Pro-choice is NOT what you think it is anymore

© 2020 Jim Spence - The impeachment scam is such a farce, it is time to switch gears. Based on the headline, the topic of this column might make readers mutter and wonder what is the point. The point is stepping up to help the helpless, a value that one would think would be dear to every "compassionate" Democrat's heart.

NOPE

When you hear political chatter on news reports, or in pop culture media specials regarding those who attend pro-life rallies, neither the right to “choose” nor the right to “life” means anything close to what these phrases used to mean. Admittedly, only a minority of citizens seem to care much for columns that discuss the abortion debate. Accordingly, we proceed. It is probably time to post a column here that is simply a way of helping "compassionate" people understand what has happened with the abortion issue since the Roe vs. Wade ruling thirty-seven years ago. So......if you are still reading, it will be worthwhile.
Prior to the Roe vs. Wade decision, the Supreme Court justices discussed not just the intricacies of abortion rights, but also sensible abortion limits all reasonable people could agree to. According to Wikipedia, in January 1973 the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.
However, the Supreme Court also ruled that this “right” was NOT unlimited. The court found the right to have an abortion must be balanced with three important principles: 1) the government's interests in protecting women's right to privacy, 2) a woman's health, and 3) the life of viable children. 
The Supreme Court ruling attempted to resolve this balancing challenge by tying state regulations of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy. The court held that:
1) during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all;
2) during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations;
3) during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.
Let's stop here. This was where REASONABLE thinkers came together on a compromise. This is not an endorsement of the ruling, instead it is a process of pointing out that the court was trying to MEET ALL THE INTERESTED PARTIES half way.
Understand this.....For decades the feminists/Democrats who hailed the Roe vs. Wade ruling, vowed to protect the nature of the ruling spelled out above.....against what they claimed were Republican efforts to overturn the ruling. However, over time it became very clear that even when the GOP had control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and a majority on the Supreme Court, there was no desire to overturn the essence of Roe decision.
At this point this issue became a political manipulation exercise designed to leave defenseless but viable babies subject to insanely crass gyrations designed to legalize murder. Of course, Democrats have continued to find it politically necessary to also accuse the GOP of wanting to overturn Roe, as a way of fundraising and hanging on to a huge majority of the radical feminist vote.
Times have changed. People who were saying they supported a woman’s "right to choose" 48 years ago, must now go along with unprincipled stances that bear ZERO resemblance to supporting a woman's right to choose. What Democrats are calling for today represents astonishing changes to Roe vs. Wade.
Democrats now demand that being pro-choice no longer will be the simple support for the rights of women, who wind up inconveniently pregnant, to have the “choice” to schedule an abortion early in the pregnancy.
These days in many states, radical feminists, along with their extremist friends among Democratic Party elected officials, are attempting to legalize the killing of babies at any stage of development, including those who are actually born alive.
Sorry friends, this is not an affirmation of Roe vs. Wade. Instead, it is a macabre effort to redefine the term, “the right to choose” to mean, “the right to kill innocent viable babies because the mother forgot to terminate the pregnancy until the baby could survive on its own.” That is not pregnancy termination, it is baby killing. 
There is a saying about people who want to have the same authority over others as God. Give them a little legal leeway and they will try to extrapolate that concession into the right to kill other human beings. We are there.
Every single candidate in the Democrat’s presidential primary is just fine with attempting to legalize the butchering of viable children in the third trimester of development in a pregnancy. This is nothing short of changing the advocating of "choice early in a pregnancy," into condoning the murdering of viable babies in the late stages of a pregnancy. There is no other way to characterize this.
Don’t fall for the exception con. There are plenty of legal protections in the Roe ruling for situations where the life of the mother is threatened. Radical Democrats and feminists know this is already a legal reality. Incredibly, though Democrats still call this process "choice," they actually want the right to kill. This is political manipulation to retain the baby butcher vote. Astonishingly, elected Democrats seem willing to look the other way while the term "pro-choice" is redefined as including, "a woman's right to kill." Don't be fooled. This is wrong, wrong, wrong, and nobody should ever be successful in convincing a decent human being this is a "right."
Share/Bookmark

Permanently Disbarred

© 2020 Jim Spence - Lawyers, lawyers, and more lawyers. No wonder the impeachment theater is drawing bad reviews and low TV ratings. TV cameras capture images of our Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, actually falling asleep while Nancy Pelosi’s keystone cop "impeachment team" is feebly trying to make a case for overturning Trump's election victory in 2016 and preclude him from winning in 2020. So, while countless members of the American Bar Association are having their five minutes of fame during this sham proceeding, life goes on in America where we all have to do real work to pay our bills.
A question remains. When this impeachment sham finally ends, what will history record about this sad chapter in American politics? History may well marvel at how willing the Democrats are to trot out the views of the law professors, and pretend they are objective interpretations of the U.S. Constitution.
Only hopeless partisans believe law school professors are neutral. The reality is the American Bar Association itself is an anti-GOP advocacy organization. However, the ABA is an advocate for the fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. And Democrats are going to get a hunk of their political hides torn out by the positions on search warrant restrictions that are advocated by the ABA.
All of these silly efforts to remove Trump run together. Consider the forty million dollars wasted on the Democrat's Mueller investigation of the Trump/Russia hoax. There were no convictions related to Russian collusion, only convictions for unrelated offenses. And now the handful of convictions Mueller secured, seem likely to be overturned, simply because of the tainted warrants obtained by the deep state henchmen in the FBI and Obama intelligence agencies. The courts have now come to understand the FBI lied on warrant applications, to get the OK to spy on Trump.
The acquittal of Trump is a foregone conclusion. People have moved on. And in less than a month this entire farce will be but a footnote in history.
What about the impeachment acquittal of Bill Clinton in the GOP Senate more than twenty years ago? How does history view that event? The record shows that unlike Trump, Bill Clinton was actually charged with crimes that he committed. It also shows that politically-sensitive GOP Senators noted that the “polls” did not support removing Clinton. The polls won out and Clinton skated. Democrats like to argue that the Clinton impeachment in the House was “political.” This does not hold up to scrutiny because it cannot explain why the American Bar Association, which is a super source of campaign contributions for Democrats, DISBARRED Bill Clinton due to his criminal conduct. Being disbarred by the ABA is perhaps the ultimate condemnation for a Democrat. Given all the leeway attorneys are afforded in their roles as advocates, the ABA found that Bill Clinton possessed insufficient levels of integrity, to remain in the profession. Wow. That is not a high bar.
Share/Bookmark

You can't have your version of history both ways

© 2020 Jim Spence -  It is fascinating to contrast the way the blame-America first crowd argues basic facts about the U.S.A.'s place in the world. At stake in their claims regarding all the wrong doings by the U.S.A. is the fundamental nature of Americans. The Colin Kaepernicks of the America always find the American glass empty. Others of similar ilk find it at least half empty. Blame America firsters will routinely point to the scourge of slavery, 19th century American colonialism, and even 19th century American imperialism, as a way of presenting a permanently negative image of the fundamental nature of America. In their process of doing so, they typically try to make sure those who consider their assertions, come away believing that America’s past is hopelessly tainted and Americans, particularly white Americans embrace the nation’s past wrongdoings. They also imply that anyone in today’s generation of Americans, must either accept responsibility for all the transgressions of previous generations of Americans, or become socialists, as a way of "redeeming" themselves. Millions of gullible people including those running public education buy into this tripe.
Unfortunately, gullible people wind up being the victims of their own gullibility. Consider how all of the incredibly gullible people in Germany allowed Hitler to come to power, outlaw all other political parties, round up Jews, and annex by force, neighboring countries. Tojo behaved in a similar way in Japan with the tacit approval of the nation's gullible “emperor” and gullible citizens. The Japanese military butchered hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese citizens as well as other Asians. Germany eventually attacked the Soviet Union and butchered hundreds of thousands if not millions of Russians, as well.
Previous generations of Americans found themselves in a precarious situation in 1939-1940. They did not want to fight battles in Europe or Asia. However, when England, Russia, and China begged for any form of assistance against the assaults of the Japanese and Germans, the United States showed compassion for those being invaded. Eventually this stance dragged the U.S. into World War II.
Let's make no mistake, there was a concerted effort by many nations to defeat the butchers of Japan and Germany in WWII. However, without American treasure, American industrial might, and American blood, neither Hitler’s Nazi Germany nor Tojo’s Japan would have been defeated. Young Americans like my uncle Nelson Spence endured incredible hardships fighting and winning critical battles at places like Guadalcanal in the Pacific. He was a lucky. He came home. Tens of thousands didn't.
There is an old saying, “You can’t have it both ways.” Tom Brokaw wrote a book called, "The Greatest Generation.” It provided tremendous documentation of the sacrifices of young American men and women during WWII.
There is a question for 21st century Americans that is intriguing. Can we take credit for all of the bravery and sacrifices made by the WWII generation of Americans? Do the virtues of those thousands of American who died on the beaches at Normandy and in the Pacific, transfer to today’s American citizens simply because, we are loosely defined, members of that same general group of people?
The best answer to this question should be a resounding NO. We 21st century Spences are entitled to make NO claims, that because Nelson Spence spent months fighting on the island of Guadalcanal, that WE somehow, deserve to take credit for his sacrifices or the sacrifices of other brave Americans during that period. Talk to Colin Kaepernick and millions like him, and they will quickly and completely agree that 21st century Americans have NO claims on the virtues of our ancestors who fought in WWII against Germany and Japan. Sacrifices made by those Americans to help save the lives millions of Russian, French, English, Dutch, Belgian, Filipino, and Jewish people, is irrelevant to our own virtues in this century or lack of virtues. Fair enough.
Now let’s have some fun and invert this exercise. When we do so, it does not take long to expose the utter stupidity and hypocrisy of the modern-day progressive Democrat. Why are they pitiful? Because they want to have it both ways. 21st century American progressive are constantly trying to pin all of the transgressions of previous generations of Americans, including the scourge of slavery, colonialism, imperialism, etc. on present day Americans, particularly white men. Anyone with any sense of fairness should be able to see that this mindset is truly unfair. Nobody should try to take credit for unearned virtues, nor take the blame for transgressions done by others. This is basic fairness.
Still, this have it both ways approach is the essence of the Democrat's identity politics. Democrats attempt to categorize all people as members of groups instead of evaluating every human being as an individual.
Martin Luther King Jr. nailed it when he said people need to be judged by the content of their character. Nothing could be more profound than this statement, simply because it rejects group identity that can make one evil or virtuous simply based on their group membership category.
When discussing this idea with a friend recently she put it to me in more succinct terms, "I didn’t risk my life to liberate Europe or Asia from Germany and Japan, and I never lynched anyone either."
Democrats have a failed message to Americans, simply because they kowtow to the group identity crowd in their party.
We are a nation of individuals and should be judged according to the content of our characters.

Share/Bookmark

Fighting terrorism in America

© 2020 Jim Spence - On this site nine years ago, I posted a column entitled, “Let’s Play….Find the War Mongers.” It seems appropriate, based on the hysterical mainstream news media coverage of the recent U.S. killing of Iranian General Soleimani, that we play the game again.
A couple of weeks ago there were widespread predictions that Trump was a war monger and on the verge of starting WWIII. Naturally, the Democrats decided to take actions in the House of Representatives to limit the Commander in Chief’s ability to be well, you know, the Commander in Chief.
A nice history lesson to review military actions taken by previous presidents regarding terrorism seems in order. First, on my long list of attacks against Americans, is the attack on the American Embassy in Iran in 1979. Clearly a response was required. And eventually, President Carter brought the military in to try to send a message to state-sponsored terrorists. The rescue mission failed. Was Jimmy Carter’s ultimate military response to try to rescue U.S. diplomats an act of war mongering? Nobody in the news media accused him of that at the time.
Muamar Gaddafi of Libya was tied to assassination plans against U.S. diplomats in Rome and Paris in 1981. Ronald Reagan promptly ordered the shooting down of Libyan fighter jets. Reagan took heavy criticism in the mainstream news media for his actions. He had already been branded as a war monger by Democrats. So following the cue of those who lead them, the press questioned Reagan's motives from the start on Libya. Stand by for more on Libya.
Slobodan Milošević, the Yugoslavian/Serbian dictator, engaged in the horrific practice of systematic mass murder in Bosnia in the late 1990’s. The primary victims were Muslims. Serbia called their actions “ethnic cleansing.” What they were doing was nothing short of unrelenting genocide. President Clinton sent American bombers to attack Serbia for 78 straight days. This is a fact the hopelessly pacifist left conveniently sweeps aside. American jets dropped bombs on areas occupied by the killers every single day non-stop. Was the Clinton response to genocide war mongering? Even when bombs strayed and hit the Chinese embassy, the criticism from the mainstream media of Bill Clinton was muted. Most Democrats don’t even remember the fact that Clinton bombed that area for 78 straight days.
Osama bin Laden, the leader of al Queada’s attacks on the World Trade Center towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington on 9-11 is perhaps the most famous terrorist ever stalked by U.S. forces. Eventually, in early May of 2011, Barack Obama ordered a special forces mission to cross the borders of Pakistan, without Pakistani permission. Obama intended to capture or execute bin Laden. Were the actions taken by Barack Obama war mongering? Americans, both Democrats and Republicans did not criticize Obama. They cheered him and his unauthorized military action against the notorious terrorist. The mainstream American press did not question his motives, instead they sang Obama’s praises. After all, Obama had already been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize. Why shouldn't he barge into Pakistan and kill bin Laden?
Obama was a busy man in 2011. Also, in 2011, Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was born in Las Cruces, NM was killed in actions authorized by Barack Obama. Al-Alwaki was in Yemen at the time when a U.S. military drone terminated him. Was Obama’s action war mongering? The mainstream media was not merely silent, it approved of the killing.
Barack Obama also decided he had had enough of aging dictator Muammar Gaddafi in Libya in 2011. Accordingly, Obama unleashed air strikes and tomahawk missiles on Libya. Eventually, in subsequent actions, Gaddafi was killed by American forces. Was Obama guilty of war mongering? Again, there was virtually no criticism of Obama in the American press for his actions against Libya.
Now lets get to another attack on a known butcher and check the reactions. In late 2019, Iranian General Soleimani was in Iraq illegally. He was planning attacks on the U.S. embassy and also on other American bases there. Intelligence identified his location at the Baghdad airport, and Trump authorized a drone attack on the man who ran state-sponsored terror in Iran. Was Trump guilty of war mongering? To listen to CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, Trump wasn't a hero like Obama. Instead he was a reckless, provocative, mad man who was bringing America on the verge of World War III. A draft of young people was coming. Trump had to be stopped.
The patterns of all these incidents makes everything clear. Presidents Carter, Clinton, and Obama could all act as responsible Commanders in Chief for taking out dangerous individuals engaging in state-sponsored attacks on U.S. embassies etc. President’s Reagan, Bush, and Trump are simply war mongers for doing the same thing.
Let's be honest here folks. Anyone who thinks that the so-called journalists at these news outlets named above, are anything more than propaganda foot soldiers in the Democratic Party are delusional.
These days 96% of all analysis of Trump’s actions are negative, including the battle against terrorists. And journalists, while devoting just 4% of all analysis to the positives, suggests America no longer has a safe and “free” press. These outlets are so caught up in self-importance they think 1st amendment rights are under attack.
They need to report on site on presidents Putin of Russia and Xi in China. There these dictators get 100% positive coverage in their media not 96% negative.
This all begs the question. Who is really under attack around here? The answer is freedom loving Americans.
Share/Bookmark

King's dream realization could be a nightmare for Dems

© 2020 Jim Spence -  Martin Luther King Jr. had a dream. King wanted an America where people would be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. So profound were his words and his vision that though he did not live to see it (as he prophetically predicted), the scourge of racism in America pretty much went underground decades ago.
Earlier this week our nation celebrated a national holiday in Martin Luther King’s honor. Travel to almost any city of any size in America, and streets or highways are named after Dr. King.
Yes, there are still racists in the United States. There always will be. However, it is no longer acceptable for whites to espouse any racist thoughts in respected circles. The truth is, and mainly for understandable reasons, racism is much more prominent in the black community than in the white community. Accordingly, on television shows, in movies, and in every nook and cranny of pop culture, it seems to be generally acceptable to bash whites, especially older white men. Unfortunately, anti-white sentiments run completely counter to Dr. King's dream. It is still the content of of a person's character and not the color of one’s skin, that should be judged.
It is troubling that one can see the same old Democrat’s election strategy unfold each election season. In a feeble effort to maintain a stronghold on minority votes, Democrats willingly reject King’s dream. Accusing whites of being racist anytime any white refuses to go along with all the bad policy ideas Democrats have, is finally beginning to become exposed as a bad political strategy with a limited shelf-life.
Democrats seem unable to break free of the race-card game because they have acquired a serious addiction to the process of hyping a perception in minority communities of widespread white racism. Terms like “white privilege and white supremacists” are trotted out to describe anyone attending a political rally that runs counter to Democratic Party dogma. Racism accusations are used as a matter of routine to describe views of people who support various civil protections including support for the first and second amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
One had to fight back the laughter when listening to comments made by Senators Kamala Harris and Corey Booker as they dropped out of the Democratic race for the presidency recently. Rules were established by leading Democrats to keep the debates from having fifteen or twenty candidates on stage, month after month. Eventually, both the Booker and Harris campaigns floundered. They were, unlike the top competitors in the party, simply unable to attract financial donors or decent polling numbers with REGISTERED DEMOCRATS.
From Booker and Harris, complaints of a lack of diversity on the debate stage began to be woven into their excuses for failure. It is simply ironic that Harris and Booker, in the post-Obama era, attempted to make the case that Democrats don’t donate or declare polling preferences for black candidates because they have a bias against black candidates. Given all the racist propaganda regarding whites being foisted on the public, these assertions are absurd. But somehow Booker and Harris had to grab the racism crutch as they fell. Harris added the sexism charge to her list of reasons why her candidacy failed to gain traction despite the face that Elizabeth Warren was crushing her in the polls. It seems that minority voters are not the mindlessly monolithic automatons Democrats are counting on.
What we are left with are five viable Democrats. Four are aging whites and one is a young white gay mayor from Indiana.
We hear the term identity politics tossed around all the time. Most voters are not sure what it means. Identity politics is group think in a nutshell. Democrats see people, particularly those who despise all the failures of socialism, as members of groups. Republicans see people as individuals.
The fact that Democrats have been indoctrinating the population to judge people according to the color of their skin and gender is about to blow up in their faces. Here are some of the group themes: Women are generally good unless they vote GOP. White men are bad (except for socialist white men who check their built in privileges at the door). Racial minority members should all think of themselves as victims. Whites are all to be considered as oppressors (especially white men). This explains why you see classes in white privilege being taught at many universities around the nation.
Don't look now but Democrats suddenly have a problem with only a slate of multi-millionaire white people to choose from in the presidential primaries.
The problem is compounded by the fact that unemployment and poverty numbers among minority members are at their lowest level EVER under Trump’s policies. With no minority candidate to vote for who doesn't have the stigma of whiteness, Democrat’s group think might just backfire in 2020. Which white person should the minority voter trust? Should they trust the unknown white person? Or should they trust the one who has been delivering results for minorities like no other president in modern history? The realization of Dr. King's dream could be a nightmare for Democrats.
Share/Bookmark

We finally have an "outsider" on the inside

© 2020 Jim Spence - Ask most Americans if they are sick and tired of career politicians and most will reply with an emphatic, YES. The emergence of Ross Perot in the early 1990’s is a good case study of how the mainstream media deals with outsiders. Perot, who passed away recently, was a man of high integrity. He had a good grasp of most things that were ailing America and he was honest. Prior to the 1992 election, Perot surged to the lead in the polls, only to be crushed by an orchestrated smear campaign by Democrats and Republicans with the news media doing the blocking and tackling. Watching the insider’s smear job on Perot was like watching an ambush unfold in slow motion. In short order, using opposition research received from Democrats and Republicans the news networks turned Perot’s “image” from a high integrity “outsider” with an incredibly successful business background and years of unselfish public service, into some sort of quirky nut who was not to be trusted. Unlike the thick-skinned Donald Trump, Perot did not handle the unfairness very well. American voters who swore by-God they wanted an outsider instead of another career politician in the White House got conned by the insiders. Voters abandoned Perot in sufficient numbers to get Bill Clinton elected in 1992.
Every four years we seem to engage in the same ritual. New “outsiders” try to break through the Washington D.C. power clique that has dominated this nation for several generations and every single outsider has FAILED to crack those tall barriers, except one. That would be Donald Trump.
Many voters who were skeptical of Trump (including me) did not trust him, even though he got our vote in 2016. We had no choice. We simply could not put power in the hands of a known crook like Hillary Clinton. We had plenty of reasons to be cynical, so we held our noses when we voted for Trump.
Let’s fast forward to the present. It is safe to say that Donald Trump, despite all his annoying tweets, his ridiculous pettiness, and his willingness to terminate decent people like firing is a daily bodily function, Trump has kept MORE PROMISES than any president in my adult lifetime. The only president who comes close to the promises kept record of Trump is Ronald Reagan.
It is not just that Trump has kept so many promises. It is critical to recognize that he has done so while enduring withering criticism from the mainstream news media. A recent survey revealed that 96% of all Trump “analysis” is negative. This is unprecedented. The fact that Trump is polling so well tells you how very little the public trusts journalists.
The anti-Trump drumbeat should be wearing average Americans down more than it is. Look at Fox’s Chris Wallace. Wallace finally seems to be unable to ignore the never-ending smear campaign against Trump. He has bought into the Democrat’s latest in a three-year series of concerted efforts to manufacture accusations that will support their post 2016 election loss impeachment obsession. Wallace has joined the rest of the media that is missing something basic. Americans are interested in results, not likable politicians. They have been betrayed by enough likable politicians to last them the rest of their lives.
Do those of us keeping track of kept promises and broken promises wish that Trump would stop being petty? Yes. Do we wish he was more loyal to his appointees? Yes. Do we wish he was not so provocative and obnoxious? Yes. But do we understand that these are small things to trade away, in exchange for KEPT PROMISES on important public policies? YES.
Don’t look now but Trump is polling amazingly well with both Hispanic and Black voters. The mainstream media would have everyone including Hispanics and Blacks believe that these two groups are made up of monolithic automatons, because they all think alike and of course they all vote alike. These absurd monolithic American minority behavior theories are coming unraveled. Minority voters understand that their wages are rising, and they see that there are JOBS EVERYWHERE for anyone willing to work. If these polls are even close to being correct, the Democrats, with all their desperate impeachment obsessions and incredible assistance from the mainstream media, are going to be on the outside looking in until 2024.
What does the GOP Senate do with such a durable president? The GOP Senate is made up mostly of career politicians, many of whom are sellouts. Most GOP senators do not feel any obligation to do what they have said they will do. If the GOP Senators treat Trump decently in the upcoming sham impeachment trial, it will only be because it serves their interests to do so. They seem oblivious to his promise keeping, because they pay so much attention to his shortcomings. Too bad they don’t examine their own.


Share/Bookmark

Ocasio-Cortez - the closet capitalist

© 2020 Jim Spence - Perhaps the most misinformed human being ever to be elected to the United States House of Representatives is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
They could build a shrine to her stupidity. Try these assertions on for size:
AOC said regarding climate change, “There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question, you know, is it okay to still have children?”
What is the alternative? I thought Democrats were against endangering species? Does she want to exclude human beings from this principle? However, it is safe to say nobody is going to complain if Ocasio-Cortez does not reproduce.
She also claimed that unemployment measures under Donald Trump are low because everyone in the middle class has two jobs. Sorry sister, the Bureau of Labor Statistics begs to differ. The BLS keeps track of how many people work more than one job.
Ocasio-Cortez actually compared the U.S. Border Patrol’s enforcement of our immigration laws to the Nazi Holocaust. It would seem she hasn’t visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C. yet to get up to speed on the death of six million Jews.
It goes on and on.  Ocasio-Cortez also said, “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” OK, mark me down as a crazy gambler, but I am betting she winds up being wrong on this one too.
Ocasio-Cortez is a very vocal opponent of America’s free market system. And she says she is fine with being called a socialist since she hates free economic market systems. But of course, nobody in the Democratic Party is calling her a socialist anymore, because apparently she has the unmitigated gall to want to keep the political funds she has raised, instead of “sharing” them with all of her colleagues in the Democratic Party collective.
AOC is now refusing to pay her annual dues ($250,000) to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. She says she will funnel money she raised on her own directly to Democrats who are facing tough races. It sounds like she thinks that people like her, who work to raise money, have a tendency to spend those funds more wisely than all of the Democrats running the Congressional Campaign Committee. Now that is rich, though Ocasio-Cortez hates rich people too....it turns out she is a closet capitalist.
Some of those who are part of the “collective” (pun intended) feel Ocasio-Cortez is not a good team player. Because Ocasio-Cortez likes being in control of what she earns, she is being castigated.
The great irony of this, and a scary point too, is the fact that Ocasio-Cortez is a fundraising juggernaut. She convinces other misinformed socialists citizens in the U.S. to donate to her in huge numbers. According to filings, in the third-quarter of 2019, she out-raised all other House Democrats including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
It is almost as if the Democrats resent the fact that she doesn’t pay her “fair share,” a term usually reserved for the citizens who pay the bulk of all taxes in America. Greg Meeks a fellow Democrat said this of AOC’s resistance to the collective, “Sometimes the question comes….Do you want to be in a majority or do you want to be in the minority? And do you want to be part of a team?”
All of this hypocrisy is mindful of the hapless Ed Asner, who never saw any Democratic interference in business that he didn’t support.......UNTIL the State of California passed a law that said Non-Profit Community Theaters had to abide by the minimum wage laws too. When that happened, Asner came up all sorts of justifications for why his neck of the woods deserved a special exemption from the oppressive minimum wage law....simply because it would harm what he was trying to do, in terms of developing new talent. It is simply amazing how keeping what you earn or being able to offer a training wage to entry level workers makes sense to AOC and chumps like Ed Asner, but only when it suits their personal interests. Everyone else who argues as they do is a greedy bastard.
There is no fundamental principles at work here with these types, just naked selfishness.
Share/Bookmark

Mussolini, Tojo, Hitler, and the Iranian Mullahs

© 2020 Jim Spence - Tyrants operating within their own boundaries are sticky problems for the international community. Defining and policing human rights violations within sovereign borders is pretty much impossible.
Consider what a horrific murdering thug Saddam Hussein was. When he confined his atrocious behavior to his own people, he was safe from international intervention within Iraq. But then, he decided to annex Kuwait and a gigantic coalition crushed him.
The history books are loaded with examples of tyrants engaged in territorial expansions. While the maintenance of vast empires over large geographic spaces can be accomplished, eventually they fail. And as military technology has advanced, the appetites of tyrants have become more limited.
The sixth stage of creating and maintaining conditions for lasting peace involves differentiating between local skirmishes and actions by tyrants with territorial ambitions. The biggest threat to this stage of the peace maintenance process in 2020 is the behavior of the Iranian mullahs. Iran clearly has broad regional ambitions. Accordingly, Iran attacked Iraq, the U.S. embassy in Iraq, and Saudi Arabia's oil facilities in 2019. Iran also regularly organized and funded violence against Israel. It also seized oil tankers in the open waters of the Persian Gulf. The killing of Iranian General Soleimani by U.S. forces was simply a recognition that Iran’s behavior had gone far beyond engaging in minor skirmishes.
Stage seven for creating and maintaining conditions for peace, requires the recognition by civilized nations that appeasement of leaders of any nations that violate the first six stages necessary for peace will result in the worst possible outcomes for all global citizens.
The history books tell the story. Tyrannical expansionist actions of Japan, Germany, and Italy serve as perfect illustrations of the point. The appeasement of Hitler by France, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union provide perfect illustrations of this fundamental principle. Appeased tyrants become emboldened, not grateful. In Asia, the appeasing of Hideki Tojo's excursions into China led to his emboldening. When he met zero resistance, Tojo escalated imperialist actions. The point here is simple. Tyrants only respect strength, they do not respect appeasement. They see it for what it is.......weakness. The standing down of Iran shortly after General Soleimani’s death, illustrates the point. It is a mystery why Democrats in America and their parrots in the news media were unable to anticipate this reaction by the Iranian mullahs. The U.S. media still reacts to talk instead of ACTION.
The last stage necessary to create and maintain conditions for lasting peace is empirical. Nations that DO NOT teach their adults and their children the first seven stages required to maintain peace, will eventually suffer catastrophic consequences.
Again, it was not just the leaders of Japan, Germany, and Italy that paid the price for the citizens of those countries not choosing leaders wisely. Millions of citizens all around the world died as a direct consequence of the intransigence of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens.
The outcomes could have been different. When Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, he should have been isolated and crushed. When Hitler began his attempts to acquire territories, he should have been isolated and crushed. The same goes for Hideki Tojo. In each of these instances, it was clear that there was a dangerously ambitious tyrant involved who was unwilling to respect the recognized borders of other nations. Countries that paid huge prices for appeasing Tojo and Hitler were China and the Soviet Union. And of course, Jewish people paid dearly as well.
World War II could have been averted if swift decisive action had been taken to isolate and punish Italy. This would have sent a strong message to both Japan and Germany that disrespect for international boundaries by tyrants would not be tolerated.
Fast forward to 2020. It is quite sad indeed that Democrats and their buddies in the mainstream news media are either too ignorant of history or too cynical regarding Trump to understand what causes war and what causes peace.
Successive generations of American students are being indoctrinated in nonsensical viewpoints instead of the realities of keeping the peace. In this scenario, a guy like Trump gets accused of creating hostility escalation, when he is actually doing precisely the opposite. What a pity. We will pay in the end for this ignorance.
Share/Bookmark

Reverence for diplomacy comes with responsibilities

© 2020 Jim Spence - Human beings are the most dangerous creatures on the planet. How should we define peace? It seems very unrealistic to think that local skirmishes can be eliminated any time soon. With this in mind, stage two of the sequence necessary for the establishment and maintenance of peace is a sobering compromise. The compromise involves recognizing the reality that a certain number of regional/local skirmishes are inevitable. In a state of utopia, which of course does not exist anywhere on earth, there are no skirmishes or local conflicts. Since we don't live in utopia, except for many progressive Democrats who pretend they do, we are going to have to accept the occasional skirmish.
It will only be when public education systems around the globe teach children and adults what causes war, and how difficult it is to maintain peace, that there might be some hope that we can eliminate skirmishes. Based on the efficacy of public education in the U.S. and Europe, for the foreseeable future, the best case scenario is to see to it that local skirmishes do not escalate into regional or global wars.
Stage three in the sequence necessary to establish and maintain peace is basic. Stage three is accomplished when all civilized nations agree to respect internationally recognized boundaries. History is unequivocal on this stage. When a nation, any nation’s borders are violated by aggressors, trouble almost always follows in the form of violence and war. In the effort to police the planet and foster tranquility, super-power nations MUST come together instead of vetoing one another at the U.N., and insist that borders for all nations be respected. Why would we single out the super-power nations? Because super-power nations have the wherewithal to actually enforce respect for borders.
Stage four requires a strong reverence for diplomacy. A huge preference for diplomacy is required on the part of all civilized nations. This is very basic to peace. Relying on diplomacy means nations should maintain embassies within the boundaries of other nations and vice versa, to make sure there is mutual respect and diplomatic communications on an ongoing basis. Again, this is fundamental.
Stage five is directly tied to embracing the importance of diplomacy. All countries must be committed to both enjoying and providing safe and secure embassies. Safe and secure embassies are essential for effective diplomacy. When embassies are NOT protected by the host countries, or respected by other nations, peace always crumbles.
One of the most favored tactics of radical Islamic terrorists, is to attack embassies. When these attacks are state-sponsored, the conditions for peace disintegrate.
Democratic Party candidates for the presidency made hollow comments in recent days. Their shallow criticisms of the attack that killed General Soleimani ignored the fact that state-sponsored Iranian attacks on the American embassy in Iraq represented an UNEQUIVOCAL rejection of diplomacy. Nobody who is the least bit serious about peace can rationally believe that engaging in diplomacy remained an option, when Iran’s military chief was attacking U.S. diplomatic personnel at our embassy in Iraq.
Make no mistake. Democrats know this. Unfortunately their desire for power and their hatred of Trump is so visceral, they are actually willing to pretend that an attack on diplomats in the U.S. embassy in Baghdad was not relevant to Soleimani's death. An embassy attack isn’t merely relevant, it is fundamental. Iran violated American territory, again. In doing so, Iran violated stage five of the sequence that is necessary for the establishment and maintenance of peace.
To appease this sort of Iranian aggression, as Democrats suggest America should do, is to invite disaster. Democrat behavior this month will not play well with independent unaligned voters.
Share/Bookmark

Stage One: Colonial Grievances and Peace

© 2020 Jim Spence - Stage one of the eight stages necessary to establish and maintain “peace” is the recognition by all parties that attempting to re-address colonial grievances is senseless and will be ultimately be fruitless. While many colonial era victims have grievances that are very legitimate, after several generations have come and gone, the essence of re-visiting colonial grievances becomes nothing more than a preference for endless feuding, skirmishing, and bloodshed.
There’s not much regarding colonialism and imperialism that hasn’t already been written. Colonialism can be defined as, “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.”
Occasionally, the terms “colonialism” or “imperialism” are directed as an accusation against the United States. However, by and large all superpowers including the U.S. have eschewed the practice of colonialism and imperialism for many decades. The United States acquired no new territories after World War II when it could have done so with ease. Additional evidence of this reality is the fact that independence has been granted to many former European colonies. The examples are practically endless, especially with England, France, Spain, and the Netherlands.
Every situation involving past colonialism is unique. It would be impossible to establish rules to try to settle old colonial disputes. Spain forcefully colonized and pillaged what would eventually become Mexico. Before the Spaniards arrived in what is now Mexico, the Aztecs established themselves as the dominant force in territories that once belonged to other tribes and factions. The same is true of the Mayans and the Incas in Central and South America. Mexicans fought Spain and gained independence, as did countries in Central and South America. Mexico then made the policy mistake of allowing uncontrolled immigration into colonial Texas, mostly by poor Americans from the south. Eventually the colonists in Texas fought successfully to break away from Mexico. Later the Texans voted to join the United States, which had seized the American west from Mexico in the middle of the 19th century. This was the era when colonialism and imperialism were fashionable in the U.S.
The point here is a simple one. It is virtually impossible to identify all the damaged parties from the colonial/imperialism era, let alone sort out all the grievances. Perhaps some Americans do owe some Mexicans for colonialist/imperialist aggression. Who are these Americans? Do these Americans owe the ancestors of the Spaniards that took Mexico from the Aztecs? Or do these unidentifiable American descendants owe the ancestors of the Aztecs, since they are themselves the descendants of the victims of the Spanish imperialists? The fishing line is tangled. It is best to start over.
At some point for the sake of peace, old territorial grievances must be dropped if peace is preferred. Naturally, hitting the reset button won’t make inter-generational wrongs become right. However, neither do endless feuds and skirmishes. Peace must be deemed more palatable than endless fighting by ALL parties.
Observers can see how this dilemma has become seemingly permanent in the Middle East. There, territorial claims and counterclaims go back dozens and dozens of generations over thousands and thousands of years. In the end, when the living generations of both sides insist on refusing to recognize the rights of the other side to exist, it is impossible to even try to draw borders that will be respected, let alone establish embassies and diplomatic relations.
Again, the premise that the condition of war and strife is normal, and the condition of peace is elusive can be easily acknowledged, when considering the Middle East in general and Israel in particular. Middle East peace is an oxymoron simply because the region has never even made it past Stage Two of the eight stage sequence necessary for maintaining establishing and maintaining peace.
Israel is the superior military force in the region. It is nearly impossible to see this changing given their free market economic model. Diplomatic offers by Israel to return significant portions of land, as well as establishing mutually recognized and respected borders, are essentially stages three and four in the eight stages necessary for establishing and maintaining peace. Sadly, these offers have always been rejected in favor of a continuation of feuding and skirmishing. It is disturbing that there are radical Democratic Party members in the U.S. House of Representatives, who refuse to recognize this situation for what it is. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) are the kinds of people who make getting to Stage Three of the peace process seem like an impossibility. They seem content to blame the U.S. and Israel for thousands of years of war and strife. In doing so, they stonewall the impasse to peace, while fomenting perpetual feuding and skirmishing in the Middle East. The fundamental truths associated with the eight state sequence get torpedoed and the bloodshed continues. Omar and Tlaib are an embarrassment to all peace-seeking Americans.
Share/Bookmark

The Eight Stage Sequence of Maintaining Peace

© 2020 Jim Spence - Amazingly, there are important recurring patterns of behavior throughout human history that go ignored. Reviews of thousands of years of nation's and nation state's actions reveals one unassailable truth. Various stages of war and hostilities are the default condition for mankind. Alternatively, peace remains the great exception. Why?
To maintain peace, governments run by human beings all around the globe must behave themselves. This seems hard to do. An objective assessment of this situation suggests there is a sequence of processes that ALL nations must respect for peaceful conditions to prevail. Should only one nation violate the sequence, peace can come to an end for many other nations.

Often hapless commentary on what actions can "lead to war" gets disguised as news reporting. Often the commentary is so simplistic, it is an insult to anyone who has been paying attention to world history.

Many people claim they have a “global view” and consider themselves citizens of the earth, instead of merely citizens of a country. Too often these types offer nothing to the potential for a learning process where maintaining peace is concerned. Instead of recognizing the fundamental truths of the peace–war stage sequence, they offer one-dimensional political insults. Ignorant of history, grasping all the difficulties of maintaining peace is beyond their grasp. Good global citizens must also be good citizens of individual nations. These duties are NOT mutually exclusive as many imply.

In the 21st Century it is time to concede that the days of colonialism are not only over, but also admit it is impossible to rewind the clock. Virtually every developed nation on earth has engaged in colonialism, including the U.S. It is noteworthy that indigenous people also engaged in colonialism. Colonialism is a human failing, it is NOT merely a developed nation failing.

It was clearly demonstrated that the colonial era was OVER when the would-be late comers to the colonial era (Germany, Japan, and Italy) learned that territorial expansion was going to be considered a no-no in the civilized world after WWII began.

In the post colonial era, there are clearly eight separate sequences required to maintain peace. In fact, all stages must be continuously maintained....to keep peace.

Stage one is the recognition that attempting to re-address colonial grievances is senseless and will be ultimately be fruitless. While many colonial era victims have grievances that are very legitimate, after several generations have come and gone, the essence of re-visiting colonial grievances becomes nothing more than endless feuding and bloodshed.

Stage two is the reality that a certain number of regional/local skirmishes are inevitable. The key to maintaining peace is to see to it that these skirmishes do not escalate into regional or global wars. It is best to be realistic instead of idealistic about skirmishes.

Stage three is basic. All nations must respect internationally recognized boundaries. When a nation’s borders are violated trouble almost always follows in the form of war.

Stage four requires an internationally strong reverence for diplomacy. This is required on the part of all civilized nations. It is very basic to peace, that nations maintain embassies within the boundaries of other nations to make sure there is mutual respect and diplomatic communications on an ongoing basis.

Stage five is directly tied to the importance of diplomacy. All countries must enjoy and provide safe and secure embassies. Safe and secure embassies are essential for effective diplomacy when inevitable conflicts develop. When embassies are NOT protected by the host countries, or respected by other nations, peace always crumbles.

Stage six is the essential balancing act. Civilized nations must be capable of differentiating between actions that represent 1) minor local skirmishes or 2) territorial expansion ambitions by would-be tyrants. While minor skirmishes must be tolerated to a certain extent, the appeasement of territorial aggressors will almost always lead to the end of peaceful conditions.

Stage seven requires the recognition by civilized nations that appeasement of leaders of any nations that violate the previous six stages of peace listed above, will result in the worst possible outcomes for all global citizens. The actions of Japan, Germany, and Italy and reactions by other nations provides a perfect illustration of this fundamental principle. There are many other good examples. Appeasing Tojo, Mussolini, and Hitler led to escalations, not to keeping the peace.

Stage eight is empirical. Nations that DO NOT teach their adults and their children the first seven stages required to maintain peace, will eventually suffer catastrophic consequences. Again, it was not just the leaders of Japan, Germany, and Italy that paid the price for the citizens being unaware of the implications of these sequences. Millions of citizens all around the world died as a direct consequence of the ignorance of Japanese, Italian, and German citizens of the sequences involved in maintaining peace.

Finally, a few observations on technology. Technology is a general term. Technology has advanced at a furious pace in recent years. Superior military technology, in the hands of peace-loving nations has always been important to maintaining peace. All civilized nations must not only embrace the previous eight stages of peace, they must also see the wisdom of civilized super-powers possessing superior military technology and superior intelligence gathering capabilities.

When peace loving super-powers are required to shackle their technology and appease rogue states that violate the principles listed above, the world becomes LESS peaceful. Essentially, erring on the side of appeasement once a rogue nation violates the other stages of the peace sequence, creates conditions that allow local and regional skirmishes to escalate into regional or global wars. We now have the technology to make the alternative to appeasement more focused and less invasive.
Share/Bookmark

The insatiable egos of Mike Lee and Rand Paul.

© 2020 Jim Spence - There seems to be something that happens to United States senators after they have been in Washington a few years. Enter Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky, two seemingly bright, thoughtful, and intelligent guys. Both fried all semblance of their personal credibility with ridiculous rants on the media briefing Wednesday morning by the defense apparatus of our country.
There is certainly a time and place for Republicans to demand answers from the president of their own party. However, given that America is engaged in a domestic CIVIL WAR that pits shameless Democrats, who literally will stop at nothing to regain power, the time and place to ask questions is behind closed doors.
Observers who pay attention to Washington D.C. have noted for many decades that the most contagious disease U.S. senators are susceptible to catching, is an overwhelming sense of SELF-IMPORTANCE. You see it on both sides of the aisle, and you see it in the U.S. House of Representatives as well. But know this, every House member wants to be a senator. There are only 100 of them in the nation and boy do they all know it. Senators are easily the most arrogant human beings on the planet.
You never know when the symptoms of malignant self-importance will strike a senator. But when you see these symptoms, they are unmistakable. It seems that both Mike Lee and Rand Paul have contracted this intellectual malignancy. Brain surgery seems in order because sadly, self-importance now overwhelms their abilities to engage in rational thought and/or basic information processing capabilities.
There is a stark reality that has yet to take root in the minds of Mike Lee and Rand Paul. This reality is that Donald Trump did not even need to make the case for dusting off an Iranian terrorist general who’s record of killing innocent civilians and U.S. military personnel was without parallel. The enormous mountain of evidence was empirical. Still, Trump stood before the cameras with his entire military team by his side this morning and ran down the already known laundry list of capital offenses committed by Soleimani and the rogue state of Iran. In fact, Trump did so without including the fact that an old U.N resolution actually forbade Soleimani from even setting foot in Iraq, let alone plotting more death and destruction.
It reflects particularly poorly that Mike Lee and Rand Paul both seemed oblivious to the fact that an attack on an embassy, ANY EMBASSY, is an act of war. Self-importance IN, rational thinking OUT.
In the previous column on this site, readers were counselled on the fundamental facts regarding the civilized world’s war with radical Islam. Readers were reminded that this war NEVER ENDED.
Accordingly, it is absolutely appalling that two veteran GOP senators, who are not hapless partisan Democrats hoping to retake the White House, would not know this, or worse yet, ignore it. The list of basic facts regarding what Iran and its generals have been doing in and around the Persian Gulf for the last forty years should not require a rehashing for anyone who has had as many briefings as Mike Lee and Rand Paul.
The point here is painfully simple. When Americans elect a Commander in Chief there is a prerequisite of trust required. Nobody in his right mind wants a duly elected president, or members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to disclose how they knew that Soleimani was in Iraq, let alone how they KNEW what he might have been doing there.
Mike Lee and Rand Paul seem to forget, while under their incredible fog of self-importance, that there are brave Americans still on the ground in Iraq, providing steady streams of intelligence. These brave warriors can easily be compromised if symbolic public briefings contain TOO MUCH CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
The message here is pretty basic. Given a choice between Mike Lee and a Democrat or Rand Paul and a Democrat, the advice to voters in Utah and Kentucky is to vote for Lee and Paul. But the evidence is clear. These men should have known full well that they should have taken their curiosity about the details of the dusting of the most dangerous terrorist in the world BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
Mike Lee and Rand Paul disgraced themselves today. It seems that only U.S. senators with an overwhelming sense of self-importance are prone to these types of ego-driven miscalculations. What a pitiful situation for the GOP voters in Utah and Kentucky. There are so many things that are more important than the egos of Mike Lee and Rand Paul.
Share/Bookmark

When you are consumed by hatred

© 2020 Jim Spence - There have been four important liquidations of active international terrorists in recent memory. On May 2, 2011, the U.S. military conducted a raid inside Pakistan’s borders to terminate Osama bin Laden’s life. This raid came during Barack Obama’s first term.
Anwar Al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was born in Las Cruces, NM was, like bin Laden, an international terrorist who was also killed in Yemen by the U.S. military. His killing also came during the first term of the Obama administration on September 30, 2011.
On October 26, 2019, the founder and leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was killed by U.S. Special Operations Forces. The Americans executed a dangerous nighttime raid in northwestern Syria to kill al-Baghdadi, and successfully dealt a tremendous blow to perhaps the most active and violent terrorist in the world at that time.
And of course, just last week, Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top military commander and the world’s most dangerous living terrorist, was killed while he was violating a U.N. order to stay out of Iraq. He was in Iraq planning violence against Americans there in the U.S. embassy.
It is pretty sad to have to point this out, but nobody with a lick of sense has wasted a millisecond mourning the deaths of any of these four mass murderers.
On Soleimani, Russia and China have both been pretty much silent. Soleimani posed a grave threat to Chinese and Russian citizens as well as Americans.
This being said, some international legal experts actually questioned the legality of American armed forces entering Pakistan to carry out the execution of Osama bin Laden back in 2011. However, by and large, bin Laden’s death was widely celebrated in America as well as around the world. Osama bin Laden like the other three killers, lived by the sword.
From a legal standpoint, perhaps the most noteworthy questions were raised regarding Barack Obama’s decision to kill Anwar al-Awlaki. Some legal experts suggested that the Obama administration had overstepped its boundaries by ordering "an extrajudicial execution." Because he was an American citizen, some observers felt Anwar al-Awlaki's rights to due process, including a trial, were breached. However, observers with this legal viewpoint were not provided with much airtime domestically to voice their concerns for what was nothing more than the violent end to a ruthless killer's life, U.S. citizenship be damned.
Fast forward to 2020 and suddenly we are dealing with what has to be described as a feigned sense of outrage within the Democratic Party of the United States. It seems that with the 2020 election approaching fast, the Trump military response to an attack on the United States embassy in Baghdad is being cast as "Trump starting a war."
Pardon me while I fight back the urge to laugh at the absurdity of the observations of every single Democrat running for president along with their ground troops posing as journalists in the mainstream media.
Here's a little fresh serving of reality. The war against radical Islamic killers NEVER ENDED. It began long before 9-11-01 and it continues. The killing of Osama bin Laden, Anwar al-Awlaki, and al-Baghdadi neither ended the war against radical Islam, nor did it escalate the war. Iran was organizing and fomenting acts of terror before the end of Soleimani’s life and the Iranian mullahs will be doing so now that he is gone. Barack Obama's "treaty" with Iran was nothing more than a domestic publicity stunt.
Of course most Americans understand all of these things. They see this situation for what it is and what it isn't. It is just part of the process of the war on terror.
Democrats want us to believe that only they know how to kill bad guys. But unfortunately, when Democrats lose the White House there are still plenty of very bad people out there who hate Americans. This includes all Democrats and all Republicans.
Once again the Democrats, because the only thing they stand for these days is hatred of Trump, are willing to embrace rogue nations like Iran.
Here's some election advice. Sympathizing with Iran and its henchmen, who would kill millions of American Democrats if they only got the chance, is not going to be a winning play for the Democrat's 2020 campaign. But don’t expect Democrats to get this point. When people are consumed by blind hatred, it is very difficult for them to think clearly.
Share/Bookmark

Don't be fooled, attacks on embassies are acts of war

© 2020 Jim Spence - The Iranian general who was responsible for the murders of hundreds if not thousands of Americans, met with a fitting end earlier this week. The U.S. retaliation against terrorism came after this general’s followers attempted to storm the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and kill the occupants. 
Make no mistake, it is clear that General Soleimani felt confident enough in the lack of any punitive actions by the U.S. to move about freely in neighboring Iraq. Soleimani was openly supervising and coordinating terrorist acts against Americans and anti-Iran citizens living in Iraq.
History is replete with hostile action by the forces of radical Islam. Attacking American embassies has happened many times. Consider the Iranian government’s storming of the U.S. embassy in Tehran during the Carter years. That attack was essentially a state-sponsored aggression on our sovereign soil. Jimmy Carter attempted appeasement of the American-hating Iranian mullahs for many months during the siege. Then, and only reluctantly, Carter authorized a hapless rescue mission that exposed just how inept military preparedness was in the Carter White House. In the end, Jimmy Carter was sent packing by the voters and the American hostages were released just before Ronald Reagan had a chance to make Iran pay a steep price for their international transgressions.
In early August of 1998, United States embassies in both Kenya and Tanzania were attacked. More than 200 people were killed in the truck bomb explosions in these two East African countries. It came on the heels of Bill Clinton’s most serious domestic political troubles.
On September 11, 2012, radical Muslim terrorists sponsored by the same group that saw their general get nixed earlier this week, attacked and killed four people including the U.S. ambassador in Benghazi. These attacks were designed in part to influence the U.S. presidential election by making Barack Obama look weak. Obama was weak, and so was Hillary Clinton who issued those who could have saved lives an order to "stand down."
All civilized nations view the embassies of other countries as sacred and sovereign. American soldiers actually defended the Japanese embassy after their attacks on Pearl Harbor. The points here are pretty simple. America has enemies. These enemies hate Democrats and Republicans. These enemies are always looking for openings. Not coincidentally, North Korea is back on the offensive. These dictators are aggressive because they perceive signs of serious weakness in America's resolve. Impeachment proceedings are taken into account by those who hate all of us.
While the squabbles between Trump and the Democrats continues, the war between civilized nations and those that encourage and sponsor radical Islamic terror is ongoing. It has never ended. Despite the short attention span of the U.S. news media on the ongoing threat of radical Islam, the families of victims of the bombings listed above know these threats are all too real. Imagine the fear in the hearts of those with loved ones in the Baghdad embassy this week. In fact, the murderous intent of the Iranian mullahs is perhaps the most important reason why our borders should be secure. This was one of the primary findings of the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission Report.
In the end, the bogus impeachment scam and absurd reactions by Democrats to the securing of embassy personnel in Baghdad suggest they have suspended all pretenses of working together to combat terror. Sadly, this reality has more far-reaching consequences than many people imagine. 
That America is at war with itself is no longer subject to debate. According to several media research studies, over a six-week period from September 24, 2019 to November 5, 2019, the three major broadcast networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, supposedly evaluated Donald Trump 684 times on their nightly news shows. Despite a booming American economy, rising wages, strong performance in citizen retirement accounts, record low unemployment rates for minorities, and record low poverty rates for minorities, 96 percent of these so-called “evaluations” of Trump by ABC, NBC, and CBS were profoundly negative. Ironically, these same broadcast news outlets also ran many segments suggesting that Trump is somehow a “threat” to press freedom. When the U.S. press is running a ratio of 24 - 1 negative evaluations on a sitting president, and also accusing him of being a threat to freedom of speech, this is exceedingly comical. America's press could not hardly be any more “free,” with a ratio of negatives to positives coming in at 24 – 1. Consider that Putin in Russia and Xi in China got 100% positive coverage by the “journalists” in those countries. If Trump conducted himself like Putin and Xi, we would have dozens of dead journalist bodies to bury instead of seeing an army of strutting peacocks engaged in open season on Trump every night on broadcast news.
Finally, when you observe the Democrat’s reactions to the disposal of an American-murdering terrorist, you begin to understand why this column has been describing U.S. politics as naked warfare. Democrats prefer to pretend that Trump made a unilateral decision to stir up trouble in Baghdad. No doubt if Trump had done nothing about the embassy attack but issue empty threats, Democrats would have accused him of being indifferent to the dangers facing embassy personnel. 
 Clearly Trump can’t win with Democrats or with the news media. However, given their completely blind, reckless, and irrational hatreds, Democrats are now, as a consequence of their indifference towards the lives of those serving in American embassies, providing aid and comfort to people who are the enemies of all freedom-loving human beings on the planet.
Are American killers the people Democrats want to align with rather than support Trump? Is this a winning play with 1/3rd of Americans who are independent voters? Stay tuned.
Share/Bookmark

Are these good ideas that will solve problems in America?

© 2020 Jim Spence - It has all come unraveled for Democrats. Not long ago, when George W. Bush left office in early 2009, the Democrats had won elections that gave them control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. It turns out that the 2008 election was the high water mark for the Democrat's hold on power. In the eight years that followed, Democrats lost control of the presidency, the Senate, and the House. And with these ballot box losses, they lost control of their chance to control the Supreme Court.
Election math in the U.S. is pretty simple. Politically, America is a nation split into thirds. One third is partisan Democrat, one third is partisan Republican, and one third is unaligned and independent. Independents in swing states voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and they voted for Trump in 2016 against Obama's chosen successor.
What Nancy Pelosi and Company are doing these days can no longer be defined as simply aggressive politics to try to win the next election. Clearly, Democrats think and behave as if they are at WAR with anyone who is not a partisan Democrat. People paying attention know that Democrats simply cannot stand to be out of power. And because they are out of power, they are committed to making sure America does not experience any sense of peace. Instead, they insist, with a powerful assist from their friends in the media, that Americans endure 24 hour a day, seven day a week, 365 days a year, barrages of nasty political war. Again, the realities of political math suggests that at all times, two-thirds of Americans are opposed to blind hatred and political warfare. Yet the Democrats cannot seem to help themselves. Add to this situation, the fact that Trump is fighting them every step of the way and you get a bloody war. There is an old saying, "Never get into a pissing contest with a skunk. You will lose and the skunk will enjoy it."
What has made the U.S. the marvel of the rest of the world, is the opposite of this. America stays strong because there have always been peaceful transfers of power back and forth between Democrats and Republicans since the end of the Civil War. And not so coincidentally, the only “impeachment” in the House of Representatives during the 19th Century came at the end of that domestic conflict. Democrats are engaging in Civil War.
Unfortunately, once partisan bickering morphs into hatred-based political war, practically any tactics are justified in the minds of the war participants. Keep in mind that in wartime, people are rewarded, not based on what they can produce, but based on what they can destroy. The angrier the warriors are, the more desperately they fight. In a word, the 2020 Democrats are furiously angry and they are desperate. Unfortunately, it takes more than being furious and desperate to win elections. Democrats seem to have completely forgotten that it is the perception that they offer better policy ideas that leads to wins at the ballot box. Alternatively, bad ideas lose.
Voters are starving for “policy ideas” to get behind for the next election. Those running to unseat a sitting president in a booming economy, with record low poverty and unemployment rates, should keep in mind that their ideas must have crossover appeal with independents.
Consider the Democrat’s presidential debates. Candidates have the opportunity to present their best ideas to independent voters. Instead of proposing policy ideas that will solve problems, Democrats insist on floating ideas that have already been tried and failed but are embraced by the losers.
Scorched earth political war tactics like this sham impeachment process, are not a viable substitute for winning ideas. And while the Democrats main course on the debate menu and in the U.S. House is hatred of Trump, most of the side dishes they offer are all bad ideas that the majority of American voters are sure to reject. Here's a short list of bad ideas Democrats embrace:
1) They show no respect and take no responsibility for their loss in the 2016 election. In effect they blame and bad mouth voters, their customers. 2) They seem to forget that Americans instinctively dislike sore losers. 3) They also routinely blame all unsolved problems in America on racism and white privilege. Independents are tired of this. 4) Democrats no longer see any need for U.S. borders or enforcement of immigration laws. They call Border Patrol and ICE agents vile names. Again Independents support secure borders. 5) Democrats brand U.S. corporations as nothing more than exploitation machines instead of recognizing them as entities that provide paychecks, healthcare benefits etc. Independents appreciate their employers. 6) They insist that conferring high school diplomas on functionally illiterate teenagers is preferable to reforming the education bureaucracy. Independents want educational reforms. 7) Democrats are asking Americans to legalize the killing of helpless babies who are born alive. They insist that infanticide comes under the purview of “female healthcare.” 8) While all Americans including all Democrats consume fossil fuels, only Democrats condemn these fuels and everyone who produces them.
It is probably a good time for Democrats to take a step back and ask themselves if they want to run on really bad ideas that two-thirds of Americans reject, or shift course and adopt a slate of good ideas that would support this vibrant U.S. economy that we all rely on.
It looks like Democrat’s are going down on the bad idea ship. Just this week Michael Bloomberg proposed a law requiring all physicians to take courses to reduce the numbers of racists in their ranks. Bloomberg crassly suggested that doctors and nurses provide treatment preferences to white people. Does this include the tens of thousands of black nurses and doctors? Not to be outdone by Bloomberg’s ridiculous proposal, Joe Biden suggested that the CEO’s of companies that produce fossil fuels to power the jets he flies around in, should be jailed if they are not being sufficiently concerned about “climate change.”
Are these good ideas that will solve problems in America? Or are they the silly musings of fools who have forgotten their job is to solve American problems?
Share/Bookmark