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

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Bush Institute Founding Director Supports Clinton Because...

Here's the Nonsense:  Some Republicans are supporting Hillary Clinton because they see her as having the background and character to lead America better than the Republican candidate.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Those who claim to be Republican and support Hillary are not truly Republicans.  They are RINOs (Republicans In Name Only).  They are phonies that should be run out of the party.  If Hillary wins, America loses.  Anyone who supports her is supporting the end of America as we know it.

James Glassman is the founding director of the George W. Bush Institute at Bush's presidential library in Dallas.  Politico is reporting that he is supporting Hillary Clinton for president.  This should be no surprise.  Glassman is just another globalist establishment Republican.  The GOPe and Democrats have the same goals.  They are part of a Uni-party that is made up of globalists.  And the globalists are working to take away America's sovereignty by forcing our nation into the New World Order they are creating.   They are in a panic that Trump may win.  A Trump win would cause them to lose hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars because their scheme would get derailed.
Glassman told MSNBC that Hillary Clinton is "by far the superior candidate."
Can someone tell me in what sense Hillary is a superior candidate?  She is a person who is a proven liar that has helped to do more damage to America than just about any other politician.  How does this make her superior to a man who wants to put the interests of the American people first?  How is she superior to a man who wants to return control of American government back to the American people?
Glassman went on to say of Hillary, "She has the experience.  She's got the character.  She has the values.  She is the kind of candidate I support and that, as I say, millions of republicans are supporting."
I'd be laughing hysterically if this wasn't so serious.  Glassman has the same view of integrity held by all RINOs (Republican In Name Only).  
He says Hillary has the experience.  At what?  Hillary has accomplished nothing in her career.  She's gotten some jobs with impressive titles, but in every job she accomplished nothing.  Even her campaign staff has trouble in interviews when asked to name her accomplishments.  
He says Hillary has character.  Is he kidding?  A person of character is a person with integrity.  It's a person that stands for what is right and isn't swayed by pressures around them.  Hillary and her husband Bill have always made decisions based on polls.  They find out what the voters feel or will put up with and then make their decision.  Character is the last thing any thinking person would use in describing Hillary.
He says she has values.  Think about the values that she represents.  They certainly aren't Judeo Christian values upon which America was founded.  They aren't the traditional family values revered by most Americans.  
Hillary's values are rooted in progressivism.  They put her in an elite class above the American people.  There is no concern in progressivism for any individual or family, except the members of the elite ruling class.  (Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama consider themselves to be the leaders of that elite class.) 
Progressives believe that the elite class decide what is best for society. A good example was when Barack Obama was selling America on Obamacare.  A woman asked him about her elderly mother.  She said her mother was in good health.  But she wanted to know if her mother needed an important expensive treatment, would she be able to get that treatment.  Obama did not hesitate to tell her that she would not be able to get that treatment. He said that she'd have to accept only care that would be palliative.  
Progressives insist on rationing care for older people.  They believe that older people do not contribute enough to society so money would be wasted if spent on them.   That's what the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is all about.  And remember that Hillarycare that they tried to pass during Bill Clinton's presidency was an early version of Obamacare.
These are the kinds of values we want in our nation's leader?  I think not.
The good news is that Glassman is wrong when he says that Hillary is the kind of person that millions of Republicans are supporting.  There is no evidence that he and the other NeverTrumpers are at all in large numbers.  Most Republicans who supported other candidates in the primaries have now thrown their support to Trump.  They realize the dangers posed by a Hillary Clinton presidency.  
Glassman and others members of the GOPe are committed to the globalist agenda.  They want to turn America over to a world government that will gut America of its sovereignty.  They don't see things from an America first mindset.  And that's what this election is about.
This election is not ideological.  It's about the heart and soul of America and who will control it.  Those who've thought it's about conservative versus liberal have missed the point.  They don't understand where Americans are at when it comes to the future.  
The globalists are trying to protect their power and wealth.  That power and wealth will be threatened by a Trump presidency. Their agenda would be slowed down because Donald Trump is determined to stop them.  
Trump wants America to retain its freedom and self-determination.  If the election is stolen from him, then we will see more than just the continued erosion of our rights.   We will also see the elimination of rights as Hillary dismantles what's left of our Constitution.  
You can bet that if elected, Hillary will see to it that the First, Second and Tenth Amendments will be eliminated.  
People talk about the First and Second Amendments all the time. But rarely do they raise the issue of the Tenth Amendment. It states that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the Constitution.  All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.  If the Tenth Amendment is eliminated, it opens the door to more massive federal government.  The path would be open for total control of every aspect of our lives by the federal government.
People need to recognize that people like James Glassman do not have the best interest of America at heart.  This includes the Bush family, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz the rest of the NeverTrumpers. 
The NeverTrumpers are not large in numbers, but many are very powerful.  Many have a platform that can influence the uninformed citizens who don't pay attention to what is going on. With less than 80 days to the election it's important that we are educating those around us to make sure they will be voting to stop the election of Hillary Clinton.  
I have no doubt that Democrat voter fraud and election tampering will be operating overtime to steal this election from Trump.  But even with those efforts, if there is a big enough landslide for Trump, they cannot steal the election from him.

Sunday, August 14, 2016

University Defends Its Actions Using Left's Tactics, But Just Proves It Isn't Worthy To Teach Our Students

Here's the Nonsense:  It's important for our schools, even universities, to be sensitive to the environment they are creating and how it impacts students.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Schools are places of education.  Sometimes education isn't comfortable but it's important so we can learn from it.  But these days political correctness has driven them over the edge to the point of making them unworthy of teaching our students.

The Daily Caller is reporting that the University of Wisconsin - Stout (UW - Stout) is claiming it cannot keep two historical paintings in their hallways because it is not "consistent with their values to try to attract more Native Americans to the university."  One painting shows French fur traders and American Indians traveling down the Red Cedar River by canoe.  The other shows a wooden fort constructed by the French.  Nothing disrespectful.  Nothing violent.  Nothing obscene.  Nothing negative at all, but the University of Wisconsin says they may have a harmful effect on the viewers.  And they insist that this isn't about political correctness.  

So, historical pictures showing things from America's past are now against the "values" of a university that isn't being politically correct by moving them out public view.  One of them will be put in the dean's conference room and the other in a library.  I guess that the people who go to those places aren't in danger of these images having a harmful effect on them.  (I wonder how they determine who is in danger and who isn't?)  

Personally, I think that UW - Stout will have a harmful effect on students. Their claim of this violating values doesn't even make sense, let alone show legitimate concern for anyone.

It seems that the latest terminology used by the left when they don't want to be questioned is to claim it's about "values."  

We see it all the time with leftist politicians. Think about it. Whenever President Obama wants to appear to take the high road in an argument (such as when he's defending bringing in tens of thousands of Syrian refugees with no way of vetting them to make sure they're not terrorists) he'll say something like, "Saying no to this is not part of our American values that we hold so dearly."  

When he says that, immediately all the loyal leftists get in line to wag a finger at those who stand against him and echo the president's claim that these people who stand against him are against American values.

We even see it from people like House Speaker Paul Ryan, a man who claims to be conservative but whose actions prove otherwise.  I seem to remember him standing against Donald Trump's call for a temporary closing of immigration from countries with known ties to terrorism.  But to try to look like he had American's best interest at heart, Ryan used Obama's method and said it would be against our values as Americans to have a litmus test for immigrants.

These people are trying to claim a higher moral authority by by saying that those who disagree with them aren't honoring the values America holds as a nation.  

But have you ever noticed that they never define or defend what those “values” are that they claim America holds?  They don’t embrace truth, morality, faith, justice, freedom, rights, family values, and the things that were traditionally part of the values our founders said were required for our nation to succeed.  Instead, these people use the term “American values” as just another way to try to diminish the credibility of those who stand against them.

This is where critical thinking is so important for Americans. We need to question everything and make sure we are not being led into false logic.  Never accept the premise of the politician's arguments, regardless which side of the aisle they claim to be on.  

Their plan is to drive you down a path and into a corner so that you will be backed into a corner and have to accept the logic of their argument.  That's exactly what UW - Stout is doing with these paintings they are moving.  They are using an argument claiming values when it's simply political correctness.

Don't buy into their faulty and deceptive logic.

Monday, August 8, 2016

The GOPe Working Hard To Get Hillary Elected

Here's the Nonsense:  This is just another election. If things don't work out we can redo it in 4 years.

Here's the Horse Sense:  This election is a fight for the soul of America.  Money and power are at stake. Whether they realize it or not, anyone who doesn't stand with Donald Trump is helping Hillary Clinton get elected.  And if Hillary is elected not just America, but the entire world will never be the same again.

Anyone who thinks the GOPe (GOP establishment) has the best interest of America at heart is fooling themselves.  There is a concerted effort to get Hillary Clinton elected by every Republican who is not enthusiastically supporting Trump over Hillary in this election.  There is hardly a day that goes by without more Republicans trying to take a swipe at Trump's candidacy in hopes that it will help Hillary get elected.  And now their latest efforts come from a group of former national security officials that have worked for a variety of Republican Presidents.

The NY Times has published a letter from these Republicans opposing the election of Donald Trump. What this boils down to is a vote for Hillary Clinton.  They, as part of the GOPe, are tied to the globalist Uni-party and are fighting to keep control of our government out of the hands of the citizens.  They know there are hundreds of billions, or more likely trillions of dollars at stake.  Those who control them are putting pressure on these people to make sure Trump doesn't have a chance to win and Hillary becomes the next president.  

(You can read the letter at the NY Times link above or the PDF of it by clicking here.  Or, at the end of this post I've put screenshots of it in for those who prefer to read it here, although the PDF link may be the easiest to read.)

These people know that if Trump wins their losses will be great.  The American people will once again have a leader who will stand up and fight for them.  The American people will have a say once again in government.  And that is the last thing the globalists want.

These people are no better than traitors to America.  They have sold out what our founders set up as the most unique and free nation on earth.  They are trying to keep America on the path of destruction that the globalist agenda has planned for our nation.  In doing so they spit in the face of every patriot who loves America, especially those who have given their lives for our freedom over the centuries.  

This is nothing short of disgusting.  This should be yet another reason to drive every American to the polls this November to make sure Hillary Clinton does not win.  The only way to overcome their voter fraud and election tampering is with such a huge landslide that their cheating can't overcome the sheer size of a Trump victory.

Donald Trump wasted no time in responding to the globalist's letter.  From his website:


"The names on this letter are the ones the American people should look to for answers on why the world is a mess, and we thank them for coming forward so everyone in the country knows who deserves the blame for making the world such a dangerous place.  They are nothing more than the failed Washington elite looking to hold onto their power.  And it's time they are held accountable for their actions.

These insiders - along with Hillary Clinton - are the owners of the disastrous decisions to invade Iraq, allow Americans to die in Benghazi, and they are the ones who allowed the rise of ISIS.  Yet despite these failures, they think they are entitled to use their favor trading to land taxpayer-funded government contracts and speaking fees.  It's time we put our foot down and declare that their gravy train is over:  no longer will Crooked Hillary Clinton and the other disasters in Washington get rich at our expense.

Instead, I offer a better vision for our country and our foreign policy - one that is not run by a ruling family dynasty.  It's an America first vision that stands up to foreign dictators instead of taking money from them, seeks peace over war, rebuilds our military, and makes other countries pay their fair share for their protection.  Together, we will break up the rigged system in Washington, make America safe again, and we will Make America Great Again."

This is America's last chance and no one better take it lightly. Educate your friends, neighbors, co-workers, and people you meet each day.  It's an American revolution through the voting process and citizens must not be derelict in their duties.

Here are the screen shots of the first 1 3/4 pages of the document document (the remaining 6 1/4 pages are the names of the signatories of the document, which I felt were just too long a list to place screenshots here, but you can read them at the links in my post above):

Sunday, August 7, 2016

Open Borders By May 2017

Here's the Nonsense:  There's not much of a difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as president.  Either would give us about the same results.

Here's the Horse Sense:  There's a huge difference between the candidates. Even if you only look at one issue like open borders and immigration, the difference is so great that anyone who cares about the future of America has only one choice.

Let's face it.  You really only have 2 choices in this presidential election:  Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.  And some people still question what Donald Trump will do if elected president.  In fact, a small number of them who are anti-Trumpers insist that because he hasn't given an exact, detailed list of what he will do that we cannot be sure that he won't be a dictator.  There are many posts I could write about that, but it's so stupid that I won't waste my time writing it or yours reading it.  What we do know is what Hillary Clinton will do if she's elected and that's reason enough to be scared to death of her winning this election.  One of her biggest promises will turn America upside down by May 2017, only 100 days after she'd be inaugurated.

Breitbart News is reporting that Hillary has committed to enacting immigration reform (pronounced "amnesty") within her first 100 days in office.  In other words, we might as well plan on open borders because that's where she'd take us.

The article says that amnesty for America's illegal immigrant population would cost taxpayers $6.3 trillion.  And that's just part of her plans for increased spending that would push our already bankrupt nation into such poverty that no one will recognize America any longer.  The America you grew up in would be nothing like what it would be once Hillary gets control of it.

Hillary would:

  • Expand unconstitutional amnesty with a full path to citizenship
  • Freeze deportations
  • Quit securing the border because she claims it's already secure
  • Close detention centers
  • Give Obamacare to illegals 
  • Expand refugee resettlement

So, not only will we increase the number of welfare recipients that tax payers have to pay for, but we'll increase the risk of terrorism by increasing the number of people from the Middle East that will be brought into America without any way to do any vetting of them.

You may think there are many issues that are important when it comes to the 2016 presidential election.  But the fact is there are really only a few issues that will determine the election.  One of those is the economy and jobs.  Another is national security and defense.  And the other is America's open borders and immigration.  

Sure, there are other issues, but these are what will drive the majority of voters to their decision this election season.  Any one of these issues has Trump doing far better things for America than Hillary. But the issue of open borders and immigration should be enough all by itself for anyone to realize we can't risk a Hillary Clinton presidency.  There really is only one choice for anyone who cares about the future for their children and grandchildren.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Ted Cruz: The End Of His Short-Lived Political Career

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz may have made a mistake at the RNC Convention, but it's no big deal.  Next election he'll be the Republican nominee for president.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Ted Cruz's suicide note (as Charles Krauthammer called it) at the RNC Convention exposed his true colors.  Voters saw it and of those still supporting him most abandoned him at that point.  But now it's gotten even worse for Ted.

Republicans and conservatives were watching when Ted Cruz gave up his political future in return for a few minutes of bitter vindictiveness.  The small number of followers that he still has hold fast to hope for his political future.  But it's time they wake up to the fact that Ted destroyed his future with his speech at the RNC Convention and his actions following it last week.  And if there was any doubt about it, not just pundits and politicians are saying it, but now the ultimate death blow to Ted's future has been laid on Ted's doorstep by Robert and Rebekah Mercer, Ted's biggest billionaire financial backers.

The New York Times is reporting that billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah, have just given nothing less than a verbal slap in the face to Ted Cruz for what he did at the RNC Convention.   The NY Times called it an "extraordinary public rebuke" from these two former donors to Cruz for not endorsing Donald Trump.

The Times article says:

So, here we have Ted's biggest supporters castigating him for what he did and saying that his actions are "revealing." They now see that Ted's bitterness over losing the primaries override not just his promise to support the Republican nominee and his responsibility to do what's best for America regardless of personal cost, but his bitterness also overrides his ability to keep his word.  And if a man's word is worthless, then he has nothing.

Ted claims to be a Christian and yet does not live by the very values he's supposed to live by.  Jews and Christians know that a core Judeo-Christian value is keeping your promises. In the book of Numbers (chapter 3, verse 20) it says, "If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.  He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

But Senator Cruz has shown himself to be just another politician, which is exactly what he said in his campaign that he wasn't.  He campaigned on keeping his word.  The Mercers believed him and now see that he isn't what he claimed to be.

Remember that Robert Mercer purchased Cambridge Analytics to help Ted Cruz's campaign do voter analysis and win more votes, much like Obama had done in 2008 and 2012.  Mercer also purchased Breitbart News to sway conservative voters to follow Cruz.  And, if that wasn't enough, he put over $10 million into Cruz's Super PACs. That's a huge investment in a candidate to only have that same candidate fail in his patriotism when it counts most.

To lose the support of the Mercers is the ultimate death knell for Ted's political future.  Good luck Ted getting any future support from the likes of Robert and Rebekah Mercer.

We know voters are upset with Ted.  There is a lot of talk from Texans that they'd never vote for such a two-faced politician again and that when his term is up as senator they won't support him again. That sends a big message to other high level donors.

And what does this message send about those who've supported the Never Trump movement?  People like Erick Erickson, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, Mark Levin, Steve Deace, and the Salem Radio and Media organization (that includes Red State, Human Events, Hot Air, even their radio stations) could all ultimately end up being in trouble.

This could also put pressure on Republican politicians who have fought against Trump to get behind him.  The size of the impact of the Mercers doing this is bigger than most people even realize.

The Mercers have joined the likes of billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn who also recognize that Hillary must be stopped.  They see Trump as the horse to put their money on in this race.  They understand that if Hillary is elected that there most likely won't be another race as we know it in the future.  So, they've thrown support behind Trump knowing that the future won't be bright if the Republican nominee doesn't win.

As for Ted Cruz.  Ted's support among voters has collapsed since the RNC Convention.  Gateway Pundit is reporting poll results showing the collapse:

We shouldn't be surprised at what Ted did at the convention or how he defended it.  Cruz was dishonest over and over again in his campaign but no one wanted to hold him accountable. When he continually tried to tell voters that Trump's positions on issues were the same today as they were decades ago (when Trump had over and over again written and spoken about changing his positions over time), no one said, "Hey Ted, that's not accurate.  People have the right to learn and grow and change and Trump has done just that."  Instead they allowed Ted to continue being dishonest in his portrayal of his competitor.

The list goes on and on but the bottom line is that he wasn't held accountable by his supporters.  The crowning example was when he said, after his RNC convention speech, that he wouldn't endorse someone who'd attacked his wife.  Yet the truth was that Ted's Super PAC had attacked Trump's wife first and Trump simply responded.  When questioned about the actions of his Super PAC Ted hid behind the law that says a candidate can't have interaction with their Super PACs.  

But he didn't need to.  In the past other candidates have faced situations where their Super PACs have done questionable things and the candidate issues a public statement rejecting their actions and it results in the Super PAC stopping what they're doing.  But Ted wouldn't do that.  He would say nothing against what his Super PAC had done.  

A public statement denouncing what they'd done is all it would have taken to keep Trump from responding. But when Ted refused to speak out against what his Super PAC had done, Trump responded.  And somehow Ted spun that into an attack on his wife, Heidi, instead of what it really was;  a response to an attack on Trump's wife, Melania.

I have refrained from writing a series of posts taking apart Ted's claims to conservatism and successes he claims while serving the people.  His political run was over so I dropped it. But now that he's done irreparable damage to his political future, it's important for us to recognize that he's put his bitterness first and left the best interest of America in the dust.  He's shown his narcissism and lack of integrity.  And the Mercers have shown that they now recognize it and have moved on to help fight for America's future.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Does Trump Have A Plan To Remove Obama Appointees From Government?

Here's the Nonsense:  Once Obama is out of office, it'll be clear sailing for the Trump administration to move the government in the right direction.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Obama leaving office won't stop his influence. His appointees can remain and cause havoc for a new administration.  Trump better plan to deal with it.

The end of President Obama's term does not necessarily mean the end of his influence on our government.  He could change their positions from that of appointees to that of civil service employees.  By doing that he embeds them in our government with all the job protections that civil service employees enjoy.  It's been said by many that removing a federal employee is almost impossible.  So, will removing those employees pose a problem for a President Trump or does he have a plan to eliminate that problem?  

Reuters is reporting that Donald Trump may have a plan to remove obstacles that would keep him from removing federal employees who were appointees of Barack Obama.  Trump, it is said, would like to be able to purge those employees by seeking help from Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier to fire federal workers.

Gov. Chris Christie, who is head of Trump's transition team, said in a special meeting on Tuesday with donors at the Republican Convention that they were making a list of federal employees to be removed if Trump wins the election.  

Trump's transition advisers fear that Obama may convert appointees to civil servants.  According to the article, Christie said, "This would allow officials to keep their jobs in a new, possibly Republican, administration."  Christie went on to say, "It's called burrowing. (click here for examples of Bush and Clinton using burrowing in their administrations) You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up... roadblocks for your successor.... One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws.  Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people."

This is clear, forward thinking.  Trump and his team know that they face an uphill battle and are trying to be ready to remove obstacles in their path.  This is about cleaning up government and is a clear sign that that's what Trump wants to do.

And, in addition to getting rid of political appointees of Obamas, a change in the laws would most likely make it easier to cut down the size of government by eliminating many unneeded positions.  This is how a businessman thinks.  It's about efficiency, which is something that politicians know nothing about.

One other note you might find interesting.  Christie used the term "we" when referring to the administration of Donald Trump.  Could this mean that even though he wasn't chosen as Trump's running mate that Trump has already promised another position to Christie?  I think so.  And I wouldn't be surprised if it was as Attorney General.

Monday, July 18, 2016

What Will The Removal Of Roger Ailes Mean For Fox News?

Here's the Nonsense:  It would be a shock for Fox News to let Roger Ailes go.  The network has been the only conservative place to get news and unbiased information.

Here's the Horse Sense:  It's just a matter of time before Ailes is gone from Fox.  They've moved continually to the left over the years and when their leftist owners finally get rid of Ailes you can expect them to go even more mainstream.

NY Magazine is reporting that Fox has decided to get rid of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.  Regardless of why and how they would get rid of him, an action such as this would have a huge impact on the news channel.  The real question is whether Fox would continue on its move leftward or would new blood bring it back to center-right.  That is what would determine the future of Fox more than anything, including the presence of Roger Ailes.

At 76 years old, Roger Ailes time as head of Fox News is limited no matter what happens.  Whether it be by choosing to retire, his passing, or the network firing him (or forcing him to resign) doesn't matter.  Nothing lasts forever and when you're 76 years old your days are numbered by, if nothing else, your remaining lifespan.

The recent lawsuit for sexual harassment brought by former Fox employee Gretchen Carlson against Ailes was the catalyst for the current situation.  Rupert Murdoch and his sons are said to be in agreement that it's time for Ailes to go.  And, given that Ailes' saving grace has been Rupert, this could be the situation to give enough ammunition to his sons to get rid of a man they have never had a great relationship with.  

Murdoch's sons are leftists, preferring Hillary Clinton over a republican president.  And Rupert Murdoch himself is part of the establishment.  At the beginning the primaries he said that he believed the best thing would be either a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton presidency over the other candidates.  

The Murdoch's leanings, along with those of Fox's second largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Alawleed bin Tlal, are not conservative at all.  In fact, the Saudi prince, as Diana West wrote in an article for Townhall, is quite proud of his power to control news at Fox.  West writes:

"As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch -- 'speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer,' Alwaleed said -- to get the Fox News crawl reporting 'Muslim riots' in France changed to 'civil riots.'"

Fox has continually moved left over the years.  Even a study in 2011 at UCLA showed that while Fox was further to the right than other broadcast networks, they were still center-left.  The old Fox News that people fell in love with back in the 1990's when it first started is not conservative and certainly not fair and balanced.  

While it was never truly conservative, it leaned more to the right in days gone by that it does now.  That's why huge numbers of conservative viewers don't watch their propaganda any longer.  

Fox has remained the top cable news network, but still has only a tiny share of Americans watching their channel.  (On its best nights even The O'Reilly Factor, their top rated show, only gets between 3 and 4 million viewers.  In a nation of 318 million people that's only 1.26% of the population.  

I've said all this to make the point that Fox ownership is clearly not conservative.  They are aligned with the Uni-party Democrats and GOPe in America.  Their behavior, especially in this election cycle, has been anything but friendly to the right.  The small bones they've thrown to the right have kept some thinking that Fox is still a good network, but the fact is that very little of Fox is fair and balanced.  

It's always been a matter of when Ailes goes as to when Fox would move even further left.  With this opportunity the Murdochs have a chance to make this now instead of later.  The question they are wrestling with now is timing.  Some say it could be this week, others say wait until after the Republican convention.  The bottom line is that Ailes may survive this attempt to get rid of him, but my guess is that he won't be with the network very much longer.  

So, as I've said for some time.  The worst thing you can do is watch Fox or go to their website.  All it does is increase their ratings, which means they make more money.  It encourages what they do.  

Some think that they have to keep an eye on Fox, even referring to it as the enemy (which isn't totally inaccurate), so they know what they're doing.  My view is that that's a justification.  The best thing those who still watch it can do is turn it off.  There are far better ways to learn what's going on than to watch a biased network that's determined to change the way you think.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Bush Bails Out Obama & Dallas Police Massacre Plays Into Globalist Plans

Here's the Nonsense:  The racial tensions in America are running high.  This has nothing to do with politics.  We just need to settle everyone down and work toward unity.

Here's the Horse Sense:  George W. Bush is standing up to protect President Obama from too much negative feedback about the race relations in America.  Racial tensions are now being used to keep the nation under the control of the globalists in this election.  

Will President Obama create more racial tension in America by going to Dallas to speak at the memorial service for the fallen police officers?  There's been talk of police officers at the memorial planning to go so far as to turn their backs on him.  Or does he have a wall of protection that will keep something like that from happening?

A growing chorus across the nation is claiming that the attacks on the police are a result of President Obama's continued denunciation of police across America.  They believe that he has undermined them by fanning the flames of radical anti-cop sentiments of the Black Lives Matter group that are demanding everything from only black police officers should be allowed to deal with black citizens to the takeover of 5 states making them a black nation within a nation (those states are South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana)... and, of course, along with forming their own nation they want America to pay them reparations, too.

The division in America is as large as it's ever been.  Obama is pushing hard as his term nears its end.  He wants to accomplish many things, locked in so that no future president can change them, before he leaves office.  And most Americans find the kind of things he's trying to do as not only distasteful, but outright non-American.  The growing sentiment among citizens is that they've had enough and would prefer to have him out of office as soon as possible.

So, with that sentiment towards the president added to the growing racial tensions in America, can he really expect a friendly reception in Dallas?

Yes, I think so.  

I think so because Obama has a "shield" that's going to show up to change the mood at that memorial service.  That shield is George W. Bush.  Bush has agreed to speak at the memorial, too, and that will deflect any negative feelings towards Obama because George W. Bush is still highly admired in Dallas.  He lives there.  His presidential library is at SMU.  And he's made it a point to NOT speak out against Obama's presidency (which in my opinion is nothing but cowardice, but some call it being a gentleman).  If you never noticed it before, this brings George W. Bush out of the closet for Obama.

Bush's speech at the memorial, let alone just having his presence there, will change the focus of any attitude of resentment towards Obama and how his actions have been perceived as inflammatory against police.  And, Bush's presence may temper some of the comments that Obama would otherwise make (i.e.; guns being the cause of the massacre, gun control is the answer, etc.), but you can be sure it won't completely stop Obama from making those points on some level.

But don't be fooled.  As much as many Americans think highly of George W. Bush, he's just another member of the globalist Uni-party that the GOPe leadership along with the Democrat leadership all belong to.  Their plans for America are the cause of the problems that plague our nation. Whether it's Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, both George W. and George H. W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any of the others, they are all part of the Uni-party with the same goals of taking down America and making us part of a global order controlled by an international government.

So, when Barack Obama is put in a position to go to Dallas to the police memorial service, the Uni-party steps in and gets George W. Bush to go, too, to soften the mood.  The Uni-party are the professional political class that support each other regardless of ideology.  Their globalist goals are much bigger than ideology.  That's why George W. Bush has never spoken out about the things that Obama has done.  It's all part of the plan to control both parties so that no matter who the voters elect, the ultimate goals are still being pursued.  The voters just think they've made change.

And that's also why Donald Trump is attacked so hard by all of them.  He stands outside the globalist elite and is a threat to their goal of melding America into the one-world government.  And now, by having successfully made race such a huge factor in America these days, they've successfully taken the focus off of Hillary's crimes and being let off by the FBI and DOJ in spite of the fact most Americans believing she should be prosecuted.  They've worked hard to try to get people to believe Trump is a racist and they want this election to be focused on race hoping voters buy the false idea that Trump is racist.  They believe that is how to keep him from being elected.  The plan is to get another globalist Uni-party president in office so they can continue taking America down the path to destruction.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

The Best Response To The Police Shootings

Many have written or talked about what happened in Dallas this past week.  The terrible tragedy as police officers were shot in Dallas followed by more officers shot in other states, too, has brought a rude awakening to Americans that there is a terrible sickness in our society.  And as good as some comments and articles are that have been put out, I don't think I've seen anything nearly as good as Sarah Palin's post on her Facebook account.  It's worth taking the time to read what she has to say.

Here's the link to the article on her Facebook page.  Or, if you're like me and don't use Facebook, I've taken screenshots of the article and put it below for you to read here:

Monday, July 4, 2016

The Foolishness Of Hillary's Plans For Her First 100 Days If Elected

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary's plans for her first 100 days as president look like they could really make some positive changes in Washington.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Hillary's plans are nothing new and should be a warning to voters that electing her is a huge mistake.  Her administration would be more of the same but at higher speed to destroy America.

We've talked about the Clintons for decades.  Experience with Bill's presidency showed us how much damage he could do, but most of it was thwarted by the strong Republican House of Representatives that reimplemented many Reagan policies and dragged Bill Clinton along with them.  

Clinton has taken credit for the successes of the 90s that can all be tracked back to reimplementation of Reagan's policies (and the Republicans have mostly allowed him to do it because the current GOP is controlled by Reagan haters). Once we saw Hillary become a senator followed by Secretary of State, we saw that she hadn't learned a thing and was sticking to her old progressive Alinsky ways.  

With this she wants to bring her phony feminism (her feminism makes women weaker) and her political correctness into full power if she's elected president.  We all know that would be a disaster for many reasons.  The Supreme Court nominations alone would be enough to push America into the thousand years of darkness that Reagan warned about.

And now we can look a little further by seeing what's been listed as her top issues to complete during the first 100 days she'd be in office.  The New York Times is reporting what Hillary's plans are and they're some of the most foolish ideas of this campaign season.  The article is lengthy, but there's a little chart of bullet points that says enough.  Here's a screenshot of it:

Let's take a look at these.  First, she will appoint women to half her cabinet posts.  Now there will be plenty of reaction to that, but it's clearly the typical left wing attempt to win female votes because of it.  It's no different than people claiming that Hillary should be president because she's a woman.  It's absolute nonsense.

The fact is that people who lead our nation, including their cabinet members, should be the best people for the job and gender, race, religion, or anything else should not be a criteria.  No thinking person would disagree with the fact that there are talented people of all kinds.  When you own a business and want to succeed, you hire the best person for the job, not the person who fits some politically correct requirement, which is all this is.  Just because you're a specific gender does not mean you are qualified to hold a position.  I've seen it in business where people were hired because of some politically correct reason.  Better people were passed on for the job because they did not meet the proper politically correct qualification.  Why would we want someone who's going to put political correctness over hiring the best person for the job?  It would be stupid for the American people to elect someone who would do this.

Second, she wants to revive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.  The majority of Americans have made it clear they want our borders and immigration brought under control.  This, once again, is pandering for votes.  Hillary hopes to win the votes of people who have family and friends they'd like to see be given citizenship for their law breaking.  What she really wants is the votes of the illegal immigrants who are in America.  The Democrats have announced that their platform includes no longer requiring learning English to become a citizen.  The fact that someone broke the law means nothing to them (probably because abiding by the law is not something Democrats are known for).  But going beyond that, this even affects legal immigrants.  The Democrats don't care about the destruction of our culture.  They don't care that requiring assimilation is important so that America maintains its strength and individuality among nations.  No, all the Democrats, with Hillary in the lead, want is to have the power in this country regardless of the consequences to the nation.

Third, she wants to push a $275 billion infrastructure/jobs plan.  She wants to increase the budget by $1.4 trillion and increase taxes by $1.2 trillion, too.  We already know that when the Democrats spend money for infrastructure to "create jobs" that it never works.  Can anyone name the jobs created by the TARP bailout?  All this stuff boils down to is a way to reward people who supported them. Whether it's unions or politicians that did favors for them that get money to spend on their constituents, it's the same old money-grubbing politics.  

And notice that her increased spending is more than her tax increases?  We're already spending more money than we bring in.  Our nation is technically bankrupt with more debt than any nation in history and yet over 40 cents of every dollar Congress spends is additional debt that we cannot sustain.

This is a good example of the difference between a businessman who knows how to run things efficiently and a politician who only knows how to spend.  Trump talks about cutting waste, creating more efficient systems, and getting our national budget to be efficient.  As a businessman he knows you can't spend your way to prosperity.  He also knows that we are a hair's breadth from financial collapse if something isn't done soon.  Hillary just wants to spend.  

Fourth, she wants to seek common ground with the GOP over drinks.  She doesn't play golf, so she wants to go back to the way politicians in the past have done things where sit around after hours drinking and talking.  While that may sound nice to some (Personally I never like the thought of alcohol being anywhere near important decisions, but that's not even my point here.)  Our problems are not a matter of just changing the way things are discussed and negotiated.  They are a matter knowing how to negotiate and our politicians have proven that they don't know how.  What we need is someone who has American's best interest as their priority, not just making a deal with a buddy in politics.  Hillary is trying to get people to believe that "getting along" (sounds like Obama, doesn't it?) is what we need.  Any successful businessman knows that they don't have to get along with someone to do business with them. This isn't about being liked.  It's about successful negotiation.  And it appears that the only successful negotiation Hillary's ever been good at is getting people to pay her and her foundation big bucks in return for political access and favors.

When the article says that Hillary wants to break up the gridlock in Washington I am sure that all she means by that is that she wants total control and no one to challenge her.  With the Senate and House Republicans we have in office now (of which most will be reelected, so there will be no change in Republican leadership in Congress) she should have smooth sailing just like Obama has had.  After all, the Republicans have done nothing but rubber stamp virtually everything he's wanted to do.  

Fifth, if the GOP blocks her she'll use executive actions.  So, if she can't the parties to work together, then she'll resort to executive actions.  In other words, more Executive Orders just like Obama has used to skirt Congress and the law.  This is the mindset of tyrannical leaders.  And with Hillary we'd just be exchanging one for the other.  The only difference is that Obama has already laid the groundwork so that Hillary would not be starting from scratch.  She could go further and do it faster in destroying our nation and that should be what concerns voters.