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.