The news media and John McCain

© 2018 Jim Spence - Reading financial media coverage of the mainstream media’s coverage of John McCain’s death, reminds me of why I don’t watch broadcast news shows anymore.
First of all, broadcast networks behave as if nothing they have aired in the past was ever archived or remembered. The truth is EVERY news network except Fox parroted the shameless Democrat Party accusations against McCain in 2008. Rather predictably, Democrats repeatedly called McCain a racist during his run against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential campaign. Now, and only suddenly with his death, McCain has become in the eyes of the mainstream news media, some sort of regal bi-partisan lion who always served the greater good.
Sorry folks, you cannot have it both ways. Remorseless racists are not people who serve the greater good. Either the mainstream media was lying about McCain in 2008 or it is lying about him now. Many people believe they were lying in both instances.
How about the remorseless congressman and bitter race-baiter John Lewis of Georgia, who had the brass to praise McCain yesterday, after comparing him to the hopeless racist George Wallace in 2008? The only way Lewis could square what he said about McCain yesterday was if he admitted he was a shameless liar in 2008. He got a free pass from his buddies in the mainstream news media.
Why all the praise for McCain? It seems to go back to his feud with Donald Trump when Trump said some of the dumbest things ever uttered about a former POW during the 2016 presidential campaign. It should be footnoted that it was McCain who first attacked Trump.
Anyone who hates Trump is a friend of the mainstream news media. The coverage of McCain is simply the latest opportunity to "get Trump." Getting Trump is the national pastime for journalists. Whenever someone in life or death suits the purpose of the mainstream news media, which is to support the Democrat Party, people like John McCain become useful, especially in death.
What should we remember about John McCain? Remember most of all that McCain made it his mission to campaign fervently in Arizona in 2016 against Obamacare, only to shift 180 degrees at the moment of truth and cast the deciding vote to save Obamacare after he was re-elected. Why did he stick it to every little person voter who supported him in Arizona? He did so because he wanted to teach Trump a lesson for bashing him. McCain also voted against oil exploration in the frozen swamp of ANWR in Alaska for God only knows what reason. McCain also voted against the tax cuts right after the turn of the century, for God only knows what reason. Those tax cuts led to the fastest rates of economic growth in decades. The prosperity came over the objections of one John McCain. McCain should also be remembered for graduating 894th in a class of 899 at the U.S. Naval Academy. Not exactly a sign of work ethic for a man with a purportedly high IQ.
The truth is thousands of men and women die every day in America who served their country and their spouses more honorably than John McCain ever did. But because McCain was a relatively successful politician, he is getting a particularly noteworthy send off.
Two wishes come to mind in the wake of McCain’s death. The first would be that God would rest his soul. The second would be that somehow the mainstream media would gain some sense of how atrocious it has become. In casting the McCain’s of the world as despicable racists one day and great leaders the next, they disgrace themselves. We have much greater hopes for the first wish than the second.


Freedom of expression? Surely you jest.

© 2018 Jim Spence - The NFL is playing preseason games already and will be ready for the 2018 regular season early next month. Some observers are predicting that season ticket sales have plummeted in the wake of the way the league accommodates offensive behavior during the playing of the national anthem. We shall see.
The vast majority of business owners would fire any employee who intentionally offended paying customers in the way some NFL players do. And there is no question that NFL commissioner Roger Goodell is a bald-faced liar when he claims the league wants to insure players have their "freedom of expression."
The NFL has strict rules against freedom of expression on the job. Here is the league’s national anthem rule verbatim:
“The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem. During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. … It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and out country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.”
Don't kid yourself, the league is making choices and the league’s choices are glaringly inconsistent. The NFL has chosen not to ENFORCE its own rule (in bold above) regarding the national anthem. The NFL's claim that it supports freedom of expression, even while the players are working is a crock. The league has the same sort of explicit rules regarding uniforms, shoes, eye black, sweat bands, etc. While the NFL makes a conscious choice to ignore its rules when players expressing their disdain for the national anthem, the American flag, or whatever it is they are actually expressing, Goodell and company are real sticklers on other forms of expression. Below are some examples of what the league has done in choosing to enforce its rules AGAINST freedom of expression:

  1. In 2012, the NFL objected to Tim Tebow’s wearing of letters designating a bible verse (John 3:16) as part of his blackout to avoid glare and ordered him to remove the letters.
  2. In 2013, the NFL fined wide receiver Brandon Marshall for wearing green cleats to raise awareness for people with mental health disorders. 
  3. In 2014, Robert Griffin III (RG3) entered a post-game press conference wearing a shirt that said: “Know Jesus Know Peace,” but the NFL’s “rules against freedom of expression” forced Griffin to retreat and turn the t-shirt inside out before speaking at the podium.
  4. In 2015, DeAngelo Williams was fined by the league for wearing “Find the Cure” eye black for breast cancer awareness.
  5. In 2015, the NFL’s William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats to raise awareness for domestic violence.
  6. In 2016, the NFL prevented the Dallas Cowboys from wearing a decal on their helmet in honor of 5 Dallas Police officers killed in the line of duty.
  7. In 2016, the NFL threatened to fine all players who wore cleats to commemorate the 15th anniversary of 9/11.
There is no question that the NFL is lying when it claims it respects freedom of expression. The NFL also lies when it says it enforces its rules. The NFL does not respect freedom of expression and it only enforces its own rules selectively. The basis for the choices the league makes in being inconsistent is troubling. If players express disrespect for the national anthem and the American flag the NFL does not enforce its rule and cites freedom of expression as the reason. However, when players or entire teams try to "express" respect for murdered police officers, or efforts to find cures for cancers, they are threatened and fined. Now that is some strange value system.
In a few weeks we are going to see if the NFL is still the sort of business Americans will patronize given the bald-faced lies it tells and dubious value system it embraces.

Seen on television last night


They think we forget what they said

Check out this video. It shows just how whacked out Democrats have become on immigration and how unfairly the media is with Trump on all things immigration.

Peter Strzok's "Deep Patriotism"

© 2018 Jim Spence - There’s an old joke that makes the rounds. If you don’t believe in life after death, just go to a government office in the middle of the day and then camp out at the exits at quitting time. Maybe this little joke helps explain why it took the FBI so long to finally terminate disgraced FBI Agent Peter Strzok. Government simply cannot do anything with expediency. We all pay for the sloth.
Peter Strzok was leading the bureau’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. He was that is, until officials discovered he had been sending anti-Trump texts to his lover without copying his wife.
In recent weeks Strzok’s lawyer had been hoping his client would "only" receive a demotion and 60-day suspension. Instead, Strzok’s 22-year career came to a crashing end as it became obvious to anyone with a lick of common sense that he had corrupted the two highest profile FBI investigations in recent memory. It is amazing that every Democrat in Congress with oversight responsibility for the FBI, defended Strzok.
Before he was terminated, Strzok helped deliver a whitewash of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was Secretary of State. And despite the fact that the FBI discovered that Clinton sent numerous highly classified messages, both Strzok and James Comey carefully crafted the wording of their findings to let her off the hook. At the same time Strzok and Comey also began the dubious Russian investigation of Donald Trump using phony evidence obtained from the Clinton campaign.
In a world where ethics in journalism actually exists, this scandal would take on Watergate-like consequences. But with partisan Democrats working in high positions at every major media outlet except Fox, there is no accountability for even the most dastardly conduct by swamp occupants.
Throughout Strzok’s investigations, he was having an extramarital affair with former FBI lawyer Lisa Page. The two adulterers exchanged tens of thousands of texts on government phones and many of their exchanges were anti-Trump, pro-Hillary. These messages were exchanged while Strzok was taking steps to get Clinton off the hook and before he moved on to embroiling Trump in what has so far been a fruitless effort to produce any evidence whatsoever of Trump-Russian collusion.
Particularly damning to Strzok's now disgraced career was a text to Page stating he was worried that the FBI was going too hard on Hillary in the email investigation. And when Strzok was informed of evidence that Clinton’s unauthorized and unsecured server was breached, he refused to pursue it.
Perhaps the two smoking guns that sealed Strzok’s fate and cast a pall over the legitimacy of everything related to the collusion allegations made by Democrats, is Strzok's mention of an “insurance policy” against a Trump victory in a text he sent on August 15, 2016 to Page. In this text, Strzok mentions a meeting with then-Deputy Director Andrew McCabe. Strzok was no doubt referring to the so-called Trump dossier, which was nothing more than a Clinton campaign-funded opposition research file compiled by a former British spy who was also milking the FBI for cash. As Page lamented the prospect of a Trump victory, Strzok said they (the FBI?) would stop Trump’s presidency.
 “[Trump’s] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!” Page texted.
“No. No he won’t. We’ll stop it,” replied Strzok.
Predictably, Strzok played word games with those in Congress responsible for FBI oversight when he was cornered. He suggested that the texts did not mean what they said. Instead, he had the unmitigated gall to claim the texts displayed his “deep patriotism.” When Page was asked about the meaning of the anti-Trump texts, she did not mince her words. “They mean exactly what they say,” was her response. Give her a cookie for being honest while Strzok lied again and again.
Of course very few of these facts will be reported on the evening news unless you are watching Fox. Partisan outlets like the New York Times and Washington Post don’t employ investigative reporters, they stick with brainwashed propaganda ministers and their deputies.
Democrat the Party of Division

Poor babies

© 2018 Jim Spence - The Boston Globe says, "The dirty war on the free press must end." In response to the "dirty war," the paper has engaged in an editorial-writing initiative that has enlisted scores of newspapers across America.
What is really happening here is the paper has come out of the closet so to speak, and has stopped pretending it is objective. The Globe has actually admitted it has been contacting newspaper editorial boards and proposing a "coordinated response" to President Trump's escalating "enemy of the people" rhetoric.
"We propose to publish an editorial on August 16th on the dangers of the administration's assault on the press and ask others to commit to publishing their own editorials on the same date," the Globe said in its pitch to fellow papers.
Apparently, in the minds of those at the Globe, freedom of speech only goes one way. The Globe, which has engaged in a non-stop assault on everything Trump since 2016, does not like it when it gets called out.
"As of Saturday, we have more than 100 publications signed up, and I expect that number to grow in the coming days," Marjorie Pritchard, the Globe's deputy editorial page editor, told CNN.
Anyone who is really paying attention finds it comical that the Globe thinks it needs to call papers around the country to get them organized against Trump. A quick glance at the Las Cruces Sun-News any day of the week will show that it contains more thinly veiled anti-Trump propaganda than one could possibly imagine.
“Instead of printing the exact same message, each publication will write its own editorial,” Pritchard said.
What does ole Marge think most media outlets (except Fox and talk radio) have been doing for the last two years?
The Globe goes on and on, "The impact of Trump's assault on journalism looks different in Boise than it does in Boston. Our words will differ. But at least we can agree that such attacks are alarming."
Here is what is alarming. What is alarming is that in America the 21st Century free press is no longer bothering to search for the truth and/or print both sides of political debates. The vast majority of the so-called "free press" is simply a wing of the Democratic Party. It is a free press alright. It is a weapon of the Democratic Party that is not paid for. It is FREE.
The press objects to Trumps coarse treatment of its Democrat propaganda ministers. While it is certainly true that Trump ruffles press feathers, what Trump does is child’s play compared the Stalin-style tactics employed the United States Department of Justice, under Attorney General Eric Holder in 2013. Holder actually used the strong arm of government to subpoena phone records from the Associated Press. Obama’s A.G. also went so far as to name Fox News reporter, James Rosen, a "criminal co-conspirator" under the Espionage Act of 1917 in order to gain access to his personal emails and phone records. Now that is assault my friends. It goes way beyond name calling.
These coordinated editorials planned for next week are just another example of how brazen the press is in supporting Democrats and opposing the GOP.
The bottom line is that the Globe does not realize that nothing has changed. What the Globe is doing will go unnoticed because virtually every newspaper in the nation conducts a full assault on the White House every day. What the press objects to is that Trump doesn’t just lie there and take it like the Bush White Houses did. He hits back and hits back hard.
One has to feel sorry for the press. They have gotten so used to sucker punching GOP presidents they are off balance now that they are getting sucker punched back. It is a real pity they can’t simply pick election winners for the rest of us while hiding behind the 1st Amendment. The press has every right to take sides. So does Trump. The 1st Amendment protects him too.
The Globe does not realize there is a reason why newspapers are dying. One of the reasons is most of them are partisan rags.


White Guilt Relief Fund

© 2018 Jim Spence - So many positive things have happened since the days when Martin Luther King Jr. called for judging people based on the, “content of their character,” rather than the color of their skin. So magnificent was his message, in a relatively short time, it would be adopted as the dominant attitude in America. Roughly one hundred years after the end of the Civil War, a conflict where more than 500,000 whites gave their lives to end slavery, America experienced sweeping changes. Thank God those changes finally came.
Perhaps the most phenomenon change of all regarding race relations in America since the Civil Rights era is the widespread increase in inter-racial marriages. Thanks to extraordinary films like “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” and many others, people of various races and ethnic backgrounds began to inter-marry in large numbers. The result was millions of beautiful mixed-race American children. In the real world, wonderful changes regarding racial harmony are everywhere for everyone to see. Total integration is a way of life across the cultural spectrum. In our movies, our television shows, our commercials, our books, our theaters, in sports, in our education system, and even in the bodies of elected officials, as well as the U.S. presidency for two terms.........we are integrated and working well together.
Politics is not the real world. Democrats have perverted themselves politically where race is concerned. It is the fervent view of most Democrats to assume a vested interest in denying all of these wonderful changes in America. Instead of seeing the enormous good, they are hell-bent and determined to pretend things are getting worse. Democrats conduct themselves in the most insidious ways imaginable in their thirst for more power. They stoke the fires of division based on race. Earlier this month the Democrat’s national newspaper, The New York Times, engaged in the shameful step of promoting a self-described white-hating racist to its editorial board. Sarah Jeong’s utterances make most Americans cringe. The Times could have held a lottery to select a board member and gotten a better candidate. The Times claims it vetted Jeong. Some vetting.
Democrats play cynical games when pointing to poverty statistics to try to infer that America is still racist. However poverty statistics are particularly revealing of the importance of good personal decision-making, not racism. Poverty rates among married whites and married black adults are virtually identical. For the most part the differences in poverty can be traced to the explosion in unmarried women becoming pregnant in the inner cities and perpetuating multi-generational cycles of poverty. Ironically, this great human tragedy is very much the consequence of Democrats alleged war on poverty which began under LBJ. It was LBJ who decided to strut out his amazing compassion and subsidize illegitimacy. Low and behold illegitimacy rates skyrocketed just as anyone with a basic understanding of economics could have predicted. Illegitimacy affects members of all races negatively. Illegitimacy is not a skin color problem it is a bad choice problem.
Image result for garrett morris
Garrett Morris
It was forty-two years ago that brilliant comedian Garrett Morris got the new status of “race relations” in America right. He did so in just 37 seconds on Saturday Night Live. In a hysterical parody (which can be viewed here) Morris made fun of the way progressive Democrats were using asinine guilt imposing techniques to goad historically-aware whites into supporting absurd race-based give-away programs. The idea behind the Morris joke was he was personally willing to help any poor conflicted white assuage his or her anguish over past wrongs committed by other whites from a bygone era.
Are there still racists in America? Of course there are. There are racists in every nation on earth. What is fascinating is the way the Democrats, with the assistance of the media, have pretended that racism is still a huge problem in America's white communities. Democrats point to white supremacists who stage protests in front of television cameras. This is a con job. This tiny fraction of the white population is universally viewed as stupid and ignorant. The Democrat media seizes on the despicable actions of a handful of idiots, and tries desperately to tie those actions to ALL non-Democrat whites. It is a political shell game.
Racism isn’t a huge problem. Democrats are a huge problem. They are a huge problem because they willingly coddle racists in minority communities. Those who are on the record using inflammatory racist language, get jobs at the New York Times and seats in Congress. The public education machine, which is controlled by unions that are fiercely loyal to Democrats, finds it politically useful to infer that whites are guilty of being oppressors…….unless those whites are willing to prove they are not oppressors. If you are white, how do you prove you are not an oppressor in the eyes of Democrats? It is easy. Join the chorus of those who identify themselves not as individuals, but as members of victims groups. Then make it well-known that you cast your votes for big government socialist Democrats. You must also imply that anyone who is white and does not vote Democrat, is by default a racist.
The list of minority members who find Democrat race-baiting appalling is long. However, their voices are systematically stifled by the Democratic Party bias that dominates mainstream media, entertainment, and the public education system. Do yourself a favor. Do some research on brilliant people like Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, Star Parker, Lurita Doan, Harry Jackson Jr., Charles Payne, and many others. These people are the modern day peacemakers. If you want to become truly enlightened about how race has become a cynical tool of Democrats to promote socialism, read their columns.


Harvard, America's fool factory

© 2018 Jim Spence - Harvard University is a national disgrace. The school builds the sentiment of discriminating against Asian-Americans into the backbone of its admissions policies. And each year a horde of unqualified students gains admission to Harvard so the university’s faculty can brainwash them with continuous flows of absurd propaganda. Ludicrous arguments justify everything at Harvard except merit-based thought-processes.
Of course, Harvard is not the only so-called higher-education facility in America that is destroying the ability of its graduates to think critically. However, because it is a high profile university, it should be subjected to the utmost scrutiny instead of getting a free pass on mass producing uninformed clowns.
The recent machinations of Harvard grad and New York Times editor Arthur Sulzberger, including his accommodations of unrepentant racist Sarah Jeong, also a Harvard grad who joins the Times editorial board, are prime examples of the dangers institutions like Harvard pose to the fundamental well-being of America.
Don’t look now, another Harvard grad, Annie Lowrey is busy disgracing herself in public view. Lowrey may well be the dumbest individual to ever write columns for The Atlantic, New York Magazine, and the New York Times. Of course, the Atlantic has published many dubious articles over the decades, but perhaps none was more ignorant than Lowrey’s recent piece entitled “Are Stock Buybacks Starving the Economy?”
Some background is in order. Lowrey is married to Ezra Klein, the editor of Vox and a contributor to MSNBC. Klein is a Howard Dean devotee. Nuf said. Lowrey has published a book with a title that says it all, “Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty, Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World.” Lowrey spreads economic ignorance like Johnny used to spread apple seeds. Sadly, Lowery is a virtual illiterate when it comes to economics, which explains why the New York Times hired her to be an economic policy reporter.
In her Atlantic ramblings, Lowrey suggests that stock buybacks are, “pulling money away from employee compensation, research and development, and other corporate priorities — with potentially sweeping effects on business dynamism, income and wealth inequality, working-class economic stagnation, and the country’s growth rate.” Lowrey compounds her astonishing level of ignorance by suggesting that stock buybacks cause sluggish economic growth, low productivity, and lower pay.
Where to start when there is so much stupidity to refute. First, anyone arguing that those who work and are productive should be given the option by taxpayers to stop being taxpayers and instead sit back and collect a “universal income” for doing nothing, has no clue what might contribute to longer-term competitiveness in America, as Lowrey asserts in her ridiculous book.
Furthermore, even the most basic analysis of dynamic companies in America provides all the proof one needs that one of the most important line items on their financial statements are the high levels of stock-based compensation. More often than not, stock-based comp is quite substantial in dynamic rapidly expanding companies. It is substantial for good reasons. Warren Buffett has taught us repeatedly, that employees benefit greatly from stock-based compensation, and it is a true expense to shareholders. However, unlike anyone with any financial acuity whatsoever, Lowrey has no understanding or concern for where the cash comes from that funds stock-based comp. With colossal ignorance, Lowrey simply complains that buybacks, “use up money that could be spent on other company expenses.” Lowrey makes the allegation that stock buybacks, which are often used to fund stock-based compensation, are get this…….”crowding out of wage growth.” This is just plain stupid. Stock buybacks help increase total compensation, which is an important part of wages. Stock buybacks to fund stock-based comp do precisely the opposite of what Lowrey claims they do.
Professional investors realize that stock grants, though expensive to stock holders, are great for employee retention, and are absolutely necessary to attract talent. Yes, stock grants cost shareholders money. However smart shareholders recognize that securing the services of high value computer programmers, sales personnel, accountants, etc. requires strong wage and stock comp incentives. Stock buybacks are the ultimate win-win situation.
Lowrey writes an astonishingly ignorant article because she is clueless as to where the shares of stock come from that are used in restricted-stock grants and stock-option plans. It is pathetic that the New York Times and The Atlantic are willing to pay one of the most uninformed members of our society to write such tripe for consumption by unsuspecting readers.
Let's circle back to Harvard. Harvard actually excludes Asian-Americans with academic talent and disciplined work ethic from admission for non-merit based reasons. With this in mind, is anyone really surprised that idiots like Lowrey emerge from Harvard and argue for universal income, for doing nothing of value? Not me. Harvard is America's number one fool factory.

Nope, I didn't go to Harvard

© 2018 Jim Spence - Let’s see. Where do you start with the New York Times? Let’s start with its publisher Arthur Sulzberger who found himself in a bit of tussle with Donald Trump recently. It seems that Sulzberger sincerely objects to “inflammatory rhetoric.” Accordingly, Sulzberger decided to take Trump to task on Trump’s nasty suggestion that the news media with all of its biases, has become the “enemy of the people.” This is dangerous according to Sulzberger and most reasonable people including Trump's daughter would tend to agree.
Nobly, Mr. Sulzberger feels that the press has a sacred duty to hold people “accountable” for saying inflammatory things. Hold that thought for a few paragraphs.
Sulzberger is no dummy. He is a Harvard man. He graduated in 1985 from Harvard’s Business School in its, Program for Management Development. Sulzberger has apparently developed himself into quite a manager. So much so, that Sulzberger is an extremely powerful man in his own right. While print media is certainly dying, the New York Times has gone about the business of transforming itself. The Times is the most visited newspaper site online, with more than twice as many unique visitors as the next most popular news site. Now that is real power.
Fortunately, the Times thinks of itself as an enlightened news media entity. In particular the Times prides itself on being ardently anti-racist. And the paper will not hesitate to call out those who violate the Times ultra-high standards for civil discourse and fair treatment of people, especially when it comes to skin color. How else can one explain the addition to the Times editorial board of Sarah Jeong?
Sarah Jeong comes to the New York Times after a stint with The Verge ( which is a technology news and media network operated by Vox Media in New York City. Jeong authored, “The Internet of Garbage.” Like Sulzberger, Jeong is also a Harvard grad. Here is an excerpt from her book:
“Content platforms and social media networks do not have the power to restrain stalkers, end intimate partner violence, eliminate child abuse, or stop street harassment. But they can cultivate better interactions and better discourse, through thoughtful architecture, active moderation and community management.”
Apparently, a few Twitter users did some due diligence on Jeong and turned up a few tweets of hers to demonstrate just how committed she is to "moderation" and “better discourse.”
Here is a small sample of Jeong’s tweets:

November 2014 - “Dumbass f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”

December 2014 – “Are white people genetically pre-disposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins”

April 2014 – “Have you ever tried to figure out all the things that white people do that aren’t cultural appropriation”

April 2014 – “It must be so boring to be white”

July 2014 -  “oh man it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men.”

And last but certainly not least:

November 2014 - #CancelWhitePeople

Of course there are many more truly enlightening tweets by Jeong, but this sampling ought to be enough so that everyone gets the picture. Here’s where Times publisher Sulzberger comes in. The Times, no doubt with the approval of Sulzberger, defended Jeong as clearly the number one candidate for the opening on the paper’s editorial board.
“We had candid conversations with Jeong about her tweets and are, confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward,” the Times said.
Well there you go. Thank God the New York Times is an enlightened media entity that prides itself as being ardently anti-racist and is willing to oppose all inflammatory rhetoric.
This hiring should tell you what you need to know about the Times. What a buffer Jeong figures to provide for some of the rhetoric that might otherwise make it into print.
Know this. The Times simply objects to Trump roughing the paper up with, well, you know…….harsh words. Despite everything Trump does, the Times still stands tall and well above the fray. The paper simply added an editorial board member who is an enemy of “white people.” There’s nothing racist about wanting to “cancel” white people is there?
Unless you are a bumpkin who didn't go know.....Harvard or some other trendy Ivy League school, you may not grasp the nuance of all this.


Democrats OWN the border problem now

© 2018 Jim Spence - Just over fourteen years ago an incredibly valuable report was published by a bi-partisan commission that was responsible for investigating the 9-11 attacks on America. Ask your Democrat acquaintances if they ever read the 9-11 Commission Report. I have never met a single Democrat who says they read the report. Democrats prefer to pretend that 9-11 never happened, or alternatively, claim that America and the GOP "over-reacted" to the atrocities committed by radical Islamic terrorists......who slipped past lax border enforcement and killed almost 3,000 people. It was just not that big a deal....that 9-11 thing.
The 9-11 murderers came to America and killed those thousands of people thanks to sloppy immigration policies that remain in place to this day. In fact, the policies were intentionally made sloppier during the eight years of the Barack Hussein Obama regime.
Here's the bigger point. Pretending that erasing our borders will not create a grave threat to American citizens doesn’t make the grave threat go away. Since 9-11 there have been well over 400 separate terrorist attacks and/or attack plots prosecuted in the U.S. A few mass murders come readily to mind. On the 15th of April in 2013, two radical Islamic immigrant brothers, Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev placed bombs at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The bombs killed three people and injured 264. On the 15th of December 2015, a radical Islamic husband and wife team, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tasheen Malik, who came here from Pakistan, opened fire on Christmas party goers in San Bernandino, California.  Fourteen people died and 24 were injured. Malik was a Pakistani immigrant who married Farook in Saudi Arabia. Less than a year ago, on the 31st of October 2017 Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old immigrant from Uzbekistan, drove a rented pickup truck into cyclists and runners on the Hudson River bike path on Manhattan’s lower west side. He killed eight people and injured eleven others. The list goes on and on.
The 9-11 Commission reported its findings fourteen years ago on a bi-partisan basis, meaning all Democrats and Republicans on the commission signed off on the findings. Here is the gist:
"The most important failure" leading to the attacks was "One of imagination," the report concluded. "We do not believe leaders understood the gravity of the threat."
Why do Democrats insist on ignoring the 9-11 Commission Report, which can be read in its God only knows. Surely they must see that this problem has not been fixed. Maybe not. Democrat “leaders" STILL do not seem to understand the gravity of the threat that comes with sloppy border laws. Or perhaps they have other priorities? Many prominent Democrat Senators and House members are actually calling for the elimination of our borders and an abolition ICE, the agency that helps protect American citizens. This is astonishing.
The facts don't lie. The number of illegals entering the United States from Mexico has increased dramatically over the years. And according to Pew research, the majority of illegal aliens in the U.S. are no longer from Mexico. Just this week, the Department of Justice announced that a Jordanian national was arrested after allegedly smuggling a number of illegal aliens from Yemen, which is a hotbed for Iranian sponsored terrorists. How did the Yemeni illegals get here? They sneaked into the United States through our southern border with Mexico. The accused smuggler, Moayad Heider Mohammad Aldairi, who lives in Mexico, was arrested at New York’s JFK airport. Aldairi is accused of being paid in 2017 to smuggle the six Yemenis into the U.S. through Texas. In Yemen, the U.S. has been fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS for years. The terrorist organization Hezbollah, backed by Iran, still controls Yemen. If the Democrats have their way, Yemenis will be able to come across the border at will if they can simply sneak into Mexico.
Assistant Attorney General Benczkowski released the following statement on the situation: “Alien smuggling puts our national security at risk, and the Criminal Division is dedicated to enforcing our immigration laws and disrupting the flow of illegal aliens into the United States.” Duh, ICE is a big part of counter-smuggling efforts, not to mention fighting human trafficking, drug smuggling, etc.
These are facts. And facts are stubborn things. Still, Democrats want us to simply open the floodgates on our borders and pretend none of these grave threats really matter.
Donald Trump has been literally screaming for stronger border protections. He got elected on the issue. Trump has had to continue to shout over the hollow cries of "racism" by Democrats in the media and entertainment industries.
Here's a thought. Maybe the media and the Democrats are not listening again. Just this morning generic polls suggest that Trump, despite all of the attacks on him by the pro-Democrat press, is actually much more popular with the American people than Barack Obama was at this stage of his presidency. Gee……..I wonder why?
We can no longer blame the lack of “imagination” for lax border enforcement that increases the threat of mass murders. Democrats OWN the border problem now.

Labron Trump Division