Blog
LatestArticlesVideosHands-On History
Radio
LivePodcastSerialsStations
TV
Podcast
Show Prep
More
AboutBooksCharityEventsReal EstateSponsorsShopContact
SEARCH
Live Radio

©2019 MERCURY RADIO ARTS.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

TERMS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY

Live

War on Women: Part II

March 23, 2017
 Staff

WRITER

There is a War on Women, but it's not in the United States. According modern American feminists, their biggest priorities include access to birth control, abortion on demand and income equality --- all of which they already have. They ignore the plight of women and girls across the globe who face real subjugation and inequality. Under Sharia law, women face a level of oppression and violence the likes of which modern feminists have never experienced. Women live under the rule of men and antiquated laws that include stoning, honor killing and mutilation. These women don't have the freedom to wear pink, knitted hats and rant in the streets about imagined oppression. Theirs is real oppression that often times ends in slavery, severe punishments or death.

Listen to this segment from The Glenn Beck Program:

Listen to all serials at glennbeck.com/serials.

GLENN: There is a War on Women happening, but if you listen to those on the left. The biggest offender is, say it with me, the United States of America. The World Economic Forum released their list of the world's best countries for women, and the US was 45th. Let me give you a couple of highlights on the list. Rwanda was the fifth best nation on earth for women. Yeah, Rwanda. Forty places above the United States.

Rwanda.

One of the criteria used to arrive at that conclusion is the percentage of women in the Rwandan legislature. According to WEF, 64 percent of the seats in the Rwandan parliament are occupied by women. Just a side note, after the Rwandan genocide, 70 percent of their population was women. So it seems to go to reason that it would -- anyway, one of the reasons the US is listed as low as it is, is the ever present income inequality argument.

As we have discussed over and over, including by the liberal newspaper, the Washington Post, there are many extenuating factors that go into why overall men earn more money than women. To name a few: Different professional choices, maternity leave, length of time in the job market, and a whole lot more. But boil down, when you compare men and women with similar education levels, similar job experience, length of time in a particular job, and skill levels -- in other words, when comparing apples to apples in America, men and women make virtually the same amount of money. In fact, in some industries, when those factors are considered, women's actual average income is slightly more than men.

In 2010, TIME Magazine reported that there was 147 of the 150 biggest cities in the country, and the median full-time salaries of young single women were higher than their male peers, by 8 percent.

Another criteria used to rate the United States lower than you might think it should be in the quality of life for women is the participation for women in the job force because it's stagnant. Is there a definitive explanation for that?

No. Not that I can think of. But could one reason that many women are choosing to stay home to raise their children full-time? Of course. Since when are women who raise children second-class citizens? Since when do we say our quality of life is because everyone in the family works?

Is the World Economic Forum going to inform America's children that they're just not important enough to warrant a parent staying in the home to raise them, or will they inform our next generation that they don't deserve the time and attention of their own parents? Or maybe they should just admit, some people choose to stay home with their kids, and it's not a bad choice.

Rarely, if ever, is actual oppression and violence against women even mentioned, such as when it exists under Sharia law. Even in the supposedly westernized tolerant Dubai, in the UAE, the situation for women can be extremely hazardous. Charlotte Adams, she was visiting Dubai from London. She greeted a male friend in the bar in Dubai with a kiss on the cheek to say hello. Well, when she left the bar, the Dubai police stopped her.

VOICE: He was like, were you kissing him? And I was like, no. And he's like, did you kiss him? And I was like, well, we would have kissed on the cheek to say hi. But apparently, as soon as I said we kissed on the cheek, that was it. It was like kissing on the cheek is illegal.

VOICE: Charlotte spent 23 days behind bars before being deported.

GLENN: Charlotte actually got off easy. The 27-year-old Australian Alicia Gali went to Dubai to manage a hotel and spa. She had a room in the hotel she managed. And one night, her room became flooded. It turned out later that someone had intentionally stuffed a T-shirt in the plumbing to cause the overflow.

While the workers if I could her room, she waited in the bar. A coworker came by, dropped some ice cubes in her drink. The next thing she remembers is waking up naked and badly bruised with four broken ribs. She had been raped by three men.

Alicia went to the hospital for treatment and to alert the police.

VOICE: What Alicia didn't know is that being raped was essentially the same as having sex outside of marriage, where the sex is consensual, and that she would be charged with the same offense as those who had assaulted and raped her.

GLENN: Alicia was quickly learning firsthand about the real War on Women. From an Australian documentary on the case...

VOICE: So a woman can only prove that she has been raped if there are four adult Muslim men watching the rape.

VOICE: You were prepared to say that the sex was non-consensual.

VOICE: Alicia Gali spent eight months in that Dubai prison before being released during a Muslim holiday celebration.

In 2008, a 13-year-old Somali girl named Aisha Duhulow reported to authorities that she had been gang raped. Instead of receiving justice, she was stoned to death by 50 men.

Sharia courts in Pakistan have punished thousands of raped women who dare accuse their attacker with imprisonment.

In Bangladesh, female victims are flogged, beaten, and imprisoned after being raped.

In Afghanistan, it's possible that a daughter who had been raped will be honor killed by her parents.

In 2014, the international women's group intervened on behalf of a 10-year-old girl who had been raped by her mullah in a mosque.

Their job? To persuade her family not to kill her. Good news: So far the family has not.

But in Nigeria, 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped out of their school and sold into sexy slavery because their extremist captors believed they had a right to do it since the girls were being educated. Hashtags popped up for the girls here in America, but nothing was really accomplished for the girls on their behalf. So there is a War on Women. Severe human rights violations, directed against women all over the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and other parts of the world, and virtually no one seems to focus on it.

Meanwhile, in the United States, the so-called war often involves whether or not free birth control devices are available on every street corner.

VOICE: One told us on how embarrassed and just powerless she felt, when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time the contraception was not covered on her insurance. And she had to turn and walk away because she couldn't afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice, but to go without contraception. Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore.

GLENN: Perspective should be the word of the year. Perspective.

It would be helpful, at least when we have to answer the question, is life perfect for women? Of course not. Not here or anywhere else. It's not perfect for men either. But it might be helpful to take a breath and look around from time to time to see if you were looking to America from the outside, how perfect a woman's life may look to them. We'll seek to gain some of that perspective on the next episode.

This compromise is an abomination

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Three decades ago, "The Art of the Deal" made Donald Trump a household name. A lot has happened since then. But you can trace many of Trump's actions back to that book.

Art of the Deal:

In the end, you're measured not by how much you undertake but by what you finally accomplish.

People laughed when he announced that he was running for President. And I mean that literally. Remember the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner when Obama roasted Trump, viciously, mocking the very idea that Trump could ever be President. Now, he's President.

You can't con people, at least not for long. You can create excitement, you can do wonderful promotion and get all kinds of press, and you can throw in a little hyperbole. But if you don't deliver the goods, people will eventually catch on.

This empire-building is a mark of Trump.

RELATED: 'Arrogant fool' Jim Acosta exposed MSM's dishonest border agenda — again.

The most recent example is the border wall. Yesterday, congress reached a compromise on funding for the border wall. Weeks of tense back-and-forth built up to that moment. At times, it seemed like neither side would budge. Trump stuck to his guns, the government shut down, Trump refused to budge, then, miraculously, the lights came back on again. The result was a compromise. Or at least that's how it appeared.

But really, Trump got what he wanted -- exactly what he wanted. He used the techniques he wrote about in The Art of the Deal:

My style of deal-making is quite simple and straightforward. I aim very high, and then I just keep pushing and pushing and pushing to get what I'm after.

From the start, he demanded $5.7 billion for construction of a border wall. It was a months' long tug-of-war that eventually resulted in yesterday's legislation, which would dedicate $1.4 billion. It would appear that that was what he was after all along. Moments before the vote, he did some last-minute pushing. A national emergency declaration, and suddenly the number is $8 billion.

Art of the Deal:

People think I'm a gambler. I've never gambled in my life. To me, a gambler is someone who plays slot machines. I prefer to own slot machines. It's a very good business being the house.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, Senate passed the legislation 83-16, and the House followed with 300-128. Today, Trump will sign the bill.

It's not even fair to call that a deal, really. A deal is what happens when you go to a car dealership, fully ready to buy a car, and the salesman says the right things. What Trump did is more like a car dealer selling an entire row of cars to someone who doesn't even have a licence. When Trump started, Democrats wouldn't even consider a wall, let alone pay for it.

Art of the Deal:

The final key to the way I promote is bravado. I play to people's fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That's why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It's an innocent form of exaggeration—and a very effective form of promotion.

He started the wall on a chant, "Build the wall!" until he got what he wanted. He maneuvered like Don Draper, selling people something that they didn't even know they wanted, and convincing them that it is exactly what they've always needed.

How congress can restore justice through judicial discretion

Joe Raedle/Getty Images

As the nation soaks in the victory of the recent passing of the historic First Step Act, there are Congressmen who haven't stopped working to solve additional problems with the criminal justice system. Because while the Act was impactful, leading to the well-deserved early release of many incarcerated individuals, it didn't go far enough. That's why four Congressmen have joined forces to reintroduce the Justice Safety Valve Act—legislation that would grant judges judicial discretion when determining appropriate sentencing.

There's a real need for this legislation since it's no secret that lawmakers don't always get it right. They may pass laws with good intentions, but unintended consequences often prevail. For example, there was a time when the nation believed the best way to penalize lawbreakers was to be tough on crime, leading to sweeping mandatory minimum sentencing laws implemented both nationally and statewide.

RELATED: If Trump can support criminal justice reform, so can everyone else

Only in recent years have governments learned that these sentences aren't good policy for the defendant or even the public. Mandatory minimum sentences are often overly harsh, don't act as a public deterrent for crime, and are extremely costly to taxpayers. These laws tie judges' hands, preventing them from using their knowledge and understanding of the law to make case relevant decisions.

Because legislation surrounding criminal law is often very touchy and difficult to change (especially on the federal level, where bills can take multiple years to pass) mandatory minimum sentences are far from being done away with—despite the data-driven discoveries of their downfalls. But in order to solve the problems inherent within all of the different laws imposing sentencing lengths, Congress needs to pass the Justice Safety Valve Act now. Ensuring its passing would allow judges to use discretion while sentencing, rather than forcing them to continue issuing indiscriminate sentences no matter the unique facts of the case.

Rather than take years to go back and try to fix every single mandatory minimum law that has been federally passed, moving this single piece of legislation forward is the best way to ensure judges can apply their judgment in every appropriate case.

When someone is facing numerous charges from a single incident, mandatory minimum sentencing laws stack atop one another, resulting in an extremely lengthy sentence that may not be just. Such high sentences may even be violations of an individual's eighth amendment rights, what with the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. It's exactly what happened with Weldon Angelos.

In Salt Lake City in 2002, Weldon sold half a pound of marijuana to federal agents on two separate occasions. Unbeknownst to Weldon, the police had targeted him because they suspected he was a part of a gang and trafficking operation. They were oh-so-wrong. Weldon had never sold marijuana before and only did this time because he was pressured by the agents to find marijuana for them. He figured a couple lowkey sales could help out his family's financial situation. But Weldon was caught and sentenced to a mandatory 55 years in prison. This massive sentence is clearly unjust for a first time, non-violent crime, and even the Judge, Paul Cassell, agreed. Judge Cassell did everything he could to reduce the sentence, but, due to federal law, it wasn't much.

The nation is facing an over-criminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties.

In cases like Weldon's, a safety valve for discretionary power is much needed. Judges need the ability to issue sentences below the mandatory minimums, depending on mitigating factors such as mental health, provocation, or physical illness. That's what this new bill would allow for. Critics may argue that this gives judges too much power, but under the bill, judges must first make a finding on why it's necessary to sentence below the mandatory minimum. Then, they must write a clear statement explaining their decision.

Judges are unlikely to risk their careers to allow dangerous criminals an early release. If something happens after an offender is released early, the political pressure is back on the judge who issued the shorter sentence—and no one wants that kind of negative attention. In order to avoid risky situations like this, they'd use their discretion very cautiously, upholding the oath they took to promote justice in every case.

The nation is facing an overcriminalization problem that costs taxpayers millions and amounts to the foolish eradication of individual liberties. Mandatory minimums have exacerbated this problem, and it's time for that to stop. Congresswomen and men have the opportunity to help solve this looming problem by passing the Justice Safety Valve Act to untie the hands of judges and restore justice in individual sentences.

Molly Davis is a policy analyst at Libertas Institute, a free market think tank in Utah. She's a writer for Young Voices, and her work has previously appeared in The Hill, TownHall.com, and The Washington Examiner.

New gadget for couples in 'the mood' lets a button do the talking

Photo by Matt Nelson on Unsplash

Just in time for Valentine's Day, there's a new romantic gadget for couples that is sure to make sparks fly. For those with their minds in the gutter, I'm not talking about those kinds of gadgets. I'm talking about a brilliant new device for the home called "LoveSync."

This is real — it's a simple pair of buttons for busy, modern couples who have plenty of time for social media and Netflix, but can't quite squeeze in time to talk about their... uh... special relationship.

Here's how it works. Each partner has their own individual LoveSync button. Whenever the mood strikes one partner, all they have to do is press their own button. That sets their button aglow for a certain period of time. If, during that time window, their partner also presses their own button, then both buttons light up in a swirling green pattern to signal that love has "synced"...and it's go time.

According to the makers of LoveSync, this device will "Take the Luck out of Getting Lucky." It brings a whole new meaning to "pushing each other's buttons." It's an ideal gift to tell your significant other "I care," without actually having to care, or talk about icky things like feelings.

If you find your significant other is already on the couch binge-watching The Bachelor, no problem! You can conveniently slink back to your button and hold it in for four seconds to cancel the desire. No harm, no foul! Live to fight another day.

Have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children.

No word yet on whether LoveSync can also order wine, light candles or play Barry White. Maybe that's in the works for LoveSync 2.0.

Of course, LoveSync does have some pitfalls. Cats and toddlers love a good button. That'll be a fun conversation — "Honey, who keeps canceling my mood submissions?" And have fun explaining those buttons to inquiring children. "Yeah, kids, that button just controls the lawn sprinklers. No big deal."

If you've been dialing it in for years on Valentine's Day with flowers and those crappy boxes of chocolate, now you can literally dial it in. With a button.

Good luck with that.