Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Americans have long ago dropped the ball when it comes to civic responsibility. If we don't do our part, we don't deserve the benefits that come as a result of a populace that is politically involved.
Newsmax is reporting about Fox's Neil Cavuto doing an interview with former New Hampshire Governor (and Bush chief of staff) John Sununu said, "I really think that about a third of this electorate will line up tomorrow and make up their mind as they're walking to the box to cast their vote." If Americans really don't make up their mind who to vote for until they're at the polls, then they really don't deserve a good president or any other good elected official.
The problems in America are of our own making and the above quote shows it. It was said that large numbers of people who went to the Iowa caucuses didn't decide until they were at their caucus. Now we're hearing something similar for the New Hampshire primary. This all boils down to Americans not doing their civic duty to be involved in our political system.
Many blame it on the fact that schools don't teach civics any longer. They say that people don't learn about what they're supposed to do and how important civic involvement and voting is to our nation. But the fact is that it's not a school's job to educate our students. It is a parent's job to make sure their children are learning what is important for life. And if today's voters didn't learn in their schools, their parents dropped the ball and didn't teach them what they should know.
Regardless, even if their schools and parents didn't teach them, as adults we all are capable of learning on our own. If we are so foolish to think voting is a minor activity and don't take it seriously, then we don't deserve election results that reflect a well thought out choice.
The old saying that people get the government they deserve is true. Thomas Jefferson spoke of the fact that a nation cannot be ignorant and free. But like the three monkeys who cover their eyes, ears, and mouth, we have not wanted to accept that anything evil might be happening. So we have ceased keeping watch over things and holding people to accountability. And if Sununu is even remotely accurate, we don't deserve to have a government that serves the people.
If this election ends up with poor results, we only need to look in the mirror to see who is responsible.
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Marco Rubio is no conservative. He's shown himself to be a charlatan that's used the term "conservative" for political gain. He would be a disaster as the Republican nominee.
There is something very wrong when people start justifying support of a candidate who's proven himself a liar over and again. I have had respect for Rush Limbaugh on many issues, but his recent verbal gymnastics to try to get people to accept Marco Rubio as a conservative are astonishing.
Rush has recently said that he doesn't like the excommunication of people from the conservative movement, a clear reference to those of us who've rejected Rubio as nothing but a lying establishment candidate.
This time Rush is wrong. Certainly conservatives can disagree about some issues. They can also be wrong at times. Some issues, however, are too big to deviate on and still be considered conservative.
Some issues are bigger than even a big tent can accept. The big tent does not mean the tent has to accept every viewpoint on the planet. And I believe that the issue of our border security, immigration and amnesty is a key issue that cannot be compromised on.
Yes, that means a lot of so-called conservatives would not be included as conservative under my guideline, but this is an issue that will determine the future of America as we have known it.
The criticism of Marco Rubio stems from his constant lies, which are displayed by telling each person or audience he meets with what they want to hear instead of the truth. And that is followed up by a record of support for pro-amnesty immigration reform that would destroy the fabric of American society.
It should be clear by now that the Democrats and establishment Republicans have the same overall goals for America. Big government, more control at the federal level, huge spending levels to support social programs, and less rights for citizens. They see themselves as better than you and me. They see themselves as the ruling elite and we are just the peasant class, way below their level. We are not to question, but only to support them and be thankful for all they do for us.
That's the attitude and I don't care if we're talking about Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, or Paul Ryan. Their actions have sent the message that that's their underlying attitude towards you and me. And Marco Rubio is one of them, no matter what Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or anyone else tells you.
But contrary to what the left have tried to convince the public, people like Limbaugh and Hannity are not the reference point for conservatism. They are commentators who sometimes get it right. But they are not gods and they are not even the ones who we should look to for guidance when questions come up about someone like Marco Rubio.
Before you think this is an attack on Rush and Hannity, let me say that we can all make mistakes in our judgment. That is where it is up to those of us who see through errors in judgment to help correct other conservatives who get off track. Unfortunately, all too often when we disagree we attack to destroy instead of correct and bring people back in line with proper thinking. Or, if we hold the person in high esteem, we accept their view without any analytical thinking.
We must hold each other accountable, no matter who they are. This past week as I heard a number of Limbaugh's shows I couldn't help but think that it's up to the rest of us conservatives to reject what Rush is saying and let him know that his view is not acceptable logic.
Marco Rubio is no conservative. He simply pulled the wool over the eyes of voters to get elected as a conservative. He gives a good speech. Many think he's attractive. And for the person who does not think analytically his answers sound real good. Some very good people fell for it. But as always happens, time will tell and the truth comes out.
Back on August 2, 2011 Rubio gave a speech in the Senate that should have made people take notice. He said that he tightly embraces the Constitution, but then he said that the future of our nation is divided between 2 different views. One view is that the government is supposed to provide economic justice (the government is to "level" the playing field even taking money from one and giving it to another) and the other view is that the government is to assure equal opportunity and each person will achieve based on their effort, ability, and situation. Then he goes on to say that one is not more or less patriotic or moral than the other.
So, he sees no moral difference between the government taking from citizens to give to those who have not earned it; and a country where people are entitled to keep what they've earned.
If you understand right and wrong, morality and immorality, then you understand that there is a huge moral difference between a country where the government can take what you've earned and distribute it to those who did not earn it and a country where you are entitled to keep the fruits of your labor.
But Rubio doesn't see it. He sees no moral difference which shows he has no moral principles. Our laws are based on Judeo-Christian principles. Those principles are rooted in such teachings as the Ten Commandments. And in those commandments it says "You shall not steal." This creates a deterrent to stealing. But when you have no moral law which creates that deterrent, then stealing can be defined as okay if the government does it.
Rubio has fallen for the lie that there are no moral absolutes.
He also said that America is divided on what kind of future we want. A moral person would take a stand that violating a person's right to keep what is theirs is immoral and cannot be allowed. But when you abandon moral absolutes, you end up with the debates we so often see in Washington. And Rubio goes along with those immoral debates either not recognizing the moral failure or ignoring it.
Conservatism is based on respecting the rule of law as put forth in our Constitution. Marco Rubio can say he embraces the Constitution, but his words and actions expose him as a fraud.
When he says that we have no basis for making a decision other than on our own likes or dislikes, and doesn't even consider the morality of that view, he exposes his non-conservative views.
That should have exposed him for what he is. But many people didn't see it because they weren't thinking analytically.
Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly has released a 15 page memo that reveals the phony that is Marco Rubio. Having fallen for his claim to conservatism years ago and endorsed him during his Senate run, she has seen his continued efforts to deceive and now wants him exposed before the American electorate give him the Republican nomination.
The memo is too long to cover in its entirety here. But it is important and worth the read so please click on the link and don't just read it, study it. Here are screenshots of some of the points the memo raises (the links in the memo are clickable in the original document which you can access through the link I provided above):
Then the memo shows how Rubio, when he took office as senator, immediately abandoned his positions that got him elected:
It goes on to explain how he lied to conservative media (there's much more in the original memo than just this little screenshot):
Rubio, the memo shows, made false claims:
And he has passed off as truth there were enforcement mechanisms in his bill when in reality it gave administrative discretion to end immigration law enforcement:
One of Rubio's biggest deceptions was that his bill was merit-based and not family-based:
He even falsely claimed that under his bill that no welfare would be allowed to illegals:
He even deceived law enforcement:
There's a lot more than I've covered here (that's why you need to read and study the original memo), but in conclusion it states that if Rubio becomes president he will carry on Obama's amnesty legacy and enact immigration legislation that will destroy America:
Julia Hahn, in another excellent article in Breitbart exposes Rubio even more when she lists his 7 "accomplishments" in the Senate that show who he really is. Her list includes:
Gov. Chris Christie was right at last night's debate in New Hampshire to point out Rubio's lack of experience. He has no idea what it's like to run anything. Say what you will, but experience doing certain things is important.
I have written many times about Rubio not being a conservative. And to add to his record and lack of moral integrity, he lack of experience running anything is another reason he'd be a terrible nominee.
To defend against his lack of experience he recently has said on the campaign trail that being president is nothing like being a governor or real estate developer. Obviously he was trying to strike out at competitors like John Kasich, Chris Christie, and Jeb Bush who have been governors and Donald Trump who has been a real estate developer. He rejects their executive experience, whether in government or the private sector, as unimportant and thinks his lack of experience is not a problem. But then, so did Barack Obama when he was running with no experience. Ted Cruz, another candidate with no experience running anything, also rejects the idea that executive experience is important for a president. So, Rubio's not alone in his feeling, but he's also not right.
Marco Rubio as nominee = a guaranteed loss for the GOP in the general election.
And a GOP loss in 2016 = a guaranteed loss for America's future.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Cruz's win means very little, but Rubio's strong 3rd place finish could mean doom for the nomination.
The Ted Cruz win in the Iowa Caucuses really isn't an important story except that it allows Cruz to continue his campaign. Iowa means little to nothing when it comes to the nomination. The real news is the establishment candidate Marco Rubio coming in with a strong 3rd place finish when he was a distant third in the polls prior to the vote. How did such a thing happen and could it mean the establishment will throw all their power behind him to force his nomination on the party?
Cruz supporters and some others are thinking this is a predictor of Cruz ultimately winning the nomination.
Thirteen polls had Donald Trump winning the caucuses by 4 points. But those shocked by his second place finish must not be aware that Iowa, possibly more than any other contest, almost never ends up with results that reflect the polls. And, up until about 2 weeks ago, Trump was not seen as being able to win in Iowa. Cruz was always the favorite except for the last two weeks when he had some poll problems. So, to say that Trump losing was a surprise just shows naivete.
As the Des Moines Register reported, since the Republican caucuses in Iowa began in 1976, the results have rarely reflected the nomination of the party. The past winners that went on to become the nominee are:
- 1976 - Gerald Ford
- 1996 - Bob Dole
- 2000 - George W. Bush
So, don't think that last night's results mean much.
The establishment GOP candidates have had a terrible time getting traction in the national polls or the 3 early voting states except New Hampshire (the other 2 are Iowa and South Carolina). For Rubio to come in a strong third place should be a surprise. In fact, it's such a surprise that some are saying that it's downright fishy. Some are even questioning whether Microsoft's involvement in the vote count could have caused tampering with the votes since Microsoft is Rubio's second largest campaign contributor.
With the polls being consistently unreliable when it comes to Iowa, Rubio may truly have won a strong third place. But with the shenanigans known all too often in politics, the idea that somebody is tampering with the results certainly isn't as much a conspiracy theory as it may be somewhat reasonable doubt about the results.
After all, if Rubio is positioned as a strong 3rd place and Trump is in 2nd place coming out of Iowa, it's a strong case the establishment can make to support Rubio above others in the upcoming contests. New Hampshire is a place Rubio should be able to do well. That part of the country is far more moderate than Iowa and not full of evangelicals like Iowa. The makeup of New Hampshire would not traditionally be receptive to the show that Cruz puts on.
While the establishment may not be able to push a candidate like Rubio far enough to win the nomination outright, if they can reduce the successes of Trump in the primaries they could force a brokered convention. That would be the one way they could be sure that neither of the candidates they hate most, Trump and Cruz, would get the nomination and they could use the brokered convention to force a Rubio nomination.
We have no way of knowing whether there was any tampering last night, but whether there was or not, this could play into the establishment's hands more than anything else to once again give us a loser candidate and a Democrat victory.
Wednesday, January 27, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Fox News is simply the mainstream media under the guise of being fair and balanced. Their goals are not what many on the right think they are.
Anyone who has read my work for a period of time knows that I am no fan of Fox News. Years ago they showed their establishment GOP leanings and I quit watching except on limited occasions. Then, this year they went too far and I turned them off completely. Their lack of integrity and journalistic bias has put them in a position where, as I've written before, they are not just as bad as the mainstream media (actually, they are now part of it), but they are actually worse than the CNNs and MSNBCs. And to turn Fox on is to increase their income because you increase their ratings. So, they no longer get this viewers time.
What those of us on the right need to understand is that Fox has an agenda to push whatever the establishment GOP want. Their goal is to have an establishment Republican win the White House and also have the establishment Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress. The only host on their network that comes close to balance is Sean Hannity, but clearly he's controlled by his paycheck and tows the company line most of the time. Ever notice how often he praises people like Marco Rubio? And, in the case of Rubio, he doesn't hold his feet to the fire on his establishment positions like amnesty.
The big issue for voters is immigration and our borders. Rupert Murdoch and Fox News support amnesty and that influence affects their coverage of everything. No wonder they are at war with Donald Trump. You may think it's because of Trump's reaction to Megyn Kelly's lies at the first GOP debate, but what that fight boils down to is attacking Trump because he wants to seal our porous borders and bring immigration under control and that is in opposition to the Fox News goals.
Now, there's finally an investigative reporter who has decided to take Fox to task. Julia Hahn at Breitbart has written an excellent article showing Fox's pro-amnesty bias.
Regarding Fox News she writes :
She points out that none of the Fox hosts at the first debate only asked Rubio softball questions instead of grilling him on his involvement in the pro-amnesty Gang of Eight legislation. She then goes on to remind us that "...Bill Sammon - Fox News's vice president of News and Washington managing editor - is the father of Brooke Sammon, who is Rubio's press secretary."
Hahn also points out that Fox News helped Rubio and the Gang of Eight by showing a quote from a 2013 article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker when he interviewed Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham:
Hahn even ices the cake when she reminds us of quotes from Rupert Murdoch's 2014 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:
Hahn's excellent article concludes by pointing out that Fox's extremely limited coverage of the immigration issue and its negative impact on the U. S. "helps clear the way for the enactment of the Murdoch-backed immigration agenda - bringing in the New American Century hoped for by Rupert Murdoch, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama."
Exposing Fox's bias and agenda should, more than anything, make people realize taht they are not the friend of America. In fact, their efforts to help the pro-amnesty movement make them the enemy of our nation's future.
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Don't think your rights are protected or that there is justice in America today. We no longer have the protections we once had.
So, you've thought that if things got really bad and you ended up in court that justice would prevail. Even if you had to go through a series of appeals and ultimately ended up at the Supreme Court, you believe deep down in your heart that you'd prevail. After all, you think, certainly the Supreme Court will protect your rights and do what's right. Unfortunately, justice does not always prevail, as the Little Sisters of the Poor are finding out in their fight against the Obamacare contraception mandate. And the Supreme Court has just changed the rules of the game that will now make it almost certain the Little Sisters cannot win.
As the Little Sisters case has worked its way through the court system, most conservatives have believed that they would prevail at the Supreme Court. But that may not be the case thanks to new action taken by the Supreme Court.
WND is reporting that "...the high court has 'tilted the playing field' by excluding the First Amendment arguments from its discussion of the mandate that religious employers cover abortion pills in their insurance plans, the brief contends."
So, even though the Constitution acknowledges our God-given rights, the Supreme Court has decided that the Little Sisters cannot use those rights as an argument in this case. And you thought the Constitution would protect you? Sorry, but this is yet another case where we've seen First Amendment rights disregarded or trampled upon by our court systems.
There really is no guarantee of justice in our system.
In another situation that should leave you aghast, Newsmax is reporting that the Harris County Texas (Houston area) District Attorney has brought charges against 2 people involved in undercover journalism. The case involves the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that released the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood trying to sell baby body parts. The Grand Jury in Harris County voted to indict 2 individuals involved in the undercover operation.
The article says that David Daleidan, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, "released a statement saying his group 'uses the same undercover techniques' as investigative journalists and follows all applicable laws."
Newsmax also reported that "David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs. Another activist, Sandra Merritt, was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison." It is believed that "tampering with a governmental record" refers to their creation and use of fake IDs that were used during their video.
While it was certainly wrong to break laws, if it's true that laws were broken, the astounding thing in this case is that our society has allowed Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry to exist in the first place.
We talk about influencing the culture and it can clearly be seen that our influence has been small, at best. We cannot win this war unless we return to morality in our society. Pro-choice advocates have created a society where children are a throw-away item instead of a precious life to be loved, nurtured, and protected.
There have been over 57,000,000 babies aborted since Roe v. Wade. And every one of those 57 million will be present on judgment day when the abortionists and their supporters have to account to God for their lives.
With numbers like that, are we really any better than Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?
Monday, January 25, 2016
Here's the Horse Sense: Ted Cruz is the best candidate for the GOP and there's nothing about him that should be questioned.
Here's the Nonsense: People have the right to decide on which candidate to support, but they have an obligation to do some research and understand who he/she is before they cast their vote. Too many people base their opinions on superficial information or by trusting someone they like who supports that candidate.
Not all, but many followers of Ted Cruz are quite reminiscent of Ron Paul's followers in 2012. They refuse to support any other candidate if Cruz loses the nomination. Some would call them purists in that they won't accept anyone else. They won't even consider questions about Cruz and his candidacy. Are they wise or showing a lack of discernment by accepting Cruz at face value?
Here are some issues, in no particular order, that anyone considering supporting Cruz should deal with prior to giving him their support:
1.) Cruz has been presented as a grassroots candidate with the implication that his funding comes from grassroots donors. But the fact is that he's got big money donors that he is beholden to, too, just like most other candidates.
According to a recent Newsmax article these 4 wealthy businessmen are significant benefactors of his campaign:
- New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer
- Texas natural gas billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks
- Private-equity partner Toby Neugebauer
The article says that these four families have poured $36 million into Cruz's campaign. They claim they want nothing in return for their financial support. That may be true, but it's hard to believe. It may be the first time that has happened in politics. And, if elected, does anyone really think Ted wouldn't jump to answer a phone call from them? It would be absolute silliness to think that large contributors to campaigns don't have preferred access and receive special consideration when something is on their mind. Candidates backed by big money are beholden to those contributors and there's no way around it.
Cruz's donors aren't all $5 to $20 dollar grassroots donations. Here you can learn just who has given significant donations to him.
2.) According to CBS News, Cruz's super PAC, Keep the Promise I, gave Carly Fiorina's super PAC $500,000. According to Kellyanne Conway, president of Keep the Promise, the super PAC "made the donation in June to Ms. Fiorina at that time because we thought she had important things to say that weren't being heard. including her poignant and effective criticism of Mrs. Clinton."
Sounds more like they realized that as a woman, Carly could attack Hillary more effectively so they helped finance those attacks.
3.) Conservative Treehouse has posted this interesting article and backup information about Mitch McConnell's attorney starting a pro-Cruz super Pac. There have been questions by many about Cruz possibly having quiet ties to the establishment, could this be proof? (click here to read it)
4.) Senator Cruz co-sponsored S.306 which categorizes home schools as private schools. It allows Title 1 federal money to follow students to private schools. But Federal regulations apply wherever federal money is used, so this would put more restrictions on home schools. That would be a terrible thing to do to families trying to unburden themselves of federal involvement in their children's education.
5.) Cruz supports the United Nations Agenda 21 Wildlands Project. Cruz is using the argument that states want the federal government to return land they have confiscated, but they have to maintain those lands and if they can't they can sell them (which means many of those lands would go to foreign interests for logging and minerals, taking away our resources). This has caused great concern since it came up in the Iowa campaign recently (click here to read more).
6.) Huffington Post reported that as recently as 12 months ago Cruz supported allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. He naively said "We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with a terrorist, but we can do that." Yet the FBI and Homeland Security have said that we have no way to vet these people.
7.) Cruz's Michigan campaign chief is highly questionable given his embracing of Hezbollah (click here to learn more).
The next 3 points are especially important to evangelicals:
8.) Cruz's claim to being religious has been questioned because it's come out that he gave less than 1% of his income to charity between 2006 - 2010. For many evangelicals that does not match up with their belief that the Bible teaches they are to give 10% of their income to charity.
9.) And Ted's claims to be a devout evangelical Christian are also questionable since evangelicals believe in the biblical admonition not to marry an unbeliever. Yet Ted's wife, Heidi, is a Seventh Day Adventist. Adventists do not hold to orthodox Christian doctrine. Adventist doctrine rejects the orthodox Christian belief in hell and eternal punishment for sins. Rather, they believe that the souls of unbelievers will simply be annihilated when Jesus returns.
10.) Rafael Cruz, Ted's father, teaches dominion theology. Dominionists believe that they will take over the world for Jesus and everyone will have to convert to Christianity before Jesus returns. They believe that this will be done by them taking over what they consider to be the seven major areas of society such as government, business, religion, etc. Rafael says that Ted is anointed as a king to rule. This is unbiblical teaching, but Ted wants to lead our nation with this kind of viewpoint having been taught to him by his father. (For a better understanding of dominion theology and how it compares to orthodox Christian doctrine see this website.)
Ted Cruz may be a good man. That's something you have to decide for yourself. But an honest person needs to be aware of these types of issues to see whether they can live with a candidate like this or not.
Saturday, January 23, 2016
With All The Accusations That Trump's Not A Conservative, Do His Goals For America Work For Conservatives?
Here's the Horse Sense: Trump isn't running as a conservative, he's running as a candidate who will tear down the failed system. Judgment shouldn't be made without looking at what he proposes for America.
There's a split among conservatives in America about which candidate to support. And some are saying that those who support Donald Trump are abandoning conservatism because Trump isn't a conservative. The debate has become a war with non-supporters of Trump getting so exorcised over the issue that many are refusing to vote for Trump in the general election if he wins the nomination. It's very reminiscent of the Ron Paul supporters during the 2012 election. Do Trump's goals for America mesh with conservative goals?
Back in July I wrote about Trump's plans for America. The article was so popular that copyright law was violated as it was stolen a number of times and attributed to authors such as General Chuck Yeager and Peggy Noonan. I obtained the information I wrote from things he'd written mostly prior to the 2012 election, such as Trump's own book, Time To Get Tough. Contrary to what some of his detractors are inferring, he didn't come up with the ideas just before announcing he was running for president. And, as Rush Limbaugh, who personally knows Donald Trump, has said, the ideas Trump is talking about are things he's heard him talk about for years. So, here is the list for you to see and make your judgment:
1.) Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country's problems without being compensated for doing so. If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help. Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life. He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred. He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.
2.) Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again. He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense. He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be. While he hasn't said it directly that I know of, Trump's attitude about America and about winning tells me he'd most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle. Clearly Trump is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, and I'm sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too.
3.) Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles (which seem to support my comment in the last point):
- American interests come first. Always. No apologies.
- Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
- Only go to war to win.
- Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
- Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
- See the unseen. Prepare for threats before they materialize.
- Respect and support our present and past warriors.
5.) Trump makes the point that China's manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them. He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here. Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing. For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U. S., once again creating jobs here.
6.) Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act - NOPEC - S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws. According to Trump, that would break up the cartel. He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin's drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil.7.) Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America. He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering put controls on immigration. (And he says he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn't put it past him.) He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.8.) Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here. The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy. He wants to make America the place to do business. He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends. This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we've lost to the current tax system. He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed. And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth. He wants to change the personal income tax to:
- Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%
- From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%
- From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%
- $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%
9.) Trump wants Obamacare repealed. He says it's a "job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity" that "can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed." He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down. He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.
10.) Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue. He has said he believes that if we don't stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country.11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security. He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits. Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients. He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy. On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs "a safety net, not a hammock." He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work. And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.
13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.
14.) Trump opposes Common Core. Education must be run locally. Decisions should be made by parents and local school boards.
15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.
17.) Trump's view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.
18.) Trump supports the death penalty.
John Nolte at Breitbart wrote a 2 part article last September that addressed what Trump offers conservatives (you can read both parts of his articles here and here). In those articles he points out that Trump supporters know that Trump will:
- Build the border wall.
- Kill Terrorists.
- Simplify the tax code and lower middle class taxes.
- Can't be bought by special interests.
- Is a legitimate outsider.
- Is expanding the Base.
- Fights ... and wins.
And in his conclusion he writes:
The old saying that you should vote your heart in the primaries and your head in the general election should be seriously considered by every voter. Work your heart out to get your candidate nominated during the primaries, but when the nomination has been made if it's not your candidate realize what we're up against that the Democrats is never as bad as the Republican candidate.
I didn't support Romney in 2012 until after the nomination. People said he was as bad as Obama, but they were wrong. America is like a ship that is in the middle of the ocean in a terrible storm and taking on water. If Romney had become president he may not have headed us to the best port to get out of the storm, but at least he would have tried to head us out of the storm. Obama not only left us in the storm, he headed us deeper into it and told the crew not to bail out the water that we were taking on.
That's the difference between any Republican running and whoever will get the Democrat nomination.