What gets left in San Francisco?

© 2018 Jim Spence - Once upon a time, San Francisco was deemed to be a romantic place by millions. Tony Bennett recorded the hit song, "I Left My Heart in San Francisco," back in 1962 after it was written nine years earlier by songwriters: Douglas Cross and George Cory. Cross and Cory must be spinning in their graves.
The transformation of San Francisco has taken it from an interesting metropolis where hippie flower children hung out, to a disaster area and health hazard. Very few people think of San Francisco romantically anymore. Places like Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington are not far behind.
What has gone wrong with the city by the bay?
Image result for san francisco sidewalks covered in feces
Human excrement in S.F.
Forget the absurd soda pop taxes and wildly expensive housing. Perhaps the city has lost its romance because San Francisco seems bent on attracting thousands of unemployed vagrants. Welcoming the most unproductive people in society seems to be a passion in San Francisco. Accordingly, it is home to an army of drug addicts who congregate there, simply because the city provides incentives to do so. San Francisco hands out free needles to anyone who asks. Heroin users avail themselves of the taxpayer-funded syringes and toss them on the sidewalks when they are finished shooting up. It isn't the only thing that gets left on the sidewalks.
San Francisco is also a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.
MS-13 gang members love the locale because they can operate there with little interference from law enforcement authorities, who are themselves handcuffed by those who are elected to public office by millions of Democrats. 
San Francisco is also hostile to all armed service recruiting. Protests in front of recruiting offices for the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines are routine.
Image result for san francisco sidewalks covered in feces
no explanation required
San Francisco is a city that has been represented by Nancy Pelosi in the U.S. House of Representatives for decades. Not surprisingly, the city has been identified as the dirtiest city in America. Bums defecate and urinate on city streets as a matter of routine. Armies of city employees can't keep up with the pee and poop. It is a wonder that a cholera epidemic has not broken out there yet. Of course, San Francisco has been run by Democrats for as long as anyone can remember. The idea of voting for change via a GOP candidate is unthinkable.  
Recently, I ran across an update to the lyrics of the hit song “I left my heart in San Francisco.” It seems appropriate though I doubt it will hit the top ten.

The pretentiousness of Paris, seems somehow sadly gray
The glory that was Rome, just wasn’t enough about being gay
I've been desperate for relief, while searching for public facilities in Manhattan
I'm going home........to my city by the Bay

I heard a chorus of wind-breaking by bums, as I arrived in San Francisco
A bush sitting high up on a hill, it called to me
Dropping my pants near the rails, where little cable cars climb halfway to the stars
The morning fog, might chill my private parts.....I don't care

Bodily function relief beckons for me......in San Francisco
Sometimes I let it all go, into the blue and windy sea
While I dodge the excrement left by others in, San Francisco
All the golden stains on the sidewalks, still shine for me

The lyrics and the stark images kind of tug at your heart and make you want to honeymoon there, don’t they?


A cartoon is worth a thousand words

Kavanaugh SCOTUS

Open those borders! Say what?

© 2018 Jim Spence - The ability to think critically is in short supply with millions of citizens in America. If you think about the way Democrats are brazenly arguing for open borders as well as the abolition of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, you just have to scratch your head.
For starters, Democrats pretend that people violating our border laws are not committing crimes. Of course they argue for a ridiculous lie. Entering the U.S. illegally is a crime, and there are many people from other nations who wait patiently to enter the U.S. legally rather than violate our laws.
Then there is the contrived outrage that the separation of children from adults who commit crimes is unusual. This farce seems absurd if you think about it for even a millisecond. In the U.S. there are more than 2.7 million kids who have separated from one or both parents because their parent(s) violated our laws and were sent to prison. Additionally, there are another 765,000 kids separated from their military parents because their parents are serving overseas. These kids do not know if they’ll ever see their parents again.
Again, with this separation farce, we see the effects that the Democrats in the news media can have when they insist on skirting any mention of lawlessness. These media trumpeted stories on 2,000 kids, who are temporarily separated from parents who entered the country illegally is not newsworthy, it is Democrat propaganda.
Illegal immigration lawyers in the U.S. conspire to game our legal system every single day. Millions of illegals travel all the way through Mexico from Central and South America, allegedly to apply for political “asylum.” Mexico already has generous asylum laws for those who are truly politically persecuted. These illegals aren’t looking for “asylum,” they are looking for seemingly deep financial pockets to supply them with goods and services……the sort of goods and services that no Mexican taxpayer or Mexican politician is ever going to approve of......when it comes to footing the bill.
Nobody with an ounce of intellect believes that people are seeking political “asylum” would travel an extra 4,000 miles through Mexico to get to the U.S. border. Almost 100% of those who arrive on our southern border try first to sneak into the country illegally. When they get caught they are not exactly in tune with politics in their own countries let alone here until the lawyers tell them what to say.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of Democrats howls for open borders is the fact that not only is it illegal to enter the U.S. without permission, the fines and penalties for employers who hire illegals are enormous. Illegals in the U.S. who break laws repeatedly to avoid deportation (there are now millions of these illegals here) either don’t work, or they work illegally using fraudulent documents. Millions of illegals who do some work actually demand to be paid in cash to avoid detection and taxation. So, those who are here illegally generally speaking don’t pay taxes. Instead, they form the backbone of the underground economy in the U.S.
Finally, have you visited an emergency room in Dona Ana County recently? If you have, you couldn’t have helped but notice entire families of illegals waiting to obtain free medical services. Of course American taxpayers pay for their doctors, nurses, and medicines. Often there is not a chair available in local emergency rooms because illegals bring the entire family into the waiting areas. Why not? There is not much else to do. By law these poor folks are prohibited from working and by law taxpayers are forced to pay for everything. The places are clean and heated and air-conditioned.
In the end supporting a never-ending flood of people who need services and are prohibited from working in America is bad policy. It drains our public services and burdens working Americans. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama made these claims with passion. This new shift towards insanity won’t be a winning strategy for Democrats. But with a narcissistic media, hypocritical entertainment industry, and na├»ve public education system bashing common sense at every turn, elected Democrat officials are willing to give it another go.


Ignorance, Perversion, and Violence

© 2018 Jim Spence - Blame decades of Democrat-controlled public education for catastrophic national ignorance. Identity politics courses are crowding out real learning. A recent study by the Annenberg Center found that only 26 percent of Americans surveyed were able to name the three branches of our government. Presumably, even fewer can spell out the separation of powers that is the essence of the U.S. Constitution.
In recent years activist Democrats have actually resorted to perverting the court system of the United States to try to cheat the U.S. Constitution. How perverse are the lawsuits being filed by Democrats? They have gotten to the point of attempting to render the powers defined by the U.S. Constitution completely irrelevant. Democrat tactics are mindful of those every totalitarian socialist dictatorship uses. Because their policies fail, socialists are constantly scheming to solidify power over citizens previously protected by freedom-protecting constitutions. Unfortunately, their tactics are working.
Consider how frequently a lone appointed U.S. federal district judge has imposed illegal injunctions that effectively block legitimate executive orders. These days Democrats are, as a matter of routine, asking their buddies in the federal district courts to not only circumnavigate the constitution, but also claim that bench-ordered injunctions apply to all 50 states. Specifically, Democrats have obtained more than twenty “injunctions” by shamelessly partisan Democrat judges in less than eighteen months to block basic executive policies by Donald Trump. Barack Obama once said “Elections have consequences.” Apparently, Democrats believed this statement was true, but……only if Democrats win. When the GOP wins, Democrats don’t hesitate to cheat using any and all means.
It is likely that the Supreme Court will address these crass perversions of the U.S. Constitution by federal district court judges very soon. They will do so simply because it has become clear that the elections that socialist Democrats cannot win at the ballot box are being illegally overturned by Democrat federal judges in Democrat-dominated states.
The process is pretty simple. Federal judges in socialist strongholds like San Francisco and Seattle are now issuing “orders” barring the president from exercising routine constitutional powers. In doing so, they are imposing their political views on executive policies clearly reserved for the executive branch of government. Of course these black robed dictators are not judging laws versus the text of the U.S. Constitution, they are re-writing the separation of powers enshrined in the document. This maybe peaceful so far…….but don't kid yourself......it is not a transfer of power.
What had been respected for more than two hundred and twenty years in America is now being perverted by the losers of elections when those losers are Democrats.
Sadly, it is taking far too long for the Supreme Court to correct these constitutional perversions. Finally last month, the U.S. Supreme Court corrected the federal district judge who ruled that because the court did not like Trump’s travel ban on countries involved in state-sponsored terrorism, it would simply judicially “veto” the policy. In effect the Supreme Court found that the judge could not remove the executive branch from its responsibility for making national security decisions. The Democrats knew they were wrong on this all along. Several Democrat presidents had issued similar executive orders on travel. Still, Democrats shopped for a partisan federal district judge and delayed the Trump presidency for eighteen months on a major national security policy.
The constitutional perversions of Democrats seem to have no boundaries. This creates a dangerous imbalance since we can never expect GOP-appointed judges, men and women who actually uphold their sworn oaths to honor the U.S. Constitution, to go tit for tat with Democrats on ripping the sacred document to shreds. No constitution-respecting judge is ever going to try to nullify the effects of an election by stripping a president of his or her powers authorized in the U.S. Constitution, simply because he or she did not vote for the winner.
Sadly, Democrats rarely if ever feel constrained by the laws of the land, including its fundamental framework. Accordingly, Democrats are increasingly willing to deny people rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. They simply have no problem asking a Democrat “judge” to block a GOP president and appoint himself or herself president to obtain a political objective that could not be secured at the ballot box. This is a uniquely Democrat tactic.  
As their slave-owning political ancestors did, 21st Century Democrats are now encouraging the physical harassment of those they wish to control. In doing so, Democrats are sowing the seeds, just as they did in 1860, for Civil War. It may not come in my lifetime. But it is coming. Keep an eye on the Trump nominee for Supreme Court and watch the naked violence by Democrats that is sure to follow.

From logic to insanity - Watch these videos

© 2018 Jim Spence - For many decades Democrats understood that a flood of illegal immigrants would severely damage the wage structures that pro-union Democrats had fought so hard to build. Presidents Obama and Clinton have both been filmed repeatedly railing against lax border enforcement at Democrat rallies and during State of the Union addresses. You can see the videos here and here
Obama and Clinton are not ancient ex-presidents from a different era. They are the last two Democrat presidents we have had, and they are the only two presidents popular enough to be elected to two terms since FDR. As part of their alleged tough border enforcement policies, Democrats routinely accused Republicans of being in favor of the illegal flood to keep wages low. Like so many other things Democrats said about the GOP, it was a false charge. All one has to do is look at the laws of the land that were passed and enforced with broad GOP support.
Under federal law, it is illegal for any employer to engage with illegal immigrants in the following manner: 1) Hiring illegal immigrants, 2) Recruiting illegal immigrants 3) Referring illegal immigrants for work and receiving a fee. Federal law stretches so far it includes hiring contractors who use illegal immigrants. The consequences are severe. There are both criminal and civil penalties associated with this conduct.
There is so much more. It is also illegal for employers to not verify work authorization. Three days after an employee is hired, employers must correctly complete an I-9 form. Failing to do so will subject employers to criminal and civil punishment.
In addition to criminal and civil fines, hiring illegal immigrants can lead to the loss of business licenses.
First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee. For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee. After three or more offenses an employer can be fined $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. Engaging in “patterns” of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can trigger extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer. “Harboring” illegal immigrants or employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year can lead to ten years of prison time.
The Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act can also come into play. Employers can be sued under the act for hiring illegal immigrants, and can face large civil settlements.
Employers are required to make a good faith effort to make sure that their employees are legally permitted to work in the country. Good faith efforts include checking social security numbers and making sure the numbers are valid.
In short, businesses are required to go through costly processes to make sure they do not hire people who have crossed the border illegally. If they fail to do so, they pay big time.
So, here we are, eighteen months into Donald Trump's first term. Democrats are losing all sense of coherence. Three sitting Democrat senators, one from California (Harris), one from New York (Gillibrand), and one from Massachusetts (Warren) have all called for get his......the abolition of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. This is also the battle cry of soon to be a U.S. House of Representatives member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who hails from a Democrat stronghold in New York.
Let’s think about these Democrat policy proposals. Prompted by millions of Democrats these Senators want to abolish immigration and customs enforcement. None of these Democrats called for the repeal of the actual laws the ICE agency enforces. They just called for the abolition of the agency itself This means they want people to be allowed to cross our borders illegally, but still not be able to work, since any employer who hires them faces very severe penalties.
The next question seems obvious to anyone except most Democrats. How will these people who enter illegally support themselves, if they are not permitted by law, to work?
Those of us who pay federal income taxes already know the answer to this question. It will be those of us who do work and pay taxes (that is only half of all adults in the U.S.) who will pick up the tab.
Still, the propaganda ministries in America (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and most newspapers) never ask this basic common sense question. The reason why the question is never asked is because the propaganda ministry doesn't want Americans to hear the Democrats's insane answers. Instead, and incredibly, 90 percent of those working in our media continue to be dumbfounded that Trump has not only snared the lion's share of the union vote, he has captured the votes of most working taxpayers and most employers who are forced to comply with laws listed above.
In the meantime, those speeches made by Obama and Clinton sound exactly like those made by Trump. These days Democrats are promoting lawlessness, while continuing to insist that taxpayers pay for the care and upkeep for those who come here illegally and are still prohibited from working. It is insane.


Bring on the "War on Women" lectures

© 2018 Jim Spence - Amy Coney Barrett must scare the hell out of Democrats. Barrett, a mother of seven, is being attacked mercilessly by Democrats before Donald Trump has even had the time to make a decision on Anthony Kennedy’s replacement on the Supreme Court. This says plenty about how much Democrats fear opposing her.
Barrett is currently serving as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Judge Barrett is just forty-six years old, but already has quite a legal pedigree. She graduated from Notre Dame’s Law School. She served as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. More notably, Barrett spent a year clerking for legendary Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia from 1998–99. After leaving her position as Scalia’s law clerk she practiced law at Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin in Washington, D.C. Barrett began teaching law at the Notre Dame Law School in 2002.
Here is where the politics comes into the story. Donald Trump nominated Barrett for the U.S. Court of Appeals last year. A hearing on her nomination was finally held after Democrat stall tactics ran out of time in September of 2017.
It would seem that the Democrats understand clearly that another confirmation hearing for Barrett will not play well before a larger and more attentive national audience. In her first confirmation hearing it was the aging U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein from California who had the unmitigated gall to aggressively challenge Barrett due to get this……..Barrett’s Catholic faith. It seems the fervently Pro-Abortion Feinstein spent quite some time last September trying to pin down Barrett on the controversial Roe v. Wade decision. "The dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern,” opined Feinstein. Apparently, both the living and dead dogmas Feinstein clings to every day seemed irrelevant to her as she badgered Barrett remorselessly. It did not play well.
Image result for coney barrett
Judge Amy Coney Barrett
Barrett handled the confirmation proceedings with aplomb when she said: "It is never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge's personal convictions, whether they arise from faith or anywhere else, on the law." Of course, this perfect answer from Barrett did not matter to the Democrats on the committee. Every single Democrat on the judicial committee opposed her nomination. Barrett actually received less than a handful of Democrat votes from the entire Senate body when the Senate confirmed her with a vote of 55–43. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, and curiously Hillary Clinton running mate Tim Kaine of Virginia voted to confirm Barrett. Two Democrats, the devious Claire McKaskill of Missouri and the indicted Bob Menendez of New Jersey, did not bother to vote. Both New Mexico Senators Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich voted against Barrett’s confirmation. Most noteworthy on Barrett’s first confirmation was the vote of Susan Collins, the Pro-Abortion Republican from Maine. Collins voted to confirm Barrett.
Donald Trump would do well to do an instant replay of this very same process when he announces his choice next Monday. No doubt Manchin and Donnelly will be shaking in their boots, as will McKaskill to face another Barrett confirmation vote. And if Susan Collins gets wobbly the second time around, after voting to confirm Barrett less than a year ago, she will have some real explaining to do. As for Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich…..these two can be counted on to vote with their fellow lunatics, against a mother of seven, who has accomplished many great things in her life, before they go back to lecturing all of us on how much the GOP hates women.
It should make for fine theater, if you enjoy Democrats playing the villains in farces.


Killing those who are likely to vote for them in the future

© 2018 Jim Spence -  For some of us, abortion is much more of an abstract philosophical debate, versus a legal debate. I have more than a few friends who have aborted, and I love them. And personally, I can still recall vividly the years when Kristi and I had decided we were “ready” to start a family and it took us all of nearly seven years to produce just two children. We stopped at two children, but later in life we both lamented the fact that we did not have a third child. Now in our early sixties, we wait anxiously for our first grandchild.
Marching on either side of the abortion debate is not in my plans. Having heard all of the arguments I have chosen to lean quietly towards the Pro-Life viewpoint. I rarely discuss this topic. I do respect those who are Pro-Abortion. However if they are anti-death penalty too, it takes a lot of effort to shrug off the glaring inconsistency. I am certainly intimidated somewhat by how ardently Pro-abortion people argue for their viewpoints, especially those who think it is perfectly acceptable to kill a viable baby in the womb.
For millions of people abortion is a lightening rod issue. You see this especially with so-called journalists. The news media methodically supplies an endless stream of stories about women’s freedoms, while offering scarce if any coverage of the stories like that of serial killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia. Gosnell was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during his attempted abortion procedures. No telling how many times that happened. Gosnell was only caught on three killings. Still, ask around…….no Democrat and very few Republicans have ever heard of Dr. Kermit Gosnell.
Kermit Gosnell was defended passionately by ardent feminist Democrats, who somehow have convinced themselves to believe that even when babies are born alive, the mother should have the “right” to snuff out the infant’s life. Apparently Gosnell thought so too. Or perhaps he simply needed to kill the baby dead to justify his fee. Somewhere along the way……“I have a right to do whatever I want with my body” morphed into, “I should be allowed to murder little babies that recently exited my body.” It’s the sort of moral quantum leap you are seeing more and more often with Democrats these days in the “resistance” era.
Image result for kermit gosnell
Convicted serial killer Kermit Gosnell
It is not surprising that people who think throwing Sarah Sanders and her family out of a restaurant was a moral imperative, are very unlikely to re-check their moral compasses, even on mid and late term abortions. This moral paradox is a testament to the fact that Democrats have profound trouble with consistency. Beyond consistency Democrats also have a problem with the big multi-generational political picture. Democrats routinely encourage their constituents to snuff out future Democrats.
Why do I say this? The numbers don’t lie.
Blacks are ten times more likely to vote Democrat than Republican. Hispanics are twice as likely to vote Democrat as Republican. Whites are about 50-50. And yet an African-American woman is almost five times more likely to have an abortion than a white woman, and a Latina woman is more than twice as likely to have an abortion as a white woman, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
There is more.
So insistent on the right to snuff out babies lives are Democrats, that California passed what they dubbed as the “Reproductive FACT Act” in 2015. This law required pro-life (and predominantly Christian) crisis pregnancy centers to prominently display information (in multiple languages) announcing that they do not provide abortions, as well as information about where abortions are available. The law imposed fines of up to $1,000 per violation. The fines embedded in this statute would effectively put Pro-Life clinics out of existence, which of course was the intent of the Democrats who passed this law. Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court finally ruled on National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra and struck down the blatantly unconstitutional law requiring Pro-Life clinics to encourage the snuffing out of unborn babies in California.
It seems ironic that Pro-life GOP voters on a daily basis beg Pro-Abortion Democrats not to snuff out their unborn children. And yet Pro-Abortion Democrats are insistent that snuffing, even late term snuffing is moral, because it is the woman’s body. They insist that we are not talking about infants. And so there it is. Millions of future Democrat’s lives are being terminated at the outset by adult Democrats. It is no wonder Democrats feel the need to illegally import future Democrats from outside U.S. borders to fill the void caused by all of these deaths. When you think about this situation, it is easy to see the macabre nature of thinking behind the Democrat’s open-border position. They favor late term abortions but object to borders. Curious.



© 2018 Jim Spence -  The logic behind the American criminal justice system is not tricky….unless you watch the most recent hysterical drama productions created by the propaganda ministries (most U.S. news producers).

Let’s review the laws that apply to all people entering the U.S. without permission. Doing so is a crime. The first offense is a misdemeanor and the second is a felony. This applies to EVERYONE entering the U.S. Everyone must pass through Customs. American citizens and foreign nationals who have obtained PERMISSION to enter the U.S. often wait in long lines to do so. If they try to do an end run around border law enforcement authorities, it is a crime.

Committing crimes always comes with consequences, when the people committing the crimes get caught.

If anyone (including ALL U.S. citizens) are arrested and charged with a crime, THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR CHILDREN WHEN THEY GO TO JAIL. The kids of the accused are never put in adult jail cells with their parents when their parents are charged with crimes.

Often, in addition to the crime the parents are arrested for, if the children are in their parent's presence when their parents committed a crime, the parents are also charged with "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor." Our system is logical. It punishes people severely for involving their children in criminal behavior.

These fundamental truths apply to ALL persons arrested in the U.S. Of course.......this is not something "new." This has been the reality of our criminal justice system for hundreds of years.

The Democrats would now have us pervert our judicial system simply for their political benefit.

Sadly, and up until recently, there was a real consensus in America that we wanted to place DISINCENTIVES into our legal system for criminal behavior. We do so because we want to reduce the number of crimes committed by parents. This structure assumes good parents are going to be reasonable enough to NOT want to be separated from their kids. Astonishingly, Democrats want to encourage criminal behavior instead of discouraging it.

All intelligent people realize that merely "HAVING KIDS" has never been and should never be a, “Get Out of Jail Free” card. But we are not dealing with intelligent people here. We are dealing with imbeciles.

There is a very simple solution for every person, regardless of citizenship, who does not want to be “separated” from their kids. Don’t break laws that wind up sending you to jail. This includes doing an end-run around U.S. Customs because you did not bother to respect American laws and get permission to enter the U.S. Dodging the border authorities is one of many examples of criminal acts that will get you separated from your kids.....no matter who you are.

Any questions?


Get Trump - Journalist's Favorite Game

© 2018 Jim Spence -  Often on this site I have applauded award winning investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson’s efforts to expose what has happened to journalism. In a recent column she documented what she called, "50 Notable Mistakes and Missteps in Major Media Reporting on Donald Trump," which is the source for these twenty-six incidents below.
In my previous column, I discussed why we don’t watch the “news” at our house anymore. The reason is the complete abandonment of journalistic principles by most media outlets. Notice how often the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Newsweek, NBC News, and the Associated Press (AP) are listed as egregious violators. These incidents listed below are merely the tip of the iceberg:
On October 1, 2016, the New York Times and other pro-Democrat media outlets widely suggested or implied that Trump had not paid income taxes for 18 years. Later, tax return pages leaked to MSNBC showed that Trump actually paid a higher rate than Democrats Bernie Sanders and President Obama. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On October 18, 2016, in a Washington Post piece that was NOT labelled opinion or analysis, Stuart Rothenberg reported that Trump’s path to an electoral college victory was “nonexistent.” Not only was this analysis, it was terrible analysis.
On November 9, 2016, early on election night, the Detroit Free Press called the state of Michigan for Hillary Clinton. Ummmm…..Donald Trump actually won Michigan. Apparently the city is not the only thing bankrupt in Detroit.
January 20, 2017, CNN claimed Nancy Sinatra was “not happy” at her father’s song being used at Trump’s inauguration. Sinatra responded, “That’s not true. I never said that. Why do you lie, CNN?…Actually I’m wishing him the best.” This “get Trump” story was absolutely false
On January 20, 2017, the very day Donald Trump was inaugurated, Zeke Miller of TIME reported that President Trump had removed the bust statue of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. from the Oval Office. The news went viral. This “get Trump” story by pinning the racist tag on him was absolutely false.
January 28, 2017, CNBC’s John Harwood reported the Justice Department “had no input” on Trump’s immigration executive order. After a colleague contradicted Harwood’s report, he amended it to reflect that Justice Department lawyers reportedly had reviewed Trump’s order. Harwood has been a partisan hack his entire career. His “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On February 2, 2017, TMZ reported Trump changed the name of “Black History Month” to “African American History Month,” implying the change was untoward or racist. In fact, Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton had all previously called Black History month “African American History” month. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On June 4, 2017, NBC News reported in a Tweet that Russian President Vladimir Putin told TV host Megan Kelly that he had compromising information about Trump. Actually, Putin said the opposite: that he did not have compromising information on Trump. Funny how that got all messed up and ass-backwards. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
June 6, 2017, CNN’s Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus; and ABC’s Justin Fishel and Jonathan Karl reported that James Comey was going to refute Donald Trump’s claim that Comey told Trump three times he was not under investigation. Instead, Comey did the opposite and confirmed Trump’s claim. Each of these outlets reported just the opposite of the truth. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On June 22, 2017, CNN’s Thomas Frank reported that Congress was investigating a “Russian investment fund with ties to Trump officials.” The report was later retracted. Frank and two other CNN employees resigned in the fallout. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On December 2, 2017, ABC News’ Brian Ross reported that former Trump official Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn was going to testify that candidate Trump had directed him to contact “the Russians.” Even though such contact would not be in of itself a violation of law, the news was treated as an explosive indictment of Trump in the Russia collusion narrative, and the stock market fell on the news. ABC later corrected the report to reflect that Trump had already been elected when he reportedly asked Flynn to contact the Russians about working together to fight ISIS and other issues. Ross was suspended but not fired for such an ethical breach. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
July 6, 2017, Newsweek’s Chris Riotta and others reported that Poland’s First Lady had refused to shake Trump’s hand. Newsweek’s later “update” reflected that the First Lady had shaken Trump’s hand after all, as clearly seen on the full video. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
August 31, 2017, NBC News’ Ken Dilinian and Carol Lee reported that a Trump official’s notes about a meeting with a Russian lawyer included the word “donation,” as if there were discussions about suspicious campaign contributions. NBC later corrected the report to reflect that the word “donation” didn’t appear, but still claimed the word “donor” did. Later, Politico reported that the word “donor” wasn’t in the notes, either. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
September. 5, 2017, CNN’s Chris Cillizza and other news outlets declared Trump “lied” when he stated that Trump Tower had been wiretapped, although there’s no way any reporter independently knew the truth of the matter—only what intel officials claimed. It later turned out there were numerous wiretaps involving Trump Tower, including a meeting of Trump officials with a foreign dignitary. At least two Trump associates who had offices in or frequented Trump Tower were also wiretapped.
On November 6, 2017, CNN edited a video that made it appear although Trump impatiently dumped a box of fish food into the water while feeding fish at Japan’s palace. The New York Daily News, the Guardian and others wrote stories implying Trump was gauche and impetuous. The full video showed that Trump had simply followed the lead of Japan’s Prime Minister. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
November 29, 2017, Newsweek’s Chris Riotta claimed Ivanka Trump “plagiarized” one of her own speeches. In fact, plagiarizing one’s own work is impossible since plagiarism is when a writer steals someone else’s work and passes it off as his own. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
December 5, 2017, Bloomberg’s Steven Arons and the Wall Street Journal’s Jenny Strasburg reported the blockbuster that Special Counsel Robert Mueller had subpoenaed Trump’s bank records. It wasn’t true. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
December 8, 2017, CNN’s Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb reported that Donald Trump Jr. conspired with WikiLeaks in advance of the publication of damaging Democrat party and Clinton campaign emails. Many other publications followed suit. They had the date wrong: WikiLeaks and Trump Junior were in contact after the emails were published. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On March 8, 2018, The New York Times’ Jan Rosen reported on a hypothetical family whose tax bill would rise nearly $4,000 under Trump’s tax plan. It turns out the calculations were off: the couple’s taxes would go actually go down $43; not up $4,000. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On March 13, 2018, The New York Times’ Adam Goldman, NBC’s Noreen O’Donnell and AP’s Deb Riechmann reported that Trump’s pick for CIA Director, Gina Haspel, had waterboarded a particular Islamic extremist terrorist dozens of time at a secret prison; and that she had mocked his suffering. In fact, Haspel wasn’t assigned to the prison until after the detainee left. ProPublica originally reported the incorrect details in Feb. 2017. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On March 15, 2018, AP’s Michael Biesecker, Jake Pearson and Jeff Horwitz reported that a Trump advisory board official had been a Miss America contestant and had killed a black rhino. She actually was a Mrs. America contestant and had shot a nonlethal tranquilizer dart at a white rhino. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On April 1, 2018 AP’s Nicholas Riccardi reported that the Trump administration had ended a program to admit foreign entrepreneurs. It wasn’t true. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
May 3, 2018, NBC’s Tom Winter reported that the government had wiretapped Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen. NBC later corrected the story after three senior U.S. officials said there was no wiretap. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
May 7, 2018, CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger reported that Trump’s personal lawyer, Cohen, paid $1 million in fines related to unauthorized cars in his taxi business, had been barred from managing taxi medallions, had transferred $60 million offshore to avoid paying debts, and is awaiting trial on charges of failing to pay millions in taxes. A later correction stated that none of that was true. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On May 16, 2018, The New York Times’ Julie Hirschfeld Davis, AP, CNN’s Oliver Darcy and others excerpted a Trump comment as if he had referred to immigrants or illegal immigrants generally as “animals.” Most outlets corrected their reports later to note that Trump had specifically referred to members of the murderous criminal gang MS-13. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
On May 28, 2018, The New York Times’ Magazine editor-in-chief Jake Silverstein and CNN’s Hadas Gold shared a story with photos of immigrant children in cages as if they were new photos taken under the Trump administration. The article and photos were actually taken in 2014 under the Obama administration. This “get Trump” story was absolutely false.
We don’t watch the news because it isn’t news. It is cheap, manipulative, propaganda dressed up as "news" to influence elections. Anyone watching the "news" to stay "informed" is becoming increasingly uninformed.


We don't watch the news around here

© 2018 Jim Spence -  A couple of years ago we had relatives in for a visit. I returned from a late afternoon meeting during their visit and after exchanging a few pleasantries, I turned on a ball game. It wasn’t an interesting match-up and I said so. One of our visitors agreed and suggested we turn on the “news.”
I smiled and informed him that, “We don’t watch the news around here.” I quickly allowed as how if he wanted to turn on the news that would be fine with me because I had a few chores to do anyway. He seemed startled that someone in my profession did not “watch” the news. Sensing that he was puzzled, I let him know that I read the Wall Street Journal and also checked on a daily basis several fact-oriented financial news websites. The conversation ended there, the news went on the TV, and I went to my home office to do some work.
Long ago I realized that what most people refer to as the “news programs” are actually well-orchestrated propaganda presentations, specifically designed to promote false narratives and phony themes. Accordingly, I have not missed what so-called “news producers” deem to be lead stories that are spoon fed to the masses. While I continue to remain relatively well-informed……an awareness of the fake mission of most news organizations, has made it much more difficult than ever for media outlets to persuade me to swallow a growing variety of false narratives.
Unfortunately, there is only so much control one can enforce on life. Pop culture slops over into my world despite the insulation I have installed. I still encounter the steady drumbeat of false narratives every day. However, if like so many Americans, I actually bought into the false themes being peddled every single day, I would be inclined to conclude that half of our nation is composed of raging anti-immigrant racists. Reality suggests otherwise.
Recently, I made a trip to the east coast for a family wedding. I had significant layovers in both Dallas on the way there and in San Antonio on the way back. When I travel, I like to read books and “people watch.” I make note of what the young people are wearing and what foods people are buying. I look at the top books for sale in the airport books shops to get a sense of what is selling. I also pay attention to people working in and around the airports, including those providing good service and those who really are not committed to excellence where customer service is concerned.
America truly is a melting pot. If you step back and observe, you will quickly see a fascinating mosaic of American life during travels to heavy population metro areas.
I get no sense of the “two Americas” trumpeted by the news program manipulators. When you get out and about, what you encounter are Asians, Hispanics, blacks, whites, and countless people of mixed races all getting along with each other just fine. People from all sorts of backgrounds are working to serve their customers or travelling as paying customers. Almost 100% of the time, the people providing customer service or travelling are polite and reasonably attentive to the tasks at hand. Again, members of all racial and ethnic groups are represented as both workers and customers.
On my latest trip, which was not unlike any other trip I have made in my entire adult life, there were absolutely no signs of racial tensions among passengers or workers. This pleasant tranquility was also true at the ballparks, restaurants, and hotels I went to.
Here is the point. There is absolutely no question that there are fewer racist nut jobs out there in America than ever before. Like virtually all other business people, at our company, we would never tolerate indications of racism on the part of any employee. We would not hire any knee taking NFL player or Roseanne Barr.
Still, and quite naturally, in a nation where 350 million people live, there have always been, and will always be a few idiots misbehaving. However, the narratives promoted by Democrats who dominate “news,” that racism is still a pervasive problem in America, simply does not gibe with most people's experiences.
What is the motive behind those dedicated to magnifying the deeds of the idiots? The answer is simple. They want more big government socialism. And they will try to sell anyone who will listen on the idea that more socialism is needed to completely rid society of the small sliver of idiots in the general population that embrace racism or any other stupid idea.
The following is a much better narrative. However, it doesn’t seem to catch on despite the fact it is the truth: "There is more upward mobility in America than in any other country in the world. Any Asian, Hispanic, black, white, or mixed race person can accomplish great things in our country. All he or she need to do is develop marketable skills. Opportunities for great things abound for all who do this. And for others with less ability, drive, and ambition, there are still decent jobs to be had serving others."
No, I don’t watch television news. I prefer to be well-informed instead of allowing myself to be programmed like a robot.