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, 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 FWD.us, 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 wriring 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.


Monday, March 16, 2015

John Kerry, Democrat Nominee For 2016?

Here's the Nonsense:  Not only is Hillary a shoo-in for the 2016 Democrat nomination, but John Kerry said a year ago that he wouldn't even think about running again.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Yes, Kerry said last year that he wouldn't think about it, but last week he said nobody ever says never.  It just might be a possibility. 

With her email scandal raising questions as to whether Hillary Clinton will run in 2016, or if she does whether she can win the nomination, a number of amazing things are happening.  As I suggested 9 days ago, long before most others were raising this idea, the Obama administration seems to be behind the outing of this 2 year old news to make sure Hillary isn't a viable candidate for 2016.  News outlets such as Breitbart are now reporting the idea of Valerie Jarrett leaking the information about the emails.  And the Washington Times is reporting that State Department has agreed to reopen the case regarding Hillary's emails.  Could this mean that the door is open for Lurch er, um, John Kerry to run again and potentially win the nomination?

All of this uproar about Hillary's emails is certainly because, as I said 9 days ago, Obama wants two things out of bringing this up at this time.  First, he wants to take the attention off of Bibi Netanyahu's warning to America about the danger of a nuclear deal with Iran.  Obama wants that deal to go through to give Iran control of the Middle East as the major power of that region.  If Americans were to heed Netanyahu's warning in his speech to Congress it would endanger Obama's ability to get his deal with Iran.

But second, Obama also wants to use this situation to hinder Hillary's attempt at another run for the White House.  Certainly he doesn't want her to win the nomination as it would look like America felt she may have been a better choice when he beat her for the nomination in 2008.  He also knows she'd work for her own legacy instead of building on his.  And that's why last July the New York Post reported that he was supporting Warren over Hillary for 2016.

So, with all this information, where does the question about John Kerry come in?  Quite simply, Kerry has Clinton's old job at the State Department.  Kerry has always wanted to be president and getting his department to investigate the Clinton email scandal weakens her chances and potentially opens the door for Kerry to run again.  And it certainly is possible that Obama has thrown Kerry a bone if he spearheads an investigation that would harm Hillary's chances.  That bone being support for a presidential run in 2016.  After all, Kerry has been far more a representative for Obama as Secretary of State than Hillary was.  She was building her own legacy while Kerry has simply represented Obama, so I'm sure he's much more beloved by Obama than Hillary ever could be.

But would Kerry run again?  Back in February of 2014 Mediaite reported that Kerry was planning to retire after serving as Secretary of State.  But ego is huge among politicians and at that time he may not have seen an opportunity that would make it a viable consideration.  Yet in the last 2 weeks CBS News reported that Kerry said about a possible presidential run, "Nobody ever says never."  That's a definite change from a year ago.

I don't know if he'll run, but I wouldn't be surprised.  With Hillary looking weak it might be just enough to push him into the race.  And even though he'd probably have such challengers as Elizabeth Warren and Martin O'Malley that offer new blood for the party (or that "new car smell" as Obama put it), Kerry's been around a long time and that might give him the clout to sway many in power positions in the Democrat Party to support him.  

Of course that would leave us wondering if he won the presidency, would President Lurch bring Thing and Cousin Itt to the White House with him?



Monday, March 9, 2015

McConnell Promises Once Again To Support Obama And Go Against The American People

Here's the Nonsense:  The establishment Republicans who control the GOP are experienced statesmen who know when to fight and when to work with the Democrats.  We need to trust their leadership if we hope to see America do better in the future.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The establishment Republican leadership of the GOP are a threat to America.  They must be stopped if there is any hope left at all for our nation.

Here we go again.  Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader of the Senate, has just promised to support another debt increase by Obama.  The Washington Times is reporting that McConnell told CBS's Face The Nation on Sunday that Republicans would support a debt ceiling increase and not face a possible government shutdown over the issue.

For those of you who don't get it, let me say this as clearly as I can.

In spite of the feeling of the majority of Americans, the establishment Republican leadership has once again:
  • caved in to Obama and the Democrats
  • acquiesced to Obama and the Democrats
  • conceded defeat to Obama and the Democrats
  • folded before even trying to fight Obama and the Democrats
  • granted victory to Obama and the Democrats
  • cried uncle to Obama and the Democrats
  • given the go-ahead to Obama and the Democrats
  • accepted defeat without a fight with Obama and the Democrats
  • yielded to Obama and the Democrats
  • shown by McConnell's statement that they concur with Obama and the Democrats
  • have given up before any effort to stop Obama and the Democrats
  • are not just playing ball with, but are on the same team with Obama and the Democrats
  • are permitting Obama's lawless actions and violation of the Constitution to go unchecked even though they swore to uphold and protect the Constitution (Doesn't that make them complicit in Obama's actions?)
I don't know how to say it any clearer.  They are, along with the Democrats, out to destroy our country.  Whether through ignorance, because they're power-mongers, or because they have evil intent does not matter.  The establishment GOP who control the Republican Party are also a threat to our nation.  

If the American people don't rise up and stop them and support conservatives for elected office, America's future will be the 1000 years of darkness that Ronald Reagan warned us about.




Saturday, March 7, 2015

Obama Doesn't Want You To Notice The Smoke, Mirrors, & Timing Of Hillary's Email Problems

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary's email problems are the most important issue we need to focus on right now.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Don't be fooled.  Hillary's email problems are old news and should be seen as a distraction that Obama is using to keep your eyes off other issues.

The recent rush to cover the old news that Hillary Clinton used a personal email account has been overwhelming.  Even the leftist media have jumped on the bandwagon, even though it's very old news (it became public 2 years ago with hacker Guccifer publicly releasing the information).  So, Hillary's old problems are exposed again now... but why now?  As usual, look beyond the surface and there is likely the hand of the Obama administration in it to cover something else that's happening.

With Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to Congress this week, it was a clear effort  on the part of Mr. Netanyahu to not just speak to Congress, but to speak to the American people.  And it was a powerful and important message for us to hear.  It was also a message that the Obama administration didn't want us to hear.  

From attacking Netanyahu beforehand to downplaying it afterwards, President Obama has been determined to let nothing sidetrack or derail his plan to give Iran nuclear power and weapons.  And, with Hillary being said to be the leading contender for the Democratic nomination in 2016, he knows her position questioning the wisdom of the Iran deal will be in the center of the news if he doesn't discredit her, too.  

So, suddenly this huge dust-up about the 2 year old story of Hillary's personal email account is brought up to keep attention off the Iran deal and Netanyahu's speech warning us of the dangers that deal would cause.  It's just another case of Obama using smoke and mirrors to keep you watching his right hand while he's doing something else with his left hand.  

The real issue is the terrible Iran deal.  But Obama doesn't want you to realize that.  In fact, to add to the attack on Hillary he gets the mainstream media involved, too.  This is the same mainstream media that has virtually anointed Hillary as the smartest woman on earth and guaranteed future Democrat nominee for 2016.  Yet they are turning on her.  That not only gets the general public, who get their news from the mainstream media, to see her as the focus of the news, but it also gets conservatives caught up in the idea that the mainstream media have turned against her instead of keeping their focus on the dangers of the Iran deal.

It's the perfect distraction to keep everyone from paying attention to what Netanyahu talked about.  And by the time we wake up (IF we wake up...which is not likely), it will be too late anyway.  By then Iran will have their deal because the chances are slim that Congress will stop Obama.  Congress doesn't stop anything this president does.  That's why House Speaker John Boehner used Netanyahu's speech as a cover while he worked a deal with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to make sure DHS funding went through with nothing to stop Obama's amnesty.  (Former Senator Jim DeMint asked an important question about whether the GOP will ever stand up in an article this week.  It's worth the read.)

The president has successfully gotten everyone's eyes off of his Iran deal.  He's damaged Hillary so she won't have as much credibility with her position on Iran.  It also reduces her chances at the nomination in 2016, which is also what Obama wants (don't forget that he said voters will want "that new car smell" for their next candidate).  After all, his campaign people have gone to work with Elizabeth Warren because she's a like-minded progressive that would carry on Obama's legacy.  Obama prefers that as opposed to Hillary who, even though she's a progressive and would continue down the path of America's destruction, she would replace Obama's legacy while she tried to build her own.  Obama's ego is too large to want someone who would take the focus off of him and his legacy.  He sees himself as a major milestone in the history of progressivism in the world.

For a guy who no one thinks ever works, this was a pretty effective effort to pull off this past week.  Don't ever think he's not working.  He's working, just not for the benefit of America.  

Too many people allow him to determine what they focus on.  Never forget that he always wants you to focus on something that isn't the main thing that he's trying to accomplish.  It's always smoke and mirrors with him.

   


Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Obama Takeover Of Local Law Enforcement With No Republican Party Standing Against It

Here's the Nonsense:  The federal government influencing local and state law enforcement is a good way to assure common methods and fair ways of enforcing our laws nationwide.  This should make people feel safer.

Here's the Horse Sense:  More government is never a good idea. And federal control of local and state law enforcement is nothing short of a repeat of what happens over and over again when countries fall to totalitarian regimes.

President Obama has spent the last 6 years not just taking apart our government, but changing it.  That's what fundamental transformation is.  Every aspect of our lives are being taken over. The latest is a new move planned by Obama to federalize police forces across the country.  Once that happens, tell me the difference between America and any totalitarian regime.  America no longer has a government by the people.  America is becoming a nation enslaved.

Many areas of our lives are being taken over by the government. For example, we have Obamacare which took over our healthcare system.  We've now got Obamanet which has just taken over and will control the internet.  Now the Daily Caller is reporting that President Obama's next planned action is to federalize the police across the nation, something the Daily Caller has dubbed Obamalaw.  

The article says:
"In just the way the government took over health care, through mandatory requirements for health insurance policies, issuing subsidies and federal grants to the state for Medicaid expansion, Obama is set to exercise expanded control over local and state law enforcement by attaching conditions to the federal funds they receive.  Common Core for education and the mortgage rules for banks are additional examples."

Daily Caller speculates where this is headed by saying:
"Those best practices likely will eventually include rules that restrict police investigations of groups that are part of the Democratic coalition, and rules that try to level convictions and penalities among various sub-groups of the United States, regardless of actual conviction rates."

Law enforcement desperately struggles to get the funding they need.  By using federal funds to entice local and state law enforcement they can require those forces to be indoctrinated and controlled by federal policies and viewpoints.  

In their article, the Daily Caller refers to comments Obama made referring to a report that is underlying this plan.  Included in this report are many things but just to give you an idea how wide-ranging they are, look at these two:

1.)  They recommend that law enforcement agencies train officers in dealing with the LGBTQ community, "including issues such as determining gender identity for arrest placement."

So, does this mean that men who identify as women would be jailed with women and women who identify as men would be jailed with men?  This could bring absolute anarchy to the prison system and create disastrous effects for corrections departments.

2.)  They also recommend training law enforcement for interactions with Muslim, Arab, South Asian communities, immigrant or non-English speaking groups.

Does this mean that they will be trained to simply leave those groups alone and not pursue enforcement actions against them when they break the law?

This is not about law enforcement.  This is about control.  The government wants to be able to identify citizens that they believe need to be targeted for control.  We already have seen their efforts to identify American citizens who are conservative as right wing extremists along labeling them as terrorist threats much more dangerous than Islamic extremists.  

While you chew on that, remember that yesterday, the GOP establishment pushed through a DHS funding bill that allows Obama's illegal amnesty to continue, even though the majority of Americans are against it.  This is yet one more time that they have gone against the will of the people.

I've said it before and I will continue to repeat it.  The Republican Party is not your friend.  A small minority of conservatives are in the party, but they do not control it.  The party leadership is controlled by the establishment and have sold their souls to supporting this president and the progressive movement.  America's future is doomed if citizens continue to do nothing.



Monday, March 2, 2015

CPAC Proves Our Consitution, Liberty, Freedom, Wealth, Future & Children Are Already Lost

Here's the Nonsense:  CPAC was inspiring to see all the people there so committed to conservatism.  It gives hope for the future of America.

Here's the Horse Sense:  If you watched CPAC closely you saw many reasons to have great concern over the state of things in America.  In many ways it proves that our nation is already lost.

Front Page Magazine has published the following short piece and it should be very thought provoking for every American (It may be easier to read at the link than here):


I'm sure many will argue with me that these things are not lost, but the state of our society speaks otherwise.  Not only has this administration been successful at achieving their goals to overthrow the America created by our founders, but the failure of our society proves the point.

Last weekend at CPAC we saw some interesting people.  Some offer solutions that would help America, but most of all it showed more than ever that America has continued down the path of destruction that was begun years ago.  While Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty was spot on with most of his points in his speech, the attendees cheers and support of him was obviously superficial.  They don't take the seriousness of the warnings of the Bible to heart as we can see by the lives of most Americans.  And those warnings, that we need to turn to God and away from our immoral ways, are the entire reason why America will survive or fail.  Or, in the case of what I included from Front Page Magazine above, they are the reason why America has already failed.

It's bad enough that Fox News, who many conservatives consider their source for news, fills the airwaves with women dressed not just unprofessionally, but made to appear in ways to attract a male audience on the basis of sex and not content.  Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade has even commented that Fox News gets its female talent by going to the Victoria's Secret catalog and choosing models who can talk and went to college.  Our society has become so perverse that sex is used to sell the news.  It's no wonder there's no critical thinking anymore when they are catering to base instincts instead of the intellect of their desired audience. 

Any good teacher will tell you that if you want your students to learn you must teach at a high level so they must work hard to rise to that level.  If you teach to the low level, none of your students will excel because you've taken away any intellectual challenge to grow.  (That's also why it's important for talk radio hosts who are sincere about wanting to save America to be teaching their audiences critical thinking and challenging them to grow intellectually instead of the just entertaining them or providing news commentary to them.)

Half of CPAC attendees were age 25 or under, with 42% being students.  This is important because these people are the future of America. Yet many of their views show both immaturity and a lack of moral absolutes.  Erick Erickson at Red State even wrote about the behavior of CPAC attendees.  It says volumes about our future.

The good news is that 77% believe that Congress should use the power of the purse to defund Obama's amnesty.  (64% believe that criminal immigrant invaders should either be deported or encouraged to return home to apply for citizenship.)  What raises concern is that many of the candidates don't take a strong stand against amnesty, they just want Congress to pass it instead of Obama ordering it, and support of those candidates should be questioned if a person is truly against amnesty.  It was even said that Marco Rubio repented of his work to push amnesty through, but if you listened, it was a tepid repentance of a man who should already be seriously doubted as to his conservatism.  He has numerous questionable issues in his past and yet many still support him, which raises questions about their critical thinking ability and their conservatism.

On the same count, Scott Walker tried to dance his way out of his support for amnesty after CPAC when he was on Fox News Sunday and said he had changed his position.  Yet when he described his position he still said there is a way to have a path to citizenship for illegals.  Doesn't sound like his position changed much other than the typical way politicians do it, which is to make superficial statements.  But only time will tell what he believes and his comment about a path to citizenship exposes more than it hides.  That, along with his handling of Common Core, should be reasons enough that support for him needs to be questioned.  But many people are willing to compromise values because of the popularity of a candidate.

41% of CPAC attendees also raise concern with their support for marijuana legalization.  This nonsense is asking for trouble.  If they don't know better (and clearly they don't, but should) and haven't read all the studies in the past few years pointing to more and more evidence for how bad marijuana is, they could just look at the disaster legalization has been for Colorado and draw their conclusions from there.  But instead they embrace what is most likely college culture that promotes marijuana use along with other unhealthy and even immoral lifestyle choices.

18-25% are pro-abortion (depending on how the question was asked).  If 1/4 of our "conservative" young people believe it's okay to kill a child, something is wrong with how we're raising them.  Murder is just that, and there is no justifiable position to support it.  The morality of supposedly conservative young people is non-existent if they think they can be moral and support murder.

Here are a few more poll results that should raise concern:

Issues that would keep them from supporting a candidate were very telltale.  Please note my comment in red after each one as it makes the statistic better understood when considering where America is going.

18% said supporting gay marriage would keep them from supporting a candidate.  That means that 82% would support a candidate who supported gay marriage.

35% said supporting immigration amnesty would keep them from support of a candidate.  That means that 65% would support a candidate that supports amnesty.

58% said support of Common Core would keep them from giving a candidate support.  That means that 42% would support a candidate in favor of Common Core.

31% said being pro-abortion would stop them from support of a candidate.  That means that 69% would support a candidate that is pro-abortion.

32% said disengaging from foreign policy would keep them from supporting a candidate.  That means that 68% would support a candidate who would disengage from foreign policy.

Given those statistics it is apparent that the moral foundation of even those who call themselves conservative has been undermined.  With that failure in what are supposed to be the most conservative in our nation, there is no doubt that America has failed.  And that's why the only hope for our nation is for people to wake up and abandon their immoral ways and turn to God.  Our second president, John Adams, said:

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

One of the problems underlying this failure of morality is the rise of libertarianism among people on the right, especially young people. They embrace it stating that they have a right to live their lives any way they want and that's what America is about.  But they're wrong.  They have an obligation to live a moral life for without doing so our nation is doomed.  Their selfishness demands what they think is freedom, but in reality it is bondage to immorality that not only will destroy their lives in the end, but is destroying America for all of us.







Monday, February 23, 2015

For Democrats It's Only About Power And Never About Principle

Here's the Nonsense:  Democrats are the party that stands up for people.  They always put the best interest of others ahead of personal motives.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The ONLY thing Democrats are interested in is power and control.  They are unprincipled and this recent story about the DNC chair is a perfect example.

A mostly overlooked story in Politico reveals the lack of principles that are prevalent among Democrats.  DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has shown her true colors by compromising her principles when faced with the thought of possibly losing her job as DNC chair.  While this is no surprise, it is a perfect example of just how Democrats work.

Democrats, especially the White House, have been less than satisfied with the job she's done.  It is said she is too apt to pursue an independent agenda instead of one with the blessing of the White House.  But instead of facing their dissatisfaction and trying to find solutions that would allow her to keep her job, Ms. Wasserman Schultz has considered strong-arming President Obama.

The Politico story says of Wasserman Schultz:  "when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic."

So, she believes that he is anti-woman and anti-Semitic, but she's willing to abandon principles that should cause her to stand up and fight for women and Jews so that she can keep her position of power.  

As a Democrat she is supposed to believe that the Republicans are pursuing a war on women, but when it comes to Democrats, she'll only stand up for women if she can use it to keep her job.

Add to that, she's Jewish and yet she will allow Obama a pass for being anti-Semitic as long as she keeps her job.

Talk about hypocrisy!

But this is who Democrats are.  There are no heartfelt principles.  All they are interested in is power and control.  Why do you think we keep seeing Obama violate the Constitution and take actions that are illegal?  It's because he wants more and more power.

That's who these progressives are.  And that's why Americans are losing their rights and freedoms, because these people will do anything in return for gaining and maintaining power.

Why are Democrats getting away with it?  A perfect example was this past weekend when warning came out that numerous shopping malls are in danger of terrorist attack, with Minnesota's Mall of America specifically being named as a target.  I heard a news report about the terrorist threat in which they played a short clip from an interview with a customer shopping at the Mall of America asking him what he thought about the heightened security and the terror threat at the mall.  He replied that he didn't see much difference in security, but that he didn't worry about it because life was too busy to spend time listening to the news.

Did you get that?  Life is too busy to spend time listening to the news!  That explains in a nutshell why America is in trouble.  People aren't involved.  They're not even paying attention to what's in the news.  They're more interested in their lives than they are in what's happening in the world.

It's no wonder America has little chance of survival.  Americans have sold their souls for their self-interests.



Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Jews Fleeing Europe: Are They Safer In America Or Israel?

Here's the Nonsense:  Jews are in danger throughout the world.  Some are running to America and we will make sure they are safe here.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Contrary to our historical image as a place of refuge from the problems in the world, America may not be that place for Jews much longer.

The U. K. Telegraph published a story about a Jewish family in Britain that are finding that it is no longer safe for Jews to live in their country, so they are moving to America.  They thought about moving to Israel, but chose America instead.  They believe they will be safe here and are moving to Arizona.  They have two teenage children, one which is in college with plans to go to Berkeley.  When I read all of that my heart broke.  I wanted to reach out to these people and inform them that they may be making the wrong decision.  I found myself surprised by and fearful for this family.  They are making the wrong decision if they want to be safe.

Britain is the country out of which our nation started.  It holds a special place for me personally as it is the land from which my ancestors came.  As a nation, the roots from America to Britain are deep and the ties have been strong since we settled our major differences in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  Frequently things that happen in Europe, especially in Britain, become things that follow over to America and happen here, too.  Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad.  This time it's bad, it's very, very bad.

The family in the story, I believe, are making the wrong decision.  Why the wrong decision?  Because America has a growing undercurrent of anti-semitism these days.  The son who will attend Berkeley will be surprised to find it is not as open to Jews as their family hopes.  Just this past year there have been stories reported about anti-semitism at that school and others around our country.  And this has spread from other parts of the world to infect our nation.

Europe is in terrible shape.  The Washington Post is reporting that after the rise of antisemitism and the terror attacks in France, Jews are planning an exodus so they can be safe.  Fox News has also reported similar stories. JNS.org has reported on a new study called White Papers Of Hate.  It reports that racism, xenophobia, and radical nationalist movements are on the rise in 19 European countries.  The 1000 page study reports on incidents of anti-Semitism and hate crimes against religious minorities and immigrants between 2012 and 2013.

Just a few weeks ago, on Friday night and Saturday morning, January 9th and 10th, Jews who worship at the Grand Synagogue in Paris did not have services.  It was the first time since the Nazis occupied Paris during World War II.  The synagogue was closed for security reasons.

Yahoo News is reporting that hundreds of Jewish tombs are being defaced in France.  The level of anti-Semitism in Europe is increasing.

In France in 1999 there were approximately 80 reported anti-Semitic incidents.  In each of the following years the there were at least 400.  And there were over 600 in the first half of 2014.  The Jewish populace in France makes up less than 1% of the total population, but they are victims of 50% of the crimes the French government classify as racist.

Within a one week period in the summer of 2014, 8 French synagogues were attacked, one of which was fire bombed.  A kosher supermarket and a pharmacy owned by Jews were looted.  And a mob of over 400 people were shouting, "Slit Jews throats." and "Death to Jews."

Due to safety, few Jews attend public schools in France anymore.  Most attend religious schools, many of which are Catholic schools.

France is just an example of things that are happening in other European countries, too.  Italians have protested Israel and called for a boycott of Jewish merchants.  In Germany there have also been mobs shouting anti-Jewish rhetoric.  And there have been crimes and other anti-Semitic acts throughout Europe.  Places like Brussels, Frankfurt, and London are among the many that have seen these incidents recently.  And this past weekend a terror attack against Jews occurred in Denmark.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is calling on Jews to move to Israel to be safe.  And he's wise to do it.

While many who are against Jews claim it's because they don't agree with actions and policies of Israel's government, when European Jews are attacked, it really isn't about Israel's government.  It's about hatred of Jews.

So, as they have many times over the millennia, Jews are having to leave to remain safe.  No people in world history have suffered the repeated attacks and prejudice against them that the Jews have.  Things are too reminiscent of what happened in Germany in the 1930s.  If you have ever spent any time studying what happened during the Holocaust (and if you haven't, YOU NEED TO), you can understand the concerns rising among Jews around the world.  I've been an avid student of what happened in Germany during World War II and honored to have met, on 3 different occasions in my life, survivors of those Nazi concentration camps.  Their stories will keep you up at night (which is a good thing because we should all be disturbed by the evil that man is capable of).

As the problems rise in Europe these days, we are also seeing some of those attitudes rise in America, too, and we should all be very concerned.  On Sunday, Gatewaypundit.com reported that 30 homes in Madison, Wisconsin were painted with anti-Semitic slurs.  Anti-Semitism is not limited to the Middle East or Europe, this sickness is even in our own backyard here in America.
People get tired of hearing comparisons to Nazi Germany, but it is very appropriate. In recent history Nazi Germany represents what many at the time thought never could happen. In desperation to get out of the circumstances they were living in, the German people became fools and fell for the lies of the left.

(Yes, I said left.  The Nazis were fascists, which are leftists, not hard right conservatives that the left has tried to say they were. Their ideology is a socialist ideology with only slight differences from communism, which Hitler fully understood.  But the left tries to call them right wing to demonize conservatism.  It's been such a successful demonization that I've had many Jewish friends over the years tell me that the reason they don't trust conservatives is that they fear they are too close to becoming Nazis.  They don't really understand that conservatives are really the ones who are more concerned about their safety and freedom than the left.)

Talk to any person who has come to America that lived under a totalitarian regime and they will tell you that America is moving in the same direction that they saw their countries move as they fell to totalitarianism, be it the Nazis or the Communists.  We are seeing in America a dehumanizing and marginalizing of targeted groups of people so that the left can blame the problems in America on them.  In Germany the Jews received the majority of this treatment.  It started with slander against them and then moved to legal sanction and ended up in putting them in concentration camps.  Will America end up with concentration camps?  I have no idea.  But even falsely slandering someone to destroy their credibility is terrible.  And legally sanctioning someone just for being who they are is despicable.

But we cannot forget that what the Nazis did was done in incremental steps.  Had they tried to do it quickly, there would have been resistance.  But by starting slowly with slurs against the Jews and creating an environment of distrust against them, they were able to incrementally move the attitude in Germany against them. 

With the pro-muslim, anti-Israel attitude of this administration, we are seeing a slow buildup of anti-Jewish thought in America.  And no one is standing up to stop it.  For Jews elsewhere in the world looking to move to somewhere safer than where they are, America would probably only be a temporary refuge.  Since the American people are not stepping up to stop the destruction of our nation, but instead are too focused on themselves, chances are our nation will not turn around, but will continue down the path we're on.  That means that Jews will only be safe here for a temporary amount of time.  And Christians will be in the same boat.  Conservatives, regardless of religion, won't be far behind.

For Jews throughout the world seeking a safe place, Israel will be the safest for them. (I describe why I believe this as a footnote to a comment I wrote earlier.  The footnote is at the end of this post.)  For the rest of us, we have nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.  As I've said many times before, unless and until Americans abandon their immoral ways and turn to God, it won't matter who we elect to political office.  But if we do abandon those sinful ways, then we will be able to elect true leaders who can turn America around.  It's our choice.  While I don't believe that Americans will, I hope I'm wrong and people make the right choice.



* I know some of you are wondering why I'd think Israel could be safer than America for Jews when it's surrounded by 100 million Muslims that are committed to its destruction.  I believe God and His promises.  God chose the Jews out of all the peoples of the world.  He made them a nation and even though they had their ups and downs in their relationship with Him over the millennia, He made a promise to them.  He promised that after all their dispersion throughout the world, that one day they would come back to their land and become a nation again.  That happened in 1948.  And He also promised that when they finally did come back they would never lose that land again.  In fact, He promised that in the end times they will be attacked and would be saved by God stepping in miraculously to protect them.  Click here to read some of the amazing things that happened just this last summer in their fight against Hamas.  I believe in that promise and, therefore, I believe that Israel is the safest place for the Jews.