did murder become a “political” issue?

 

Liberals tell us that in their phony baloney bleating about “climate change” they believe in “science”.  Many of those same libs want to deny that a fetus—a baby—with a heartbeat which can now—through real science—be detected, is somehow NOT a person and can be killed at the whim of the mother.

 

They still call this crap “reproductive rights.”

 

Roe v. Wade happened while I was still in college.  Every young male in college back then could probably tell you exactly what Planned Parenthood charged for an abortion.

 

Most of us have grown up since then.

 

Roe was a classic example of a Supreme Court which read the opinion pages of the Washington Post.

 

One of the differences between 1973 and today is that we have much more science—real science as opposed to the junk science “consensus” the climate folks believe in—which tells us exactly the development of a baby.

 

Once a baby has a heart and it is beating, how can you not call it a person?

 

And if you kill it, how can that not be murder?

 

OK, like the President, I get the health of the mother.  Maybe, under some circumstances, rape or incest.

 

But.

 

Murder is against the law in all 50 states. Following the twisted logic of Roe does a woman have a right of “privacy” to kill her three year old?  Her husband?

 

And to politicize this is simply moronic.

 

If you are a Democrat and you follow their political orthodoxy, you are, in my humble opinion, condoning, on the campaign trail, murder.

 

One of the problems in this debate is that there is simply no debating most supporters of legalized abortion. Their position is that it is a “right” and that’s that.

 

So to break that down, killing a baby is a right?

 

We don’t treat puppies like that.

 

We have plenty of ways to stop conception.  If you are not responsible enough to prevent conception, then you should have to carry the baby to term.  If you don’t want the baby, then there are plenty of people who are willing to adopt and raise the baby.

 

If the pregnancy takes nine months out of your life, then be more responsible.

 

But you do NOT have a “right” to kill a baby for your convenience. What you do have a right to do is to be responsible in your sex life. Which is why, in some circumstances, I’m sympathetic to rape and incest exceptions, since there was no choice in those situations.

 

Somewhere along the way, abortion proponents began branding themselves as “pro choice.”

 

What’s the choice?

 

Between felony murder and a baby?

 

Here’s a choice:

 

Don’t want a baby?  Have your tubes tied.  Then, you won’t be in a position to murder a baby.

 

----

 

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

 

 

This week the CDC reported their findings of thousands of children being enrolled in school without any waiver for vaccine exemption.

As states aim to limit parental choice to limit vaccination based on religious objections, the country is fighting multiple outbreaks, including Measles, Mumps and Hepatitis A, which are potentially preventable with vaccination.

When the CDC looked at data submitted by 27 states, the majority of unvaccinated or under-vaccinated children in 10 states lacked waivers.

Which brings to question, are other reasons at play when a child is not vaccinated rather than religious or medical objections?

When a family adheres to the vaccination regimen, office visits are need at 1 month, 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 12 months, sometimes 15 months of age, and 4 years old –  6 years old, in addition to any other follow ups deemed necessary by the medical provider.

 

schedule-children

 

Most medical offices that provide vaccines are only open during the weekday, hence a parent who cannot take off work to bring their child in the doctor may have difficulty adhering to the vaccination schedule.

And then when asked why their child wasn’t vaccinated, it may be less embarrassing to cite “religious reasons” rather than fear of losing income or one’s job when taking off for the doctor’s visit.

I suggest weekend or night “vaccination clinics” at schools to make parents aware of alternative times to vaccinate and increase access to those who may not be able to leave their job during the weekday.

 

---- 

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

 

Robert Mueller made his first (and probably only) public statement about his special investigation into the Russian interference of the 16’ election. He reiterated that his report does not exonerate President Trump but also, and very clearly says, charging the President with a crime was not an option due to the constitutional restriction against charging an active President.

His full statement:  

Two years ago, the Acting Attorney General asked me to serve as Special Counsel, and he created the Special Counsel's Office.

The appointment order directed the office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

I have not spoken publicly during our investigation. I am speaking today because our investigation is complete. The Attorney General has made the report on our investigation largely public. And we are formally closing the Special Counsel's Office. As well, I am resigning from the Department of Justice and returning to private life.

I'll make a few remarks about the results of our work. But beyond these few remarks, it is important that the office's written work speak for itself.

Let me begin where the appointment order begins: and that is interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As alleged by the grand jury in an indictment, Russian intelligence officers who were part of the Russian military launched a concerted attack on our political system.

The indictment alleges that they used sophisticated cyber techniques to hack into computers and networks used by the Clinton campaign. They stole private information, and then released that information through fake online identities and through the organization WikiLeaks. The releases were designed and timed to interfere with our election and to damage a presidential candidate.

And at the same time, as the grand jury alleged in a separate indictment, a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to interfere in the election.

These indictments contain allegations. And we are not commenting on the guilt or innocence of any specific defendant. Every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

The indictments allege, and the other activities in our report describe, efforts to interfere in our political system. They needed to be investigated and understood. That is among the reasons why the Department of Justice established our office.

That is also a reason we investigated efforts to obstruct the investigation. The matters we investigated were of paramount importance. It was critical for us to obtain full and accurate information from every person we questioned. When a subject of an investigation obstructs that investigation or lies to investigators, it strikes at the core of the government's effort to find the truth and hold wrongdoers accountable.

Let me say a word about the report. The report has two parts addressing the two main issues we were asked to investigate.

The first volume of the report details numerous efforts emanating from Russia to influence the election. This volume includes a discussion of the Trump campaign's response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.

And in the second volume, the report describes the results and analysis of our obstruction of justice investigation involving the President.

The order appointing me Special Counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation. We conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the Acting Attorney General apprised of the progress of our work.

As set forth in our report, after that investigation, if we had confidence that the President clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.

We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the President did commit a crime. The introduction to volume two of our report explains that decision.

It explains that under long-standing Department policy, a President cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view—that too is prohibited.

The Special Counsel's Office is part of the Department of Justice and, by regulation, it was bound by that Department policy. Charging the President with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider.

The Department's written opinion explaining the policy against charging a President makes several important points that further informed our handling of the obstruction investigation. Those points are summarized in our report. And I will describe two of them:

First, the opinion explicitly permits the investigation of a sitting President because it is important to preserve evidence while memories are fresh and documents are available. Among other things, that evidence could be used if there were co-conspirators who could now be charged.

And second, the opinion says that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting President of wrongdoing.

And beyond Department policy, we were guided by principles of fairness. It would be unfair to potentially accuse somebody of a crime when there can be no court resolution of an actual charge.

So that was the Justice Department policy and those were the principles under which we operated. From them we concluded that we would not reach a determination -- one way or the other -- about whether the President committed a crime. That is the office's final position and we will not comment on any other conclusions or hypotheticals about the President.

We conducted an independent criminal investigation and reported the results to the Attorney General—as required by Department regulations.

The Attorney General then concluded that it was appropriate to provide our report to Congress and the American people.

At one point in time I requested that certain portions of the report be released. The Attorney General preferred to make the entire report public all at once. We appreciate that the Attorney General made the report largely public. I do not question the Attorney General's good faith in that decision.

I hope and expect this to be the only time that I will speak about this matter. I am making that decision myself—no one has told me whether I can or should testify or speak further about this matter.

There has been discussion about an appearance before Congress. Any testimony from this office would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings and analysis, and the reasons for the decisions we made. We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself.

The report is my testimony. I would not provide information beyond that which is already public in any appearance before Congress.

In addition, access to our underlying work product is being decided in a process that does not involve our office.

So beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress.

It is for that reason that I will not take questions here today.

Before I step away, I want to thank the attorneys, the FBI agents, the analysts, and the professional staff who helped us conduct this investigation in a fair and independent manner. These individuals, who spent nearly two years with the Special Counsel's Office, were of the highest integrity.

I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election.

That allegation deserves the attention of every American.

Thank you.

Ah, internet. How I love you, and hate you at the same time. You have done so much right and so much wrong. And this Chipotle disaster is another case of wrong. Let’s set the scene: A few months ago at a Chipotle in St. Paul, MN, five young, black men in their early twenties come into the restaurant and order food. The manager, a twenty three year old woman named Dominique Moran, tells the five black men, “...you gotta pay (up front) because you never have any money when you come in here, boys.” Well, the boys were recording the interaction and, in the following two minute video (linked on the front), you see the boys claim they are being profiled and ask white customers “do you have to pay up front before you get your food?”

This is a fair question. If Moran is only asking black men to pay up front, but not asking white customers the same thing - she’s probably doing something wrong.

Right?  

Well, the boys left the restaurant and posted their various videos to social medial. At least one video went viral, one shot by Masud Ali, 21 (again, the one linked to the front page). There was an immediate and huge backlash against Moran with many rage comments calling her the “racist white manager,” and at targeting Chipotle itself for being racist and for racial profiling black men. Within 24 hours Chipotle issued an apology, stating: “This is not how we treat our customers and as a result, the manager has been terminated and the restaurant is being retrained to ensure something like this doesn’t happen again.”

Masud Ali, the young man who shot the viral video, hit back on Twitter calling out Chipotle for firing the manager on duty (Moran) but not her “side kick,” saying to them, “Just because you retrain someone doesn’t make them less racist.” Masud, clearly, was trying to get a second employee fired. For being racist. Well, get back to that in a second.

Anyway, as you can imagine - Moran was publicly shamed, lost her job, received thousands of hate messages and her picture & name became synonymous for hate. SJW (social justice warriors) everywhere patted themselves on the back for rooting out another racist.

Now, keep in mind this general story is nothing new. We see weekly videos of white people calling the cops on black folks for literally just eating their dinner, or walking down the street, or playing with their kids on the playground. This is textbook racial profiling and it happens. Basically, what the white folks are saying is “I see a black person - he/she must be doing something illegal!” Or how about the Starbucks incident(s) last year in Philly and L.A. Or, how about this video where a black man is picking up trash on his own property and a white cop doesn’t believe he lives there and pulls his gun on him. So, sadly, the story of “white person racially profiles person of color,” happens. Like, a lot. And it’s a huge problem.

But in this specific instance, well - let’s get back to Moran. Very quickly after her firing, for being a “white racist profiler,” a few internet sleuths saw holes in the official story. First of all, Moran isn’t white. And it’s painfully obvious to anyone watching the video that she’s of some kind of Latino heritage. Not that her racial background is a huge deal, but still. Second, it took internet sleuths all of like, ten minutes to jump onto the social media page of Masud Ali and see post after post from him, bragging on social media how he and his buddies love to dine and dash and have been doing it for years.

Um. Uh-oh. So, what you’re saying is that after the barest minimum of investigation it was super, super easy to figure out that Masud was a lying, serial “dine and dasher” and that Moran was actually protecting her employer from theft. But instead of doing the barest minimum of investigation into the event, Chipotle bent to the will of online hysteria and fired their employee for … protecting the store and doing the right thing.

*sigh*

It’s too bad because this kind of disengenous idiocy pushed by Ali and his A-hole buddy's  - do actual harm to legitimate cases of racial profiling. Not that Ali cared about that. I mean, he might care about it now that he was outed for being a douchebag, but had he not been caught, do you really think Ali would have ever felt a moment of regret for getting an innocent woman fired?

I’m going to go out on a limb and say - he would not have cared at all. Not one bit.

Well, it’s all come full circle now. The internet sleuths pushed evidence back towards Chipotle. Chipotle publicly apologized to Dominique Moran for getting it wrong and offered her job back but … I haven’t been able to find out if she took the job or not. To be honest, I hope she didn’t. I hope she moves on to better things.

Friday, 24 May 2019 18:21

Memorial Day weekend safety tips

Written by

Memorial Day is this weekend and the country honors those who have sacrificed for our freedom.  Many of us will travel and enjoy the outdoors.  However, according to a study by the National Coalition for Safer Roads, Memorial Day Weekend is the most dangerous holiday for road and highway accidents.  Additionally, water injuries, including drownings may rise this weekend.  Grill injuries can occur, and throughout the US we are seeing record high temperatures.  We need to stay safe out in the sun, by the grill, in the water and on the roads.

Sun Safety 

Record heat and extended time outdoors can increase the risk of heat illness.  Hydrate, stay in the shade and protect your skin from damaging UV rays.

Sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or greater should be applied 15-30 minutes prior to going outside and reapplied every two hours or more often if swimming.

Avoid excessive alcohol as it could accelerate dehydration and put one at greater risk of injuries and heat exhaustion.

For more on heat exhaustion and heat stroke read here.

LEAN-SunSafety-footer

Grill Safety

In 2012, a man caught on fire after spraying sunscreen prior to heading over to the grill. He sustained multiple second degree burns.

Sunscreen may be flammable, so make sure it is dry prior to grilling or use a lotion instead of spray on.

Keep the grill outdoors but away from low roofing, branches, and trees. Watch the little kids and keep them and the pets away from the barbecue.

Assign someone to watch the grill if you need to step a way during grilling.

 

grill.jpg.838x0_q67_crop-smart.jpg

 

Do not add lighter fluid to already ignited coals.

If someone does catch on fire, remember to have them stop, drop and roll on the ground until the flames expire.  Call 9-1-1 and remove any jewelry or tight clothes around the area..

If a minor burn injury does occur, run it under cool (not cold) water for 10-20 minutes. Avoid applying ice to the burn as it can damage the skin.  Also remove nearby jewelry.

Bandage and see a medical provider if concerned with your injury.

 

Water Safety

Avoid drinking alcohol when swimming or engaging in water sports.

Make sure you are in arm’s reach of your kids in the water.

Use life vests while boating and make sure the kids are wearing appropriate sized vests.

Never swim alone. Always have a buddy.

 

Zz1hZmQ5ZjgyNDg5MmIwYTg5YWFiM2I0MWNlMDA0MzlmZQ==.jpeg

 

Road Safety

 

Know your route to avoid you checking your GPS app while you drive.

Allow extra travel time and don’t rush.  Expect travel delays coming home as well.

Consider leaving a day or two early or a day or two late to avoid congested traffic.

Drive the speed limit and avoid tailgating, leaving at least 2 seconds between you and the car ahead of you.

Make sure you have plenty of water, supplies and a first aid kit in the car in case you get stuck on the highway.

 

Thanksgiving-Traffic-Jam.jpg

 

Have a happy and safe Memorial Day Weekend!

---- 

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

 

 

Page 14 of 70