A "Scholarly Report"

© 2019 Jim Spence -  House Democrats released a 55-page report over the weekend. And it is with this “report” that they back tracked from every assertion they made prior to the impeachment "hearings."
Review videos of Democrats a few weeks ago. They claimed they had caught Trump red-handed committing egregious crimes. And those crimes he committed, they said, would result in him being justifiably removed from office.
Democrats called what they released over the weekend, “A scholarly report.”  Perhaps it was an admission of how pathetic public education has become in America that what they released was er, um, "scholarly."
Let's check out what the "scholars" decided. It is the Democrat's astonishing conclusion, that after a parade of witnesses who actually witnessed nothing that now Democrats don't actually have to prove the commission of a crime to remove their political enemy from the White House. In fact, Democrat "scholars" now think they don't have to prove a law, ANY LAW, was even violated, to impeach a president.
Democrats think it now suffices if they simply accuse Trump of "abusing" his powers. And of course Democrats alone should be able to define the word "abuse" in this "situation."
Well hell then, explain what exactly it was that Trump was doing that was so abusive, but not illegal, that makes it clear he should be removed?
The answer is Trump was encouraging the Ukrainians to pursue evidence, very serious evidence of influence peddling and corruption by Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden. Oddly, Joe Biden himself openly bragged that he had personally squashed an investigation into the board of Burisma, the largest natural gas company in Ukraine.
What was that investigation going to look into, that made both Trump and Biden so keenly interested?
It was going to check on why Hunter Biden, a man with a notorious reputation for seedy conduct, and near zero life accomplishments, was being paid $83,000 per month to serve on the board of Burisma, without Hunter Biden having any experience whatsoever in the oil and gas business.
Were Trump's motives pure? It is doubtful. However, it is apparent from Joe Biden's bragging that a purity of motive is not really part of the job description of elected officials in Washington. And since the Ukrainian president insists that U.S. aid was NOT tied to the Trump request, the definition of abuse needs to be "refined."
Many questions arise from this asinine impeachment charade that Democrats will NEVER ask of themselves, let alone anyone else.
What if Hunter Biden’s name was Hunter Jones? Would he have been able to milk an oil and gas company benefiting from hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid from the Obama-Biden regime? Consider that Hunter Biden's haul was a million dollars a year. But then again, the million dollars a year was in exchange for Hunter Biden's sage wisdom.
Second, if Democrats NOW don’t even have to prove a crime, or even a single violation of the law, to remove a duly-elected president, why did they even bother saying they had caught Trump red-handed, with the help of a "whistle blower," committing crimes.
Why did Democrats even bother producing made-for-TV hearings that they totally controlled?
In the end, the Democrat's efforts to remove Trump just seem so inefficient. Why didn't Democrats simply send in troops identified as being loyal to the Democrats, and haul Donald and Melania Trump the hell out of the White House?
And finally, why didn't Democrats hold a press conference with their propaganda ministry buddies right after the physical removal of Trump? They could demand those damned Trumps change Barron’s name? This makes perfect sense, since the Democrats don’t like Trump's youngest son's name any more than they like his mom and dad.
Share/Bookmark

Wall to wall hypocrisy

© 2019 Jim Spence -  Pope Francis is doing for the papal cloak of infallibility, what Colin Kaepernick did for fan relations in the NFL. Recently, the current pontiff compared President Donald Trump to King Herod. In case you don’t remember, Herod was the murderous king who ordered the killing of babies all over Bethlehem as a way of making sure baby Jesus was eliminated. Apparently, Francis does not like border detentions, though he never took issue with America's identical border policies.......while a fellow socialist was in the White House.
Related image
Wall on border at Vatican City
It would seem Francis is but another guy who hates Trump. Most public figures who hate Trump can't control their use of hyperbole and exaggerations when drawing comparisons.
Francis has gone much farther than comparing border detentions to King Herod's murders. If that comparison wasn’t ridiculous enough, Francis also seems to have taken exception to walls on borders all over the world.
Francis said, "The phenomenon of migration is compounded by war, hunger and a ‘defensive mindset,' which makes us in a state of fear believe that you can defend yourself only by strengthening borders. At the same time, there is exploitation."
Related image
Wall on border at Vatican City
There seems to be but a single conspicuous exception to the Pope's outrage over walls and borders. Take a look at walls on the border that don’t seem to bother Francis one bit. The pictures were taken on the "border" of Vatican City.
It is the same old problem. Francis wants those listening to him to, "Do as he says not as he does." It is his most favored approach to judging others while not allowing any migrants inside his safe spot.
Pope Francis has finally found a way to embarrass the Catholic Church more than any pontiffs since Pius Xi and Pius XII. Both collaborated with Nazis. No doubt Francis is the worst pope "elected" head of the Roman Catholic Church since Pius Xi and XII expressed their support for Hitler and their political opposition to some of Hitler's most hated enemies.
Now that is "infallible."
Share/Bookmark

We need constitutional protections more than ever

© 2019 Jim Spence -  Many politicians are constantly trying to convince us their opponents are immoral. It has been a strategy that always worked. Negative advertising is fundamental to the filthy game of politics. In many cases the accusations made by elected officials will contain a tiny grain of truth and outrageous exaggerations/distortions.
Politicians, by the nature of the job description, must be deceptive to be successful. Everyone should know this. However, millions of Americans don’t know it or forget it way too easily. And too many of these types describe themselves as, “professional journalists.”
Considering the insane borrowing and horrific waste in Washington D.C. that has gone on for decades, most Americans are disgusted with both Republicans and Democrats. And of course, most Americans stopped trusting the news media a long time ago. The reason for the lack of trust in journalism is that Americans know inherently that they need PROTECTION from Democrats and Republicans and they are not getting any help from the press. The press no longer takes advantage of the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to hold all politicians accountable. Instead journalists routinely take sides in the endless chicanery they should be above. Considering that either one party or the other, and sometimes both parties, wield such tremendous power over our everyday lives, this is an insufferable situation.
Modern day clashes between the parties offer the PERFECT illustration of why we have always needed the United States Constitution, and why it was so profoundly wise that Americans were and continue to be able to amend the original document.
Checks on power in the Constitution represent boundaries for BOTH political parties. The very structure of the document wisely assumed that flawed politicians and political parties would always try to UNFAIRLY dominate people in their everyday lives to gain political leverage.
There is a disturbing trend regarding American attitudes towards the U.S. Constitution in recent decades. It is ignorance of the wisdom of the document's structure. This has become possible because American public education has become political. In public education’s efforts to impose its preferred political leanings on students, it has turned its back on the protections contained in the document. Instead of placing a high value on the protections the document provides, public education now focuses on the character flaws of the founding fathers to score political points. This is short-sighted and destructive to freedom.
Did the founding fathers have character flaws? Of course, they did. They were human beings. In some ways, they were far more flawed than we are today, However, in other ways maybe not as much so. The point being that flawed human beings are a constant in history, which is why we need implicit protections. The founding fathers were not saints. They violated the brilliant principles contained in the original document. Fortunately, amendments corrected their own violations.
The list of wrongs Americans will no longer tolerate is long. Through amendments women are assured the right to vote and slavery ended. Of course slavery ended after more than a half a million citizens died in the Civil War.
The point here is simple. The founders should have never be portrayed as saints. What should be celebrated regarding the founders is the brilliantly unique structure in the governing document they wrote, edited, debated, signed, and kept open for future amendments. It did away with the potential for an unaccountable monarch taking charge of America. It keeps all three branches of government restricted from trying to wield the same powers as monarchs.
There is a lesson to be learned here that is not well-learned in America. The exquisite beauty of the U.S. Constitution, given the transgressions of both Democrats and Republicans, is the protections we have from parties. Both parties use government to do things in the name of “the greater good” or “the general welfare” that benefit neither of those things.
As we move into the second decade of the 21st Century it is my hope that all Americans including activist Democrats, activist Republicans, and passive Independents make sure they understand how critical it is to continue to be legally protected from the basic character flaws of ANYONE attaining public office.
Perhaps the best modern example of why we need protection from ANY and ALL governments is contained in the recent film, Richard Jewell. WATCH THIS FILM. It is one of the greatest civics lessons regarding the need for protections that has been taught in America in a century. It is worth noting that by 1996, much of the press was already hopelessly corrupt.
Thank God for our Constitution, it is one of the few things we have going for us in these days of sham impeachment proceedings that are going nowhere, and a sham press corps that has lost even a pretension of integrity. It should take more than a few thousand absurd tweets from the White House, to convince educated people to look the other way on constitutional protections.
Share/Bookmark

Contributions welcome, competition deplorable




© 2019 Jim Spence -  There’s an interesting aspect of the digital era that politicians in both parties find annoying. It is the fact that they are on the record almost all of the time. They find that they have been recorded saying and doing things they’d just as soon have people forget. It is much more difficult to alter and massage what a politician claims is one of their deepest “heartfelt” convictions when they are captured on film saying or doing just the opposite.
Consider the late John McCain’s ardent claims to Arizona voters before his last re-election, that Obamacare had to be repealed. Consider he cast the deciding vote to PREVENT Obamacare from being repealed. There was scant coverage of this contradiction by propaganda ministries.
The lionization of the Trump-hating McCain is just the tip of the iceberg. There is overwhelming evidence that there is a fundamental truth regarding most media outlets as 2019 winds down. They have become nothing more than propaganda ministries for the Democrats. As a matter of routine outlets like CNN, NBC, CBS, NPR, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post, refuse to hold their political favorites accountable for what they have said and done.
The propaganda ministries are pleased that few remember they ran stories suggesting McCain was an unabashed racist in 2008. And instead of pointing out what a shameless liar McCain was about Obamacare, they lionized him after his death.
Image result for Clintons and Trumps
How does the news media get away with being so deceptive and deceitful? It is because they have determined that MOST of the country is NOT paying attention. Propaganda ministries have changed. Back in the days when Dan Rather was fired by CBS, he was canned in disgrace because CBS executives were under the mistaken impression that most people were paying close attention. CBS was embarrassed that Rather was CAUGHT running Democrat propaganda prior to an election. These days outlets like CBS as well as CNN, NBC, NPR, MSNBC, ABC, The New York Times, and the Washington Post actually fire reporters who defiantly refuse to engage in producing Democratic Party propaganda. Award-winning reporter Sharyl Attkisson is a perfect example of the perversion at propaganda ministries like CBS.
Propaganda ministries not only peddle stories that are false, like those conjured up by Dan Rather and Co. against George Bush, they also omit the truth. Consider the true political history of Donald Trump. Trump is a man who has been since his election in 2016, subject to the most incredible barrage of absurd propaganda in the history of American politics.
The photographs tell a different story about Donald Trump and many others like him. It is a basic truth that the Democrats do not want exposed. Like so many business people who are not bashful about trying to buy influence, Donald Trump openly contributed to the campaign coffers of many Democrats for DECADES.
Of course, Trump wasn’t so much a supporter of the Democrat’s ridiculous anti-business rhetorical schtick. That crap was for consumption by the masses. Trump traded his cash for the chance to be able to get a favor handled by the all-powerful Democrat government officials if and when he needed it.
Image result for Clintons and Trumps
If you read between the lines of the avalanche of propaganda in 2019, an even clearer picture emerges. Donald Trump’s money and feigned friendship was ALWAYS welcomed by the Democrats as the pictures in this column suggest. The Clintons and others used Trump’s cash to propel their ambitions. Of course the Clintons knew full well they might need to make um…..“concessions” to his interests in direct contradiction to their campaign promises someday as payback. But being comfortable with receiving money as an elitist elected official is one thing. Getting whipped by a former big Democrat donor in the 2016 election was another. Democrats had never minded selling some of their influence to Trump…and frankly to thousands of others. What they really hate these days is that somehow the voters gave Trump control of what Democrats used to control and be able sell. This is the deadly sin that has caused the entire ruling elite and their foot soldiers in the propaganda ministries to go berserk.
Share/Bookmark

The battle for billions and the battle for TRILLIONS


© 2019 Jim Spence -  Like all readers, I interact with other citizens. We all understand there are processes going on in America and around the world that are puzzling. “What the hell is going on?” is one question that is asked regularly. “How did we get here?” is another.
Readers of this column understand that they get “opinion” here. It’s understood. Facts are gathered, events are interpreted, and conclusions are reached.
Willie Sutton is a good case study for the answer to the questions posed above. Once asked why he robbed banks, Sutton reportedly said, “Because that is where the money is.”
Let’s do a very simple exercise here and follow the money.
Consider what virtually all the Democratic Party candidates for president said during their “debate” earlier this week. Virtually every single Dem bashed the idea that America has “billionaires.” There is no need for any billionaires was the recurring theme. It echoes what Mr. Obama once said when he was criticizing wealthy people. Long before Barack and Michelle signed lucrative book and movie deals and bought a mansion on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama said piously, “When is enough, enough?” It was as if Obama felt there should be some measuring rod determined by him, with a maximum, wherein as soon as a person reached that limit, the state should confiscate the rest.
Most Democrat candidates are millionaires. Joe Biden’s family seems to still be milking a portion of his political franchise in the Ukraine.
Following the money makes it easy to understand what continues to unfold in America every day. What we are seeing is a filthy battle for the biggest prize. The news media for the most part does not report on this filthy battle. Instead, they are participants in it. While the CEO’s and management teams at tens of thousands of companies compete for billions of dollars in revenue in their niches, in exchange for goods and services, American politicians battle for control of the TRILLIONS of dollars flowing into the federal government coffers EVERY year.
Americans need to understand that the United States government is now the most powerful entity in the world. It has been made all powerful by TRILLIONS of dollars in annual cash flow and the ability to borrow even more money to spend, at near zero interest rates. This is real power and it is bolstered by legions of powerful bureaucratic battalion leaders managing their government niche fiefdoms, They enjoy huge salaries, are supported by amazing benefits, lax work schedules, and they face ZERO accountability.
So, while millions of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck, and a few multi-millionaires and billionaires live more comfortably, those in control of the federal government are in a position to not only live comfortably, they are also in a position to encourage the confiscation of property that belongs to others to keep the TRILLIONS in cash flow and control flowing.
There are great contradictions and ironies in this filthy fight we see play out in Washington every day. Many politicians, who have created amazingly powerful political franchises and made themselves millionaires, pretend that somehow their “political pathways” are virtuous, while they stigmatize anyone working in the private sector who serves their customer’s needs and prospers. In their speeches, people who work hard to satisfy millions of customers are branded as exploitative and greedy.
Politicians do all these things because they are involved in a filthy fight. In this fight, they are willing to lie, cheat, mislead, and manipulate in all ways possible to gain or maintain control of TRILLIONS of dollars flowing into the federal government.
With everything involved in controlling TRILLIONS of dollars, they control most aspects of the everyday lives of every American.
Democrats claim the dirty things they do aren't dirty, they  claim they are virtuous. But of course their personal contradictions and ironies betray their words for anyone paying a lick of attention. These are people, who are brazen in their efforts to seize control TRILLIONS, who bash people who have actually EARNED billions serving customers.
Democrats should not be believed anytime they open their mouths, nor should ALL of the media entities that prop them up be believed either. Just follow the money to understand what is happening. Politician try to get you to hate those with millions or billions so they can get their hands on TRILLIONS. It is a shell game.
What about the GOP? Know this about Republicans. They enjoy controlling TRILLIONS of dollars too. And once they have controlled TRILLIONS of dollars for a little while, Republicans forget where the money actually comes from, just like Democrats. Taxpayer money and taxpayer borrowing power is an opiate.

Share/Bookmark

So much corruption, so little time

© 2019 Jim Spence -  Taxpayers continue to wonder after several generations of throwing more and more money at public schools, why academic results keep getting worse. One of the greatest tragedies in America is how firmly entrenched Democrat bureaucrats have destroyed inner-city schools. They do so through schemes of corruption and resulting neglect. Corruption and neglect are the defining characteristics of inner-city public schools all over the nation. This explains why in Washington D.C., Democrats who defend corrupt public schools (in exchange for a steady flow of campaign contributions), send their own children to PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
It is an intellectual cesspool out there. Virtually every Democrat running for president is part of the protection racket that allows public schools to continue to fail, while voting to take even more resources from taxpayers to piss away on a failed system.
Part of the Democrat's strategy to protect failing public schools, is to constantly bash the one segment of public schools that is not failing. That would be charter schools. Charter schools compete. They offer parents and students choices. However, it is important to realize that Democrats are only “pro-choice” on one thing, and that is abortion. On every other question, Democrats are in favor of the government making the choices instead of the people funding the scheme. Naturally, the choice Democrats don’t want students and their parents to have, is a choice to attend schools that are more shielded from corruption and graft.
Elizabeth Warren and many other Democrats have actually had the audacity lately to say that charter schools draw resources away from public schools. Never has a more dishonest statement been made about public education. The truth is, in many places, charter schools actually save inner-city children from the union-dominated public schools, simply by creating an environment conducive to learning.
Many taxpayers, both Democrats and Republicans, still think throwing MORE money at public education is the solution, despite three generations of poor results doing just that.
Why doesn’t throwing more money a public education work? It is because the machinery that runs public education simply uses the fresh funds for self-enrichment. The toxic stories of nepotism and corruption coming out of public school systems all over the nation are rampant. Some schemes are sophisticated forms of graft and theft, and some are not.
An example of theft that is not exactly sophisticated comes to us from the Baltimore school system. Former Baltimore Mayor Catherine Pugh, who is not one of the sharpest tools in the shed, is now facing federal charges related to a corruption scheme involving the public schools there. The scheme put hundreds of thousands of dollars intended for public schools into her pocket.
How did Pugh do it? It seems that Pugh self-published a children’s book series. Self-publish means she either couldn’t or wouldn’t go through a legitimate book publisher, one that actually felt her books could be marketable.
But low and behold, it turns out that Mayor Pugh's books were extremely marketable to her buddies in the purchasing department at the Baltimore schools. According to a grand jury indictment made public this morning, Pugh has been charged for her role in the scheme. There is no telling how many kick- backs were paid to others to get her hands on those funds.
The Pugh indictment is the tip of an iceberg. These theft schemes are everywhere. But unless the perpetrators are as blatant with their corruption as Pugh, they will continue to not be investigated, let alone punished.
Know this, with Democrats in power, taxpayers will continue to funnel more and more dollars to public education. And as day follows night, entrenched powers, who contribute mightily to Democrat campaign coffers, will continue to steal those dollars, instead of creating and maintaining good learning environments for children. And of course Democratic presidential candidates and others will continue to castigate anyone and anything that sheds light on this despicable situation.
Share/Bookmark

A taboo subject

© 2019 Jim Spence -  The best estimate for a human fetus being "viable" is about 24 weeks, or just under six months. This makes discussing the topic of "when" abortion should be legal, a very tricky endeavor, even for pro-choice people.
The term, "abortion" actually means many things. It can mean the act of terminating a pregnancy in the first month or so. Or, it can mean that a doctor performs a late-term abortion by killing a baby that could easily survive outside the womb.
Everyone is familiar with the Supreme Court ruling known as Roe vs. Wade, wherein the court found the right to an abortion in the U.S. Constitution. What people are not familiar with is the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Here is the essence of the law:
The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 (Pub.L. 108–105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531,[1] PBA Ban) is a United States law prohibiting a form of late termination of pregnancy called "partial-birth abortion," referred to in medical literature as intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, any physician "who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."  Partial birth abortion is an act in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531). 
Wow is it chilling that someone would actually do that, or what?
The statute also includes two findings of Congress: (1) A moral, medical, and ethical consensus exists that the practice of performing a partial-birth abortion ... is a gruesome and inhumane procedure that is never medically necessary and should be prohibited.
(2) Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives. 
Shouldn't be much argument about this should there be? Think again.
Amazingly, abortionists have found ways to “get around” this law. How do they do it? Many abortionists will induce what is known as “fetal demise,” before beginning late-term abortions. This means they will take a draconian step to make sure the baby is already DEAD…..before it exits the mother’s body. This is accomplished with the use of a solution of potassium chloride or digoxin, which is injected directly into the baby’s heart. Barbarically, abortionists will often use ultrasound technology to guide their needles......so they don’t miss the baby’s heart. There is one very vicious goal. If they can simply kill the baby, before it exits the mother’s body, they are not in violation of the above law. And amazingly this "get around" is still not in great dispute in many “political circles.”
However, what has been proposed by many Democrats is to provide blanket legal cover when abortionists fail to inject a sufficient amount of potassium chloride into the baby’s heart to kill it. Radical feminist Democrats, who find the phrase, “Stay out of my uterus,” popular, are now arguing that any mother should still be able to demand that the doctor kill their baby after it is born alive. In several states, Democrats have passed laws that say doctors are allowed to kill them legally.
Where did all of this come from? It is clearly a reaction to the conviction of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, whose actions were well-documented at his murder trial, and in the book and film: Gosnell: The Untold Story of America's Most Prolific Serial Killer.
It seems that Kermit Gosnell was not particularly adept at crushing the babies skulls in the uterus. He was also rather inaccurate with the needles he used to try to kill fully developed babies inside the mother's body. Accordingly, Gosnell simply snipped the spinal cords of new born babies as they lay living and breathing on the operating table. He did this once he realized his needles missed the mark and they were born alive.
A serious question remains as Democrats take actions in additional states to pass more laws making the actions of butchers like Gosnell legal. Is support for these laws simply a political view, sort of like wanting more government or wanting less government? Or is the support to allow these things to be legal, simply naked advocacy for giving women and abortionists the right to murder unwanted newborn babies?
Would love the feedback on this taboo subject. I do find it interesting that the discussing of this subject is seen as taboo, and looking the other way on the killing of newborn babies is expedient.
Share/Bookmark

The working people and the underdogs

© 2019 Jim Spence -  Recently the Wall Street Journal ran a piece suggesting Democrat voters didn’t care about the ideology of their presidential candidate, they just wanted a nominee who could win.
That could be a problem for America, given the “collective” ideologies of the field.
Sometimes it is important to take some time to wade through all the bovine excrement pumped out by the “news media” regarding the motives of the candidates. Let’s understand who provides Democrats with incentives to shape policies.
For my entire adult life, Democrats have positioned themselves as the party of the working people and the underdogs. It is clear this how they want to be perceived. However, perception is one thing, and reality is often another. What about the reality of Democratic fundraising?
The 2016 campaign of Hillary Clinton was a case in point for why people should never believe that the Democrats associate with and favor the underdogs and working-class people. Just look at how Hillary Clinton amassed so much money with her fundraising. You need look no farther than the most powerful segments of American society to understand who buttered her bread.
The numbers tell a story that suggests the news media is chock full of bald-faced liars and partisan advocates. They spent an inordinate amount of time and resources disguising who gave her money while painting Trump as beholden to the rich and famous.
According to Kevin Williamson at National Review, Banker’s campaign contributions to Hillary Clinton simply dwarfed those given to Trump in 2016. The margin was a factor of 7 to 1 favoring Clinton. Consider the elite stock brokerage firms, companies representing the uber-wealthy such as Goldman Sachs. Clinton’s campaign receipts from Goldman Sachs outnumbered Trump’s campaign coffer receipts by a factor of 70 to 1.
How about Ivy league school affiliated donors? The Ivy League is clearly the home of the firmly entrenched ruling elite in America. For Harvard affiliates, Hillary Clinton’s advantage in fundraising over Donald Trump was a whopping 200 to 1.
Let’s turn to Silicon Valley in California where high-tech billionaires live and where they run enormously powerful and profitable companies. Money coming from Facebook executives and employees favored Clinton by a ratio of 100 to 1. At Apple, the campaign contribution money totals favored Clinton by a factor of 135 to 1.
Are we beginning to see a pattern here? There is much more. Google contributions favored Clinton by a ratio of 76 to 1.
That is fine say the Democrats. It is big oil we have to watch out for, because you know, the oil companies are destroying the planet. Exxon-Mobil donations favored Clinton by a ratio of 4 to 1.
It goes on an on. How about big retail? Walmart executives and employees favored Clinton by a factor of 3 to 1. Mrs. Clinton led Trump by a ratio of 20 to 1 among lawyers and law firms She beat him in the all-powerful film and television business by a ratio of 4-1. How about health care? She won by a ratio of 3 to 1 among those in working in the health care business.
Can we summarize using the All the Presidents Men model of simply following the money? Clinton was, by an overwhelming margin the darling candidate of large money center stock brokerage houses, Silicon Valley corporate giants, gigantic Hollywood film makers, Ivy League schools, lawyers, and even real-estate developers. Add in overwhelming support from over-compensated do-nothing bureaucrats holding government jobs of dubious purposes and you get the picture.
So enough about who represents the working-class folks and the underdogs. Not one group mentioned above falls into that category. The big lie in America is that Democrats don’t represent the entrenched political power structure of the United States. The truth is Donald Trump is the only “outsider” in my lifetime to ever win the presidency. In doing so, he has attracted the wrath of those who are mad is hell he is drowning out their voices with his big mouth.
Share/Bookmark

Efforts at election nullification lead to civil wars

© 2019 Jim Spence -  History buffs notice patterns in national behaviors. On these commentary pages I have suggested the United States has been inching closer to a second Civil War. On other sites there have been red flags raised.
At the heart of the rebellion is the idea of nullification. The slave holding south, saw the presidential election of 1860 as a life and death situation where they lost. It now seems that these same American Democrats, 159 years later, have decided that their loss to Trump in 2016, like their loss to Abe Lincoln, should simply be nullified.
Make no mistake, Democrats have been talking nullification (impeachment) since before Trump’s inauguration. And they have trotted out one absurd accusation after another in their relentless effort to nullify the results of the 2016 election. It has been an impeachment effort in search of a crime ever since.
Questions arise. What is it that Democrats actually want? Why do they hate Trump in particular? And why do they hate Trump voters in general? They do these things for many reasons. Below is a short list.
Democrats have an open border obsession. They support unlimited illegal immigration. And despite the fact that all countries have borders, Democrats demonize men and women who want immigration laws enforced. Anyone who doesn’t want to end national borders is a racist. Anyone opposed to offering U.S. citizen benefits to all illegal aliens, benefits that are paid for by taxpayers, is branded as a racist by Democrats.
Democrats have an anti-free market-capitalism obsession too. They bash employers every day and they can’t keep from insinuating that anyone in business is an oppressor who exploits all others for personal gain.
Democrats want all Americans to forget that the three worst butchers in human history were all socialists (Hitler’s National Socialism, Stalin’s Soviet Socialist Republic, and Mao’s socialist China). Democrats want to make the U.S. into a socialist country instead of being a free nation.
Democrats want to be allowed to never place blame for poor human decision-making where it belongs. They blame crime on everything except criminals. They blame guns instead of bad people for firearm violence. Democrats also have an obsession with disarming law-abiding civilians. They seem unconcerned that denying the 2nd Amendment will make it easier for a dictatorship to take hold. They ignore the fact that it was the well-armed militia in the original 13 American colonies that won the American Revolution.
Amazingly, Democrats are developing an anti-Semitic obsession. They have sent and defended radical Jew-hating women to Congress. These women make brazenly anti-Jewish statements on the House floor and are defended by the Democrat leadership. Democrats still seem oblivious to Islam's deep ties to Nazis Germany during World War II. Those anti-Jewish ties remain strong to this day.
It is also simply bizarre that Democrats want Americans to abandon the fundamental principles of civil liberty. They openly support radical anti-free speech stances on college campuses all over the nation.
Democrats use fossil fuels while demonizing the energy industry. They are mindful of TV preachers who have sex with fast women in limousines after delivering sermons on chastity.
Democrats constantly promote ignorance of economics. They have corrupted public education to indoctrinate students to embrace Marxism.
Democrats have also perverted our health care system. Despite horror stories within the V.A. system, Democrats want to engineer a government takeover of all healthcare services. The long lines and long waits to see physicians seem sure to grow even longer and longer if America votes for the Democratic presidential candidate.
The 2020 election of course, will follow the sham process of trying to pin the rumor on the White House. These days Democrats are changing the vocabulary of our nation. A partisan, political hack, and scam artist is now known as a, “whistle blower.”
The approaching civil war summary is simple. Those who like people who sign paychecks, understand the socialist legacy of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, believe in the U.S. Constitution, want basic freedoms preserved, want borders protected, respect the outcomes of elections, and aren't hypocrites about energy consumption, will be fighting on the other side of Democrats who are opposed to all these things.
Share/Bookmark

Bad predictions don't seem to matter

© 2019 Jim Spence - Lately the Weather Channel has been trying to sway the 2020 presidential election. Most people turn the Weather Channel on to, you know, check the weather forecasts. However, it is clear that the producers at the Weather Channel, which is not surprisingly owned by NBC, seem compelled to blow smoke for Democrats. This explains why one Democrat presidential hopeful after another, is being filmed wringing their hands, as they pretend to discuss the horrific consequences of climate change.
Just this weekend, Bernie Sanders was seen talking about how awful it is going to be….when the coastal regions of the U.S. are all under water. Of course, the trouble with this feigned Sanders' fear, is the coasts were supposed to ALREADY BE UNDER WATER. This is based on countless predictions made by radical environmentalists decades ago, as they tried to kill the energy industry. Yes, predictions of rising sea levels have been around for more than three decades with catastrophes predicted by the year 2005.
Now.....in case you haven’t noticed, all of the doomsday predictions on rising sea levels, the total disappearance of snow, etc. haven’t quite come to pass. However, with the help of their buddies in the media, Democrats keep moving the goal posts on climate change catastrophe predictions, allowing as to how predictors just need a few more decades to be right. In the meantime, we taxpayers can go along with the spending trillions of dollars to prevent what has yet to happen, despite the fact we didn’t spend what they wanted us to spend decades ago, before they turned out to be wrong…..dead wrong.
Today on the CNN weather page you can read this: “Don your jackets and mittens, East Coasters. You're going to need them. The next five to seven days won't just be cold -- they'll be record-breaking. That's according to data from the National Weather Service, which predicts more than 300 record cold temperatures could be tied or set from Monday to Wednesday.”
Here's a news flash. Record cold temps don't cause rising sea levels, they make more ice. And you don’t get record-breaking cold temperatures year after year, if the globe is truly warming.
Let’s get something straight here. The term “climate change” is meaningless. Nobody can define what climate change is. The closest definition of climate change is that it is vague enough to become a political excuse to encourage voters to put more power in the hands of an already bloated and over-reaching federal government. Climate change con artists have yet to get one single catastrophe prediction right. And yet these bogus predictions drive people to take dubious actions.
Speaking of lousy predictions, has anyone noticed that this impeachment thing is simply the latest in a long line of Get Trump scams Democrats have been running on us since the morning after Hillary’s political self-destruction reached the ultimate pinnacle? Democrat henchman Adam Schiff has been getting caught in more lies than Bill Clinton did after toiling with Monica Lewinsky. Nothing Schiff "predicts" ever comes to pass. This entire impeachment scam, which is being foisted on the American public with the help of an obsessed anti-Trump news media, is paid for with taxpayer money. Schiff should quit his job in Congress and become a producer at the Weather Channel.
There is actually one story out there that truly takes the cake. It is the story of how ABC News buried the horrific pedophile scandal surrounding Jeffrey Epstein. Before Epstein "committed suicide" like so many Clinton cronies tend to do, he was caught engaging in criminal behavior that was likely to snare Bill Clinton among others. Watch this video of ABC anchor Amy Robach. In this piece, Robach is caught on tape talking to her producer about how she had the Epstein story complete with corroboration. She says she had it three years ago. What happened? The big shots at ABC News, who have cocktails with prominent Democrats frequently, simply refused to run her story. It sounds like Robach should commiserate over a glass of cabernet savignon with former CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was treated the same way while at CBS.
Still, and amazingly, the news media continues to be shocked at how much it is distrusted by Americans. Tough to figure that one out isn’t it? Make a few hundred thousand asinine predictions and you get branded as scam artists.
Share/Bookmark

Its hard to win if you behave like a loser


© 2019 Jim Spence - There’s an old saying in politics. If your election pitch is based on confiscating money or property that belongs to Peter, so you can give it to Paul in exchange for his vote…..you can pretty much count on Paul’s support.
Unfortunately, this becomes a serious problem once it pays nearly as well to sit back with your hand out like Paul, versus getting out and hustling like Peter. Logic tells us most people will simply behave much more like Paul and wait for politicians to take more of Peter’s earnings away from him. In sports, we call this, a Loser’s Mentality. Winners make things happen. Losers let things happen and blame their lack of success on everyone and everything except THEMSELVES.
We can see the LOSERS mentality increasing its grip on America these days. We see it with participation trophies instead of first, second, and third place trophies in athletic competitions. More alarmingly, we see tens of millions of bogus diplomas awarded to high school students all over the nation. Many schools pretend students who are essentially illiterate in the areas of reading, math, and science, have accomplished something when they haven't. We see this first hand on college transcripts, with horrific grade inflation. Academic achievement is often simply an illusion at universities, making it more difficult to determine which graduates actually have skills and work ethic.
Consider America’s dilemma in 2020. The GOP choice will be Donald Trump, who most rational people must concede, is off a bit. However, this being said, Trump has actually kept more promises than any other purportedly pro-competition and pro-higher living standards president....since Reagan.
The alternative to Trump, will most certainly be a Democrat who will continue to sneer at successful people and promise to confiscate the fruits of their production. The Democrat sales pitch is simple. They are coming after what Peter earns, so they can hand it to Paul. Success is to be scorned at.
A more intelligent approach would be to encourage people to make an effort to know more about billionaires than they do right now. I am reminded of the great book, Titan by Ron Chernow. Chernow documented John D. Rockefeller’s accomplishments, including the fact that he donated about 98% of all his wealth to charities. Rockefeller didn’t just give his money away, he became very scientific about his philanthropy, and gave only to “productive charities.” Rockefeller's gifting methods are well-documented in another book, The Circuit Riders, by Gerald Jonas.
Taking from Peter to give to Paul is not a new strategy. Politicians called for the confiscation of Rockefeller’s wealth by the state back in his day, even though Rockefeller had a better plan to make sure his hard-earned money did not make its way into the hands of politicians and crony government employees. It should come as no surprise that Warren Buffett also plans to funnel his vast estate to charities, instead of seeing the state's army of self-serving bureaucrats take it and squander it. Smart people hate waste. Billionaires hate waste. We should all hate waste. It is much easier to look the other way on waste....when someone else's money is being wasted.
An important question needs to be asked of all American adults. Why would anyone want to vote for any politician who encourages them to act like losers?
A quick survey of the competitive landscape in athletics suggests winners are required to exhibit a strong commitment, maximum effort, and a high level of personal discipline. Conversely, losers maintain much lower levels of expectations of themselves and others, especially in the areas of commitment, effort, and personal discipline.
Make no mistake, lowering the performance bar is precisely the approach that the candidates in the Democratic field are trying to sell. They don't suggest ways for us to get better. Instead, they sell mediocrity as if it is something to aspire to. They blame what amounts to personal failures on the fairest system on the planet. They encourage their fellow citizens to be particularly jealous of people who keep their commitments, make maximum effort, and exhibit strong personal discipline.
So here we are as 2019 winds down. Due to the loser’s mentality firmly embedded in public education, the bashing of Peter is considered a "safe" routine during Democrat "debates." 
Sadly, Democrats suggest that everyone should simply act like Paul. This may be a winning political strategy in America these days, but just as it is in athletics, acting like a handout-seeking Paul is a metaphor for the Loser’s approach to life.
Again, we should be asking everyone: Why is America thinking about embracing the attitudes losers embrace, when they could simply aspire to be the best they can be, instead? It makes no sense, unless selling dead-end shortcuts is your scam.

Share/Bookmark

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