The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense



“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell


Monday, May 25, 2015

If You Don’t Think The Democrat Progressives & Communists Are The Same, Here’s More Proof

Here's the Nonsense:  Democrats just call themselves progressives because the term "liberal" has become a negative and "progressive" sounds better.  After all, who wouldn't want progress?

Here's the Horse Sense:  Progressive is not just a new label for liberals.  They are nothing more than communists in their ideology.  They have taken over the Democrat Party which controls America.  If you didn't believe it when I said it in the past, here's even more proof.

Aaron Klein at WND reported that earlier this month NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio introduced a “Progressive Agenda” that is being called the liberal “Contract with America.”  They want this to become the basis for the Democrat Party’s main economic policies.  

Klein compares the Progressive Agenda with the positions of the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA.  It’s absolutely scary how they all run parallel with each other, which is more proof that the Progressives who control the Democrat Party are nothing more than Communists, even if they don’t claim that label.  

I'm going to do something a little different and show 5 of the points that Klein shows in his comparison, but I believe the progressive and communist positions are nonsense so I'm also going to counter each one with the Horse Sense to show the problem with their positions:

1.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense: “Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.”

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Nonsense: Calls for “struggles for peace, equality for the racially and nationally oppressed, equality for women job creation programs, increased minimum wage. … Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, peoples legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.”

Here's the Horse Sense:  Raising the minimum wage does not fix the problem. Businesses that have to increase wages will be forced to increase prices, cut back service, and even lay people off to offset the cost.  Businesses are not the super-wealthy organizations the Democrats and uninformed in America think they are.  If their costs go up they have to compensate by layoffs, increased prices, and other actions so that they can stay in business. 

2.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  “Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.”

CPUSA Nonsense: “One of the most crucial ways of increasing the strength and unity of the working class as a whole is organizing the unorganized.  Working-class unity depends on uniting all the diverse sectors of the multiracial, multinational working class in the U.S.…. Speeding up the organization of unorganized workers is one of the most important challenges to labor and all progressive forces.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Unions have done terrible damage to American business.  Unions no longer help workers.  They have been set up to enrich and empower the union leadership.  The workers are forced to pay dues to support terrible union management that strong-arm businesses into contracts that ultimately raise prices, lower quality, and hurt the workers and customers alike.  (If you want to see more about unions, here are some things for you to look into:

  • Click here to learn about Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and other treats.  Hostess was destroyed by unions but when forced out of business they were able to be resurrected without the union shackles that had destroyed them and have rebuilt to become a much more successful company.    
  • Click here to read my friend Dave Bego's blog to really understand what the unions are doing to America - pick up his books, too, and learn about his fight with unions in business.)

3.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense: “Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect against exploitation of low-wage workers.”

CPUSA Nonsense:  Declares the “struggle for immigrant rights is a key component of the struggle for working class unity in our country today.”

Here's the Horse Sense:  Immigration reform, or what is known to most Americans as amnesty for criminal immigrant invaders, will do nothing but damage to America's security, economy, and future.  Adding workers to the economy just takes away jobs from Americans, where we already have too many unemployed.*  Open borders is a gateway to terrorists and other enemies of America to enter our country.  And it doesn't "protect against exploitation of low-wage workers" because the more low-wage workers we have fighting for the few jobs that are available, the more exploited they will become.
* The government doesn't report real unemployment numbers.  Those are phony to make citizens think things are better than they really are.  The real calculations show unemployment currently approaching 25% as you can learn at shadowstats.com).

4.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  Pass national paid sick leave.  Pass national paid family leave.

CPUSA Nonsense:  In October 2014, hails that “women are fighting back to defend their jobs and their families against candidates who want to destroy women’s reproductive rights, health care, family leave and paid sick days.  Women’s voices and votes can make the difference in this election in the U.S. Senate and House, for Governors and State Legislatures, and in the movement going forward for full equality.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Every country that's tried this around the world has encountered severe economic distress in the long term.  Businesses work best when left alone to compete in the marketplace. This means that if they need workers and need to increase benefits to entice more people to work for them, they either will increase benefits or go out of business.  On the same count, workers are free to choose to work for employers who offer them more benefits.  And, if they don't like what employers offer, they are also free to start their own business and see if they can make a better living than by working for someone else.

5.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  “Earned Income Tax Credit.” “Implement the ‘Buffett Rule’ so millionaires pay their fair share.”

CPUSA Nonsense: “No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Fair share?  Are they kidding?  According to a CNN report, 90% of the American taxpayers pay only 30% of the taxes.  The top 10% in earnings pay 70% of the taxes in America.  How much is fair?  And who defines what fairness really is?  If we allow people to keep more of what they earn, they spend it and help the economy, which creates jobs.  When taxes are lower, the high income earners and businesses spend more money, which creates a demand for products and services, which then causes businesses to hire more people to provide for those demands.  The most prosperous times in American history were when taxes were low and businesses expanded and grew.  Right now taxes on business are the highest in the industrialized world and, as a result, companies have moved their factories offshore causing a loss of jobs for American workers and a reduction in tax revenue for the government.  Contrary to what the Democrats think, you don't grow an economy by crippling business.

As I've repeated in the past like a broken record, the Progressives control the Democrat Party and their ideology is taking us down the path of communism.  To deny it is to not pay attention.  When de Blasio released this Progressive Agenda, the NY Post reported that President Obama said he was ripping off his progressive agenda.  This is not just one liberal politician who happens to be touting these ideas.  The president, who is the head of the Democrat Party, stated that it's HIS OWN AGENDA!

And if you think the problem is just Obama, you've really not been paying attention.  Obama is just the figurehead for what the progressives want in America.  If another Democrat is elected in 2016, we have the same problem.

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Martin O'Malley are the favorites for the Democrat nomination in 2016.  They are all progressives and will carry on leading with the same ideology as Obama.  Hillary, who is dramatically in the lead for not just the 2016 Democrat nomination, but to win the presidency in the general election, shouldn't be ignored, regardless of any scandals.  Her life has been nothing but scandals and it's never stopped her or even slowed her down.  The Washington Times is reporting that she just hired a criminal immigrant invader (illegal immigrant) as her campaign Outreach Director. That may very well take enough focus off of her current scandals to allow her campaign to move forward.    

Huffington Post took a look at the Progressive Agenda and reported their analysis of how Hillary stacks up on the points of the Agenda.  She's in line almost perfectly right down the list.  If she becomes president she will carry on the same agenda that de Blasio is promoting and Obama claims was his agenda in the first place.

The communist threat to America is alive and well.  The end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union did not kill, nor even diminish the communist's push to take over the world.  The prize that would clinch the deal worldwide would be for America to fall to it... and we're getting very close to it.  Once America falls, there will be no place to run, no other nation in which you can go and hide.  America's fate determines the fate of the entire free world.  When that happens our children and grandchildren will never know the life of freedom each of us has come to expect.  Freedom as our founders created America to give its citizens will be long gone and, at best, many generations away from returning to our land.








Saturday, May 23, 2015

An Irresponsible Little Boy Trying To Be Our Leader

Here's the Nonsense:  Americans pick good people to be their leaders.  Sure, every now and then we get someone who isn't that good, but overall we do get people well qualified to be our leaders.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Americans have no clue how much trouble our nation is in or how to pick the right people to fix our problems and lead our nation.  

America is in crisis.  We are so far in debt that there really is no light at the end of the tunnel.  Given that problem, it's imperative that we need to rid ourselves of leaders who don't understand how to handle money.  And right now we have someone who is trying to be our leader that has not only been totally irresponsible with money, he's shown significant character failure in other areas of his life that make his leadership qualifications poor, if not nonexistent.  That's not the kind of person we can expect will fix our economy, let alone save our nation from collapse.

Experts disagree on the exact amount, but what we can be sure of is that our $18.2 trillion dollar national debt isn't all the money we owe.  With varying reasons as to why the numbers differ, we do know that our additional unfunded liabilities are $100-$200 trillion more on top of our national debt.  And those unfunded liabilities may not be called national debt, but they are exactly that.  Just because someone doesn't want to call something by it's proper name doesn't mean that's not what it is (this should remind you that we have this game of calling things different names because the charlatans we have running our government are mostly attorneys, who are experts at mincing and twisting words and their definitions.

State and local governments have their share of debt, too.  Estimates are that those total about $38 trillion more.  So, if we add that $38 trillion to the $18 trillion national debt the government admits and then add $200 trillion for unfunded liabilities, we could be in debt as high as $256 trillion.  If you sold everything in the country, everything everyone owned including all privately owned land and everything the government owned and all the government owned land, we'd only have about $100 trillion.  Did you get that?  We owe 2.5 times what we're worth!  In any honest person's book that's the description of someone who's bankrupt.

But those big numbers are hard to fathom.  Let's make it a little easier.  We hear million, billion, and trillion and don't really recognize the difference.  Let's compare it to time.  1 million seconds ago was just over 11.5 days ago.  1 billion seconds ago was the middle of 1984.  1 trillion seconds ago was about 29,694 BC.  That's how much larger a trillion is than a billion.

Before we talk about how this ties in with the irresponsible little boy trying to be our leader, let me make the point just a little clearer.

If we could pay more than it takes to run the government each day, we could pay down the debt.  We don't have that extra money.  In fact, with our government's spending, we're going further into debt each minute.  But assuming we curtailed much of our spending and could pay $1 billion per day towards our debt, it would take us over 701 years to pay off the $256 trillion.

Now that we've seen how desperate our situation is, wouldn't you agree that people who would handle the nation's money so poorly to get us into this predicament certainly should not be entrusted with more responsibility?  Quite the contrary, they should, at a minimum, be pulled back and watched closely.  Better yet, they should be removed from office and replaced with people who are trustworthy.  

You don't give more responsibility to people who've not proven they can handle lesser responsibilities.  Yet this is exactly what we see with one of the top polling presidential candidates for 2016.  He's proven not just once, but over and over again that he can't handle his own finances, so why would we trust him with our nation's highest office?  I wrote about him here and pointed out his problems with mishandling of campaign monies that got him in trouble with election officials in the past.  I also pointed out his lies about his background and other irresponsible things in his past.  

But if that wasn't enough, now another report comes out, this time in the Washington Post, and they are reporting that once again Marco Rubio is mishandling his money.  Yet this immature little boy (and given how he's handled things, that's the most appropriate description I can come up with for him) thinks he's qualified be our president.  

People think he's good looking and like his enthusiasm.  They relate to his financial problems and his excuse that his refrigerator broke so he had to spend $3000 on a new one and then fix the air conditioner in one of his houses and has a $40,000 tuition bill for his kids schooling to pay.  They think there's nothing wrong with him taking over $68,000 from his retirement funds to pay for these things, even though that's one of the worst financial decisions a person can make.  (Yes, it's legal for him to borrow from his retirement funds.  It just shows very poor financial judgment.)  It would have been cheaper to borrow the money than pay the fines and taxes he'll pay for doing what he did.  It's financially very irresponsible.  But people relate because he's living irresponsibly and most Americans are, too.  And that's the kind of man we want handling our nation's finances and other major decisions?

No one needs a $3000 refrigerator.  He could spend far less and get one that would do the job.  

His kids don't need to be in private school, but he seems to feel he has to live the life of the elite to be part of the upper crust of society.  

I can understand wanting the air conditioner in one of his homes fixed with summer coming, although then there's the question of why he needs more than one home.  (I realize that he has one in Washington, DC and one in Florida, but many elected politicians rent an apartment, even sharing expenses with other politicians to save money.  Some even live in their offices.  He doesn't have to own a second home in Washington and if he can't afford it, then he should not spend the money.  That's just what the government does, it spends money every day that it doesn't have.  I guess he didn't learn his lesson in Florida when he bought a second home in Tallahassee with another politician for them to live in while the legislature was in session, but they couldn't/didn't pay the mortgage and it went into foreclosure.)

But people relate to his financial condition because most Americans live irresponsibly when it comes to their finances, too.  Accepting his failures in financial responsibility eases a person's conscience about their own failures.  But you'd think people would be honest enough with themselves to admit their own failures and not want someone as irresponsible running the country.

Frankly, while he hasn't made a fortune in his career, his household income for many years has been a 6 figure income.  He could easily have chosen to live a less lavish lifestyle and saved some money and avoided debt (He needs to take one of Dave Ramsey's financial classes and learn how to handle money.).  

Rubio is a man who cannot handle his finances properly.  Remember how huge our nation's debt is?  Do you really want someone like this handling our economic policy when he can't even handle his own?

He cannot tell the truth even about his own parents story of coming to America.  (Just what we need, another liar leading the country!)

He cannot handle his campaign finances well enough to stay out of trouble with election officials, and cannot tell the truth about his "change of mind" on amnesty for illegals (remember, after telling Sean Hannity that he'd changed from his position with the Gang of Eight, he went to Univision and told them that he still believed in it, but had realized that it had to be passed in pieces because the American people wouldn't support it as one bill).

Is this the kind of man you think can save America? 

People are willing to throw their support behind him without thinking twice about who he really is and whether he's worthy of the most important job in the entire world.

This is a young man who has not proven himself to be honest or able to handle money, let alone worthy of the presidency. 

Add to that the support he's getting from many in the establishment GOP and caution signs should be flashing in our minds.  (When you see a major establishment GOP donor like Larry Ellison host a fundraiser for someone, you should take note who he is supporting because it's a sign that something's wrong with the candidate and conservatives better take notice.)

Americans should also be paying attention to the left's actions to influence who the Republican candidate is.  In past elections they've been very effective at getting the GOP to run the candidate that is easiest for them to beat. 

Just remember back to 2012 when the Democrats and the mainstream media went on and on about how Mitt Romney would be the toughest candidate to beat.  And the GOP fell for it and nominated Romney, who the Democrats beat handily.  Romney, as I warned at the time, was a very weak candidate and the one the Democrats wanted.  Their cries of "he's the toughest to beat" were simply reverse psychology to get the GOP to nominate an easy-to-beat candidate.  The fact that the GOP couldn't see through their actions should have astounded any thinking person.

Now we're headed to 2016 and the Democrats are being their predictable selves.  They know Rubio would be easy to beat and so they are starting with this piece in their loyal leftist newspaper, the New York Times, claiming that the Democrats are scared to death of Rubio running against Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democrat nominee.

Wake up people!  This is a repeat of what we've seen in the past.  Jeb Bush is having trouble getting his campaign off the ground and I assure you that the establishment GOP who lead the Republican Party are looking for an alternative in case they need one.  I have no doubt they are considering the possibility of Rubio as the nominee.  He's Hispanic, which they believe would endear them to the criminal immigrant invaders who are receiving amnesty from Obama.  He proved he's one of them when he joined the Gang of Eight and the likes of Sen. John McCain.  The left recognizes this as an opportunity to make a play to get Rubio nominated so they once again have another easy-to-beat candidate.  We're beginning to see the same old game played and Republicans are fools if they fall for it.  

Marco Rubio's popularity is just another example of how lousy Americans are at choosing leaders.  They use all the wrong reasons to decide someone's qualified to be a candidate.  That's the reason we ended up with Barack Obama and, in fact, haven't had a conservative get the nomination since 1984.  American voters need to pay attention and quit falling for the likes of most candidates we see throw their hat in the ring.






Saturday, May 16, 2015

It's Not The Liberties Listed In The Bill Of Rights That Make Us Free

Here's the Nonsense:  Without the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the freedoms we enjoy in America.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Many, if not most, nations have a Bill of Rights, but they don't have freedom like America does.  That's not what gives us our freedoms.  But with the path our nation is on we need to change in order to protect the freedoms we do have.

On Friday, May 8th, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to the Federalist Society in New Jersey and made what many would feel is a radical argument.  The Daily Signal is reporting that Scalia said the structure of our government under the Constitution is what gives us our freedoms, not the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights.  It's pretty radical to most people to think that the list of rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by jury of one's peers, etc., as expressed in the Bill of Rights, is not what gives us our freedoms.  

Scalia said, "The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power.  Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper."  James Madison said that the power that the people give to government is secured by dividing it between the federal and state governments (2 separate governments in his view).  Then he went on to point out that each of those governments were divided into branches (i.e.; executive, legislative, and judicial).  This gives double protection of the people's rights.  He felt that the design of the American system would cause the governments (state and federal) to control each other, which would be a check and balance system to protect the rights of the people. 

Scalia then raised concern over the breakdown of this power structure that happened with the passage of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 when election of the U. S. Senate was given to the people through voting instead of the original design where they senators were chosen by the state legislatures.  

This design was to create balance where the House of Representatives was elected by the people, but the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures so that the Senate would not disregard or overpower the state's authority.  With the change in 1913, the federal government has since seized power from the states and weakened the power of the citizens over their own government.  

Scalia gave good examples of how this worked to give the states power over federal action.  He said, "When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass.  The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their senators, 'You vote for that and you are out of there.'"

Scalia makes an excellent argument.  The 17th Amendment has so weakened us in the past century that the states no longer have the power they once had.  Now you may say, "But we've still got 3 branches in the federal government to act as a check and balance against each other."  Unfortunately that isn't working any more.  Our legislative branch not only won't hold the executive branch or the judicial branch accountable, they act like they worship them.  The judiciary is now seen as the final authority on everything and they legislate from the bench.  And the executive branch is treated as above the law with no one holding them accountable for their illegal actions.

The fact that we are at a place where the president demands and takes actions that are illegal and nobody does anything should send a chill of fear down the back of every citizen.  The only action the legislative branch takes is to file lawsuits against the executive branch when the Constitution gives them not only the authority, but the responsibility to hold them accountable.  First, the House is to use the power of the purse to defund expenditures that are unconstitutional.  Second, they are to impeach an out of control president and the Senate is to then have a trial and convict when the law has been broken.  But that doesn't happen.  And it's not new.

In 1999 when the Senate refused to find Bill Clinton guilty when the evidence was clear and overwhelming that he'd committed perjury, both political parties proved that they were more worried about protecting another politician than they were about upholding the law (and that's when I left the Republican Party).

Scalia is right, but unfortunately we are far, far past the point of fixing this easily.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a start, but with a nation full of citizens who refuse to do their civic duty and be involved in their government, the chances of saving this nation are slim at best.  Ann Graham Lotz (Billy Graham's daughter) has called for Americans to take our situation seriously and turn to God to save our nation.  We should all take what she says to heart.






Monday, May 11, 2015

How About A Candidate That...

Here's the Nonsense:  We need a solid, experienced politician to defeat the establishment Republicans in the primaries and the Democrats in the general election of 2016.  Only a politician can reach Americans.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The biggest negative any candidate has is their political experience.  Even if they've done a good job (rare to find), the general, uninformed public are tired of and turned off by politics and politicians.  We need a unique kind of candidate if we're serious about winning in 2016.


If we want to win in 2016 we need a candidate who will inspire the majority of voters.  And whether we like it or not, the majority of voters are not aware of what is going on in our government.  They are not those of us who are involved and well informed about what's happening in America.  They are driven by self-interest and how easy their lives are.  The economy and jobs drives their decisions, not what is happening in the news.  In fact, most of them never watch or read the news.  If you showed a picture of the politicians running for 2016, I'm sure that the majority would not be able to name most of them.  We must have a candidate who not only can get their attention, but has qualities that can overpower both the Democrats and the establishment Republicans.

I've already written a few posts about some of the candidates for 2016.  Recently I even wrote one post that showed how odds makers show Jeb Bush in a dramatic lead for the Republican nomination and, even worse, are putting odds on Hillary Clinton winning in the general election.  Even with Jeb's huge lead among Republicans, they are showing Hillary with overwhelming odds over him and all other Republicans to win the general election. Interestingly NOT ONE radio host that had me on their shows to discuss it understood that it was ODDS MAKERS (bookies to put it in other terms), NOT POLLS that were saying that.  These are the people who take bets on who's going to win.  But the hosts were so focused on the idea of polls and the fact that they can be easily skewed that they ignored what I wrote and said (and the link I provided to support it).  

The fact is that regardless of what radio hosts or anyone else thinks, 2016 is not looking as bright as many think.  It's a long, tough battle to get the GOP nomination... and then there's the general election.  And the Republican candidates who are moving to the top of the polls are not necessarily ones who have much of a chance of winning.  Remember, the establishment GOP has vowed on more than one occasion to destroy the conservative movement and they would rather have a Democrat win than a conservative.  It would take a unique and formidable candidate to win over all of that.


What if there was someone out there who would run that really could take on the Democrats and win in spite of the attacks by the establishment GOP, election fraud, and media being against them?

What if there was a candidate that:
  • Could draw crowds and media at an event away from other candidates, even ones who have skyrocketed in the polls
  • Could get the press corps to clamor for his attention
  • Had no trouble raising all the money he needs for his campaign without becoming indebted to any group or individual (no political paybacks after the election)
  • Said what he thinks and didn't care what anyone including the media, the politicians, and the lobbyists think
  • Wouldn't be afraid of standing up to any world leader
  • Wouldn't back down in standing up for America and her allies
  • Had more experience successfully negotiating agreements than all other candidates combined
  • Understands the economy and how it impacts businesses, jobs, and citizens more than any other candidate
  • Would stand up for American business at home and around the world to create an economic recovery and juggernaut that would shake the world
  • Is not a Washington insider, but is more in tune with the American people than politicians are
  • Believes that countries like China and Mexico have had too many American companies move their manufacturing there and would do things such as use taxes to bring it back to America
  • Believes it's time to stand up for women's rights in other countries like the Middle East
  • Sees the disaster that the Iran nuclear deal is and would change it and other bad deals America has entered into
  • Would build a wall and shut down the open border we have to create security for our nation
  • Is a known name to more American households than anyone else in the race
Who is this candidate?  It's Donald Trump.

Some will scoff or even laugh at the idea.  But if you really want to win the 2016 election, there is no other candidate that has a record that can compare to his.  The establishment is going to force someone like Jeb Bush on us as the nominee (and if they can't get enough momentum for Jeb, they'll turn to a secondary establishment choice like Marco Rubio and try to sell him as a conservative).

The American people have proved they won't step up like they did in 1980 and force a candidate on the establishment like they did when they forced them to accept Ronald Reagan.  The vast majority of Americans are uninvolved and don't even know what's happening in our government.  And that's why the Democrats have such success controlling them.  When someone is not aware, they can be easily manipulated.

The American people won't get involved, they will continue to want to be entertained.  They ask only one question when making a decision:  "What in it for me?"  These days that boils down to the economy and jobs.  Whoever can show that they can make the economy better and create jobs will have an edge in 2016. 

That's the very reason why Trump is known to more Americans than any other Republican running. He's known for huge business and personal success.  He is an example of the American dream and proud of it.  People want to have lives like his.  He has more experience fixing things and being successful than all of the other candidates combined.  He is outspoken and tells it like he sees it.  That is quintessentially American.  And that will speak to the uniformed voters more than any message any other candidate is presenting.

He may be outrageous at times, but of the candidates running (or people showing interest in running), no one has the ability to reach the average, everyday uninvolved Americans than Trump does.  

If we want to win, we need to seriously consider who can best reach the mass of America.  

Trump could very well be that guy.


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

It's Not About Riots, Protestors, Supreme Court Rulings, Or The Stuff We Tend To Focus On

Here's the Nonsense:  America is in crisis.  Riots in the streets.  Protestors everywhere you turn.  The Supreme Court deciding on the fairness of gay marriage.  We need to become a more loving and accepting society to put all these things to rest.

Here's the Horse Sense:  It's not about the stuff you see happening everywhere.  That's not the thing to focus on if you want to fix America.

The news this past week is so full of furor and turmoil that it's been nothing I've wanted to write about.  However, as I see a few different things come together it's apparent that the progressives are being quite successful at taking down America.  As things stand now, even with the excitement many on the right have about 2016, the chances are very high that the progressives will retain control of our government and will force their ideology on the American people.  As I've said before, this isn't about Obama and if you think it is you're really missing the point.

Odds makers are saying that Hillary Clinton has a huge lead over anyone for the presidency in 2016.  Far, far behind her, but leading the Republican pack is Jeb Bush.  Neither of these are good choices for America. But the reality is that right now that's where we're headed and there's a good chance conservatives may not do as well as we hope in 2016.  The bigger issue is what we should be focusing on.  

With the rioters taking apart Baltimore, we have yet another situation where this administration doesn't try to calm things, but actually puts forth a message that does nothing but continue to drive Americans apart and throw fuel on the fires of discontent that they have been promoting from behind the scenes.  Add to that recent comments Hillary Clinton has made and what's happening at the Supreme Court this week and Americans should be seeing beyond these issues to what lies behind them.

With the riots in Baltimore comes President Obama whining, as Front Page Magazine reports, about there being too much concern about a little damage caused by the rioters.  They quote him as saying:

"The violence that happened yesterday distracted from the fact that you had seen multiple days of peaceful protests that were focused on entirely legitimate concerns of these communities in Baltimore, led by clergy and community leaders.  And they were constructive and they were thoughtful, and frankly, didn’t get that much attention.  And one burning building will be looped on television over and over and over again, and the thousands of demonstrators who did it the right way I think have been lost in the discussion…"

This is typical of a community organizer.  Using Saul Alinsky tactics they want to tear apart our society and do so by encouraging unrest and civil disobedience.  The idea that bad behavior should be ignored or allowed is nothing short of stupid... IF you want an orderly society.  Clearly this is not what this administration wants, as we saw in Ferguson, MO not that long ago.  But progressives believe that if enough unrest between groups can be promoted that that will help lead to the failure of the U. S. system of government and be able to allow them to tear it down and replace it with their Marxist vision of what the world should look like. 

But Baltimore and Ferguson aren't the only things pointing to where we're headed.  Just last week Hillary Clinton, as reported by Daily Caller, said things that point to her view that government should have priority over religious convictions.  The article said: 

"She told attendees at the sixth annual Women in The World Summit that 'deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed' for the sake of giving women access to 'reproductive health care and safe childbirth.'”

So, for "reproductive health" (which simply means killing babies through abortion, which, by the way, has been proven to be very unhealthy for the mother both physically and mentally) we must force people to change their beliefs.  This is simply a politician stating what she wants for America and the world and it aligns perfectly with their progressive Marxist agenda.  This is what she will stand for and push for if she is elected president.

Even the Supreme Court is under siege.  We've seen their ridiculous attempts in recent years to make politically correct decisions and call them constitutional.  Obamacare is the most blatant travesty they've twisted the constitution to support.  Now, they're considering the gay marriage debate.

This debate isn't just about whether two people of the same sex can marry.  This, too, is about much more, including the right of people to exercise their religious beliefs.  Most likely the court will rule in favor of gay marriage instead of leaving it to the states to decide, which would be appropriate. 

PJ Media is reporting that yesterday during oral arguments on the issue before SCOTUS, Obama's lawyers acknowledged that they would have to deal with religious schools tax exempt status if they don't support gay marriage.

But the short article by PJ Media only scratches the surface.  If SCOTUS supports legalization of gay marriage we will see any and every business that may be faced with situations challenging their conscience forced to go against their religious beliefs and provide services that place them in jeopardy with their god. 

This isn't just about a baker making a wedding cake or a florist providing flowers for a gay wedding.  This will mean that if a gay group goes to an advertising agency owned by a devout Jew and asks them to create an advertising campaign promoting an upcoming gay pride parade that they'll have to do it, even though their religion says otherwise. 

Or if a Christian minister was asked to perform a gay wedding ceremony, they'll be forced to do it.  Most likely virtually all religious groups whose teaching opposes gay marriage will be forced to provide wedding services.

Or if a gay group asks a Muslim owned tailor shop to make the clothing for a gay wedding they'll be forced to do so (although chances are they won't be included as Muslims are protected by political correctness and seem to be exempted from political correctness requirements). 

I could go on and on with examples, but we've all read enough to be able to think up many on our own.  The point is that this is another assault on religious freedom.

The argument that those who oppose gay marriage are haters is full of holes, as pointed out by Justice Scalia yesterday during oral arguments.  WND reported that he raised an excellent question of one of the pro-gay marriage attorneys.  The article states:

"The justice noted the Greeks and Romans had no moral disapproval of homosexual relations, yet neither culture ever considered approving same-sex marriage. The implication was that those cultures must have found it would cause some sort of harm to society.
"Scalia used the same example to indicate that modern state laws defining marriage as solely between a man and a woman were not motivated by dislike of, or discrimination against, gays.

"He asked attorney Mary Bonauto, who argued in favor of same-sex marriage, if it was true that homosexual relationships but not marriages were sanctioned by those cultures.

"When she said yes, Scalia continued, 'So their exclusion of same-sex marriage was not due to prejudice, right?'"

But the progressives, even when confronted with the perfect logic that Scalia put forth, ignore it and continue in their rants about haters who don't believe as they do.  The reason they do this?  It's not because they care about gay rights or anything else.  It's because they know they can use these issues to promote discontent in society (once again, a Saul Alinsky tactic) and use it to ultimately bring the society down so they can raise up a society that they control and an elite few will make decisions for the citizens.

That's what all these things point to.  That's what we should be focused on so we know what we are fighting.  That's what underlies everything they do and when we focus on only the things happening in our society like riots and protests, we are focusing on superficial things and not the underlying cause.
It's just like a doctor treating a health problem, if you don't focus on the underlying cause you will not fix the problem. 


Thursday, April 23, 2015

Have You Lost Count How Many Times The GOP Has Stabbed Conservatives In The Back?

Here's the Nonsense:  Things have been tough for the GOP, but they're leading as best they can.  We need to understand what they're up against and trust they're doing what's best for us.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The establishment Republicans in the GOP (the majority of Republican politicians in Washington) continue to sell the American voter down the river.  Time to wake up and recognize them for what they are.

I don't know about you, but I've lost count of how many times the GOP leadership have stabbed us conservatives in the back.  Prior to the 2014 midterms it had become accepted by many that we couldn't expect them to stand up when they didn't control both houses of Congress.  But after an overwhelming win in the midterms, with a definitive mandate from the voters to stop what's happening in Washington all we've seen is the GOP leadership thumbing their noses at the voters as they have sided with Obama and the Democrats every time we turn around.  Now, they've done it again!

WND is reporting that despite last ditch efforts by Louisiana's Senator David Vitter, 10 Republicans joined 44 Democrats and 2 Independents to approve Loretta Lynch's appointment as Attorney General.  The article quotes Sen. Vitter saying that by "confirming Loretta Lynch, the Senate has given President Obama a rubber stamp for his executive actions.  

"Whether it's executive amnesty, Hillary Clinton's email cover-up or corruption on Wall Street, Ms. Lynch has made it clear that she will turn a blind eye to public corruption."

The article says that National Review Online has pointed out that while Eric Holder was a dismal attorney general, "there is little indication Lynch would be much better."  

It appears the only difference between Holder and Lynch is that while Holder can play the race card, Lynch will be able to play both the race card and the gender card giving her much more politically correct untouchability.

Breitbart also has a new article out stating that "with two minor exceptions, every single vote that has passed the U. S. Senate since the beginning of this Congress in January has passed with at least - usually more than - 93 percent of support from Democrats."

It goes on to quote Democrat Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid as saying:

"While Republicans have done nothing to create jobs and help the middle class, on other topics like passing clean funding for Homeland Security and confirming Loretta Lynch, Senator McConnell has done the right thing by bringing bills and nominations to the floor that Democrats can support."

This is what our government has come down to.  A total sellout of the voters by the party that's supposed to be holding the executive branch in check and keeping things in balance. 

Did you notice how they waited until the news was filled with a focus on Hillary's donation scandal and then quickly slipped through this vote to approve Lynch?  That's how evil people do things. They wait until no one is looking and do things quickly behind their backs.  


It's long past time (and possibly too late for it to have any significant impact) for Americans to throw the GOP leadership out.  I have said it many times before, but I'll repeat it again. The establishment GOP control the Republican Party and most GOP politicians are establishment, not conservative.  Yet the base is overwhelmingly conservative and we sit back and keep letting them spit in our faces.  

Voters should have been involved in the primaries before the 2014 midterms, but for the most part were not.  The result was that most establishment Republicans won their challenges from conservatives or weren't challenged at all and the establishment ended up being the choice voters had other than Democrats.  So, they won handily with the voters thinking they would understand the mandate they were sending.

I have no doubt they understood.  They just didn't care.  They shunned conservatives, committed themselves to the destruction of the conservative movement, and walked away proud of their new power.  And they now have over and over again thumbed their noses at the voters sending the message that they will do what they want and that the voters are just peons who don't know what's best for them.

You could call it stupidity.  You could call it fear of being called racist if they stood up to Obama.  You could call it blindness to Washington's ways.  But none of those make sense when we've seen it happen so many times.  

They've been told over and over again by the voters both at the ballot box and through direct contact of emails, phone calls, demonstrations, etc. and they still don't listen.  They only continue to help Obama and the Democrats achieve their goals.  

What does it mean when someone keeps repeating the same actions ignoring the direction they are being given?  The only logical conclusion is that they have evil intentions.  They are complicit with the Democrats to change America from a free republic to a marxist society where only the elite will have power and control and the people will be subject to their decisions.  Americans will be ruled, not served.

Did you get that?  YOU will be RULED.  

America was a republic where the politicians were supposed to serve the people.  But it has changed.  Today it already has many areas where the government tells you how you must live.  Soon your choices in any and every area of your life won't be yours to make anymore.

And you can thank the establishment GOP for not doing their Constitutional duty and standing up against the tyranny.  They have connived with wily and cunning intentions to keep power away from the American people.  They have ignored their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution while scheming with deceitful intentions.  And now the American people have lost control of their government.

The result is that what we've seen in recent years not only continues, but continues to get worse.

So, what are you doing to stop it?  What are you doing to step up this one last chance you have to save this country?  

The clock is not ticking.  

A time bomb is ticking and we are down to moments before it goes off.  

If we don't defuse it, we will see the final destruction of what's left of our republic.

2016 is about more than a presidential election.  It's about saving America.  And that can only be done with significant change in the people we have elected to all offices.  The establishment Republicans, along with the Democrats, in both Houses of Congress must be replaced.  They are the ones who should have been holding the executive branch accountable but have not only allowed Obama to get away with breaking the law over 80 times, but in many cases have helped him do it.

It's time for change folks.  If you know anyone who has lived under a repressive totalitarian regime go talk to them and see what it was like because that's where not only you, but your children and grandchildren will be spending the rest of their lives if this isn't stopped.  If you don't know anyone with that background, take the time to read what people who've lived through or escaped regimes like that have to say about it.  The stories those people will tell are nothing short of horror stories.  And that's what is coming to America.

Imagine starving children and adults because the government has created such a bad economy that food is no longer easy to come by.  

Imagine disease spreading because the medical help and medicine are not openly and easily available anymore.  

Imagine war on our own soil because our borders are so porous that jihadists come into America and terrorize our society just like they do in the Middle East and other parts of the world.  

Imagine your loved ones being hauled off in the middle of the night by police who break down your door and drag them off for expressing an opinion different from what the government allows.

Imagine your children turning against you because they've been taught by their schools that they are to trust the government over their parents.

Imagine churches and synagogues being shut down if they don't preach what they are told.

You may not believe it, but that is exactly where we are headed and it's not far away at all unless we do something now to stop it.

The future looks very bleak.  Whether it is or not is your choice and not someone else's responsibility.

Imagine facing your children one day and trying to explain to them why you let freedom slip through your fingers to allow everything America once was to be gone.

Imagine facing your grandchildren one day and trying to explain to them what freedom was like (although you'll have to do it in secret because it won't be allowed to be spoken of openly).

That's the future we face if YOU don't do something about it.

UPDATE:  And if you doubt that the Republican leadership supports the Democrat goals, Breitbart is now reporting an exclusive story where Sen. Ted Cruz tells them that Loretta Lynch was approved for Attorney General because the Republican leadership wanted it.  It just proves my point.


Sunday, April 19, 2015

They Just Rewrote The Constitution And You Had Nothing To Say About It

Here's the Nonsense:  The Senate has forced Obama into a corner on the Iran nuclear deal and it will protect us from Obama making a deal that would endanger the world.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Senate action actually helps Obama and weakens the constitutional protections we have against the president making a bad deal.  Once again, the GOP have stabbed the American people in the back.

It's said you should keep your friends close and your enemies closer.  Given the actions of the GOP*, the question is raised as to whether that means you should keep the Democrats or the GOP closer.  The violation of trust the electorate has experienced from the GOP is beyond anything most could have imagined.  And now we have more proof of their disdain for the voters and intentions to deceive.  
*(By "GOP" I'm referring to the establishment Republicans who control the party, not the minority of Republicans in political office who are true conservatives.)

The GOP are either joining in with the Democrats to intentionally destroy the republic that America's founders created, or they are ignorantly allowing it to slip away because of their spinelessness. However, given their actions it appears they are not ignorant, they are complicit.  

Truly Benjamin Franklin's statement to Mrs. Powel was correct when he informed her that the founders had given America a republic as our form of government if we can keep it.  And right about now it seems apparent that we can't.

As we watch our government in action, horrendous things continue to happen.  WND reported this past week that the Senate rewrote the treaty provision of the Constitution to make it look like they're doing something to stop Obama on his Iran nuclear deal, but in reality it makes it virtually impossible for the president to be stopped.  

Until this revision treaties had to be approved by a ⅔ majority of the Senate.  Now, with the changes ushered in by the GOP, instead of having to get a ⅔ approval, it now takes a ⅔ vote to stop the president.  So, in other words, the president only needs ⅓ + 1 vote to be safe from the Senate being able to stop him.  

This means that Obama will easily get what he wants, which is a nuclear Iran.  That, many experts believe, has already set the stage for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. 

So, once again the Republicans are selling out the voters.  It's bad enough when they won't take a stand, but they're actually helping the president make an unstoppable deal with Iran.  

This comes down to far more than ignorance on the part of the GOP.  This is, once again, an action that points to the GOP being complicit with the president in his actions.  

Are the GOP's actions because they, too, don't care about arming an evil regime like Iran with nuclear weapons?  Are they because the GOP doesn't really care about starting a nuclear arms race in the Middle East?  Are they because regardless what the GOP says, they are like Obama in their hatred for Israel and want to facilitate an attack from Iran?  

The bottom line is that, as I've said so many times before, the establishment GOP are not your friends.  They must be stopped and the last chance to do it is in the primaries for the 2016 congressional and presidential elections.  That is when the candidates are chosen for the general election.  With all that has happened and is happening it is very clear that 2016 is pivotal for freedom in America.  

Those who think they can just sit home and not vote are simply voting for the destruction of our nation.  The ability to change America through voting will not exist as we know it after that.  Too many changes are being made to our laws, and when laws are violated by the government the Republican leadership are not standing up against it.  We do not have a party that will stand up for the Constitution anymore.  

Whether you want to hear it or not, it is the voters fault.  The American voters have allowed this to happen and elected and reelected the politicians who have taken us down this path.  It is time to get involved now to impact the 2016 primaries.  That's the only time you have a chance to decide who will be the candidates in the general election.

The primaries aren't very far away.  It's time to get involved so that the will of the American people can be forced upon the Republican leadership and give us truly conservative candidates for the Senate, House, and the White House in 2016. 



Saturday, April 18, 2015

Has Rubio Earned The Trust To Run For President?

Here's the Nonsense:  Marco Rubio is the best candidate the GOP could run in 2016.  Sure, he made a mistake on immigration, but he says he's learned and so we should support him for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Here's the Horse Sense:  A candidate is not good unless they can be trusted.  Rubio has violated the trust with the American voters and needs to earn that trust back before expecting to run for the presidency.

So, you're thinking that Marco Rubio might be your man for 2016? You've been thinking that since he originally rode a wave of conservative support into the Senate, it really was a big disappointment when he joined the Gang of Eight to push for amnesty for criminal immigrant invaders. You've heard his claim that he's changed now. After all, he told Sean Hannity in a CPAC interview that he'd learned his lesson and changed on the issue. That was enough and now you're seriously considering him, or maybe have already thrown your support behind him. Besides, what kind of person would you be if you weren't willing to forgive a mistake? He says he's learned his lesson and that should be enough to trust him again, right?  

I have a question for you:  Is this how you make all of your major life decisions, blindly trusting people because they said they'd changed? If you do, I promise you it's a recipe for disaster.  Did you ever think maybe there were problems there all along but you never did your homework in the first place? 

Maybe Rubio's not the trustworthy conservative you have thought he was all along.  Look a little closer and you should be very concerned about Marco Rubio as a potential nominee.  

Breitbart is reporting that Rubio was just interviewed on Univision and showed his true colors once again on immigration and amnesty.  Breitbart's report quotes Rubio as saying the Obama's first executive amnesty is "important" and that "it can't be terminated... because there are already people benefiting from it."  Rubio was asked about when Obama's executive amnesty would end and he replied that it "will end only when a legislative substitute with the exact same or similar policy prescriptions - a legislative amnesty for illegal alien minors - is implemented."  He went on to say that he expects the legislative solution that will be implemented that essentially has all the parts of the Gang of Eight bill, but would be passed in a piece-by-piece form to get it through.  (That's what politicians do when the public doesn't like something.  They dismantle it and pass it piece by piece so that once all the parts are passed we end up with the very thing we didn't want in the first place.)

Rubio's position is 180 degrees away from that of Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Governor Bobby Jindal (all candidates or potential candidates for 2016).  All 3 have said the exact opposite promising on day one of their presidency, they would immediately undo Obama's unconstitutional and illegal executive overreaches, including this amnesty that was done without congressional approval.  Rubio is in the same camp as establishment Republican Jeb Bush, not the conservative camp of Cruz, Paul, and Jindal.  

Breitbart's article makes another important point saying that Rubio's position is the same as Obama's, which "caused the border crisis last summer and will likely lead to a future border crisis."

Now if that doesn't show that Rubio hasn't learned and changed, then you must really be blind.  He's only learned to change the way he expresses it so he can appear to have changed, thereby allowing him to woo foolish voters to support him.  He's being dishonest and playing the same game that politicians play all the time.  They mince words and phrase things in ways to make them sound one way, but have enough wiggle room that later they can claim they didn't mean what you think and were misunderstood.  This stinks of the same old smell we get from most politicians in Washington.

But if that's not enough for you, let me share other things I've heard about Rubio that should make you think twice about support for him in his run for the most important job in the world.

Long ago Rubio showed what I believe are his true colors when he lied about his background.  I know, you're thinking that using the word "lied" is pretty strong, but as the old saying goes, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.  

Rubio has said that his parents came to America as exiles from Castro's Cuba.  They sought refuge in America.  But the fact is that his parents came to America well before Castro came to power, as reported in the Washington Post.  

Obviously Rubio thought that would enhance his background, at least to the Cuban-Americans in Florida, when he was trying to gain their favor and votes.  But I have to ask how he can be trusted after doing that.  

I've also heard that he charged excessive personal expenses to the GOP when he was in Florida politics.  As Florida House Speaker he issued himself and a few other Republican insiders corporate credit cards which they then ran up over $7 million in charges.  Rubio's charges were over $100,000 and he repaid about $16,000 and left the GOP with the balance.  Some of the charges he left for the party to pay were said to include repairs to his family car and personal vacation costs and travel expenses.

A Romney staff member said Rubio was always trying to scam the system for his personal benefit.  A number of stories in Florida media and even national media such as this from ABC News tell us about Rubio's reputation for questionable ethics.

And stories like this from Business Insider tell of numerous problems in Rubio's handling of money.

Rubio is said to have received money from a Florida university and then the university gave him a parti-time job as a professor, which the president of the school said was worth every penny.  (You can read about that and other problems here as reported in the Huffington Post.)  Somehow that reminds me too much of the cushy $300,000 a year job Michelle Obama got from an Illinois hospital when Barry was a state senator, which became known simply as a way for the hospital to have influence in state government.

Add to these things that Rubio also was fined by the Federal Election Commission for taking over $200,000 in prohibited contributions in his senatorial campaign and it all looks pretty bad.

Let's assume that every one of these problematic issues can be legitimately explained and/or that he's changed and wants a fresh start.  I believe in repentance and forgiveness more than most people.  But I believe there has to be a true turning from your mistake, admission of that mistake, and then over time a person has to earn trust again.  But the key in that last sentence is that OVER TIME a person earns trust again.

For those who say he should be forgiven, I am not opposed to that.  But forgiveness does not guarantee immediate trust (remember, Reagan said to trust but verify).  And forgiveness also does not mean there are not consequences that will be suffered for your mistakes.  If Rubio's sincere, then he should accept the consequences of what he did and be willing to take the time to rebuild trust.  If he isn't, then his sincerity needs to be questioned.

Even if Marco Rubio was sincere in what he said to Sean Hannity (and I am having trouble accepting just how sincere it was given what he said to Jorge Ramos at Univision just this week), if we are to trust him again it should be after he has earned that trust.  Let Marco Rubio continue to serve in the Senate for at least another term or two and prove through his actions that he truly has changed.  Then if he wants to run for the presidency he's still only in his 50's and quite able to run and do so with a much better track record.  To trust him without having earned it back over time makes the voters the fools.