Pack animals who pine for mythical "rights"

© 2018 Jim Spence - This column is dedicated to Neil Boortz.
Democrats are constantly promoting their “causes.” All elected officials try to sway public opinion using crafty words to persuade. One of the most favored words of Democrats is the word “feel.” Democrats love to explore their own “feelings” as well as exploit the feelings of others. Often when in favor of some policy that transfers more power to government, a Democrat will usually tell the news media how they “feel” about the policy.
Democrats are also obsessed with identifying with groups...not individuals. They will reference all sorts of groups to make their points. The groups Democrats mention most often are the: Rich, Poor, Hispanics, African Americans, Native Americans, the disadvantaged, the less fortunate, gays, trans genders, and lately....immigrants particularly those who sneaked across the border illegally. In short, Democrats are pack animals. Their identities are entangled in feelings about “group” dynamics and an “us versus them” paradigm.
Tying the concepts of feelings and groups together, Democrats “feel” that their favored “groups” should have a legal “right” to make claims on the property, time, and services of less-favored individuals. Let me explain.
For decades Democrats have asserted the claim that people have the “right” to a job. Let’s consider the idea that everyone has the “right” to a job. Do we really want to create a law, that says all people have a right to force their services on another person? Should everyone have the right to demand that others compensate them for unwanted services? This is profoundly stupid. Jobs can only be created when they are demanded by those who want to pay for services.
Democrats also suggest that all people have the “right” to a place to live. This begs the question, which citizens will be forced to build all of the dwellings for those who want dwellings, but won’t work to pay for those dwellings themselves?
Bernie Sanders and the rest of the socialists (socialist is a synonym for Democrat) now suggest everyone has the “right” to health care. However, no Democrat will ever speak about the obvious problem with actually enshrining the "right" to health care. No citizen can receive health care unless some doctor or other health care practitioner assigns a portion of his or her time and training – his or her life - to someone wanting health care. This practitioner may be willing to do so for fair compensation, but shouldn’t this decision be his or her choice? Why should one citizen have the "right" to the health care practitioner’s time or property? The simple answer is every citizen should have choices, but rights beyond life and liberty are absurd unless you favor the enslavement of others. Thank God the U.S. Constitution was amended so that all Americans have a "right" to NOT BE ENSLAVED. Have we forgotten this?
One of the reasons why we already have severe shortages of health care practitioners is because government has been confiscating health care practitioner's expensive training and efforts. It is no surprise people are deciding to NOT go into health care professions. People don't much care for slavery, even quasi-slavery via government edicts.
Let’s consider Independents and Republicans. We can do so quickly. These folks don’t formulate their views based on how they “feel.” Instead they focus on what they “think.” They think of themselves and everyone else as unique individuals not members of generic groups. And because they "think" instead of "feel," they understand that making sound choices is the key to self-actualization. They resist the idea that they have any right whatsoever to conscript the time or efforts of others. Independents and Republicans (like Abe Lincoln) despised slavery in 1860 and still do today. Democrats hated Lincoln because they supported slavery. Democrats cloak slavery with a different brand name these days.
Finally, we should explore the idea behind the phrase "less fortunate," a real favorite with Democrats. Consider what it means to imply that a person who is homeless, dirty, drunk, and messed up on drugs (and therefore unemployable), is "less fortunate." To imply this with crafty words, you must also imply that a self-actualized person who shows up every day to a job, has a home, and has an opportunity for a decent future, finds himself or herself in that position simply because he or she was "fortunate." It's all just "luck." You know.......good fortune.
Again, this is a crafty word game designed to manipulate "feelings" instead of encourage intelligent thought processes. The term “fortunate” means having derived some form of good from an "unexpected place." Deriving good from hard work is not unexpected, nor is it unexpected to derive misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and making little or no effort to acquire job skills or show up for work.
Take a look around you. Democrats want Americans to embrace an, "us versus them" mentality that comes with group identity. They don’t want Americans to think they are unique individuals, they want Americans to feel like members of victims groups. Democrats continue to demand all sorts of "rights." But their demands are merely a pretext to allow them to use government to dominate the lives of productive citizens. Democrats want to water down the emphasis on the awesome power of good personal decision-making and instead emphasize that bad decision-making is a function of being “less fortunate.”
Don’t fall for this illusion. It will produce nothing but misery. It is a line of B.S. to get your vote and to give Democrats more power. Choosing freedom is a much wiser choice....I THINK.

Share/Bookmark

It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it

© 2018 Jim Spence - Donald Trump’s coarse bluntness is indisputable. Like no other elected official, he has called out the mainstream news media and suggested that press biases against him make the press, "An enemy of the people.” No doubt this is strong stuff even for the Donald. Trump’s followers on cue will often chant “CNN sucks,” during live broadcasts. Of course, CNN does suck, but I digress.
It seems that A.G. Sulzberger, the publisher of The New York Times, has been hoping to get President Donald Trump to back off. Earlier this month, when the two met, Sulzberger reports, “I told the president directly that I thought that his language was not just divisive but increasingly dangerous.” Sulzberger explained that he had accepted Trump’s invitation for the meeting to raise his concerns about the president’s “deeply troubling anti-press rhetoric.”
It seems that it was Trump who tried to convince Sulzberger to back off instead. Apparently, neither man got what he wished for. In recent days the Times publisher has disputed Trump’s version of their discussion, particularly regarding what Sulzberger perceives as threats to journalism. And Trump had this to say about Sulzberger and the Times, “I will not allow our great country to be sold out by anti-Trump haters in the dying newspaper industry,” he wrote. “The failing New York Times and the Amazon Washington Post do nothing but write bad stories even on very positive achievements — and they will never change!” Trump was speaking to a group of veterans in Missouri, last week, when he had this to say: “Stick with us. Don’t believe the crap you see from these people, the fake news.” The crowd immediately booed the press corps. Trump added this: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”
Is the news media the enemy of the people? Fox News and talk radio, which are pro-Trump outlets, were incubated in reaction to a long history of press biases in favor of Democrats. Pro-Democrat press bias had been around for decades before Fox came in and absorbed the market share that was left for the taking.  It would seem battling with Trump does not make you the member of some sort of exclusive club because interestingly, Trump has also had his battles with Fox, though they never truly escalated.

To be sure, Americans want a free press. What is a "free press?" What most people call for from a "free press," is that members of the press stick to proven facts, and keep their opinions clearly marked as such, and strictly on the editorial pages. Higher education used to teach respect for the difference between opinion and fact. These days higher education foists its pro-Democrat opinions on students and claims it is offering facts.
At one time, keeping all opinions on the editorial page was a sacred value that was respected by 98% of the mainstream press. What happened to change that? Major news outlets became crony capitalists. Press barons became fans of FDR and enemies of most businesses decades ago, and have been providing pro-Democrat opinion pieces disguised as "news" reports ever since. Fox News is simply a reaction to that process and tilting the opposite direction.
Trump's calling out of the press should have come long ago from non-partisan camps. That never happened. And timid GOP politicians all seemed to recall the instructions provided to them by historians regarding the press. "Never get into a fight with people who buy their ink by the barrel," was the warning. Trump must have missed that warning.
A couple of observations on those who still buy ink by the barrel. A glance around the industries where the participants buy plenty of ink, suggests ink is a dying medium. Print news is pretty much on life support, and the displacement and disruption of real journalists is widespread. Consider the career of a true professional journalist, Sharyl Attkisson. So alarmed at what has happened in her profession did Attkisson become, she has written two best-sellers documenting the collapse of journalistic ethics. Read this story if you are wondering how atrocious the profession of journalism has become.
Maybe Mr. Sulzberger should take a long look in the mirror and meet with Attkisson instead of Trump. Amazingly, the press turned on Attkisson too.
Writing yet another column explaining why the ever-abrasive Trump is actually doing a much more accurate job of describing what is really happening in America, than those who get paid to allegedly do so, is a full time job these days. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it.

Share/Bookmark

Democrats Protesting Trump's Mental Stability



Share/Bookmark

Give the Democrats credit


© 2018 Jim Spence - Give the Democrats credit. They were running what they thought was a clever little scam at one time, but it was destined to be uncovered when ooops.....Hillary lost to Trump. The scam involved the Democrats at the highest levels of U.S. government power using both law enforcement (FBI) and intelligence gathering agencies (CIA) to sabotage Donald Trump.
Almost the first words out of most of the Obama henchmen's mouths in the wake of the Clinton loss came in the form of leaks to friends in the press….."Psst……Trump colluded with the Russians, pass the word." When asked for details they waived their "journalist" buddies off. "The FBI and CIA are investigating, so we can say no more.” Perfect scam right? Well, maybe not.
The FBI and CIA "are investigating," can have a fairly long shelf life of silence. But eventually, Congressional subpoenas cannot be delayed. Imagine the panic that set in when the Democrats lost the election. All of the co-conspirators in the FBI knew their tracks needed to be covered. They have been lying and leaking lies to their pals in the press ever since.
Their tracks were uncovered over the weekend when the FBI finally and grudgingly released heavily redacted documents that still showed unequivocally, that Jim Comey’s FBI used bogus lies supplied by and paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, to obtain FISA court search warrants, so Democrats could "legally" spy on the Trump campaign. These facts should be sending people to jail. Instead, most of the criminals involved are still on the Jeff Sessions’ payroll. Why Sessions has not cleaned house at the FBI remains a mystery.
One of the reasons why a huge portion of the American public despises the press, is because they know that Barack Obama and all of his cohorts including avowed communist John Brennan, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and FBI Director James Comey used a Clinton campaign lie sheet to fool judges into giving them secret warrants to undermine a presidential campaign. They used the machinery of the United States government to cheat just like they cheated Bernie Sanders with super-delegates. The Russian investigation was the “insurance policy” Peter Strzok mentioned in his text messages to his co-adultery tryst Lisa Page. Strzok was at the time. get this........the lead investigator of the Clinton email scandal that white-washed her crimes so he could work on the Russian collusion scam and damage Trump. This is Stalin-like stuff.
Speaking of real Russian collusion, consider this direct quote by Barack Obama to the president of Russia when he thought all of the microphones were off, “This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility."
Unlike Watergate, where Nixon also tried to cover up crimes, the Obama government machine, hoping to pave the way for a clean hand off to a Clinton government machine, has been trying to cover up crimes the bosses all had an active hand in. And the cover up came after an election loss, not a landslide win. If there had been a win, this scandal would never have seen the light of day. And very much unlike Watergate, where a very inquisitive Washington Post was steadfastly investigating Nixon, today’s Washington Post and the rest of the Democrat-dominated press, has clammed up in the face of astonishing revelations. Journalism truly is dead.
Imagine the kind of press Abraham Lincoln was getting in the Charleston, South Carolina newspapers in 1861. That is the kind of media coverage that Donald Trump has gotten since he became the presumptive nominee for president. The reason why the southern press hated Lincoln is the same reason why today's Democrat-dominated press hates Trump. Democrats still want to enslave people.


Share/Bookmark

Future Democrat Killers


© 2018 Jim Spence - Polls have been discredited rather astoundingly in the last few years. Pollsters call people to get their views. Ummmm……..people don’t have land lines much anymore and very few people I know will answer a call from an unrecognized number on their mobiles. Still, pollsters, with many biases that lead to inaccurate readings are still using techniques from the pre-digital era. They have to make money, so they sell their services to politicians and media outlets who report their findings as if they are fact.
One of my most respected media outlets, the Wall Street Journal, reported that 71% of Americans oppose the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, the dubious Supreme Court ruling that found a mythical “Constitutional Right” to abort. It’s not in there. Believe me I’ve looked for it.
Now, for all you pro-abortion people, I also don’t find it dubious at all that states would have the “legal authority” to make at least early term abortion legal. This authority was reserved for the states in the constitution.
I actually see the reality of the 71% number in favor of abortion in my own interactions. I run into rabidly pro-abortion thinkers often. Many are women who think it is absurd that men tell them what to do with their “bodies.” Debates with these types are rarely fruitful endeavors that might produce deep thought. Hence, the emergence of a genocidal monsters like Kermit Gosnell (google him) who killed viable babies, who were born due to his botched late-term abortion procedures. Apparently killing a viable infant can be tricky business.
Many feminists defend abortionists like Gosnell who kill live babies as if unwilling birth-giving mothers “still have the right” to snuff out the baby that is lying on the table and breathing. 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 during the ummmm……..“resistance” era.
I interact with many Republicans (I am an independent) who are also very much pro-abortion. One GOP woman confided in me that she was morally opposed to abortion, but legally in favor of it. She explained that her views are such because abortion is essentially not stoppable and also a "Democrat killer." Why would she say that, I wondered? She explained.
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 on voting. 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. This data comes from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. You do the math. Future Democrats are far more likely to be killed by adult Democrats than future Republicans.
As I wrote in an earlier column, it seems ironic that Pro-life GOP voters will, on a daily basis, beg Pro-Abortion Democrats not to snuff out their unborn children. And yet Pro-Abortion Democrats are insistent that snuffing them out, even the late term snuffing out of viable babies is moral. They insist that we are not talking about infants. Now that is self-delusion and you don’t need a constitution or a court system to figure out.

Share/Bookmark

Lectures on houses that are "too big"

© 2018 Jim Spence - Barack Obama is bucking for a unique title. Seemingly, he has a desire to be known as the Jimmy Swaggart of ex-presidents.
Earlier this month Obama was in South Africa pontificating on the excesses of the world's wealthy. He spent considerable time whining about "wealth inequality." This was also a favorite topic of Obama's fellow socialist and buddy the late-Hugo Chavez, who if he were alive today, would be witnessing the inevitable starvation his equality obsession foisted on millions of Venezuelans. Admittedly his countrymen are starving quite "equally" than they were prospering, when those nasty capitalists had a say in how Venezuela was run.
Interestingly, Obama did manage to concede that somehow while working as a “government servant,” he earned the more than $20 million. He earned that tidy sum between 2005 and 2016. This income stream does seem vastly different than the income of the average American.
Still, at least in his rhetoric to his devoted followers, it would seem that Mr. Obama continues to be deeply concerned with “income inequality.” He lectured his audience that those who have more money should share their earnings with the less fortunate.
“There’s only so much you can eat. There’s only so big a house you can have. There’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough,” Obama proclaimed self-righteously.
It never occurred to those in attendance, or those reporting on his ironic exhortations, that he was living quite lavishly after having traveled tens of thousands of miles from home while working people paid the costs. And how about those Obama homes?
The Obamas have two homes, including their second home. Their second home has eight-bedrooms and nine-and-a-half bathrooms. Apparently the Obamas have to have all those extra bathrooms because most of the people they hang out with are full of feces.
There is even more interesting news. Their mansion is reportedly being expanded. It seems the modesty and equality-minded Obamas are having an in-ground swimming pool installed and are also adding another terrace.
The Obama's 8 bedroom second home
Somehow the media and the audience could not grasp the dripping hypocrisy when Obama said, “We’re going to have to worry about economics if we want to get democracy back on track. We’re going to have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income, review of our workweek, how we retrain our young people, how we make everybody an entrepreneur at some level. History shows that societies which tolerate vast differences in wealth feed resentments and reduce solidarity and actually grow more slowly. And when economic power is concentrated in the hands of the few, history also shows that political power is sure to follow and that dynamic eats away at democracy.”
Oh really? All of this...."Do as I say not as I do" drivel is mindful of Al Gore’s carbon footprint. Spare us the lectures pal until you downsize and give away your fortune. Your pension should do nicely if what you say also applies to you.

Share/Bookmark

A peaceful transfer of power?


© 2018 Jim Spence - People all around the world have marveled at our American republic. Over the generations, the international observer has admired the U.S. for many reasons. Perhaps the first reason is the incredible productivity of our citizens, which saved the world from totalitarian Germany, Japan, and Italy seventy-three yeas ago. The second reason why America is admired is because of the way we have peacefully transferred power. Traditionally, with one exception, members of opposing parties have accepted election results as both parties have been voted IN and OUT of office after spirited political campaigns.
You can characterize the post 2016 Democrats and their overwhelming head counts in the mainstream news media as many things, but being willing to peacefully accept the transfer of power after 2016 is not one of them. Talks of impeachment by ELECTED officials and thousands in the news media before Trump’s inauguration were common place. Talks of secession by states have garnered headlines. In recent weeks, many high profile Democrats have urged their "followers" to physically confront the half of the nation that did not vote for their candidate. Hundreds if not thousands of people who show support for the 2016 election winner are being assaulted on the streets and in stores and restaurants by those who voted for the loser.
As the Democrats face off in primaries for the mid-term elections the litmus test in many districts and states is whether or not the Democratic candidate supports presidential “impeachment.” No impeachment "charge" is mentioned in this charade. Other than the fact that these Democrats don’t like Trump policies including his policy of enforcing immigration laws, seems satisfactory enough for them for demanding his removal. Absurdly, many Democrats are actually demanding that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) be abolished as a substitute for winning elections and changing immigration laws.
Other Democrats call for the re-writing of the U.S. Constitution "now." Curiously these types seem oblivious that the term we civilized people use for the act of modifying our governing framework is called, "passing a constitutional amendment." Americans have actually passed many amendments to the U.S. Constitution. History teaches us (not public schools) that this amendment flexibility actually helped the nation abolish slavery......over the objections of Democrats.
The last time there were tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who decided there would be no peaceful transfer of power was 1861. Again it was the Democrats who could not win at the ballot box, nor  could they stand seeing their candidate lose. One hundred and fifty-seven years ago Abraham Lincoln became the punching bag of roughly half the nation, and the rest is history.
For sure, Donald Trump is no Abe Lincoln. However, those who have no respect for the rule of law in 2018 are not much different if at all different, from those who incited violence because they hated Lincoln in 1861.
As an observer and student of history, it is hard to see how things can end well when one side of America refuses to accept the peaceful transfer of power that is one of the defining features of America.
Ironically, just nine years ago, both sides in our country agreed that elections had consequences. In the wake of 2016's election results, it is sad to see the losers behave like third world malcontents, where the absence of peaceful transfers of power have destroyed freedom and living standards for all. It seems that millions and millions of Democrats are hell bent and determined to go there.

Share/Bookmark

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?

Share/Bookmark

A cartoon is worth a thousand words

Kavanaugh SCOTUS
Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

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.
Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark

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.

Share/Bookmark