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

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.

Sunday, April 12, 2015

Obama Welcomes Communist Expansion In Western Hemisphere

Here's the Nonsense: The Monroe Doctrine is 192 years old and lived long past its usefulness.  It's not that important that the president has abandoned it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Monroe Doctrine has been a key to keeping communist expansion in the western hemisphere in check.  Abandoning it is another sign we are in deep, deep trouble.

Another nail in the coffin of the United States and the free world has just been hammered in as Obama throws out the Monroe Doctrine and embraces communist activity in our backyard.  Keith Koffler at White House Dossier is reporting that last Friday Obama spoke at the Summit of Americas in Panama and said the United States would no longer try to stop the spread of communism in Latin America.  He wrote:

"Obama, who spoke Friday during a 'civil society' forum in Panama City, Panama, disparaged past efforts by the United States to forestall the spread of Communism in Latin America and suggested similar missions would no longer be undertaken.

''The days in which our agenda in this hemisphere so often presumed that the United States could meddle with impunity, those days are past,' Obama said." [emphasis added]

Before commenting further on what Obama did, let me say that Koffler's article is very interesting, although I think he makes a big mistake in one part of his analysis.  Further into his article he makes the same mistake many people make about Obama.  The article goes on to say, "Obama, as the Iranians have recently recognized, does not understand the evil designs of our enemies and believes in campfire singalongs rather than fighting fire with fire."  This is a huge error that conservatives make.  Obama ABSOLUTELY DOES UNDERSTAND our enemies.  He's not naive.  His actions show he obviously embraces them.  He wants "campfire singalongs" not just to get along, but because he's in agreement with them.  My last post spoke of Obama's desire to take down America.  His actions with Iran and now in his speech in Panama just add more proof of his true intentions.  

He DOES understand what those countries are doing.  His efforts have shown us over and over and over again how he is working to take down America.  If he didn't understand.  If he was naive or incompetent he would periodically make a mistake in his efforts to take down America.  And if he did make those mistakes they would actually benefit America (they'd benefit America because his efforts are to damage America, so if the efforts fail, America would benefit).  But he doesn't make those mistakes which should tell us that he is EXTREMELY competent at achieving his goals.  

His entire upbringing and schooling was filled with communist influences.  In his autobiography, Dreams From My Father he wrote, "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully.  The more politically active black students, the foreign students, the Chicanos, the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk rock performance poets."  (Listen to Obama say this here.)  So, for him to embrace the very regimes that are communist or allied with communist nations should be no surprise. What we are seeing is proof of his intent and plans for America.

But let's get back to what he said in Panama and what that means for America.

Secretary of State John Kerry said a year ago that the Monroe Doctrine was dead.  No surprise from that progressive leftist we have handling our foreign policy these days.  But for those who don't know, the Monroe Doctrine came about from President James Monroe in 1823 when he put it forth to send a warning to European nations that further colonization or interference with North or South American nations would not be permitted by the United States.  In other words, "don't try anything in our backyard" was the message.  President Kennedy cited the Monroe Doctrine in handling the Cuban Missile Crisis when the Soviets tried to establish nuclear missile sites in Cuba.

So, now Obama openly condones communism in our hemisphere.  You shouldn't be surprised if you've done the slightest bit of research regarding the ideology of our president.  You should be extremely alarmed that it's happening so openly.  This, along with his other actions, should have Americans demanding change, not just hoping something goes well to get us a new president in 2016.  (The majority of Senators and House members need to be replaced, too.)  

Want more proof of what Obama's ideology means?  It's also being reported that he wants to remove Cuba from the list of governments that sponsor terrorism.  Not sure that Cuba should be considered bad?  I can tell you from having lived in Florida with many friends whose families were political refugees from Castro's Cuba that the stories they tell are no different than you hear from those who escaped communist regimes elsewhere in the world.  And don't think it's old, worn-out stories.  Cuba is just as dangerous today as ever.  Just last year it was reported that North Korea was caught smuggling weapons from Cuba in violation of UN sanctions.

Obama is not only opening the door to further communist expansion in Latin America, his actions are an endorsement of it.  In the past America has been the nation who stood against communist expansion, thereby assuring freedom for millions of people around the world.  But, if nothing else has been, Obama's rejection of the Monroe Doctrine should be the warning shot to Americans and the world that the trajectory of the path he has America on will end only in the forsaking of freedom not just for all Americans, but for the entire world.  

This isn't just about Obama. Remember, he's just the figurehead of their movement.  The progressives control the Democrat Party (You can see a list of the members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus here.) and they heavily influence a good portion of the GOP.  Conservatives in Congress are relatively few in number.  We don't just need a new president, we need to replace most of the House and Senate with solid constitutional conservatives.  We live in very dangerous times and it's about time Americans take notice and, while we still have constitutional rights, do everything our rights allow us to do to put control of this nation back in the hands of the people.  

Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Cheney States What Those Who've Been Paying Attention Have Known For Some Time

Here's the Nonsense:  President Obama has done a poor job as president, but he's just not good at what he does. His incompetence has shown all throughout his presidency.

Here's the Horse Sense:  President Obama is not only very competent and effective at his goals, his accomplishments should tell us what his goals truly are.

The Daily Caller is reporting that former Vice President revealed some of his inner thoughts about Barack Obama on Hugh Hewitt's radio show this week.  Responding to a question from Hewitt about Obama's Iran nuclear deal, the former vice president said:

"If you had somebody who, as president — who wanted to take America down. Who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world, reduce our capacity to influence events. Turn our back on our allies and encourage our enemies, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama is doing."

That's a statement that those who aren't paying attention will have problems with.  But the fact is that it's pretty accurate.  Some of the things we've seen in Obama's 6+ years in office include:

  • Obama claims that the economy has recovered from the recession (and only a fool would believe that), but if it is a recovery, it's the weakest recovery from a recession in modern American history.  
  • He has mired the country in unprecedented levels of debt: about $6.5 trillion in five years (after calling George W. Bush unpatriotic for adding nearly $5 trillion in eight years). 
  • More Americans now receive government aid than work full-time.  (America has approximately 93 million unemployed adults.)
  • He has presented no plan to pay down the national debt (other than printing more money, which creates inflation and weakens the dollar which is causing other countries to consider alternate reserve currencies)
  • The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is making it impossible for Americans to keep their health insurance.
  • American medical innovation has been choked off by a destructive tax on medical devices.
  • Hundreds of thousands of workers have lost full-time jobs because of the health-care costs imposed by Obamacare on employers. 
  • The Internal Revenue Service has used its unparalleled power to impede political disagreement with Obama's policies and actions. 
  • The deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi, Libya (one of which was the American ambassador) have been virtually ignored and no one has been held accountable. 
  • Republicans have been positioned by Obama and the lapdog media as blocking his efforts and never willing to compromise when, in fact, they've offered compromise after compromise while Obama has never compromised on anything.  This has created deadlock in Washington like nothing ever before seen. 
  • Obama's divisiveness is highlighted by his forcing Obamacare through Congress, which is the only major legislation in American history to be passed with no votes from the opposition party. 
  • As the first black president, he is in a unique position to impact race relations in America.  Instead of using the opportunity to improve things, he has exacerbated racial tensions. 
  • He has divided the country by economic class, using Marxist/comunist language against the wealthy and businesses. 
  • He has weakened America in the world by alienating our allies, apologizing to our enemies, and getting cozy with those enemies while abandoning our enemies.  He even ignored treaties and promises America made to stand with our allies (i.e.; when Russia moved into Ukraine Obama ignored America's commitment to stand with them if they are attacked or invaded).
  • His actions have caused our enemies to laugh at America and our allies to now start re-evaluating how they will deal with world threats without America to help them.
  • Obama has blocked job creation and growth by inhibiting and blocking the oil and gas industry.  Blocking such things as the Keystone pipeline and oil and gas drilling is damaging to America. If our energy sector was allowed to grow it alone would create more jobs and a booming economy for America like we've never seen before, but Obama blocks any progress in the energy sector.
  • Obama's administration gave guns to Mexican drug cartels that were used to murder hundreds of Mexicans and American border agent Brian Terry.  And the administration refuses to cooperate with the investigation or hold anyone accountable for what happened.
  • The NSA has spied on Americans and eliminated any sense of privacy citizens had.
  • The CIA spied on Senators under this administration.
  • The Veterans Administration has grossly abused the healthcare of our veterans under this administration.
  • Obama released 5 Taliban terrorist leaders in exchange for deserter Bowe Bergdahl, and now reports are coming in that these released terrorists may be back in the fight against American soldiers.
  • Obama is unconstitutionally granting amnesty to criminal immigrant invaders (illegal immigrants) through executive orders.
  • In fact, he's violated the Constitution over 77 times and not been held accountable. 

Those sure sound like the actions of someone who wants to take down America.  But then, those of you who have been paying attention all along have seen it.  It's just refreshing for someone in a position of influence to finally admit it publicly.

Monday, April 6, 2015

Can Rand Be The Man?

Here's the Nonsense:  Rand Paul is throwing his hat in the ring to run for president.  No one can overcome Rand and he's the only one we should support.

Here's the Horse Sense:  While Rand Paul would make a very good candidate, he does have some things to overcome.  Whether he can do it remains to be seen.

The Republicans are starting to announce their candidacies for the 2016 presidential nomination.  Officially, Ted Cruz is the one candidate who's in the race, but Rand Paul is planning to announce tomorrow that he's in the contest, too.  While there's no doubt that no one who's shown interest in running is as conservative as Cruz, that doesn't mean there aren't others who will be taken very seriously by conservatives.  Very close to Cruz, with a very strong conservative voting record is Rand Paul.  But does Rand have what it takes to woo voters and win the nomination?

Certainly Rand Paul inherits his father, Ron Paul's libertarian followers.  Rand has shown himself to embrace much of what his father did when it comes to libertarian issues, yet he's not a clone of his father.  Rand is clearly his own man and has taken a more conservative stance on some issues.

Rand has been willing to pursue support from traditionally unfriendly audiences for Republicans with such efforts as speaking to black audiences.  He clearly understands the fact that blacks tend to be more conservative in their values than other voting blocks, even though they often don't recognize that fact about themselves and have tended to follow Democrats blindly.  However, recent polling shows that 26% of blacks now embrace conservatism.  The remaining 74% are split with about 40% now considering themselves moderate and the balance considering themselves liberal.  This is an interesting set of statistics in a community where over 90% voted for Obama.  My guess is that the failure of Obama's presidency to provide any solutions to help the black community (in fact, Obama has made situations worse for the black community) and this has awakened many to reconsider their commitment to the Democrats.  

This could play very well for Paul as he builds his campaign momentum.  There is a huge relatively untapped voting base for conservative Republicans in the black community if conservatives will reach out to them and show them that they values they hold are the same values as conservatives represent.  This is a worst case nightmare for Democrats if a conservative candidate is successful in turning them back to the Republican Party (the party which the black community embraced for generations all the way up to and including Martin Luther King, Jr.).

Intellectually the Republican field has some extremely intelligent candidates to choose from:  

Ted Cruz, as mentioned in a previous post, has proven his intellect with high achievement in school and comments of his high intelligence from the likes of his former Harvard law school professor, Democrat Alan Dershowitz, who has talked about him being one of the smartest students he ever had.  

Bobby Jindal has a remarkable intellect that was proven when he declined the chance to go to Yale or Harvard medical school and instead chose to go to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar.  

And Rand Paul also has a remarkable scholastic background having quit college before obtaining his undergraduate degree and still being able to get accepted to medical school.  Add to this his achievements in medicine that include significant work in the areas of providing care for the underserved and indigent communities and he's also one of those top tier intellects running for the Republican nomination.  (And, let me say here that any of these 3 or the other conservative Republicans who've shown interest in running could certainly mop the floor with the Phoney-in-Chief who has hijacked the presidency since 2009 and had his education and all other records sealed from the very beginning so that no one knows how he did in school or virtually anything else about his background).

One of Rand's problems will be balancing libertarian and conservative support.  There are differences between the two camps and both push him to take a stand that could cause the other camp to reject him.  For example, conservatives believe in a strong military but many libertarians are against it, some even believing in a pure isolationist foreign policy.  While Rand has shown support for a strong military, that could create uneasiness amongst his libertarian followers.  The balancing act between the two groups is no easy task.  And if he can't get and keep the support of conservatives, the libertarians who are loyal to him won't be enough to win him the nomination.

Another problem could be his work to achieve some type of working relationship with establishment Republicans like Mitch McConnell.  Some will see this as heresy and reject him outright for it.

But, Rand has the advantage of having inherited his father's fundraising operations.  This is something that his competitors will have to build and gives him a jump on his competition.  And unlike establishment candidates, the non-establishment candidates won't have a built-in money machine behind them, so this is a big advantage for Rand over the other conservatives running.

On the flip side, he has changed position on a number of issues that could cause him problems and even result in him being considered a flip-flopper.  For example, he's changed his position on amnesty numerous times.  In 2010 he was strongly against amnesty.  That changed in a Washington Times article he wrote in 2013 (and yet, he voted against the Senate Gang of Eight amnesty bill).

He also said the U. S. should end aid to Israel, although later he said he didn't say that.  And he was said to change his answers regarding Ukraine being invaded by Russia and how Russia should be handled.

Rand Paul is young in his senatorial career.  And certainly any human is going to grow and evolve on some issues.  (It's not the same as Obama claiming he evolved on gay marriage but later it came out that he simply lied about his original position.)  Evolving is usually due either to thoughtful investigation and education or responding to political pressure.  Americans will have to do their own due diligence to determine if Rand Paul, or any other candidate, has grown through education or simply reacted to political pressure, much as it appears that Marco Rubio may have done on the amnesty issue of immigration (we'll talk about Marco Rubio's candidacy in a future blog post).

But we shouldn't take Rand Paul lightly.  He's extremely thoughtful in his decisions and usually well educated.  His views are not always expressed as well as they are thought out.  For example, his view on how activist judges have not just influenced, but been the source of virtually every major Democrat victory in the last half century on issues such as property rights, the right-to-life, immigration, and marriage and family offers an important perspective.  Rand feels that we need to stop the judicial activism that has so effectively been used by the left to change America without use of the appropriate constitutional methods designed by the founders.  He feels that must be done by bringing in judges who are committed to the Constitution and will even push back to stand up for the Constitution and Americans' rights given thereunder.

The greatest risk of a Rand Paul campaign is if he does not win the nomination. For if that happens, then many of his loyal libertarian followers are likely to do just as they did when his father didn't win the nomination, even with any efforts he may make to get them to support the nominee.  When his father didn't get the nomination in 2012 his followers were angry and either stayed home or voted 3rd party, both of which assure a Democrat victory.  

Many libertarians are, unfortunately, too purist in their views.  They believe that if they can't have it their way, then the Democrat and Republican nominees are exactly the same.  They miss the point that there really is such a thing as a lesser of two evils and that sometimes that's the process we must accept while we work towards eventually being able to have the candidate we want.

That's why it is critical to get involved now and through the primaries. The future of America will be determined in the primaries, not the general election.   That's because the primaries decide who the candidates for the general election will be.  The old saying that you should vote according to your heart in the primaries (after working as hard as you can to get your candidate to win), but in the general election you need to vote your head (because even though you may not get exactly what you want, the choice is still between good and evil).  In 2012 many libertarians refused to vote for Romney saying he was no different than Obama.  If someone was foolish enough to believe that, then they've certainly gotten the government they deserve.

But the fact is that while Romney is a moderate Republican who believes in big government, he's not a progressive communist like Obama.  America is a ship that is in the middle of the worst storm in its history.  It is taking on water and sinking.  Romney would have at least tried to plug some of the leaks in the hull and turn the ship towards port.  Obama headed us deeper into the storm with not just total disregard for the leaks in the hull, but also added more holes in the hull and expanded some of the ones already there.  Romney may not have headed us to the exact port we want to be in, but it would have bought us time to fix some things and then turn towards the right port.

Rand Paul is an excellent choice as a candidate.  Can he win the nomination?  The establishment GOP is already starting to attack him (Lindsey Graham just said that only Rand Paul would negotiate a worse deal with Iran on nukes than Obama).  I believe they are wrong about Rand, but I'm not sure that he'll have the Reaganesque ability to overcome those kinds of attacks (and that's exactly what it will take if a candidate is to get the voters support to overcome the establishment GOP).  Only time will tell.  Regardless, if he can overcome the attacks from the establishment GOP, Democrats, and the media, he could be a very good candidate.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

Don't Bank On GOP Standing Up For Religious Freedom

Here's the Nonsense:  The GOP has been pushed far enough and they'll stand up against the attacks on religious freedom.  They will defend and support Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act and laws like it and stop the attacks once and for all.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The GOP sold out the American populace long ago.  Any thought that they will do the right thing about anything is nothing but foolish expectation.

The past few days have had many people on the right outraged at the attacks on religious freedom.  Since Indiana passed their Religious Freedom Restoration Act the left and the media (I know, I know, they're the same thing) have been in all out attack mode claiming the legislation will allow people to discriminate against people who are in the LGBT community. They ignore the federal legislation doing the same thing that was passed and signed under Bill Clinton and the 19 states that already have such laws and the other 11 states where the courts have ruled in the same manner. They simply want to attack traditional marriage values and destroy them.  But as angry as some citizen may be, don't expect the GOP to stand up against this onslaught.  I doubt it will happen.

I've watched the attacks on Indiana this week.  But the bottom line is that many people on the right have been saying that this will be the issue that pushes the GOP too far and they'll stand up against these attacks because this all boils down to First Amendment rights.  

I say don't bet on it.

The GOP has not taken a stand on anything and there's no example I can think of where this GOP has been willing to take a stand for principle.  They have sold out the American voters time and again and there's no reason to think they'll do otherwise this time.

Quite simply, it's time we quit expecting them to do the right thing.  Without change in the party, there's no hope they'll do anything but facilitate whatever the Democrats want.  The very small percentage of Republicans in Congress who are conservative are in the minority and they have no power.  At most ⅓ of the GOP in Congress are conservative (and that's probably a high estimate).  About ⅓ more of them are big government moderates heavily influenced by the progressives, if not outright belief in progressive goals.  And the remaining members of the GOP simply go along to get along.  They will follow whoever is in power so they don't make waves.  And right now, since the establishment controls the GOP, that's who those wishy-washy other people go along with.

If the American people won't wake up, get involved, and push back, then you can watch the rights we have as Americans, starting with the First Amendment, be taken away.  In fact, we've already lost many of our First Amendment rights and no one is doing anything about it.  While our next "official" battle is the 2016 election, there's a very good possibility those rights will be gone before that time.  We're in deep and need to be fighting now and working hard for 2016 (not just the presidential race, but also the House and Senate races, too).

Wake up America.  It's about the primaries in 2016 and you better start getting involved now because once the primaries are over, it will be too late to make a difference.

P. S. - The Left's Ulterior Motive In RFRA - One other point you should keep in mind is that this, once again, is another issue that is being brought up as a smoke & mirrors tactic of leftists.  The left knows that the disaster of a deal they are making with Iran in nuclear negotiations is so bad that they want to try to keep attention elsewhere to distract from the news about the terms they are negotiating.  That's most likely why this RFRA issue is being brought up now, to keep people from paying attention to the Iran nuclear negotiations. 

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Ted Cruz And Attack On His Experience

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz doesn't have the experience to be considered for the nomination in 2016.  We need someone who's accomplished something as the candidate.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Too many people don't do their homework.  Ted Cruz has a very impressive resume for such a young man.  Pay attention and learn what this young man has accomplished in a very short time.

With Ted Cruz's announcement that he's running for president, all knives have come out to attack him.  And it's not just the mainstream media and Democrats.  In fact, some of the worst has come from the establishment GOP and right-wing media.  Once again, the right attacks as much as the left does, in fact maybe even more, to destroy a candidate who they fear.  And the consistent message they are all touting is that Cruz has no experience and is no different than Barack Obama was when he ran for president in 2008.  Let's take a look at some of the experience that Ted Cruz brings to his bid for the presidency.

When someone is truly conservative and represents the majority of Americans, you can bet that they will be attacked and efforts will be made to destroy them.  That kind of person threatens the future of those people because it represents exactly what America's founders represented to Britain before the American Revolution.  That is why, in many ways, the establishment Republicans and the media who support them need to be ignored in their ranting and replaced with solid conservatives if we want the truth to prevail. 

Even such media sources as Fox News need an overhaul.  Their attacks on Cruz just reinforce what those of us who pay attention already know, that they support the establishment GOP.  They do have a few conservative hosts, but for the most part they are moderate in their positions and candidates they support.  That's why they continually have people like Karl Rove on their shows and hosts like Megyn Kelly challenge Cruz as being too far to the right.  And when you move into the mainstream media it's no surprise that they are looking for anything they can to attack Cruz.  Even his campaign logo is under assault by the likes of the Washington Post.

But let's get to Ted Cruz and his experience.  He is 44 years old.  When some have heard his accomplishments and experience they demand that that's not enough for a candidate.  Let me repeat, he's ONLY 44 years old.  That's not very old, contrary to what a lot of people think.  And when you see what he's done it's actually pretty amazing in my opinion given how few years he's had to accomplish it.

Cruz began his Senate career 3 years ago, which would have made him 41 at the time.  That means that he's probably had about 19 years since college (assuming he graduated at 22 years old) and about 15 or 16 years since he graduated law school to accomplish all he's done.  He went to Princeton and graduated from that Ivy League School Cum Laude.  Then he attended Harvard Law School and graduated Magnum Cum Laude.  Alan Dershowitz was his Harvard Law School professor. Dershowitz, a strong Democrat, has said of Cruz that without a doubt he is among the smartest students Dershowitz has ever had.  And his Ivy League education gives him the educational credentials that both the left and the establishment right seem to demand as a qualification to run for president.

After law school Cruz clerked for Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist making him the first Hispanic to clerk for a Chief Supreme Court Justice.  Then he took a job with a law firm in the private sector, becoming a partner in Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, one of the largest law firms in the nation.  During his 5 years working there as a partner, he led the firm's U. S. Supreme Court and national Appellate Litigation practice.  He authored more than 80 U. S. Supreme Court briefs and argued 43 oral argument, 9 of which were before the Supreme Court.

He served as Texas Solicitor General from 2003-2008 during which time Texas achieved an unprecedented series of landmark national victories, including successfully defending:

  • U. S. sovereignty against the U.N. and the World Court in Medellin v. Texas (in this case the International Court of Justice tried to reopen the criminal convictions of 51 murderers on death row throughout the U.S., but Cruz successfully defended against it);
  • The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms (he assembled a 31 state coalition to defend the 2nd Amendment);
  • The constitutionality of the Texas 10 Commandments monument;
  • The constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  • The constitutionality of the Texas Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment law; and
  • The Texas congressional redistricting plan
Cruz was the first Hispanic Solicitor General in Texas history.  He was the youngest Solicitor General in the U. S.  He had the longest tenure in Texas history.

The National Law Journal has called him "a key voice" to whom "the [U.S.Supreme Court] Justices listen."  He has been named by American Lawyer magazine as one of the 50 Best Litigators under 45 in America.  He has been named by the National Law Journal as one of the 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America.  And he's been named by Texas Lawyer as one of the 25 Greatest Texas Lawyers of the Past Quarter Century.  And those are just a few of the awards and acclamation he's received.

Prior to becoming Texas Solicitor General, he served as:
  • Director of the Office of Policy Planning at the Federal Trade Commission; 
  • Associate Deputy Attorney General at the U. S. Dept. of Justice; and
  • Domestic Policy Advisor on the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign

From 2004-2009 Cruz taught U. S. Supreme Court Litigation as an Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of Law.  In 2012 he was appointed vice-chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

He defeated Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst who was a heavily favored and backed by the GOP establishment in the primary runoff for Kay Bailey Hutchison's senate seat.  He won the runoff 57%-43%.  He went on to beat Democrat Paul Sadler in the general election by 56%-41%.  The Washington Post said his victory was "the biggest upset of 2012 ... a true grassroots victory against very long odds."

National Review has described Cruz as "a great Reaganite hope."  George Will has described him as "as good as it gets."  And the National Federation of Independent Business characterized his election as "critical to the small-business owners in [Texas, and], also to protecting free enterprise across America."

He currently serves on Senate committees including:  Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation;  the Committee on Armed Services; the Committee on the Judiciary;  the Joint Economic Committee; and the Committee on Rules and Administration.

That's quite a track record for a guy who's only 44 years old and only had about 15 years to accomplish it.  

Ted Cruz has consistently stood up against both parties to fight for the majority of American voters who want such things as Obamacare repealed.  No other candidate has his track record for taking a stand against anyone who won't do the will of the people.

He may not have been a governor and run a state.  He may not have spent decades running business.  But he is likely the most solid constitutional lawyer to serve in government in generations and no doubt the most true in his conservative convictions of any politician who's shown interest in running in 2016.  If you want more experience, then you should be supporting a candidate who is much older, but I doubt you'll find one with a conservative record like this.

Just remember, when the Democrats, the establishment Republicans, and the mainstream media come out strongly challenging the candidacy of a conservative, it's a sign that they fear him or her the most.  This is why it's critical that people get involved now to affect who the nominee will be in the primaries.  Waiting until the primaries are over to learn about the candidates and get involved in the election, which is what the majority of Americans do, is a guarantee that the wrong person will get the nomination.  It's important for all of us to be talking to everyone we know and meet, educate them as to what's happening in America, and then get them involved to make change in our government in the 2016 election.  If we don't, I have no doubt we won't get another chance.

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Is Scott Walker Not A Real Conservative?

Here's the Nonsense:  Scott Walker has wowed many and is clearly the conservative answer America is looking for.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Scott Walker has not been scrutinized and should be.  There are too many questionable things that people are not paying attention to.  If people are not careful, they might be following someone who is really an establishment GOP candidate.  

One of the biggest problems we face in choosing candidates for political office is choosing them based on solid knowledge of who they are and what they stand for.  Too often people jump on the bandwagon to support a candidate early on, only to later to find that the candidate doesn't hold true conservative values or principles.  We've seen it with candidates like Marco Rubio.  And it appears that may be true with Scott Walker, too.  

Not just Republicans, but many conservatives have quickly jumped on the Walker bandwagon.  But since he first expressed interest in running for the 2016 presidential nomination I've had a nervous feeling about him. And after the glowing reception he got at CPAC, I found myself uncomfortable when people would ask me about him expecting me to jump on the bandwagon, too.  His success against the unions in Wisconsin doesn't tell us everything about him that we need to know.  And now we're starting to see concerns being raised about him.  

Walker has gotten some raving fans who feel he can do no wrong.  He is popular in the polls and peaking very early.  But peaking this early is usually not a good sign for a candidate.  If he is a true conservative, or isn't the establishment candidate of choice, chances are very good that the attacks on him will grow and as time goes by he will become a second tier candidate. 

But the real issue isn't whether he's popular now or not. In fact, the issue should never be whether someone is popular.  The real issue must always be whether that person is the person we can support without compromising our values.  And at this point regarding Walker, conservatives are either foolish or lying to themselves if they say they can.

We're starting to see questions raised about his real positions on issues, which is always a good thing as every candidate should be thoroughly vetted.  After all, look at what happened with Barack Obama.  He was the least vetted candidate in American history and now we are over 6 years into a disaster that we may never recover from.  And we certainly won't recover from it if we don't do extreme due diligence on candidates from now on, conservatives included. 

Before we go too far here, let me say that I'm not going to talk about stupid mistakes Walker's made.  Mistakes like when he said he could handle ISIS because he handled unions in Wisconsin are stupid, but shouldn't be unforgivable if they are not frequent.  Yes, it was a stupid response, but it was one response.  We should note it and then see what happens as the candidate moves forward.

Everyone makes those kinds of mistakes, but there is no grace on the right side of the political aisle to allow for those mistakes.  The right is prone to circular firing squads destroying our own instead of supporting them when an honest mistake is made.  I remember when Rick Perry fumbled answering which federal agencies he'd eliminate during a debate in the 2012 primaries.  I had radio talk show hosts all over the country who were criticizing him and trying to get me to agree that it was terrible that he'd made the mistake.  I never agreed.  I was not a Perry supporter but my position regarding him or anyone else who stumbles was that we all make mistakes.  I don't care about a single mistake.  Let the person get up, brush themselves off, and move on.  If we begin to see a continual list of mistakes develop, then we have something to be concerned about.  But a mistake here or there is human and those of us who won't allow for that are judging by a standard that we, ourselves, could not meet.

Let me expand on that for a minute.  Early on in his governorship, Bobby Jindal gave the Republican response to a State of the Union address given by POTUS.  He didn't do a great job and was criticized and attacked by many on the right.  Sadly, those responses are essentially scripted messages from the GOP that are delivered by someone the leadership feels will give an image they want disseminated at that point.  And for Jindal, it didn't go so well.  But because of that incident years ago I've heard people say he's unqualified to run for president in 2016.  How ridiculous!  That's about as small-minded as you can get.  We can lose some people with great potential if we think that way.

Yet even though people on the right do that, they will look the other way on their values to support someone they get excited about.  

In the case of Scott Walker, though, we are seeing many things to be concerned about, not just one response to an issue.  Probably the most recent was his hiring of Liz Mair to his campaign staff.  She made statements showing her disdain for conservative principles and for the voters in Iowa.  The pressure mounted so quickly that Walker got her off his staff in short order to stop the negative reaction.  

But she had worked for him before.  He knew her and who she was.  He never should have made that mistake in the first place.  The real questions it raises are why he didn't see the potential problem before deciding to hire her, and if his hiring of her reflects his own lack of commitment to the conservative principles that she denigrated.  This shows very poor judgment on his part.

Michelle Malkin, one of conservatism's true icons, has raised real concern about the lack of vetting with Walker.  Breitbart reported her concerns in a piece too lengthy to go into here, but well worth your time to click on the link and read.  Matthew Boyle, the article's author, wrote in detail about concerns with a Walker candidacy, including this:

"Walker said on Fox News Sunday after CPAC that he has 'changed' on immigration.  But he hasn't laid out a policy viewpoint on the matter.  His spokeswomen Kirsten Kukowski and AshLee Strong haven't answered whether the governor thinks the government should kowtow to Silicon Valley and Wall Street by increasing H1B visas - or any other legal immigration increase - while record-high numbers of Americans are out of work.  They also have refused to answer time and again whether the Wisconsin governor thinks Republicans should trust the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg's lobbying outfit, Sheldon Adelson, Bill Gates, or other open borders advocates when it comes to immigration policy."

There are serious concerns raised in this piece, not the least of which is Walker and his staff's lack of answers to questions about such issues as immigration.  Saying you've "changed" on immigration means nothing unless you spell out how you've changed and what it is that you do now stand for.

While Walker does say he's changed his mind on amnesty.  He said in the past that he believed in a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants (better known as criminal immigrant invaders) and believed that immigration laws should be changed.  That's similar to Jeb Bush's position.  Yet at the Iowa Ag Summit he said he is not a supporter of amnesty.  This is one example of why he's being seen more and more often as a flip-flopper.

Some are legitimately starting to ask if Walker is really an establishment Republican who is packaged to win conservative voters.  I've even heard it said that he's nothing but a Romney clone.  And there's some reason to consider those concerns.

Here are more things to think about:

1.)  It was reported when he ran for his second term as governor last year, that he told Wisconsin reporters that he was pro-life, but refused to say whether or not he supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks.  While doing this he said that people don't really care about this issue.  His entire "pro-life" stand is weak.  He even hired a pro-abortion spokesman for his re-election campaign.  If he's pro-life then why does he brush the issue under the rug instead of taking a strong stand for the unborn?  

2.)  Walker does not stand up for traditional marriage.  In 2013 he said that opposing gay marriage was generational and that the smart thing for Republicans to do was to focus on the economy.  

3.)  When Rudy Giuliani recently was attacked for his comment about not knowing if Obama loved America, Walker didn't enter into the argument, but instead was praised by the establishment GOP for not lowering himself to Giuliani's level.  Maybe it could be said that he was avoiding the conflict, but true conservatives aren't afraid of conflict.  They'd rather take a stand for truth and use every opportunity to do so.  Does he lack courage to stand when the going gets tough?

4.)  Walker is weak on Common Core, taking no stand against it or the damage it does to our educational system. 

5.)  While he did deal with collective bargaining for public sector unions, it was reported that he declined to say he'd support right-to-work legislation or if he'd veto legislation if sent to his desk.  "I think it's pretty clear the Legislature has worked with us hand in hand in the past and I'm making it clear in this campaign, as I'll make it clear in the next (legislative) session, that that's not something that's part of my agenda," Walker said.  "My point is I'm not pushing for it.  I'm not supporting it in this session."  He even tried to push the Republican-controlled Wisconsin legislature into dropping the issue.

6.)  Walker issued an emergency order bypassing the Wisconsin legislature so he could implement Obamacare (although he did rescind it after public complaints).  He has encouraged Wisconsin's state agencies to help people sign up for Obamacare.  There's been no fight from him against it.  And he was against Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee's efforts to defund Obamacare.

7.)  Shortly after Walker spoke at the winter RNC meeting, Mitt Romney also spoke there and said he wouldn't be running again in 2016 and saying that he believed "one of our next generation of Republican leaders - one who may not be as well-known as I am today, one who has not yet taken their message across the country, one who is just getting started - may well emerge as being better able to defeat the Democrat nominee..."  This was right after Jeb Bush started moving to take Romney's financial backers and contacts.  However, after Romney made his announcement, Walker raced to get those contacts that Bush had not already taken.

After months of denying he'd consider another run in 2016, Romney had finally come out and said he'd consider it only to be thwarted by the Bush family going after his financial backers.  It seems quite plausible that Romney might have been publicly polite but behind the scenes decided to help Walker because of being undercut by Jeb.  Doesn't it seem that Romney may have had knowledge of Walker's actions to get those backers and contacts or maybe even quietly facilitated that for Walker?

I'm sure many will say that what I am writing is an attack on Walker.  It's not. Rather, it's a wakeup call to conservatives to be very careful who we support.  Many say we need a former governor because they've run the closest thing to the federal government and that's what will win an election.  

I don't think so.

Obama changed the game and showed that no experience was necessary.  Most American voters don't consider experience or knowledge an important criteria when they vote, and Obama proved that.  He showed that that's not what wins the majority of the American people.  

While conservatives might think we have the best chance with someone who has gubernatorial experience, I would challenge that.  

Americans, especially conservatives, are feeling pretty down and beat up these days.  The person who can win the nomination must be someone who will inspire voters.  An inspiring leader will carry far more votes than anything else.  With all of his experience, what won for Ronald Reagan was that he was able to inspire the American people.  That's important if we're to move a society from complacency to involvement in the electoral process.

March 26, 2015 UPDATE:  For those of you who think I'm overreacting on Walker, this new report from Breitbart should make you think twice.  Here we see he's flip-flopping again on immigration amnesty.

March 30, 2015: And now Walker is doubling down to try to save his campaign from the concerns people have about his ever-changing stand on immigration.  This new report tells how he sees he's in trouble and is changing his position yet again.