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

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Ten More Years Of Eric Holder As Attorney General?

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary would be a great president. Between her experience, past accomplishments, and the new faces she'd bring in with her administration it would be a fresh start for America.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Setting aside the nonsense about Hillary's past accomplishments, because she has none, we have no guarantee that she'd bring in new faces. In fact, one of the faces she may choose for her administration could be Eric Holder to remain as Attorney General.  That should be enough to give anyone pause.

Many people think Hillary Clinton will be the Democrat nominee for president in 2016 (I'm not convinced that will happen, by the way).  With that assumption comes the belief that she could very likely become president.  That in itself is enough to bring pause to any thinking American.  But assuming that Hillary did become president, what nobody's talking about is who her cabinet would be.  Her husband's administration included Eric Holder as Deputy Attorney General.  Doesn't anyone see the possibility that this out-of-control justice department under the leadership of Eric Holder could be kept intact if Hillary becomes president?  That would mean not just 2 more years under Obama, but up to another 8 years under Hillary which amounts to another 10 years of Eric Holder as Attorney General.  If that's not enough to cause Americans to think twice about a Hillary presidency, then nobody is paying attention.

There are many things Americans loathe about the Obama presidency.  Few could say that one part of his administration stands out as worse than all the others. But a contender for that spot would have to be Eric Holder as Attorney General.  As recently as this past week we've seen him take sides on a legal issue before all the facts were known.  Holder traveled to Ferguson, MO and met with community members showing he sided with the outside protestors who'd come into that community to cause trouble by demanding a trial, conviction, and in some cases even death for the police officer who shot a young black man.  His position should have been that we need to find the truth, not that we know what the truth is without an investigation being completed.  While the information that's become public so far seems to exonerate the police officer, until it is thoroughly completed we are wrong to pass judgment of any kind.  Anyone who takes sides in this situation is wrong, regardless of the side they take.  Americans should take the side of justice and wait for the facts, but many have rushed to judgment and Holder has given the appearance that he, as the nation's top law enforcement officer, has done the same.

But this isn't the first time we've seen Holder do questionable things.  We should be very concerned that he was part of the Clinton administration and could be chosen to remain where he is if Hillary is elected.  Let's look at just 10 (there are plenty more) of the things we know about his background that are cause for great concern, many of which are from before he was appointed by Obama and approved by the Senate (which should also give Americans reason to want to replace our Senators with people who will do their job of scrutinizing appointees instead of giving rubber stamp approval to nominees).

1.) reported that members of the New Black Panther Party intimidated white voters with threats at a Philadelphia polling location.  Bartle Bull, former civil rights attorney, described the actions as "The most blatant form of voter intimidation" he'd ever seen.  The Bush Justice Department filed a civil-rights lawsuit and the Obama administration inherited the lawsuit.  The defendants didn't answer the lawsuit and a federal court entered a default judgment against them.  By then Eric Holder had been appointed the new Attorney General and his Justice Department responded to the judgment of the court by dropping the charges.

2.)  PJ Media reported that the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division had been engaging in politicized hiring practices.  Holder has admitted that his department has specifically looked for people who shared their values.
3.)  Fox News reported that Arizona Governor Jan Brewer had signed into law a bill that authorized police to check with the feds about the immigration status of individuals that had been stopped for legitimate reasons (they couldn't just stop them to question immigration status, they had to have other legitimate reason to stop them).  Holder spoke out against the law and challenged it because he felt the law could lead to racial profiling.  The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Arizona.  (It should be mentioned that ultimately the Supreme Court overturned the law.)
4.)  The Heritage Foundation has published an article about Fast and Furious, a scandal where a U. S. government investigation of gun-trafficking resulted in a U. S. border patrol agent being killed, at least 1500 firearms ended up in the hands of criminals, and hundreds of Mexican citizens were killed.  Additionally, the LA Times has reported that 57 of the weapons have been connected to 11 violent crimes.
5.)  National Review published an article about how radical Muslim groups had many meetings with Obama administration officials to voice concern regarding the term "radical Islam" in FBI materials used to train personnel.  Holder, along with FBI Director Robert Mueller issued an order removing such language from FBI training materials.  The Gloria Center reported that more than 1000 items were removed including defining jihad as holy war and mentions of the Muslim Brotherhood's desire to have Islam dominate the entire world.
6.)  The Daily Caller reported Holders ongoing opposition to voter ID laws designed to minimize voter fraud.  Rawstory reported Holder said to the Congressional Black Caucus in 2012 that his Justice Department had challenged "two dozen state laws and executive orders from more than a dozen states that could make it significantly harder for many eligible voters to cast ballots in 2012."
7.) National Review published an article about Holder's policy to treat terrorists as criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants.  Holder believes that Islamic terrorists have a right to be treated as criminal defendants instead of enemy combatants except when they are captured on a traditional battlefield.
8.)  Huffington Post reported that Holder's Justice Department secretly obtained phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors that AP President & CEO Gary Pruitt commented about saying, "there can be no possible justification for such an over-broad collection of the telephone communications of the Associated Press and it's reporters.  These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two month period, provide a roadmap to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know."
9.)  In an article at Newsmax it was reported that Eric Holder recommended the pardon of Marc Rich.  Rich had purchased oil illegally from Iran during a U. S. trade embargo, then tried to hide over $100 million in profits.  Then he renounced his U. S. citizenship and went to Switzerland to avoid prosecution for 51 counts of racketeering, tax fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion and the oil transactions with Iran.  Bill Clinton signed the pardon and credited Holder's recommendation as a factor that convinced him to issue the pardon.  
10.) The Newsmax article also tells of Holder approving the pardon of those FALN terrorist group (the armed forces of Puerto Rican National Liberation radicals) who bombed the Fraunces Tavern in New York City that killed 4 people and injured 50 others.  This was nothing but help for Hillary Clinton and her run for Senate by showing sympathy to the Puerto Rican population. It also shows the direct connection between Holder and Hillary.
If you even consider Hillary being worthy of the presidency, then be aware that you are also approving of possibly extending Eric Holder's reign as head of the Justice Department up to a possible date of 2024.  And by the way, if you think Hillary is worthy of the presidency, do yourself a favor and get your head examined.

Friday, August 22, 2014

In Dealing With ISIS (or IS or ISIL) Left Is Wrong & Right Is Right

Here's the Nonsense:  ISIS should be allowed to run their course.  We don't need to be involved in this.  They can be contained to the Middle East and they won't be America's problem.

Here's the Horse Sense:  ISIS is evil.  Evil cannot be stopped with any other effort than annihilation.    

The horrific death of James Foley at the hands of ISIS (or IS or ISIL) jihadis has caused outrage throughout the world.  But how we deal is IS is divided between left and right. In fact, in this case left is wrong and right is right.  The left wants appeasement, or at best containment.  The right wants total destruction of jihadis.  Only one answer is right, and it's the one from the right.

Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister who tried to deal with Hitler using appeasement, thought he'd succeeded.  When he returned from his meeting with the Nazis he boldly proclaimed success by saying, "I believe it is peace for our time... Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."  But that sleep was soon interrupted as Germany violated the agreement and England was in as much danger as the rest of Europe.  When Winston Churchill followed Chamberlain as Prime Minister, England had new leadership that understood the harsh reality that the only way to deal with evil was to destroy it.  And with America's and the Allies help, they were successful at wiping the evil known as Nazi Germany from power.  That is the same prescription that those of us on the right have for dealing with ISIS.

James Foley's death was written about by Judson Phillips in the Washington Times.  In his article he tells us that Mr. Foley hated America, hated Israel, and hated Republicans.  Even though he supported the Islamist cause, he still ended up being killed.  And Phillips makes the point that that's what happens when you try to appease evil.  

Evil won't be appeased.  Evil will do whatever it has to, including pretending to be your friend, but will ultimately destroy you.  

The only remedy for evil is to destroy it.  You cannot contain it.  You cannot appease it.  You must destroy it or it will destroy you.  That is what America must do if we want to survive and keep them from bringing attacks to our shores.  And it must be America because no nation has the ability we do to take that action.

Monday, August 18, 2014

The Pot (Boehner) Calls The Kettle (Obama) Black

Here's the Nonsense:  John Boehner really said it right when he talked about the incompetence of Obama.  The GOP will really fix this president with their lawsuit.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Boehner is afraid of his own shadow, at least that's what his actions seem to show.  He's all talk and no action.  The only way to save America is if the citizens do it.

In an interview this weekend on a North Dakota radio station, Speaker of the House John Boehner said that Obama wasn't prepared for the job of president.  Newsmax reports Boehner saying, "When you look at this White House you see incompetence at many levels."    He then went on to say that part of the problem with Obama is that he won't admit that his policies are not working.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!  Someone get this guy a mirror so he can see what hypocrisy looks like.  No wonder the GOP is in such a mess. We can't rely on them to save America.

Now, I realize that using the old idiom that what someone said is like the pot calling the kettle black risks me being called a racist, especially when one of those people is black themselves.  After all, using the word "black" in such a way is considered by the politically correct as a heinous act worthy of being labeled a racist statement.  But I'll risk it.  If people are too stupid to understand something this simple, then their criticism isn't worth consideration.

America is in crisis.  Our future is questionable at best.  On one hand we have one party, the Democrats, running rampantly over Americans' rights with their lawless president leading them down a path of destruction tearing down every vestige of constitutional authority left in the country.  

On the other hand, we have another party, the Republicans, doing everything they can to ignore the very powers and responsibility given to them by the Constitution so that they don't have to stand for anything.  (I think they were the inspiration for the saying that if you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.)  This is a party that has seen that conservative principles work, yet they refuse to employ them.

Boehner used his time in this interview trying to justify the lawsuit he's bringing against the president.  I'm not an attorney and I am not going to try to determine the legal ramifications of such a suit.  But the fact is that solid constitutional lawyers have already raised issues as to whether there is standing for the suit.  Regardless, though, the real issue is that Boehner isn't willing to use the power of his office to reign in control of an out-of-control president.  The Constitution gives the House the power of the purse.  That means that the House can withhold funding to stop a president from acting like Obama does.   

But they don't do it.  They won't do it.   They avoid doing it to stop things like Obamacare, which has been rejected wholesale by the American public both before and since it was forced down our throats as it became law.  The House could defund it and stop it dead in its tracks.  But they won't.  

I can only think of two reasons why Boehner won't use this kind of power.  Either he is afraid of the confrontation with Obama and the Democrats (he'd be called a racist for that... but then the left already refers to Republicans as racists, but if it isn't true why should you worry about it), or he fears that if the Republican-controlled House uses that power, then later when the Democrats regain power in the House (and they inevitably will at some point because a pendulum swings both ways), that they will retaliate using that same power against a Republican president.  Or maybe it's actually a combination of both.

Regardless, we need leadership in Washington and neither party is providing any.  The Democrats are so far from acting morally that they cannot even be considered reasonable anymore.  The Republicans, who are controlled by the establishment GOP, are so unwilling to take a stand and use their power that they turn to the third branch of government, the Judicial Branch, to try to bring suit against the president.  That is essentially expecting the courts to do their job.  I won't be surprised if the courts throw it back at them and tell them they won't touch it.  You can't expect someone else to do your job, but that's exactly what the establishment Republicans want.

We have evil people on the left trying to destroy our government so they can replace our system with a progressive one.  At the same moment we have spineless people in control of the other party.  And we're supposed to get hope from where?

Actually there is an answer.  We get hope from God and our efforts.  We cannot rely on corrupt and weak politicians to stand up and do anything.  We must turn to God for guidance and then work harder than ever before.  We are in a war and it demands everything.  

As a friend of mine said in a speech to a conservative group recently, there is no time for rest, relaxation, vacation, hobbies, or even family events.  We are at war and we must sacrifice for the next few years if there is to be a chance to save this nation.  If we don't, the nation won't be left to fight for.  Our freedoms will be gone.  

It's time to turn off Facebook, quit thinking about vacations and other leisure activities, and get busy to win this war.  Some say we only have two election cycles left before this country is so far gone that it won't be salvageable.  Personally I'm not sure we have that many.  Our time is very limited and if we're not willing to give up everything, we don't deserve anything.  It really is true that people get the government they deserve.   After all, wars are not won by fighting part time.

Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Yet Another Obama Administration Scandal Surfaces

Here's the Nonsense:  Those who are pointing fingers again at the Obama administration for a few things in an Inspector General's report are just haters who want to make a big deal out of anything they can just to give this administration more troubles.  They should let them alone so they can do their job.

Here's the Horse Sense Out of control.  That's what this administration is.  This corruption is no surprise, it's just another example in a long list of issues we see come up again and again.  And it won't get better unless the American people decide to make changes.  

Not that any of us who pay attention should be surprised, but it's still stunning each time another scandal of this administration shows up.  Sharyl Attkisson, former CBS journalist who had the smarts to get out when she felt her reporting was being compromised by working where she did, is reporting on that a newly released Inspector General's report shows that Obama's Department of Homeland Security released thousands of illegal immigrants in advance of the 2013 budget cuts required by sequestration and more than 600 of them were convicted criminals.  The report shows that it was obvious these types of decisions were political.  Yet another scandal for this administration.  Fast and Furious, Benghazi, IRS, Verterans Administration, and on and on the list goes.

If it was only one scandal it might be that we would think that it's just political.  After all, whether we want to accept it or not, the fact is that both parties have been known to push issues against the opposing side to try to make a point. But when the list becomes this long and there are constant fights for basic information, the old adage that where there's smoke there's fire seems to apply.

The Washington Times reports that the actions of the DHS were illegal.   This is nothing new for this administration.  Breitbart reported about Senator Ted Cruz's recent report that showed 76 times President Obama has violated the law, and that doesn't count the number of times we've learned of agencies and officials throughout the administration who have also done so.

Lawless president.  Lawless administration. Lawless government.  When will it end?  Only when the American people decide to quit ignoring what's happening in our country and change their lives to live at the standards set by Judeo-Christian values and then hold our elected officials accountable to those standards.  

That is America's only hope.

Monday, August 11, 2014

Hillary Changes Foreign Policy Trying To Prove Leadership Ability

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary Clinton is making it clear that the foreign policy she pursued as secretary of state was Obama's policy, not hers.  That should make it clear that she isn't responsible for what happened on her watch and therefore prove she's qualified to be president.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Hillary is saying she represented Obama's foreign policy and not her own so that she can distance herself from Obama's failures.  But if she had integrity and really didn't embrace his policies then she should have resigned in protest instead of promoting terrible strategy. 

Just think of it.  Virtually anyone else that might have been Secretary of State wouldn't get away with it.  But Hillary Clinton is almost as slippery as her husband when it comes to keeping a negative past from sticking to her reputation.  And this latest effort to move away from the foreign policies that she was in charge of promoting as secretary of state is nothing more than a political ploy.  She wants her record to be acceptable to the American people should she decide to run for president.  And even if she doesn't, she, like her husband, wants her legacy to appear positive instead of what it really is.

America has a terrible vacuum of leadership.  And, with limited exception, the people that are being seen as potential future leaders aren't any better.  With the American people crying out for change from the failed policies of the Obama administration, any potential candidate for national office has to scramble to get away from them to have a chance at success in their bid for office.  And now, as Hillary Clinton is considering a possible run, she must move to the right and away from her heartfelt far left ideals if she is to be seriously considered by the American electorate.  Hillary, just like her husband Bill and virtually every Democrat and establishment Republican, knows that to win elections in America you have to make the public think you're more conservative than you are or they won't consider you as a viable choice.  This is part of Hillary and Bill's efforts to make her appealing to voters should she decide to run.

While Politico reports that Hillary has taken a position of disagreement with Obama's foreign policy, the Weekly Standard is reporting the White House says that she was on board with their positions.

Let's face it.  If Hillary were truly a leader she'd have resigned in protest from the Obama administration and taken a stand that what was being done with foreign policy was the wrong thing to do.  The buck may ultimately stop at Obama's desk, but the fact is that as the head of the department, Hillary has to take responsibility for promoting the policies that Obama wanted her to pursue.  

A true leader would walk away from something with which they disagree.  A true leader does what is right regardless of the cost to themselves.  They are more interested in doing what's right than they are in the consequences to their own career.  But we will never see that from this administration, anyone in it, or that has ever been affiliated with it.  And that applies to Bill Clinton and his administration, too.  

If this is the best that America has to offer for leadership, then there is no hope for America.  

The Best America has to offer for Leadership?
(Former President and First Lady or Future President and First Man?)
Picture from U. K. Telegraph article telling of Clinton's vacation on Martha's Vineyard 2014. 

Recently people have been asking if Mitt Romney will save the GOP by running again in 2016.  As recently as this past weekend the U. K Telegraph reported such a story.  And while Mitt Romney has shown himself to be a good man, with far more integrity than any Democrat we've seen in national politics in decades, he is still not the answer for America.  Yes, he could run and have a good chance at getting elected.  But while he loves America and has some skills that could help our nation, he's still too oriented to establishment GOP politics and big government.  And that would not solve America's problems.  It would slow down the impending disaster, but it wouldn't fix the core problems.

What America needs is someone who will bring both integrity and the types of policies embraced by Ronald Reagan to save America.  However, don't think that even Reagan could easily fix America.  Things today are far worse than they were when Reagan took office in 1980.  If he were to take office today the job would be far more difficult and possibly not even achievable, unless the American people are willing to pay the price required to turn our nation around.

Last week I was on a radio talk show and the host asked me if there was hope to turn America around.  I responded saying that as a businessman looking at the situation America is in I don't believe that it is possible.  But then I went on to say that as an American looking at our history I do still think there's hope.  The reason for that, I said, is that American's have always been known to rise to the occasion when pushed into a corner.  My hope is that that will happen again.  But it must happen soon or it will be too late.

Sadly the host laughed when I said that.  I don't really know why he laughed.  It is a serious subject and we are in very dire straits as a nation.  There is nothing to laugh about.  But he might be like a commenter to an article I read this morning who said he couldn't wait until Obama was out of office in 2 years and then the country could return to normal.  I have news for people who think that's all it will take to fix things:  Obama is not the problem.  The problem is much deeper in America.  

As I wrote in my book No Tomorrows, America has 3 core problems:

1.)  Debt - Our debt drives our economy and without stopping the outrageous spending in Washington and paying off our debt it is impossible to create a long-term successful economy with jobs and security for Americans.  Our national debt is over $17.6 trillion and our unfunded liabilities, which are nothing more than more debt, are over $118 trillion as can be seen here.  They are at a point where it would be virtually impossible to ever pay them off. (Our total national assets are just over $112 trillion.  That means that if you sold the entire country and everything in it we still wouldn't get enough money to pay our debts.)  Only significant changes will give us a chance to overcome this obstacle.

2.)  Leadership - We don't know how to pick true leaders.  We choose people for all the wrong reasons.  For example, as good a man as Dr. Ben Carson seems to be, what qualifications has he shown for leadership?  He gave a good speech at the national prayer breakfast and offended President Obama with it.  He even refused to apologize when the White House called him later that day and asked him to apologize.  That made him a man many on the right liked, but it didn't show qualifications for leadership.  That's why I outlined the traits of a true leader in my book The Leadership Secret.  It gives 16 clear traits that are required for a person to truly be a leader.  (By the way, Dr. Carson might have great qualifications and ability, but we just don't know enough about him to be able to make a good decision at this point.)
3.)  Morality - We must abandon being an immoral nation and return to the religious and moral foundations upon which our nation was founded.  Contrary to President Obama's recent claim that Islam formed the fabric upon which America was built, the fact is that America was built on the foundation of Judeo-Christian values.  

John Adams, our second president, said:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." 

He fully understood that a nation without a moral compass could not survive as a free nation.  And America has fallen from morality to depravity.  By doing something as simple as turning on a television you can see blatant immorality these days.  From disgusting humor to promoting sex outside of marriage, living together outside of marriage, greed being promoted as good, the use of "little white lies" as a way to get away with things or avoid hurt feelings, to a list that if I tried to write it would be so long that I'd run out of space.  America is a cesspool and until we are willing to abandon those practices and face God to seek forgiveness, we have no chance at survival as a nation.  

Of the 3 core problems I listed above, the third one will determine our future more than anything else. It's that simple.  The choice is up to the American people.

Sunday, August 3, 2014

Russians Mock Obama, But America Deserves It

Here's the Nonsense:  Russia is making a fool of themselves by mocking our president.  It is no reflection on American at all.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Russian mocking may not mean much to Americans, but it shows what our standards have devolved to when choosing our leaders.  We need to pay attention to how other nations react and respond to us if we are to understand where we are the weakest.

Some people call our president a leader.  In fact, there was a time when the U. S. president was not just considered the leader of our country, but the leader of the free world.  But we've watched that diminish to the point where America's president can't legitimately be called a leader, let alone the leader of America or the free world.  Our current president not only couldn't qualify as a leader of the night shift at a 7-11, he's become the laughingstock of the world, which was shown once again this past week when the Russian Deputy Prime Minister tweeted pictures of Putin and Obama showing Putin as masculine and Obama as weak.  And that weakness in our president is our fault.

American leadership is almost non-existent anymore.  Certainly there is no one in any leadership position held by any Democrat or Republican in Washington, DC.  In fact, the only leaders anywhere in Washington are a few on the Republican side who are not in leadership offices.  

The worst part is the man who is supposed to be the leader of our nation is no leader at all.  While he's busy with his constant efforts to take America down a few notches and make us like the rest of the world, our enemies throughout the world laugh.  

From his bowing to foreign officials to drawing a continually moving red line when he "takes a stand" we have seen nothing less than scorn for America by the world.  Our allies can no longer count on us and our enemies giggle in glee as they see opportunity to take over the world because America is no longer strong.

Russia's made moves to rebuild its military and taken an ever-increasing stance of aggressiveness in the world.  China's made huge investments in building their military and space program. (Their big advances in technology can be greatly attributed to Bill Clinton's failings as president and a continued quiet alliance that the Chinese obviously have developed with Russia.)  President Obama's weakness has encouraged them to do this.  Just this past week Yahoo News reported that the Chinese have acknowledged that they now have missiles that can reach the USA.  

All this while our president continues to reduce our military to levels that, as reported by the Washington Times, are too weak for us to maintain our defenses.  Don't forget that it was reported before the last election that President Obama told the Russians he would have more flexibility to tear down our nuclear defense capability after his reelection. 

So it should be no surprise that he is seen as weak by our enemies.  In fact, so weak that they openly make fun of him.  

The U. K. Telegraph reports that this week Russia's Deputy Prime Minister tweeted a photo of Vladimir Putin holding and petting a leopard and a picture of Barack Obama holding a poodle.  To the Russians, and much of the world, it shows Putin as strong and masculine and Obama as weak, almost feminine. 

Now personally I see nothing wrong with Obama holding a poodle in a picture.  I dont think the picture itslef makes him look unmanly.  I find enough other things he does prove his lack of manliness without having to rely on a ridiculous picture.  

But America has different views about what does and doesn't exude strength than much of the world.  To Russians and many other nations this is a clear comparison of a man versus a wimp.  Putin is known for having pictures published showing what his culture sees as strength and masculinity.    From horseback riding to hunting he has tried to promote himself as the strong, masculine leader.  And while I personally don't think those pictures are impressive, to much of the world it is quite a comparison to our president who is known for wearing mom jeans and throwing a baseball like a girl, and riding a bike looking way more feminine than any guy should. 

But those are not nearly as bad as when he shows his weakness on the world stage by bowing to foreign officials and not standing firm on issues.  These and all of our other problems stem from having a president with no true leadership traits.

You can't expect a man who is simply a puppet to show strength or have leadership traits.  Don't get me wrong.  I am not saying he is incompetent.  He is extremely competent, but not the way Americans want and expect their president to be.  We want a president who will do everything he can to uphold American values and make America strong. 

However, we must understand that Obama's values, and the values of those who control and direct his actions, clearly are from a different ideology than most Americans hold.  He does not want America to be the world's superpower.  He sees America as evil and wants us neutered so that we are just another country.  He believes that that is best for America and the world.  He believes that by weakening America he is doing great work.  And in working towards that goal, he is extremely competent, as can be seen by the success he's had at damaging our country since he took office.  

One of America's key problems is its lack of leadership.  Americans wonder how things got this bad, but it's the citizens who have not held a high standard in the people they elect to office.  There are key character traits that a person must have to be a true leader, and very few people in elected office have those traits.  They are not common.  But they are essential if you want to have a true leader in office.

In my recent book, The Leadership Secret, I detail the 16 traits of true leaders.  When we place people with these traits in leadership positions amazing things happen.  And since America has not done that, we are now receiving the trouble we've only asked for by our irresponsibility in how we've chosen our leaders.

The character of our leaders is critical to our nation surviving and succeeding.  We do not have leaders with character because true character means that you will do what's right regardless of the cost to yourself.  How many politicians will do that?  

But we must also understand that America's failure to elect people of character is because we, as a people, have lost our character.  America is an immoral nation, but no one wants to say those words.  People feel it's too offensive.  I've got news for them.  The truth is offensive.  And we should embrace it and see it as what holds us to account.  Instead we hide from it, cover it up, ignore it, deny it, and twist it to be what we are comfortable with instead of using it to correct our faults.

There is something very wrong in a nation who elects and reelects people with no character.  The problem has gone on for a long time, but it has come to culmination in Barack Obama.  We truly have gotten the government we deserve.  

The only way to correct it is for Americans to face their own failings and correct them first, and then clean house in Washington and replace the politicians of both parties that do not uphold virtue and integrity.  Until we do that there will be no chance to get America on the track it needs to be on.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

It May Be Impossible To Turn Colorado Back Into A Red State, And That's Important For The Entire Nation

Here's the Nonsense:  The citizens of Colorado are fed up and are willing to come together in spite of their differences to rid the state of the disaster that is the Democrat control of their state.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Voters are too divided to come together for a win against the Democrats in Colorado.  And now with the latest revelation of what the GOP establishment has done, any chance at victory is most likely out the window.

Most people across the nation are aware that in only 2 election cycles of this past decade that the Democrats were able to turn Colorado from a red state into a blue state.  Now they are using that same blueprint to go after other red states, Texas being the biggest target.  While they are doing that, many are fighting in hopes that they can turn Colorado back to red.  But after a revelation that just came out about actions of the establishment GOP in this year's Colorado gubernatorial primaries, it looks like there may be little chance to turn the state back to red.  This is important for the entire country because even though Colorado is a small state, it is a model being used to determine what is happening nationally.

In a Colorado GOP primary race earlier this year that had former Congressman Tom Tancredo clearly in the lead, a sudden change in the last moments of the race caused him to lose by a very close margin to former Congressman Bob Beauprez.  Tancredo is the conservative/libertarian favorite among that base in Colorado, but the establishment GOP controls the Republican Party in Colorado just like they do in the national GOP.  Tancredo saw early that things would be difficult and the establishment sent the message that should he win the nomination there may be no money from them to help his campaign.  Tancredo then asked Beauprez to enter the race knowing that if he didn't get the nomination that Beauprez would be a good alternative who, although not as solidly conservative, would stand strong on most important issues and also get the establishment GOP backing in the race.

With that much said, the story sounds like Tancredo was just out of luck against the establishment candidate and lost to Beauprez.  But something seemed fishy all along and now it appears that some information is coming out about what really happened.  And that information is such that it has a good chance of derailing any chance for the GOP to take back Colorado.

The Denver Post is reporting that "the RGA [Republican Goernors Association] contributed money to the Republican Attorneys General Association just a few days after the AG group donated to a third party that helped fund attacks against former Conressman Tom Tancredo."  

This action by the establishment-controlled Republican Governors Association and the Republican Attorneys General Association was unknown to Beauprez, according to Tancredo who says he confronted Beauprez and believed him when he said he knew nothing about it. 

Tancredo wants Beauprez to win but is livid at the actions taken by the establishment to stop his run in a way that, according to an interview with Tancredo on Denver talk radio this morning, is not just unethical but is illegal.

Recently Republican Governors Association Chairman Chris Christie (the governor of New Jersey) was in Colorado to campaign with Beauprez.  That did not sit well with the conservative/libertarian base.  

But Beauprez is doing a balancing act between honoring the establishment who supports him and the conservative/libertarian base he is trying to win over.  He wants to unite both sides so that not only he, but other GOP candidates can win and take back control of Colorado for the republicans.  

The campaigning with Christie and now the news of the Christie-led governors association's dirty dealings against Tancredo has caused a reaction by the base that is huge.  Conservatives and libertarians are in a rage over this news and their anger looks like it may be taken out on Beauprez, which in turn would keep the GOP from any chance at regaining control in the state.

While the base is rightfully angry, they are not taking their cues from Tancredo who has clearly stated he supports Beauprez and wants him to win.  He's also said he doesn't want this news to hurt Beauprez's campaign.  But instead of taking direction from Tancredo, the base is screaming for everything from write-in campaigns and another third party run for Tancredo to staying home and not voting to teach the establishment GOP a lesson.  The result of any of these will only be victory for the Democrats.

This is a perfect example of how people don't learn lessons from past experience.  Back in the 2012 presidential campaign the Ron Paul supporters took the very same attitude when Paul didn't win the GOP nomination.  They were like angry little children who took their toys and went home pouting and refused to participate.  That tantrum had a huge impact on the outcome of the election that kept Barack Obama in office for another term.

There's an old saying that is important to understand at times like this.  It says that in the primaries you should vote with your conscience and in the general election you should vote with your brain.  What it means is that in the primaries you should fight for and vote for who you believe is the best candidate.  But once the primaries are over, get over it if your candidate did not get the nomination and support the party's candidate for the general election.  Use your brain to understand that even though the party choice may not be your favorite, it's still a step in the right direction.  

Contrary to what many Ron Paul supporters said in 2012, Romney was different from Barack Obama.  And the result of their tantrum has been a disaster of such large proportions that the nation may not survive.  

In the fight for the future of America we must understand that the Democrats won Colorado by agreeing to win first and settle their internal differences in their party later.  They understand that control is important and that their differences are far less between themselves than they are with the right.  

The right needs to learn the same lesson or be doomed to continue to lose.  And it appears that because they haven't learned that lesson in Colorado that they may very well be giving up any chance of returning the state to GOP control.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Obama Again Reveals His True Plans, But Do Americans See It?

Here's the Nonsense:  President Obama is right when he says that we should embrace a new economic system that fixes the unfairness caused by the wealthy and businesses in our economy.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The president simply wants to take down America's economic system to replace it with a system that will leave us with an economy and prosperity level of Soviet-era communist countries.  Americans have to make a choice about the future of America.

Breitbart is reporting that, in his Saturday address, President Obama said:
"When some companies cherrypick their taxes, it damages the country's finances," adding, "It adds to the deficit.  It makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep America strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stash offshore." 
"...they're renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they're based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share."
"...let's embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together, as one nation, and as one people."

The message is huge.  Obama is revealing once again what his true plans are for America.  But most Americans will miss it.  

What Obama is saying is that Americans need to accept the idea that the government has the right to steal, in this case from businesses. And he is also trying to get people to think it is evil for companies to seek what is in their best interest, their bottom line.  

Obama has spent his entire career, first as a community organizer and then as an elected politician, vilifying business as evil.  This creates an "us versus them" mentality among his listeners that is ripe for the progressive message that things are not fair and something needs to be done to make them fair.

With that mindset people are ready to be led down a path of destruction as they listen to the progressive "solution" that only government under their leadership can make things right.  This gets people thinking that they will be taken care of and never have to worry again.  It's a faux message of security that people grab onto, especially in times of economic difficulty, hoping that the government will save them... but it won't.  It can't.

It is a message that gets people thinking that the government will take care of them and they will never have to worry again.  They don't have to be responsible.  They can just ride along and have their desires met by somebody else.  No responsibility, just leisure and an easy lifestyle.

This mindset doesn't understand that businesses are what drive our economy, not the government.  Government can only make it easy or hard to do business.  They cannot make the economy good.  In fact, unless kept on a strict leash, they can and will make the economy bad, as we see happening today.

Businesses are, by nature, intended to make money so they can grow and prosper.  And that prosperity is passed on as they hire more workers, buy more supplies, and invest their profits.  Businesses are in business to make money, and when they do the economy thrives.  

Let's go back and look carefully at what Obama is saying:
  • Obama says that companies seeking legal ways to protect themselves from paying too much in taxes damages the country's finances.  In other words, he can't spend as much because the big, bad businesses have the nerve to not give him more money. 
  • He says it adds to the deficit.  That means that the country has to borrow more money to keep spending like drunken sailors instead of being responsible and living within a budget that we can afford. (My apologies to drunken sailors, I know that you're more responsible than our government!)
  • He says it makes it harder to invest in things that will keep America strong.  Once again, he believes that strength comes from spending (his definition of "investing" can only be described as outrageous, uncontrolled spending).  And that spending is to be on social programs that have been proven not to work.  
  • Then he adds that it sticks the citizens with the tab, when in reality the tab we are being stuck with is that of rampant, irresponsible spending that is so out of control that we are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
  • He goes on to blame his inability to get his hands on more of the corporate money on the very companies that provide jobs and create a successful economy for our nation.  He does this instead of taking responsibility for increasing our spending and debt more than the mind can comprehend.  
Obama's goal in saying these things was to once again try to get the American people to support his ridiculous idea that fairness is what he determines it is and that if things aren't fair, then only the government can make them right.  Once again, this helps create discontent, which is part of the progressive plan, so that as things continue to get worse people will become more receptive to progressive politicians who promise fairness.

They try to get voters to think that their lives aren't fair and that the government has the answers to fix it.  

They tout the idea that "social justice" is the answer, but it is really just taking what someone has earned as a result of their own hard work and giving it to someone else.  And no, it's not a fun story like Robin Hood.  It's about taking YOUR hard-earned resources and giving them to someone else because the government determines that you don't have the right to the fruits of your labors.

I've got news for them.  Life is not fair.  Period.  And government is the worst answer to problems.  Another period.

The prosperity that we have lived with and enjoy in modern America has come about because of our free market system that has allowed people to prosper as a result of their hard work.  Doing things the progressive way allows the government to decide at any given moment whether you should keep what you've earned or whether it should be taken and given to someone the government says deserves it more.

But this is not just who Barack Obama is, it's who the progressives are.  They have taken control of the Democrat Party and infiltrated our government to collapse it and replace it with their socialist/marxist style-system.  They have indoctrinated Americans over the decades to think that marxist ideology is no longer a threat, but it is alive and well and living under the name of progressivism.  If you don't believe it, just do a little honest study and it's easy to see there really is no difference.  So, unless we understand that the only option is to defeat the Democrat Party, we will lose this nation.

Barack Obama has never hidden what he is doing.  All the citizens had to do was pay attention.  But this time, just as before, I doubt that Americans are seeing it.  There is no longer much critical thinking done by Americans.  There is just a blind following of their narcissistic desires with no thought or care for the future that our children and grandchildren face.

Those selfish desires have brought our nation to its knees.  So now that we are humiliated from allowing this to happen, we need to ask if we are willing to respond in a whirlwind of fury to fight with everything we have to save this great republic that is the last hope of liberty for the world.  Or, do we stay down on our knees like a prisoner about to be executed and allow them to finish us off and let the great America we have known go into the dustbin of history?

It's your choice.

Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Court Finding Is Potential Crippling Blow To Obamacare

Here's the Nonsense:  Obamacare is solidly entrenched as valid and good law as supported by the Supreme Court.  Nothing is going to remove it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Obamacare is not good law, it's questionable at best. This ruling shows it has a weakness that may be devastating to the law's future.

We've all been waiting for it.  Most Americans have been hoping for it.  And now the U. S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. has issued a ruling that almost 5 million subsidies given to Obamacare subscribers are illegal. Could this be the Achilles heel that takes Obamacare down?

Since its inception as an idea, long before it was even passed into law, the majority of Americans have been against Obamacare recognizing that it would destroy the quality healthcare that Americans have come to enjoy.  Constitutionally it didn't stand as legal, but Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts changed his opinion at the last minute in a twisted attempt to make it appear legitimate and pushed the vote that allowed it to stand.  While Americans screamed "foul play" their cries fell on deaf ears.  Congress, who is supposed to represent the people, didn't listen and stop the fiasco (the House has the constitutionally authority to defund it, but wouldn't).  

With the exception of a few brave and honorable elected officials, most sat on their hands and did nothing to stop this monstrosity of a law that is a foundation stone in the plan to destroy not just our economy, but our republic.  

Fortunately that didn't stop Americans who care about our future.  Lawsuits have been brought against Obamacare for a variety of reasons.  Some, like the recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case, have had positive outcomes for liberty, but still aren't enough to do a death blow to the law.

Many cases are working their way through the court system and some may eventually land at the Supreme Court.  This case about subsidies is very close, having made it to the appeals court level.  And this may give Americans a chance at seeing this law stopped before it does the guaranteed damage it will do not just to our economy and nation as a whole, but to individuals as they will find the care they receive will be substandard and even limited or non-existent if they don't fit the criteria the government bureaucrats decide are required to get care.  (If you haven't seen the work Dr. Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of Rahn Emmanuel the former White House Chief of Staff and current Mayor of the sadly failing progressive city of Chicago, then you don't understand how bad it's going to get.  Dr. Emmanuel is one of the key architects of the design of Obamacare and has published works worthy of Nazi Germany showing that only certain people should be given any significant level of care.)  

In a rather negative report, CNBC covers the decision and it's sister case that's pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in detail.  While CNBC may think it's negative and be promoting the idea that this decision will not stand.  Whether they're right or not we do not know.  But we must remember that no one knows because no one can foretell the future.  Americans need to be praying for a good outcome on this issue.  This could create a situation that was unforeseen by the administration and help result in the eventual end to this terrible law.

UPDATE (07/22/14 5:14PM ET):  Since the publishing of this post CNBC has now reported that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the similar case on this issue.  They have ruled that the federal subsidies are legal.  This split between the two courts could potentially take this issue to the Supreme Court, giving them another chance to correct some of the damage they did by their original Obamacare decision.

2nd UPDATE (07/23/14 7:59 ET):  National Review is now reporting"President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he 'wouldn’t bet the family farm' on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts."  While skeptics legitimately question whether our court system can actually do their job and not legislate from the bench anymore, Professor Tribe has a long career of legal expertise and still believes that the final result in these cases could be sound judicial ruling instead of the common imposition of a judge's ideology in their decisions.  National Review's article cites Tribe and other legal experts who raise a legitimate argument as to why the ultimate outcome should be a ruling that does severe damage to Obamacare. 

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Finally, The House Uses Their Power Of The Purse To Reign In The IRS

Here's the Nonsense:  The House has cut some funding of the IRS and that is a bad idea because it will cause more who cheat on their taxes to get away with it since the IRS won't be able to afford to do as many investigations and audits.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The House action to cut some IRS funding is good news, but there will be tough consequences Americans will pay for it.  The House must do more to get our government under control.

In a report that seems filled with angst, the AP is reporting that John "Spineless" Boehner's House of Representatives has voted to cut the IRS Enforcement Division's budget by $1.25 billion, which is about a 25% cut.  The AP reports it while whining that it is "a 25 percent cut that would mean fewer audits of taxpayers and make it more likely that people who cheat on their taxes will get away with it." They are more interested in having a strong-armed government controlling citizens, especially conservatives, than they are in stopping lawless, out-of-control government.  But will the result be good or bad?

The debate has gone back and forth in conservative circles as to how to reign in the abuses of the IRS.  Many have called upon House Speaker John Boehner to use the power that our constitution gives the House of Representatives to control the money used throughout government.  By cutting funding to things they can have a powerful impact on what happens in our nation.  But until now they have not had the backbone to use that power.  For example, when conservatives were calling for the defunding of Obamacare, which the House had the power to do, those calls fell on deaf ears.  Why Boehner and the other establishment GOP members of the House wouldn't take a stand is up for debate.  Their public reason had to do with bad timing and fear that it would make the GOP look bad for taking on the first black president's signature law.  Personally, I believe they wouldn't take it on because they really don't want it to go away.  I think the establishment GOP wants the power and control that Obamacare gives the government over citizens, just like the Democrats do.  But regardless, it is a perfect example of something that the majority of Americans want stopped and the establishment GOP wouldn't listen and do just that.  

But this time they have actually taken a stand and defunded some of the IRS power.  This is very good news.  This is a good lesson for them that they can use that power they have to do what the American people want.  Even though it's good news, though, will the result be good or bad?  

This is a difficult question.  I agree with the action, but I can see it backfiring on American citizens.  The leftists who control our government are going to be very upset about this.  And leftists are known to retaliate against those who disagree with them.  They cannot stand disagreement, criticism, or even humor.  So my suspicion is that even though this will have an impact on the IRS, I think there's a good chance that the result will be the IRS, and other government agencies, will double-down and use what funding they do have to focus even more on conservatives.  

By doing what they've done, the House may be facilitating harsher actions against conservatives.  What the House needs to do is reign in spending throughout the government.  They have the power and can use it to put pressure on each area of government that is out of control.  Cutting funding to Obamacare, the EPA, etc. will send a message and each time some agency abuses their power, the House should cut even more spending.  And they should not just do it to the agency that is directly involved in that abuse.  They should do it across the board sending the message that an elementary school teacher sends when they tell the class that every time someone misbehaves, everyone will lose privileges.  It adds peer pressure to keep in line those who choose to step out of line.

We must support the House for doing this and let them know we are behind them.  When they do something good they should be encouraged.  But we must also remember that the left will not stop doing what they are doing without a fight.  And that fight will be against the very Americans you see every day at work, in your neighborhood, at your church or synagogue, and everywhere else.