Stay out of my uterus! - Exploring what this phrase actually means

© 2019 Jim Spence -  “Stay out of my uterus!”
It is a catchy phrase that actually seems quite libertarian on the surface. Recently, I heard this phrase used. Foolishly, I decided to explore what was meant by the declaration, “Stay out of my uterus.”
The young lady who uttered the phrase offered a seemingly simple explanation. Her explanation began with a very coherent defense of birth control rights. With no interest in re-litigating Roe vs. Wade, I decided to get right to the heart of the matter and see how far she might go in defending limitless abortion rights.
"When should abortion not be allowed?" I asked. "When is it too late?"
At first, she tossed out the third trimester as a logical boundary. I nodded and repeated her suggestion that there should be no abortions allowed after the six months of pregnancy. If she had agreed with the limit she set, it could have ended the discussion. It didn't.
Instead, there was a sudden serious hesitation. It seemed like some sort of a trap had been set for her.
She backtracked and allowed that under certain circumstances, it was acceptable to abort a baby after six months.
When she had finally finished hemming and hawing, I again tried to get to the crux of the matter. I asked her if she had ever heard of Kermit Gosnell. She hadn’t. It was not surprising she had not heard of him. The media has many filters in place to screen out anything that hurts their narrative preference on all abortions. The Kermit Gosnell case was censored away from the typical spoon-fed public view, by the national mainstream media, simply because the facts of the case were so sobering. The acts of Gosnell could make any reasonable person engage in a serious reconsideration of their demand that there be zero limitations on abortion.
Since she had never heard of him, I explained that Gosnell was a Philadelphia abortionist who was currently in prison for life without parole for the murder of infants who were actually born alive. At first, she recoiled in horror at the idea that anyone would kill babies. She agreed that if Gosnell broke the law, he deserved to go to prison.
I reminded her that in most late-term abortions, the babies’ skulls are crushed with forceps by the abortionists. Horrifically, the testimony in the Gosnell trial revealed that when his baby targets were not killed in the womb or in the birth canal via skull crushing, Gosnell simply snuffed out their lives with surgical scissors. To kill them once and for all, he slashed their spinal cords. Yes, Gosnell did these things while the babies were alive on the abortion table. When I explained these facts to her, she definitely agreed Gosnell belonged in jail.
Then came the tricky part. I advised her that there were several Democrat-dominated states including New York, that had recently passed laws that essentially made what Gosnell did a few years ago, legal today.
“How do you feel about those people who passed those laws?” I asked.
She quickly became uncomfortable. She knew she had to choose between legal and moral, so after some hesitation she surmised the following: “If the voters elected those people legally, and they passed those laws legally, then.......it is legal because it is the law,” she said.
Astonished, I asked her how she felt about the morality of the law, not the legality.
She realized at this point that those Democrats who would go so far in defending her uterus rights as to support infanticide, were now going to be required to be branded as "immoral." She simply couldn’t make herself do it.
Intellectually she was trapped, so she struck out at me, and inferred that I was making her out to be insensitive and evil.
In a feeble attempt to find common ground, I reminded her of her original suggestion regarding a third trimester limit, and asked her to simply say if not after the second trimester, to say at what point that she thought that it was simply too late for an abortion procedure, because of the life and health of the baby.
She just stared at me.
I tried to help her with suggestions of various stages of the baby's development. Would it be fair enough to ban these procedures after six months? Her answer was, "Nope." How about after seven months? "Nope," she repeated. How about after eight months?.....Nope.
She had had enough. In an effort to shut me up, she said that even at the end of the ninth month, it was OK to abort a baby.
And with that, the seemingly libertarian concept of saying, “Stay out of my uterus,” had morphed into the idea that all abortions should be legal, even after the delivery. Essentially, if the baby had survived all efforts to kill it, in states where the Democrats passed laws saying it was legal to kill it, abortionists could kill it if the mother had demanded it be killed. If a baby made it to the abortion table and out of the womb as they sometimes do, just kill it then and there. But call it a "legal abortion," instead of an illegal murder.
Shocked that this discussion would end with murder being advocated, I crassly suggested that people who thought like her should be rounded up and shot with AK-47’s.
Oddly, it was at this point, that my feigned advocacy of murder, simply to make the point, finally struck home. Completely missing the irony of such an absurd statement, especially within the context of our discussion of baby killing, she was deeply offended by the AK-47 crack, and she stomped off. She was clearly furious at my feigned views on murder, while still content with her actual views on murder.
As I contemplated this exchange, I was reminded of my reading of the words of William Wilberforce. Back in England in 1791, after he submitted mountains of factual testimony regarding the human horrors of the slave trade, and then argued for an end to legalized slavery. He said:
“You may choose to look the other way," he said, "But you can never say again that you did not know.”
The vast majority of self-described progressive thinkers truly understand the fundamental nature of infanticide. Incredibly, when confronted with alarming facts and truths, they find it more comforting to simply look the other way on the horrors of infanticide. The term “Stay out of my uterus” seems to actually mean......"If Democrats pass laws making it legal to deliberately kill babies in the birth canal or on the abortion table, it is justifiable." Even uterine sympathy goes straight out the window. Half of all babies killed in late-term and post-birth abortions are female. The "stay out of my uterus" argument can be reduced even further. Only "the demands" of the larger persons on the late-term abortion table are are to be honored, despite the fact that 1/2 those being killed are merely smaller human beings. They may have a uterus, but they have no rights.
Most of this is just as I suspected. It never had anything to do with protecting the uterus.
Share/Bookmark

Limited Government - Abandon at your own risk

© 2019 Jim Spence - Limited government means different things to different people. Mostly it has been a philosophical pillar that provided the foundation of the battle cry of Republicans. We are learning that GOP battle cries are all about “talk,” and talk is cheap. With each passing year the Republicans talk more and do less. The GOP now pretends it is for limited government. It is a con.
Americans need to take a long look around. The opposite of enjoying the freedoms associated with limited government, is what we have right now. In 2019, the federal, state, county, and even Las Cruces city government have stretched so far in their insatiable needs for control, these entities in one way or another are involved in every aspect of our lives. And because of the enormous amount of power and control all forms of government have, national elections have become multi-billion-dollar contests to determine who will preside over virtually every decision every American makes about every facet of their lives.
Having completely lost sight of the incredible freedoms that come with limited government, Americans are now seeing that there is no such thing as an election season anymore. Again, because there is so much money, power, and control at stake, elections and the re-litigating of elections is NON-STOP.
Recall the election of George W. Bush in 2000 to his first term. On election night Democrat Al Gore actually called Bush to congratulate him on his victory. The call was placed before Gore’s scheming lawyers stepped in and convinced Gore to retract his concession and sue over his devastating loss in Florida. The Democrat’s perversion regarding accepting the election result did not stop there. Before they were done, Gore’s lawyers tried their best to have overseas military ballots invalidated in the Florida recount. Why would they do something so atrocious? If there is one thing all Democrat lawyers have demonstrated about themselves, it is that they know military votes are most surely not going to their candidates. The military trains people to fight for freedom, not destroy it.
Politics has always been a filthy business. Accordingly, nobody in their right mind would choose to endure the character assassination that comes to anyone who announces themselves as candidates for national office. In fact, even statewide office candidates draw the kinds of nakedly false accusations that used to be relegated to the hospitals for the mentally ill.
Take a step back and consider the improbable election of Donald Trump. So horrific was the Democrat’s candidate that hopelessly flawed candidate Trump, actually won. And yet even prior to Trump’s inauguration, the Democrats decided to launch a non-stop effort to undo what they could not get done at the ballot box. Amazingly, a still free but haplessly partisan press has been complicit in efforts to smear Trump non-stop. Impeachment has been the stated goal since November of 2016. And ever since, the Democrats have been desperately searching for a charge that will stick. The latest Ukrainian accusation is but another SHOT the Democrats have fired.
The pattern of character assassination has become utterly disgusting. It becomes the new rule of engagement in political war. Democrats don’t seem to understand that every president will be subject to the types of attacks they think are legitimate. This will continue to drive down the quality of candidates we get to choose from.
The patterns are in place and will continue to get worse for as long as Americans vote to surrender their freedoms and give more power to national, state, county, and city governments. Those of us who have observed the patterns of behavior in Democrats are hardly surprised by all of this. What has become increasingly surprising is the behavior of high-ranking GOP officials, who seem to have suspended every principle regarding limited government they ever claimed to hold dear.
What a pity that there is nobody left to keep totalitarianism at bay.
Share/Bookmark

"The Trump Lesson"


© 2019 Jim Spence - Michael Swickard sent an email to me a few days ago asking what “The Trump Lesson” was.
It is a great question. My conclusions were somewhat paradoxical. It is important to take a few looks around. There are many seemingly conservative men and women who seem to buckle and surrender their principles once they get to Washington. It is almost like a law of physics the way it happens. Note there are a large number of GOP House and Senate members who are not going to stand for re-election in 2020. It is my belief that many are walking away simply because they cannot bear to endorse or be endorsed by Trump. And this is true despite the sound pro-business, pro-growth, pro-minority employment, policies Trump has deployed.
Still there are many GOP House members and Senators who simply cannot get behind good policies, because running a successful personal political franchise operation is all about style points and superficial appearances.
Excluding certain circles, Trump is clearly a bad messenger.......with a great message. However, I stand by my opinion that anyone could have beaten Hillary in 2016. She was that bad.
Most certainly those who try to be civil, but stick to intellectually honest pro-growth views, have little or no influence on the American political scene anymore. A big part of the decline of influence by those who understand how jobs are created, where wealth comes from and how limited government is in its ability to solve problems, is the horrible way that journalism has died and been replaced by naked advocacy. 
Journalism students graduate and go to work at places where facts no longer matter. Most journalists have already been indoctrinated to nakedly support far-left big government socialism before they ever cash their first paycheck.
The newspapers and television stations are all dying slowly. And because nobody working in journalism makes much money except a handful of stars at the "top," the only reason most people work in journalism these days, is because they like having the power to publish a steady drumbeat of anti-business “narratives” that attempt to influence voters to vote socialist. Naturally, these types find articulate conservatives to be very dangerous, which explains why you almost never hear from pro-growth types in the news media.
Consider the treatment of top-notch reporter Sharyl Attkinson by CBS (and the Obama government). Her story serves as a model for just how far journalism has fallen and how low media outlets like CBS have sunk.
And of course, it is very sad that the symptom of all of these sham actions by faux journalists is Trump. Unlike Reagan, Trump is a very poor messenger for sound public policies. Personally, I also find Trump to be detestable, mainly because there is not a drop of loyalty in Trump’s psyche. He praises and appoints people one day, and bad mouths them the next. He reminds me of basketball coach Bob Knight. He demands respect but offers none. Still, he governs well enough for me.
Trump’s efforts to improve public policy are by FAR the best since Reagan. And Trump has done more for the working poor than any president in recent memory. Wages are soaring thanks to his policies. The Bushes were part of the problem from a policy standpoint. Trump is at least trying to clean up the cesspool around him.
Because it is NOT easy to overcome the powerful media filter, sound and logical ideas seem to get completely lost in a sea of political dialogue dysfunction. Most people have tuned out politics and it is pretty easy to understand why.
In the end, I continue to think the evolution of American politics continues to be driven by toxic journalism, which has essentially declined into the abyss of advocacy. The rising popularity of Elizabeth Warren is a case in point. If this woman is elected, and she enacts 20% of the economic policies she endorses, she will destroy America’s vibrant economy for at least a generation. Sadly, very few Americans understand this anymore.

Share/Bookmark

Mythological "Renewables"


© 2019 Jim Spence - So many times, in this space, we speak of the Democrat’s beliefs/assertions that simply are false. Let’s consider the insistence by all those Democratic Party presidential candidates, save but a couple who are polling at zero percent, that the U.S. will simply STOP using oil and gas and power everything with wind and solar farms (combined with a massive increase in the use of batteries) IF they are elected.
These assertions are preposterous for so many reasons. Let’s set aside the crippling costs of such a sweeping re-tooling of the economy, which would be both massive and ongoing. These proposals would drive living standards around the world right through the floor.
What is still never discussed by Democrats or most Republicans, is the simple fact that abandoning oil and gas to use wind and solar, would require an ASTRONOMICAL expansion in mining activities. Not only would the volume of mining activities be required to explode, these activities themselves would produce unimaginable quantities of waste.
Let’s think about this. The idea of “renewable energy” is actually a pipe dream (no pun intended). What Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders never tell anyone, perhaps because it never comes up at their Kool-Aid parties, is that wind and solar machines, and the batteries required to store what energy these machines produce, come from………NON-RENEWABLE materials themselves. Duh!
Accordingly, this preposterous energy revolution which is being pitched by almost all U.S. Democrats, will result in the need for the disposal of astonishing amounts of plastic waste. Even with government subsidized wind and solar equipment, we can already expect more and more of this equipment to decommissioned in the years ahead. This alone will generate countless tons of waste. For every electric-car battery manufactured, mining companies will have to process and transport more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials. We are talking about TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS of tons of the earth being disturbed. And this will have to occur somewhere on the planet. This is of course, the same planet these lunatic greenies claim they want to save.
Of course, there are alternate paths. We can walk everywhere. We can start raising horses again and try to breed the flatulence propensity out of the species. Or, how about this? We can simply go on disturbing about ten percent of the total tonnage needed for one car battery and get the same number of vehicle-miles/units of energy.
Relatively tiny gas-fired turbines produce energy efficiently. On the other hand, a wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of non-recyclable plastic to make. And of course wind turbines kill endangered bird species when the blades hit them as they fly too close to these monster-sized units.
Solar power equipment requires even more concrete, more steel, and more glass than wind generators.

There are many metals required for this mythological green conversion Democrats pitch, including silver, iridium, cobalt, and lithium.

The points here are simple.
  1. The science behind man-caused global warming theories is very dubious, which is why Democrats changed their label to climate change.
  2. Even if you swallow the man-caused global warming junk science they offer, the electricity that comes from wind or solar machines is going to require far more raw materials, waste, landfills, and environmental damage as fossil fuels.

The bottom line is just as a Dutch government-sponsored study concluded after considering all the facts. Exponential growth in renewable energy production capacity around the world is simply not possible with present-day technologies and annual metal production.
Sometimes it is hard to tell what actually motivates Democratic Party candidates to call for such dumb policies. But it is not hard to see that the general population has been sufficiently anesthetized to swallow just about any bone-headed scheme they trot out.

Share/Bookmark

El Paso and Dayton every week


© 2019 Jim Spence - The power of the media should never be underestimated. When news broke of the shootings in El Paso Saturday, my wife read some of the breaking details from the app on her phone. We both shook our heads and grieved for the families involved. Later that day we heard the news that our sister-in-law’s own sister was in the check out line at the Wal-Mart when shots rang out. Fortunately for our family, she left the store safely. And yes, she is Hispanic.
After some time passed, I went back to my sports programming. I record the golf tournaments on the weekends and watch them on a delayed basis. When I turned on the recording of the golf tournament, the CBS local affiliate in El Paso preempted the golf to broadcast news of the horrific events.
Of course, the national news media was all over the shooting incident with wall-to-wall coverage too. Not long after these sorts of tragedies take place, the politicians are brought on the air to try to score political points. As soon as it became clear that El Paso police were dealing with a sick racist scum ball with a vendetta against Hispanics, the acrimony against the GOP was heightened. This was followed by calls for more power to go into the hands of government. Of course, the solution to every problem for Democrats is to give more power to the state and of course, to end GOP influence on government policies.
This all seems so sad. The horrific nature of these killings is just awful, and it seems almost sanctimonious to wade in. But the hypocrisy of what the news media tends to emphasize these days needs to be scrutinized. The loss of life in El Paso was horrific Saturday. And nothing that anyone does or says is going hasten the healing of the families affected.
However, we need make our national news media outlets stay true to their supposed concern about the loss of life. El Paso is a pretty large city, but it has been a pretty safe city. Things don’t happen in El Paso like this very often. In fact, I can never remember anything like this happening in the city that is just forty miles south of our home.
Let’s consider how the media handles the greatest unreported scandal in U.S. history. In Chicago over this very same weekend, as was the nightmare in El Paso, more than 50 people were shot with six people killed. The number of shooting victims in Chicago in 2019 is close to 1,700 and the dead body count is close to 400. And the vast majority of the victims are black. In my place of birth, Baltimore, Maryland the city has a per capital murder rate that makes Chicago’s seem tame. So far in Baltimore in 2019, the murder count is 199. Again, the vast majority of these victims are black as are the murderers.
Let us all hope and pray that nothing like this ever happens in El Paso again. But sadly, there seems to be no hope for Chicago, Baltimore, or dozens of other American cities where local gun crime is a way of life. Where are the news reports? Where are the documentaries? Where are the TV specials?
The cynical side of me thinks that what amounts to a never-ending El Paso and Dayton never gets any coverage because these cities have been firmly under the political control of Democrats for decades. Also, Chicago and Baltimore already have the toughest gun control laws in the nation.
What is the media interested in if it is not interested in reporting on murders in these cities that dwarf what happened this weekend? Is it simply interested in helping Democrats acquire more power for the state and federal governments? Is it simply in damaging the GOP every time there is a mass shooting instead of fifty individual shootings?
Know this. Chicago and Baltimore are and have been KILLING ZONES every single weekend for decades, not just once in a lifetime. Where is the mounting concern? Instead it seems diminished. Where are the calls for solutions? Where is the accountability? Does anyone care about all of these shooting victims when there is no way Democrats can play the race card and get a gotcha on the other side?
Shooting victims in Baltimore and Chicago are human beings. They all have families. Many are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. These THOUSANDS of victims should not be ignored because they are of no economic value to the news media or the politicians who think giving more power to the state is the solution to every problem.
Here’s a news flash THAT WON'T BE REPORTED…..next weekend there will be the equivalent of another El Paso and Dayton in Chicago and Baltimore.
Does anyone care? Not the media. It seems obvious that with journalists and politicians, in areas where strict gun laws are on the books, astonishing levels of black-on-black crime is not newsworthy.

Share/Bookmark

Doing real soul searching after a heart-breaking tragedy


© 2019 Jim Spence - The blame game began before most of the victims in El Paso had even been transferred to the trauma units at local hospitals. Donald Trump was blaming video games and a desensitized culture of violence in America. And Democrats tried to make the point that the president has inflamed the violent tendencies of those who agree with him by using harsh words and images about the reasons for controlling borders.
It seems to be a good time for reflection. Everyone should read the pair of quotes below made by the president and see if we can finally all agree that these are pretty darned inflammatory, anti-Hispanic, statements that have to be considered likely to trigger violent behaviors by unstable people:

“All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public services they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

Those attempting to mount a defense of the points the president seemed to be trying to make with these statements, is the fact that polls suggest most people agree with him.
Let's take a step back. It is true that most Americans are intolerant towards those types who take cuts in long lines. In fact, when this happens on highways, and is completely unrelated to illegal immigration, it can lead to violence via road rage.
Then there is of course, the tens of thousands of people who actually enter this country illegally, and once they elude the Border Patrol, they commit crimes. There have been many well publicized instances of these circumstances that can also inflame attitudes. And of course, there is no question illegal immigration imposes incredible stresses on taxpayers through unchecked demand for government services. This too can create resentment and anger.
Still, the violence in El Paso over the weekend has brought tremendous scrutiny to the inflammatory things the president has said about illegal immigrants. Is he at least partially to blame for saying these things about illegal immigrants?
There is one final piece to this puzzle to consider, as the politicians in America on both sides of the aisle look to pin the blame on the other side.
The president’s remarks are direct quotes. The first statement was made by Bill Clinton on January 24, 1995. Ten years later the second statement was made by Barack Obama on December 15, 2005.
It would seem that one man’s statement on border policy is another man’s racist, mass murder-inciting rant. It also seems clear that being guilty of racism is tied to the question of "who" is trying to take advantage of a heart-breaking tragedy so he or she can score some political points.
Joe Biden was certainly trying to score points on the tragedies over the weekend when he expressed agony for the people in "Houston and Michigan." Way to go Joe.

Share/Bookmark

The Civil War Sequence


© 2019 Jim Spence - It’s no fun to be a devoted American these days. Most of the components required for a civil war are falling into place within our country. It has been 159 years since the first American Civil War. And since 2016, the telltale signs of a second civil war are everywhere. All you need to do to recognize the signs. Take a long glance at the behaviors of Democrats and those of the violent radicals they embrace.
The Democratic Party mindset that was prevalent in 1860, is once again prevalent today. Elected Democrat’s guiding principle today is “nullification.” Consider the pathetic state of California, which is 21st Century America’s equivalent of South Carolina in 1860. In South Carolina elected Democrats decided, because the majority of its residents wanted to continue to expand the institution of slavery and hated everything Abe Lincoln stood for, that it would simply deny the American electorate the validity of its decision to elect Lincoln.
California is taking the same exact action in 2019. Because California wants to expand the institution of the welfare state, it wants to deny the validity of Trump’s election. In fact, in some ways, California is more anti-American union in 2019, than South Carolina was in 1860.
Consider the most recent decision by California’s elected Democrats to deny Donald Trump a position on the GOP primary ballot in California’s 2020 primary election. This would be the equivalent of keeping Lincoln off the ballot in 1860.
All of this is ominous. California will get a say in 2020, just as it did in 2016. And Trump has about as much chance of winning California’s massive electoral college vote count in 2020 as Lincoln did of winning South Carolina’s 160 years ago.
Astonishingly, Democrats in California arrogantly believe that how other states vote should not matter. Accordingly, they have decided to employ Stalin-like tactics to pre-emptively deny the possibility of any election results they don’t agree with. Sorry folks, this is not democracy, this is dictatorship.
So…..how might a second U.S. Civil War play out? Let’s build a very plausible scenario. Here would be the sequence:

The electorate in America, despite all wishes of Democrats, just might deny them the White House again in 2020, just as it did in 2016 and 159 years ago in 1860.

1) Should Trump win the White House for a second term, it is reasonable to expect that the Democrats in California, who are so used to having super majorities, they are trying to ban Trump from the state ballot before the election, will take actions after they lose again, that are the equivalent of nullification and secession.
2) Specifically, it is reasonable to expect the elected Democrats in Sacramento, the heirs of Jefferson Davis, to take actions that mimic those of South Carolina in 1860. They will effectively refuse to accept the consequences of any election that does not produce their desired result.
3) When California openly defies the fundamental laws and principles that bind together American states, the nation can expect Trump to do what any American President since Lincoln would do in response. He will send federal troops to occupy the state capitol in Sacramento and force the rogue California legislature and governor to conduct themselves like American adults instead of spoiled children.
4) Should federal troops be called in to California to enforce the results of a federal election all Americans participated in, we should all expect the violent radicals who routinely destroy property around the country to behave as they have since Trump was duly elected in 2016, and descend on Sacramento. They will don their black masks, flack jackets, clubs, chains, and torches, and commit acts of violence. No doubt they will get subsidies from people like George Soros, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and others who will try to destabilize America. This has already been happening.
5) The national guard and other military units will do their duty and meet lawless violence with force.

Will the sequence described above escalate into a second Civil War? It will depend on whether elected Democrats, the news media, and public education in places like California decide to revert back to embracing the rule of law. Most high-profile Democrats have been tacitly embracing violence and other forms of lawlessness instead. Will they overtly embrace violence and secession in the face of yet another bitter election defeat?
Of course, there is an alternate scenario for all of this. Democrats, the news media, the entertainment industry, and public education may well convince Americans to vote to expand the welfare state and win the White House in the 2020 election. If they do so, they will put themselves in a position to legally destroy the fundamental strengths of America.
Either way, all one needs to do is read excerpts of these so-called Democratic debates to realize that America needs a cleansing. Perhaps a civil war will have to be the way we get cleansed. Or perhaps Americans will simply choose to jump off a cliff and get dirtier.

Share/Bookmark

Recalling the attempt to lynch Clarence Thomas

© 2019 Jim Spence - Dennis Prager is one of America’s great thinkers. He has been attempting to introduce sanity to the greater Los Angeles area for twenty years on his radio show. As hard as he has tried to help L.A. think clearly, the results are pretty mixed.
Prager wrote a column earlier this week that was quite profound. I’ll borrow from his piece and expand on it since my personal experiences confirm what he wrote.
Let’s try some thought experiments to get to the root of this horrible problem Democrats go on and on about. To hear Democratic Party candidates and the media speak, there is one horrific problem in America that goes beyond all other problems. The claims are simple. Because of widespread racism in America, oppression and subjugation of millions of minority members goes on and on. Yes, due to the awesome power of white people everywhere in America, who are almost all racists, minorities in America simply don’t have a prayer.
The problem is specific of course. According to Democrats, all white conservatives are racists. Amazingly, this pretty much encompasses about half the electorate. So, basically half of America is evil. In fact, according to Democrats, Mr. Trump was elected by people who are not only irredeemable, they are also deplorable, as all racists are.
Let’s see now. Let’s think about these damned racists. Racists are horrible people because they have a pathological dislike for people based simply on race. But most specifically, racists dislike and distrust all black people. This is not just one of the Democrat’s arguments; it is their fundamental claim about America.
Prager addresses this pretty amazing claim in a profound way. He says we should ask every white conservative who is undoubtedly according to Democrats, a racist, the following three questions:

1) Do you have more in common with, and are you personally more comfortable in the company of, a white leftist or a black conservative?

2) Would you rather have nine white leftists or nine black conservatives on the U.S. Supreme Court?

3) Would you rather your child marry a black Christian conservative or a white non-Christian liberal?

Prager says he has posed these three questions many times, and Prager confirmed what I already knew. Every white conservative he has ever posed these questions to, has responded as follows:
1) They are MORE comfortable in the company of a black conservative. 2) They would prefer nine black conservatives on the Supreme Court, and 3) they would prefer that their child marry a black conservative than a white leftist.
When I read the Prager column, I was reminded of a fascinating conversation I had with a black leftist attorney from Houston, who was in town playing golf with me and one of my buddies. The topic was Clarence Thomas. This black leftist attorney told me that he thought Clarence Thomas was a terrible judge who made terrible rulings. My response was that I was sorry he had opposed the Thomas nomination, because I liked the Thomas judicial record. This man quickly corrected me. He told me he wanted Thomas to be confirmed on the Supreme Court.
“But you just said he was a lousy judge,” I said with a confused tone. He smiled and allowed as how the fact that Thomas was black was more important than his qualifications. I was stunned by this statement and I never forgot that exchange. It helped clarify for me where the most radical views on skin color were in America. They resided within the delusional minds of American leftists.
Let’s move on to Democrats and their claim of the horrible problem with whites oppressing minorities. It is best to consider the case of Rachel Dolzeal and Elizabeth Warren. Neither of these women are actually a member of any racial minority group. And yet both of these women are high profile examples of people who found it much more useful to be the member of a minority group than to remain “privileged white persons.” Apparently, these women saw so much advantage in claiming to be a minority member, they lied, and pretended to be one.
Going back to the Prager column, it is not surprising that Prager said he has never run into a white conservative who: 1) would not prefer the company of a black conservative to a white leftist, 2) who would not prefer nine black conservative justices like Clarence Thomas to nine white leftists like Stephen Breyer, and 3) who would not prefer his or her child marry a black Christian conservative than a non-Christian white leftist.
Anyone who interacts with conservatives regularly already knows all of these things. This not to say there are no racists. But racists are marginal members of our society not commonplace. And they wield almost no influence whatsoever.
But of course, Democrats understand this is not about truth, it is about power. And because Democrats control public education, the news media, and the entertainment industry, they must attempt to keep brainwashing all Americans with myths. They are compelled to ignore all of the facts about racism. Otherwise Democrats would not be able to toss the racist label around whenever it suits their whims.
What is fascinating is watching white leftists like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi get accused of being racists by others within their own party. Even Barack Obama accused Bill and Hillary Clinton of being racists in the 2008 primaries. Of course the same Obama endorsed and campaigned for the same despicable racist in 2016 when it suited his whims.
What a crock.
Share/Bookmark

Democrats have changed

© 2019 Jim Spence - Let’s all consider how much things have changed in the Democratic Party over the last few years. All of the Democrat's presidential candidates, save for a couple, are now advocating for the abolition of private health insurance. Apparently, they want the federal government to do for private health care what it has done for VA hospitals.
Almost all the Democrats are calling for the elimination of U.S. borders. They go so far as to brand the U.S. Border Patrol and its support agencies as terrorists. Long gone are the lessons taught to us by the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission that reported to the American people about the hazards of lax border enforcement policies.
It goes on and on. Virtually every Democrat who is running for president supports the doubling of income tax rates including an onerous 70% top income-tax rate. Most are calling for annual taxes on wealth. It seems we just have too much wealth around here.
Democrats want a college education to be “free.” One can only suppose taxpayers will foot the bill for every Tom, Dick, and Mary who wants to go to college, regardless of academic achievement in high school, which is already sorely lacking all over the country.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has now joined the amazing chorus of Democrats calling for taxpayers to shell out reparations for slavery. Nobody knows how the government might devise a system to reward families whose great great great great grandparents died fighting to end slavery nearly 160 years ago. There were hundreds of thousands of them. The main thing is to make sure black Americans feel like "victims."
Most Democrats, who have huge carbon footprints out on the campaign trail, want to destroy the fossil fuel industry and the nation’s economy along with it. This idea is to fight the mythical beast known as climate change. The cost could run $100 trillion for Democrats to get themselves in charge of the energy industry.
Some U.S. companies have gone so far as to declare themselves Democrats. Think about Nike's management, which has decided under advice from the brilliant Colin Kaepernick, that the Betsy Ross American flag should be banned because it is a symbol of slavery and oppression.
The pro-abortion wing of the Democratic Party has decided that killing babies in the birth canal is a woman’s healthcare “choice” instead of infanticide. What is next? Will Democrats demand that mass murderer Kermit Gosnell be released from prison and declared a folk hero? Should we build a monument to a baby killer and put it on the mall in Washington D.C.?
Whatever happened to the Democrats I knew growing up? They were adamant supporters of free speech and all other forms of civil liberties. Right under our noses Democrats of my youth have been replaced by 21st century Govbots who think the solution to every problem is to give more power to the state. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao must be wondering why they were born way too early, with all of the opportunities that are presenting themselves to totalitarians in America in 2019. These guys killed millions who disagreed with them, but they had to do so without an assist from today's U.S. Democrats.
Share/Bookmark

Let's Blow a Hundred Trillion Dollars

© 2019 Jim Spence - We need a New Green Deal according to every Democrat running for president. Most versions of their “deal,” demand that U.S. citizens spend about 100 trillion dollars over the next ten years to combat what Democrats rather whimsically refer to as, "catastrophic global warming." Of course global warming has been re-branded more vaguely as “climate change” by most Democrats since the body of temperature data stopped cooperating with their, "We are all going to fry," predictions more than fifteen years ago.
The abject stupidity of the Democrat's New Green Deal proposal is tough to over-state. However, the fact that this idea is absurdly stupid has not stopped Democrats from pretending it isn’t.
In the meantime, the reality of Mother Nature is imposing itself. As of 8:00 am yesterday, the Denver, Colorado metro area had officially received the most snow measured this late in the season, since May 29, 1975. Denver also tied the record low temperature for May 21st when the official thermometer for the city dropped to 31 degrees Tuesday morning. The high temperature on Tuesday was, for the second day in a row, between 30 and 35 degrees below normal. Additionally, the record “coldest maximum temperature” for May 21st was established 128 years ago in 1891. That record low high temperature was broken yesterday when temperatures never got out of the 30's.
Picture taken in Parker, Colorado on May 21, 2019
Of course, one need not bother presenting long term secular data points like those listed above to a Democrat. Their argument will go something like this: “Don’t talk to me about temperatures when we are discussing climate change. Temperatures are just normal fluctuations in weather.”
The point here is simple. Anytime the “weather” is hot somewhere, this is solid "proof" of global warming/climate change in the Democrat's own fantasy world. However, anytime cold temperature records that have lasted 128 years are shattered, this new low temperature data point is sure to be characterized as "irrelevant noise" that should be ignored.
After awhile, the relentless fact-dodging techniques employed by Democrats and their partisan pals in the media seem clear. Only data that supports the Democrat's anti-fossil fuel rants are relevant. Or put another way, only some facts matter. When weighing evidence on global warming, facts are to be cited selectively. Sorry folks, this is NOT science, this is anti-fossil fuel politics pure and simple.
Having planted my vegetable garden in pots earlier this month, the current temperature data has been exceedingly relevant this week. In fact, so relevant was the temperature data we had to move all of our vegetable plants into the garage with a dolly on Monday to keep them from freezing to death.
As uncomfortable as it might seem, recognizing the scientific realities of plants freezing to death is inescapable. And the prospect of plants freezing to death raises an interesting question. Since Democrats have decided to stick with their contrived climate crisis narrative, a narrative that attempts to convince Americans that everything is way too hot, one must wonder if these same Democrats left their own garden plants to freeze to death in Colorado yesterday, while they were calling for Americans to spend $100 trillion over the next 10 years to cool things off even more.
Share/Bookmark