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

Sunday, November 22, 2015

First Amendment Free Speech Going, Going, Gone

Here's the Nonsense:  The First Amendment is fine.  Some people have become too offensive with their rhetoric and it's time to have the government force them to stop saying such offensive things.   

Here's the Horse Sense:  America's founders fought and died for the right to say whatever they chose.  They felt it more important to allow a person to speak their mind and offend someone than to shut them down and take away their basic freedom of speech.  They knew that without freedom of speech that freedoms are lost and never realized. is reporting on a Pew poll that 40% of Millenials are okay with the government banning offensive speech. The Millenials clearly show no knowledge or forethought in coming to that conclusion.  They have no idea what fulfillment of that view will mean to their freedom.  But there's something far more important that this poll exposes.

To think it's okay to ban offensive speech assumes that you will always be the arbiter of what is offensive.  What the Millenials don't think about is what happens when the government comes under control of people who think what the Millenials say, think, or believe is offensive.  Then, suddenly, they are on the receiving end.  What was once okay in their minds (banning what others said that they disagreed with) suddenly becomes a horror story when they realize that they can no longer express themselves the way they once did.  The government that they thought was their friend becomes their slave master.

Millenials (18-34 year olds) will determine the future of your children and grandchildren.  They are the future, even though they are ignorant about the lessons of history.  They will determine the freedom of slavery that Americans will have, even though they don't understand they are destroying the First Amendment rights that have given all of us the freedom we have enjoyed for over two centuries.  

But those who think the government should  control speech don't realize that when that happens the lives they enjoy in America today will never be the same. 

Half of these Millenials aren't even adults.  You may argue with that statement saying that they're 18 and older so they're all adults.  I'd argue not only that science has proved that the human brain isn't mature until well into your 20s, which means that if they're adults it's certainly not due to maturity of their brains, only due to an arbitrary age determined by people as worthy of being called adult.  

And it could also be argued that our own government has established laws under Obamacare that tell us they are considered children until they are 27.  Considering the ridiculous and often horrendous things students are taught and indoctrinated with in our schools, maybe it would be wise to consider changing voting age to at least 27 so they've had a little time to mature (In fact, 35 might be even better so they have some life experience under their belt.).

But, while the lack of maturity plagues our society today, I have gotten away from the main point of what I see in this poll.  The fact is that while the result being focused on in this poll is important, what is even more interesting is something that is glaring in the results and should teach us about our society.  Look at this chart:

Notice that while 40% of Millenials support government controlled speech, 27% of Gen Xers (35-50 years old) support it, 24% of Baby Boomers (51-69 years old) support it, but only 12% of the Silent generation (70-87 years old) support it.

That last number may be the most significant in the poll.  The Silent generation have 88% who are against the government controlling speech.  

Why is that significant?  Because the Silent generation are the last people who were alive during World War II.  They are the last people who could truly understand what it's like to live through the horrors of the Nazi regime.  And that life experience would shape more clearly a person's views about freedom than the rest of us could understand.  (Yes, there have been other terrible governments since that time, but none that have caused a war so big that a world war was fought to stop the atrocities from spreading throughout the world.)

Since that time, those of us who are younger have lived at a distance from what happened.  Some of us, like myself, had parents who served in the military during World War II.  For others it was grandparents or even great grandparents.  And as each generation has become further removed from what happened our society has forgotten more and more of the atrocities and the cost paid to maintain freedom in the world.  Add to that our educational system has taught less and less about World War II and students know little, if anything about what happened, why it happened, and why it is important to make sure it never happens again.  Not knowing and understanding history is a curse that causes us to repeat it.

I've had the honor and privilege of meeting Nazi concentration camp survivors and hearing from them exactly what they went through.  I've heard the stories of the soldiers who liberated the concentration camps and the horrors they found.  And I go out of my way to read at least one or two books every year about what happened because it is so important that we understand and don't forget it.

Why am I addressing this poll in light of World War II? Because what happened in that time has a great chance of happening again if we don't remember it, learn from it, and fight to make sure it doesn't.  And the loss of our First Amendment rights is the cornerstone of protection from that happening.

Today we see a growing acceptance of foolish thought that says "you shouldn't have the right to offend me."  Unlike our country's founders who fought and died for the right to be offended, today more and more people wear their feelings on their sleeve and are more worried about hurt feelings than about freedom.

Whatever happened to teaching our children that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt me?  

Certainly we don't want to offend people intentionally.  And we want to teach our children to be respectful, even of those with differing ideas and beliefs.  But when it comes down to it, the freedom to say what you believe is essential to a free society, even if it offends someone.  Without freedom of speech, freedom is gone.

Many conservatives think we are in danger of losing our First Amendment rights, especially that of free speech.  I've written and spoken many times about not just the threat of losing those rights, but the fact that they are already lost.  

Sure, you can still say what you think about many things in many places.  But if push comes to shove and you end up in court, don't bank on a defense based on the Constitution being ruled in your favor.  The Supreme Court has already ruled against supporting the First Amendment, even though they'd not say it in those words.  But if push comes to shove and you end up in court, because we've seen the Supreme Court not uphold the First Amendment rights of citizens, there's no guarantee how the court will rule on any future First Amendment cases.

To make sure you don't get court protection, a large number of Americans are now lining up to agree that the government should abandon the First Amendment take away your right to say what you think.  We are currently seeing many example of this on College campuses in protests and classrooms, along with media figures promoting this idea, too. 

You may think that a new president will fix all of these types of problems.  But that won't happen no matter who the new president is.  The problem is in the American people.  

The American people aren't involved in our government, even though our founders created our nation to be controlled by the citizens, not a group of self-proclaimed elites in Washington.  We have allowed these misfits to take over our government (and I'm speaking of those in both parties, not just Democrats).  We've also forsaken our responsibility to raise our children to understand how our government works, what their responsibilities are, and that they must be involved and hold politicians accountable or our nation will fail.

Today we have foolish, immature and uneducated children throughout our society at all ages, not just those who are legally still of an age considered to be pre-adult.  They have no idea what's happening in our government or that our nation is about to collapse.  They are more concerned with self than with anything else.  

Instead of putting others first, they have learned to put themselves first and the result is going to be an America under complete control of the progressive communists.  Freedom will be redefined to be what the government wants and American citizens will ignorantly accept it because they won't have any knowledge of how and why America was created or what has made America exceptional above all other nations on earth.

It's time that people with the mindset exposed in this poll be awakened with a harsh dose of reality to get them on track to support America.  

There are far too many people agreeing with them to think that American's future is bright unless a change occurs very quickly.  Those who do understand need to be educating those around them.  Knowledge is our best weapon to take America back.  But if we don't let others know what is happening and why it's important, the American voters won't have the knowledge to make the decisions necessary to elect the people we need to save our country.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Leading The Way In Stupidity, Colorado Governor Chooses To Welcome Syrian Refugees

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Colorado's governor is showing compassion and caring by welcoming Syrian refugees.  What happened in Paris isn't a problem for America because we can vet these immigrants to assure our safety.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Even mainstream media and members of Congress have warned about the dangers of bringing in Syrian refugees.  Colorado's governor is gambling by opening the door to a potential Trojan Horse.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has decided not to join 26 other governors (in other words, the governors with common sense) in refusing Syrian refugees.  The Denver Post is reporting that "Colorado will not join states where governors are asking to block the White House from sending them Syrian refugees in the wake of the terrorist attack on Paris Friday."

Hickenlooper said, "Our first priority remains the safety of our residents.  We will work with the federal government and Homeland Security to ensure the national verification processes for refugees are as stringent as possible.  We can protect our security and provide a place where the world's most vulnerable can rebuild their lives."

I guess the Colorado governor hasn't heard the reports that a House Homeland Security Committee was told back in February by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Counterterrorism Center that there's such an intelligence gap that there is no way to vet these people.  In other words, THERE'S NO WAY TO BE SURE THEY'RE SAFE!

And CNN is reporting that Rep. Peter King said this morning on MSNBC that no Syrian refugees should be allowed into the country because the vetting system is a farce.

But Colorado's governor thinks he knows better.

Since Colorado became a blue state its citizens have seen even more stupidity from government than they did before. Colorado was not a conservative Republican red state before changing, it was establishment Republican red, so it wasn't that far from what Democrats promote.  But since turning blue there have been a number of things that push the progressive agenda even further in the beautiful Rocky Mountain wonderland of Colorado.  If the legalization of marijuana wasn't bad enough, now they're opening the door to a potential Trojan Horse just like Europe has done.

Is this due to stupidity or what?

It's certainly easy to see it as stupid (which it is).  But what's worse is that that may not be the reason this is being done.  

No, I think the Colorado Governor knows exactly what he's doing and he's taking a chance and throwing the dice that nothing bad will happen and it will be a political win for him.

How, you ask, could this be a political win for him?  Very simple.  It's the politically correct thing to do to help advance the progressive agenda of the Democrat Party.  

The more immigrants they can bring into this country that are fleeing bad lives elsewhere (whether it's in Central America or the Middle East doesn't matter), the more future Democrat voters they bring into the system.  Studies have shown that most of these people become Democrat voters, and the more they can bring in the better chance they have at controlling all future elections.

But I think there's a personal benefit that the Colorado governor is seeking, too.  

Never underestimate the "What's in it for me?" mindset of people, especially Democrats.

Governor Hickenlooper has a desire to continue his political career beyond his governorship.  And he's been talked about as a potential vice presidential candidate for 2016.  By being a good soldier for the progressive agenda and towing the party's politically correct line he increases his chances of being chosen for that role. 

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Paris Shows What The Number One Issue Is For Our 2016 Elections

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Europe is making some mistakes in their immigration policies.  It's a good thing it's over there and not here.  We certainly don't face the threats they face.

Here's the Horse Sense:  What happens in Europe is just a precursor to what will happen here.  The threats they face are no different than the threats America faces.  Immigration has to be our number one priority in the upcoming elections or America won't survive.

Breitbart London has published an article showing all the terror attacks France has suffered this year. Over and over again the French have had to deal with terrorism.  France is not the only nation dealing with this.  Anyone who reads even the smallest amount of news has most likely seen that terrorism is on a rampage throughout the world, and especially in the west.  What does it mean for America?

I could go on and on listing attacks in countries around the world.  I could list the threats terror groups have made.  We could talk about how ISIS has taken over a large part of Iraq and Syria.  We could add to that the other incidents they've had direct or indirect involvement in throughout the world.  We could go through the numerous threats they've made to destroy all of us.  It could even be mentioned that it's reported there are 1000 active ISIS probes the FBI has going in America right now.

But all that would be redundant.  

The bottom line is that the number one issue for the 2016 elections has to be immigration.  Immigration has a larger impact on our nation and our future than any other issue.  If we don't fix our immigration system and seal our borders, there won't be a future for America.  We will either be enslaved or dead.  If we're enslaved, it will be to the fear they will instill in us or to the forced ideology they will place upon us.  If we don't succumb to their terror, we will die and the unique nation we've been will die with us.  There won't be any other choice.

I don't know about you, but unlike the leftists who believe in Neville Chamberlain's methods of appeasement, I believe that the majority of us workaday Americans would rather fight to the death than give in to the threats and demands of terrorists.  

That fight has got to be the central issue of the 2016 election, if we can last that long.  The first job of the federal government is to protect our nation and it cannot be protected from threats with the open borders and immigration system we have today.  (If Congress would do their job we'd be watching an impeachment process to stop the illegal actions that have continued ceaselessly in this administration.  That's why about 90% of those in the House and Senate need to be replaced or forced into submission to the will of the voters, too!)

Many people think their chosen issue is the most important in 2016.  But if that issue is not immigration, then they have their priorities in the wrong place.  

When your house needs new carpet, a new paint job, and a leaky roof fixed you don't choose to replace the carpet or paint the walls before you fix the roof.  You have to fix things in order of importance.  In America, the number one priority has to be immigration or the rest won't matter.

Our current system has left us open not just to illegals coming and taking jobs and benefits costing taxpayers billions, but has also left us open to terrorists coming into our country.  It is quite possible, and most likely, that we already have some who've gotten in.  Just like Europe, we have a Trojan horse on our hands.  We saw it revealed in the Paris attacks this weekend.  It could very easily happen here today. This is not a future threat, it is very real and very present right now.

Pick your candidate carefully.  

Some politicians want to continue our open borders and lax immigration system.  

Some politicians want you to think they are for controlling our borders and immigration, but actually want to continue on the path we're on.

Other politicians say they want to close our border and bring immigration under control, but we need to be careful not to choose one who is just telling us what we want to hear.

Saving America starts with secure borders, enforced laws, and an immigration system that is structured to benefit our nation and our citizens.  Anything less just continues us on a dangerous path.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

What's The Real Reason Fox Removed Christie & Huckabee From Top Tier Debate?

Here's the Nonsense:  Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee didn't qualify for the top tier debate because the random calculations done using the polls showed they weren't eligible.

Here's the Horse Sense:  While not the strongest in the polls, Christie and Huckabee being blocked from the debate seems fishy.  It seems more likely their campaigns were dangerous to the goals of those in control of the debate.

In twisted gyrations to justify their action, Fox has removed Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee from the next top tier debate.  You may ask why it matters that it was Christie and Huckabee.  It may not be as simple as the excuses Fox is using to justify it.  It may very well be an effort by Fox to remove them from serious consideration in the presidential primaries because of the danger each of them present to Fox's chosen candidates.

Fox Business is no different than Fox News.  It's controlled by the same people which means it has the same goals as Fox News.  And now its the turn of Fox Business to help achieve their goal of helping the chosen GOP establishment (GOPe) candidate to win the Republican nomination.  (Why do you think the management and other hosts on Fox supported Megyn Kelly's lies about Donald Trump?  It was because he was destroying Jeb Bush's campaign.  An effort Jeb has now taken over himself and is successfully killing it on his own.)

Fox's promotion of establishment candidates is no secret. Like the other networks who support the leftist Democrat candidates, Fox also supports leftist candidates, but these are Republican leftists.  Remember last year when the Washington Examiner reported that Rupert Murdoch said he supported either a Bush or Clinton presidency?

So, what does this have to do with Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee?

Breitbart is reporting that last Tuesday Chris Christie was once again condemning Rubio for his support of a lawless presidency.  This time it was on Laura Ingraham's show where Christie pointed out that Rubio has said he will not revoke Obama's executive amnesty, but instead would leave it in place until legislation could be passed to replace it. Christie said that the executive amnesty is illegal and if Rubio leaves it in place he is ignoring the law.

Even Chuck Schumer talked this week , as reported by HotAir, of Rubio's involvement in the Gang of Eight amnesty legislation and strong support for it.

With Rubio still fooling many voters into thinking he's a conservative, the GOPe sees he's the guy to get behind to take Jeb's place if and when Jeb is done.  Left wing financial backers like Larry Ellison and big business GOPe financial backers like Sheldon Adelson have thrown support behind Rubio.

All this excitement about the irresponsible little liar has the GOPe worried that he may lose his momentum.  And for that Chris Christie stepped over the line in publicly pointing out Rubio's stand for lawlessness.

Given Christie's attacks on Rubio, it's quite possible that Fox decided it was time to get him off the main debate stage and remove him from much of the limelight.  I'm not a Christie fan politically, but he is excellent on stage and his performance at the debates, for what little time he's been given, has been very good.  He's persuasive and extremely good at presenting his argument.  To have someone with his communication abilities attacking a GOPe choice is dangerous and I am sure the GOPe doesn't want that and Fox is happy to do their bidding.

As for Huckabee, his situation is a little different, but once again is someone that does not fit the GOPe narrative. Huckabee is another excellent communicator.  When he speaks he's interesting and even entertaining.  He's developed a reputation for being extremely likable, even by his competitors.  The public likes him and because of these things he has credibility.

So, what's the beef against him?  Quite simply, it's morals. 

No other candidate has spoken out as much or fought harder for social issues during this campaign season.  Huckabee's latest book, released last January as a launchpad for issues in the 2016 campaign, addresses many of the critical social issues that are tearing America apart.  Huckabee speaks regularly about the fact that if America doesn't abandon its socially irresponsible culture and return to the values that founded our nation, then there will be no hope for our future.

Huckabee's spoken out continually about these issues and this is a thorn in the side of the GOPe who don't believe in these values at all.  (Anyone who's listened to Rush Limbaugh for any reasonable length of time has heard Rush tell stories of how GOPe leaders have tried to get him to push his listeners to abandon these issues and support such things as abortion, same sex marriage, etc.)  

This is a big threat to the GOPe, too.  When you have the GOPe candidates like Rubio living their lives and promoting government policies that abandon the core values our founders based our entire governmental system on, those candidates are in danger when someone is pushing as hard as Huckabee is to abandon our immorality and elect leaders who will help lead us back to faith in God and the morals and culture most in our nation once embraced.

The best way to deal with that is to take advantage of the situation where Huckabee's poll numbers aren't doing very well and eliminate him from the limelight, too.  If fewer people hear him, he is less of a threat.  

And once again, Fox is working hard to get Jeb or Marco nominated.  The best thing they can do when they have someone like Rubio, who's career is typical of a two-faced politician, is to get Huckabee, the man who is bringing light to social issues more than any other, off of the main stage where the light he shines will expose the hypocrisy of their candidates.

"But," you say, "Christie and Huckabee didn't qualify.  There's nothing sinister here."  

That is questionable.  Some people have raised legitimate questions about just how Fox came up with this decision.  And, believe it or not, the left-leaning Huffington Post may have done the best job reviewing the situation.

In an article questioning logic of Fox's methods, HuffPo's article said, "Fox Business Network averaged four national polls to decide which Republican presidential candidates to include in the Tuesday debates.  But unlike other networks that have hosted debates this year, Fox Business used stricter criteria and only the last four polls of its choosing."

The article continued, "According to the Fox Business rules, candidates needed an average of 2.5 percent in the four most recent national polls to be included in the primetime debate.  Christie and Huckabee barely missed -- each had an average of 2.25 percent across the four polls used."

But that's not the interesting part.  The article writes that, "...with an average sample size of 445 respondents across the four polls used, there is only a 60 percent chance that Sen. Rand Paul actually leads Huckabee and Christie [emphasis added], with his average right on the 2.5 percent threshold to their 2.25 percent.  Under any other circumstances that distinction would be too close to call, but in this case it's the difference between debate opportunities.  

The article goes on to talk about the polls Fox chose to use and how a slight change in just one of the polls could have changed who would be removed from the top tier debate.

But why would Fox want Rand Paul instead of Christie or Huckabee?  The answer is simple.  Rand Paul has a unique following of libertarian supporters who will stick with him to the end.  Paul will take those votes away from outsider candidates like Carson, Trump, and Cruz, which will give the GOPe candidate a better chance to win the nomination.  

The goal of the GOPe is to make sure that none of the outsider candidates get the nomination and the chosen GOPe candidate does get the nomination.  

Remember the report by Examiner that said the GOPe would consider running their candidate as a 3rd Party candidate if Trump became the nominee?  Don't think that they wouldn't consider that same thing if Carson or Cruz, the other outsider candidates, were to win the nomination.  Trump was the target of the comment because he's been the leader in the polls.

The last thing they want is to lose power and if a non-GOPe candidate gets the nomination and wins the general election, the GOPe will be in dire straits as that new president will lead the way in replacing them.  They'd rather have the power of leading the minority party than have no power at all.  That's why they would rather a Democrat win the election than a non-GOPe candidate.

And supporting and promoting that agenda is Fox.  So, the chances of Christie and Huckabee being removed from the top tier debate because of some random calculation seems about as likely as Barack Obama being open to a legitimate compromise with the Republicans.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Ted Cruz's Big Problem That Could Cause Hillary To Be Our Next President

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz would be the best candidate to go against Hillary in 2016.  With his intellect, debate skills, and principled stand on issues he'd be impossible to beat.

Here's the Horse Sense:  As good as he is, even with some criticisms he can overcome with most people, Ted Cruz has a problem that could ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency.

America is collapsing.  The results of the 2016 election will determine whether we have a chance to turn our country around or if that will be the last election before it's too far gone to save it. To anyone who's done their homework, it is clear that there are only 3 non-establishment GOP candidates that have a real chance at the nomination;  Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.  But what do we do if we have a candidate whose nomination would be an almost sure guarantee to give the presidency to Hillary Clinton?  Think I'm crazy? There's a serious chance that one of the favorite candidates of conservatives would cause just that to happen if he is nominated.  If we know that, should we still support him or choose another candidate that doesn't have the same danger hanging over their head?

After his performance at the last debate, Ted Cruz received a bump both in the polls and fundraising.  He's clearly the most solidly conservative candidate running.  His ability to take apart someone's argument makes him a favorite of many conservatives.

All that said, there are a number of problems Cruz has that his followers refuse to see, but they are there.  Those include:

1.)  A lack of any executive experience, having never run anything prior to this run for the presidency.  In addition, he's served less than one full term in the Senate before this run.  This is exactly what Obama's background was when he ran for the White House in 2008.  I have no doubt that this would be something the Democrats will use against him in the general election.

2.)  Many who are not big fans of his react to him as being cold and harsh.  Some of that is the way he speaks along with how he sounds (his voice is often referred to as nasal sounding and his speech is seen as too intellectual).  You may think that's no big deal, but Americans are superficial and judge people on the most unimportant details.  How often do you hear someone criticize people based on their appearance and not the substance of their argument? 

3.)  This may not appear to be a weakness, but it actually is. The GOP candidates were criticized for speaking below a college level at the last debate, with every candidate speaking between a 5th grade and 9th grade level (Trump at the 5th grade level, Cruz at the 9th grade level and everyone else in between), the fact is that anyone who's studied marketing communications and public speaking knows that you should always speak between a 5th grade and 8th grade level to make it easy to understand.  That is also the level that accomplishes the most persuasion.  

Trump's marketing brilliance includes his understanding to speak at a 5th grade level and thereby assure the understanding of the audience and win more support.  Cruz speaking at the 9th grade level, slightly above the 8th grade maximum for most effective persuasion, does make him sound condescending to some people.  

Remember, Cruz's greatest strength is winning debates and courtroom arguments.  But you don't persuade people by thumping them in a debate or argument.  You persuade them by speaking to them in easy to understand terms that empathize with their frustrations and pain.

4.)  Another problem for Cruz is his age.  He's very young.  Now you're probably thinking he's 44 years old and that's 9 years older than he is required to be under the Constitution to be president.  But 44 is very young when it comes to life experience.  The difference between someone who is 44 versus someone who is 60 or 65 is immense.  

When our founders put the requirement to be president at 35 years of age, the average lifespan at birth in America was about 40.  Today our average lifespan is about 75.  People had to grow up at a different rate in colonial America.  35 was to 40 back then as 65 is to 75 today.  Any thinking person wants a president who has a great deal of life experience to draw from when handling the biggest, most difficult, and most important job in the world.

But that's NOT his biggest problem.  He probably has a fair chance of overcoming some, if not all of those problems with many voters.  His biggest problem, should he be nominated, will come in the legal fight the Democrats will bring regarding his nomination.  They will challenge his constitutional eligibility for the presidency and the legal battle will be horrendous.

I'm sure with my saying that I've just lost a bunch of readers, but it's critically important because of what could happen.  

Cruz's problem is not the same as it was for President Obama.  And what the media and some attorneys have said about the issue is most likely far from what needs to be considered. Don't forget that pundits and talk show hosts, even those who are attorneys, are not the ones the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) goes to when they are considering their decisions.

This is important because of what could happen if Cruz were to win the nomination.  We need to remember that Cruz, more than any other candidate, represents to the Democrats a move far to the right politically for America.  Progressives have worked for a century to get America as far left as it is today.  A Cruz nomination would be fought tooth and nail.  It's virtually guaranteed that the Democrats would take it to court challenging his eligibility as a natural born citizen.  Don't forget that Hillary Clinton was the first to raise the question of Barack Obama's eligibility in the 2008 campaign so she's fully aware of the issue.

At this point I suspect many of you are saying that I'm just anti-Cruz.  The fact is that I was a Cruz supporter before most people even knew he was going to run.  But after learning what I'm going to share with you, I didn't feel I could support him any longer.  To do so would be heading towards a potential disaster that we can't afford.  America is in dire straits and may not survive, even if we do elect a good president.  

We need every chance we can get to win this election because I don't believe we're going to have another chance to save this country if we lose in 2016.  The politicians in Washington, Democrat and establishment Republican alike, continue to move to take away more of our rights and there's little chance we would still have the same ability to vote for changes in the same way we do now after 2016 if we lose.

Many will say that Cruz has said he's eligible.  Some are even saying that some attorneys said it.  But the real issue will come down to what SCOTUS says because this has never been ruled on before.  The term "natural born" is not defined in our founding documents, and the courts have never dealt with this issue.

America's founders obviously had something special in mind when they used the term "natural born" in their requirement for the presidency.  Nowhere else in our founding documents did they have this requirement.  So the term "natural born" must be something special.  And since that is a requirement in the Constitution in order to be president it would require a SCOTUS ruling to define what the founders meaning was.

We need to remember that it doesn't matter how strongly we believe in our argument regarding the proper definition.  What matters is how SCOTUS would rule.  If we're honest with ourselves, we've seen this court rule against absolutely solid arguments too many times in the past.  Often they rule politically on too many important decisions (i.e.; Obamacare) instead of based on good understanding of the Constitution. 

What we need to look at is how they've handled cases in the past when it comes to original intent of the founders. 

Recently I was privileged to meet the man who would most likely influence the court's decision more than any other. Rob Natelson is a conservative constitutional scholar that was introduced to me by a friend.  We had lunch and talked about many issues, one of which was the eligibility issue.  

The reason Natelson is so important to this discussion is that his expertise on constitutional matters has been referred to by this SCOTUS more than any other scholar.  Just since 2013 SCOTUS has cited him 17 times in 5 different cases.  So the chances are very good that they would look to him again regarding the original intent of the founders on this issue.

As we had lunch, Natelson told me that the founders looked to British law as their example when they were setting up our legal system.  That made sense given that they had been British subjects.  In an article he wrote for the Tenth Amendment Center, Natelson wrote:  "A subject was natural born if he was born in Britain or a British territory or, if born abroad, his father was at the time a loyal subject not engaged in treasonous or felonious activities. Although the American Founders did not require natural-born status for Congress, they did insist that the President have that status.  They also imposed a residency requirement of 14 years and a minimum age of 35."

Mr. Natelson explained that what that meant for America is that being natural born was dependent on the child's father (remember, women at that time in history didn't have the same rights as men, so those who argue about both parents having to be citizens aren't considering the culture in which they lived).  So, since Ted Cruz's father was not an American citizen when Ted was born, plus the fact that Ted was born in Canada, he would not be considered natural born by the founders definition.

Mr Natelson told me that based on that, he believed Cruz to be ineligible.  Given that opinion and his influence with SCOTUS, I would say there is a very big possibility that Cruz would be ruled ineligible.  

If this happened during the election it would:

  1. Throw the GOP into turmoil as they scrambled to replace him as a candidate.  
  2. Raise doubt in the minds of voters who would wonder if any GOP candidate could be trusted after Cruz had been sold to them as a legitimate candidate only to result in a ruling that proved otherwise.  
  3. Republicans would also lose control of the Senate and House as Americans would want to punish them for their deceit.
  4. And worst of all, it would assure a Hillary Clinton victory in the run for the White House.

The downside if this were to happen would be far greater than choosing to get behind a candidate now that doesn't have that potential problem.  Changing now, before the primaries have even begun, would allow Cruz to see he doesn't have the support and he could return to the Senate.  We could support him, elect other conservative senators, and fight to replace Mitch McConnell with Ted Cruz.  That would secure the Senate in conservative hands and leave us only the House to eventually be moved to conservative leadership by replacing House Speaker Paul "RINO" Ryan. 

The issue is not whether Ted Cruz would be a good president.  

It's not whether he might have a chance to win this issue in court.  

It's whether it's worth the risk during the most critical election year in history to take the chance that we might end up with a candidate who, in the end, is ruled ineligible and the result is a Hillary Clinton presidency.  

We have a number of good candidates available to us.  We would be better off getting behind someone without the eligibility baggage to be sure that at the last minute we don't lose our last chance to save this nation.

It's Looking Like Hillary Has A Clear Path To The White House

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary is on the ropes.  With all her scandals, her lack of personality, her reputation for being unlikable, her lack of accomplishments, and all her other baggage, there's no way she can win the Democrat nomination let alone the White House.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Never, never, never underestimate the Clintons.  Their ability to come out on top is rarely matched in politics.  Once again Hillary has won by eliminating scrutiny of her scandals and now could very well have a clear path to the nomination and the White House.

Conservatives have squealed with glee recently as they've seen success in areas such as:

  • The unseating of John Boehner as House Speaker. 
  • The failure of Jeb Bush and some other establishment candidates to have their campaigns gain traction. 
  • Seeing Hillary Clinton's campaign struggle under the perceived pressure from scandal after scandal.  

Bumper stickers that say things like "Hillary for Prison 2016" have become popular.  There's been a view among many that she is falling like Lucifer when he was cast from heaven and they can't wait for the crash when she hits bottom.

But it's not going to happen.  In fact, contrary to what overly enthusiastic conservatives are willing to face, chances are VERY high that she will be our next president.

To all of those who wrote me emails, talk show hosts who scoffed in disagreement, and others who listened with doubt as I have said over and over that she is not going to jail, probably won't be punished, and will most likely be the Democrat nominee for 2016, I need to remind you of some facts that have been forgotten during this period of premature celebration.

While Hillary's campaign has struggled and been restarted over and over again hoping to build excitement, she's finally crossed the threshold showing nothing is going to stop her.  

Many thought that the Benghazi scandal would stop her, putting their hope in the worthless efforts of the House Benghazi investigation.  While the House committee members say that they're not done, Hillary is clearly off the hook.  

After the 11 hours she spent answering the committee's questions she walked away the victor, even raising her hand as a sign of success as she left the hearing and then holding a celebration that night.  She knew that any impact on her was now past and her campaign would not have to worry about it.

Just prior to that event was the first Democrat debate where, thanks to Bernie Sanders and the media, she was let off the hook for the email scandal.

It was said well in a recent report from McClatchy:

"But most who spoke to McClatchy say it's unlikely the former first lady, senator and Cabinet secretary will face charges because of her high profile and the hurdle to prove she knew the emails contained classified information when she sent them to others.

"'She's too big to jail,' said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr.[sic], who represented former CIA employee Jeffrey Sterling in 2011 in a leak case that led to an espionage prosecution and 3 1/2 year prison term.  He cited a pattern of light punishments for top government officials who have mishandled classified information while lower level whistleblowers such as Sterling have faced harsh prosecutions for revealing sensitive information to expose waste, fraud or abuse in government."

MacMahon hits the nail on the head when he says she's too big to jail.  No one is going to touch her and thanks to the Benghazi hearing and the Democrat debate, she now has assurance that the nomination is hers and the Democrat primaries will only be a formality.

The Clintons are very powerful people and just as her husband not only was let off instead of being convicted in 1999 for his crime of perjury and has since become a hero and icon for leftists across the nation and world, she is following the same path.  

Conservatives might think their favorite candidates are doing well in the GOP primaries, but doing well in the GOP primaries is not winning the general election.  The GOP primaries are far from over and establishment Republicans have been thrown for a loop with their favorite candidate, Jeb Bush, not being able to get his campaign on track.  

But now the establishment is beginning to move their support to their second choice to carry the establishment forward by getting behind Marco Rubio (who very well might be the most dangerous man in the GOP primaries).  Rubio's deceptions, lack of accountability, lack of experience, greed and track record are being completely ignored by much of the electorate and the establishment GOP are taking advantage of that.  

As well as some non-establishment candidates are doing, the primaries are far from over and Rubio has a good chance of moving up and even winning unless he's stopped soon.  And if any establishment candidate, including Rubio, is the nominee against Clinton there is no chance the GOP will win the White House in 2016.  It will just be a repeat of the McCain and Romney losses.

Some may say that a non-establishment GOP nominee would be able to win over Clinton, but don't bet on it.  Carson or Trump have a chance.  There's little chance anyone else does.  

And contrary to those who think Ted Cruz could beat her, he has problems that Clinton will use against him and, I believe, would keep him from winning.  (Keep watching, I'll write a post on that shortly.)

The only hope for keeping Hillary out of the White House is for voters to coalesce around a non-establishment candidate early in the primaries and end the Republican bickering that usually destroys them before they go head to head with Democrats.  Without a solid backing by the electorate, no one is going to have a chance against the Clinton machine.

Unfortunately, history has shown us over and over again that conservatives aren't able to do that.  The internal bickering and refusal to agree to disagree on a few issues so we can get together and support one candidate keeps us from winning like we could.  If that happens again, it will give Hillary victory in November 2016.

Saturday, October 24, 2015

Did Ben Carson Just Advocate Using Government To Control Political Views?

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Ben Carson is a great candidate and his ideas shouldn't be questioned.  He needs our support.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Carson does appear to be very good in many areas.  But his comment to Beck raises questions that we should not take lightly.  We cannot fall into the mistakes the left has made or we are opening our nation to serious danger.

He's a favorite of many, running a solid #2 in the polls nationwide for the GOP presidential nomination.  But did Ben Carson just let slip a view regarding the purpose of government that would make America's founders run out of the room screaming?  Should his comments be a concern for voters?

At this point in the presidential race Ben Carson has a solid chance at the GOP nomination.  Yes, Trump is way ahead of everyone, but that doesn't mean things can't change.  Carson has just done well in 2 polls in Iowa, outperforming Trump.  Even though that means very little in the national scheme of things, it does still show how large Carson's appeal is to some voters.  

Carson came to prominence when he gave a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.  President Obama was at that breakfast and the speech thrilled conservatives while offending President Obama and the progressives.  That was enough for many people to say he should be president.  

The speech was so effective at upsetting Obama that Carson has said he got a call from the Obama Administration a few hours later asking for him to apologize to the president.  Carson refused and when that story got out the number of people rallying behind him grew even larger. 

Now, while one speech is a really stupid reason for people to say he should be president, nonetheless he became someone many conservatives felt should pursue the White House in 2016.  After all, one speech tells us almost nothing about a person, but American voters are foolish in how they choose candidates and we see it over and over again as they fall for candidates who are not in it for the good of America.  Remember, that's how Obama got elected in 2008.

That said, Carson has shown himself to be very solid on a number of issues.  He's not the superficial candidate that can result when the public pushes someone into the spotlight.  He's a refreshing exception to what voters usually fall for because he has substance.  But even with that substance we still need to know more about him and the decisions he'd make as president.  

A good example has just been reported by HotAir about an interview Carson did with Glenn Beck.  In the interview Carson said what he thinks should be done with the Department of Education if he's elected:  

"It would be to monitor our institutions of higher education for extreme political bias and deny federal funding if it exists."

This is an amazing statement and makes one wonder if Carson thought through what he was saying.  The idea of using a government department or agency as thought police right out of Orwell's 1984 is terrible.  It is no better than what we've seen in recent years has been done with other government agencies.  We've all read the stories of the EPA, IRS, and others who it's been claimed have been used as political tools, even weapons, for the administration.  

We cannot forget that just because you feel you can trust someone like Carson does not mean you can trust every president who follows him with that same power.  

In addition, power does funny and dangerous things to people.  Ben Carson may seem like the most trustworthy person in the world, but the people working for him very well might not be.

I've learned in 40 years in business that most people should never be in a supervisory or management position.  Those are leadership positions and, as I wrote in my book on leadership and management, Many Are Called But Few Can Manage, few people can handle leadership positions without being at least somewhat tyrannical in how they handle that power.  Power corrupts and virtually everyone who has ever worked for someone has experienced the abuse of power under someone in a position of authority.  That is exactly what could, and most likely would, happen among the people put in charge of running the DOE under such a plan.

America's founders set up our government to have limits on power, which is something the left hates.  People like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton believe in the power of the government to be used over the people.  Remember that Obama has said that "most people are too small-minded to govern their own affairs."  And he has said that the problem with the Constitution is that it doesn't tell government what it has to do for the citizens.  

Our founders understood that government needed to have very limited powers and that the Constitution was to restrain government, not grow it as progressives would do to it.  The Constitution was designed to restrain government and thereby allow liberty for the citizens.

Ben Carson's suggestion about the DOE would make it an enforcement arm of the government that would control political thought and speech.  HotAir pointed out correctly:

Yes, there are leftists in education who do their best to indoctrinate students into thinking the government should be involved in everyone’s business, whether it be how much people get paid, or redistribution of wealth.  Yes, free speech is being silenced on campus by “trigger warnings” and “free speech zones” and a litany of other ridiculous ideas.  But wanting to have the Department of Education become speech monitors to make sure it’s not “extreme political bias” is not the way to fight back.  The way to fight back is to slowly get conservative and libertarian teachers into teaching positions (whether it’s history, philosophy, government, law, what you have), have them challenge students, and make them think.  The Right needs to slowly take over (or at least balance out) the Left in education.  This means thinking long-term, not looking towards the government to do a quick fix.

Carson's suggestion is dangerous.  His idea may have been an off-the-cuff response to Beck, but that doesn't change how dangerous something like this can be.  When conservatives have power they cannot misuse it and set up things like this or we are setting up our government as a tool for tyranny.

For example, too often I hear people say that the next president should use executive orders to force conservative change on America.  They often use examples of Obama's abuse of power through executive orders as justification for a new president to do the same thing.  This is terrible thinking.  All that does is set up our system to be used against us when someone who is unscrupulous gets into office.

I like Ben Carson a lot.  He's one of my favorites running for the presidency.  But even though I like him I have to hold him just as accountable as any other person.  Our republic is a fragile thing and must be guarded and not allowed to be misused.  For only then will we assure a free future for our nation.