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, 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.



Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Brexit Won't Save Britain

Here's the Nonsense:  Britain's vote to leave the EU assures their nation's future success.  Now they will no longer have the problems that have been tearing down their country.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Britain's vote to leave the EU, but it is just addressing a symptom of a much bigger problem.  Unless they fix the core problem, they are only buying a temporary reprieve from their ultimate destruction.

The results of the Brexit vote in Britain have the globalist establishment worldwide turned upside down.  To American conservatives this sounds like British citizens are rejecting the failed socialist policies of the British government.  But that's not the case at all.  In fact, this effort to leave the EU, while a good choice, will not save Britain from destruction.

The globalists are trying to come up with a way to stop Britain from leaving the EU.  But the people have spoken and short of outright theft and deception to reverse the vote, Britain's leaving the EU is set to happen (but don't be surprised if the globalists succeed in stopping the will of the people).  And many other European countries are hearing their citizens now crying out to leave the EU, too.  

At the same time, France and Germany are calling for the formation of a European Superstate. According to a report from the UK's Express, "Under the radical proposals EU countries will lose the right to have their own army, criminal law, taxation system or central bank, with all those powers being transferred to Brussels."  They think that forming one government for all European countries will solve their problems.  Sounds to me like a repeat of history.  Both Hitler and Napoleon thought turning all of Europe into one nation was a great plan.  

While the British citizen's demand to leave the EU seems like a similar cry against globalism that we hear here in America by the Trump supporters, it's not a rejection of the socialist society that has been set up in Britain and Europe.  It is not a turn to the same conservative nationalism that is exploding all over America.

The British are quite tired of the EU.  The idea of leaving was not popular among young voters.  The media and globalist leaders are saying that, as a result of the Brexit vote, the older people who strongly supported leaving the EU should lose their right to vote.  The glabalists believe those citizens aren't thinking clearly, but there is a really good reason why they voted the way they did.

Their vote was not a rejection of British socialism.  It was a rejection of Britain having lost its sovereignty as a nation to the EU.  They are old enough to have lived in Britain before the EU existed.  They remember what it was like for Britain to make its own decisions and not be forced to do things because of some European governance over them.  That is why they voted to leave the EU. They simply want their nation's sovereignty back.

But that won't be enough to save them.

Britain's conservatives are still to the left of our Republican establishment (and our Republican establishment is quite far to the left of where Democrats in the US were just a few decades ago). They still love big government and having that government control the lives of their people.  And the problem is that British citizens know no difference.  They've never had the freedoms we have in America.

For us to reject socialism is different than them.  We reject it because we see that it steals our freedoms, but they don't see that because they never had the same freedoms that we do.  To them this is about being able to make decisions as a nation that is free from the control of outsiders.  And because they don't understand the dangers of the big government socialism that controls their society, they can't understand that even after they exit the EU they will still continue to lose their individual freedoms as citizens as their government grows bigger and bigger.

The British also face other issues that will continue to work at taking down their country.

One of those is the political correctness that rules their society.  They are worse than Americans when it comes to political correctness.  Political correctness boils down to the government telling you how you must think and speak.  That is a problem that will destroy any society.  And Britain if far worse about political correctness than we are in America.

Another of their issues is their already overridden value system due to the huge influx of Muslim immigrants they've allowed into their country.  The immigrants' value system is different than the value system upon which modern British society was founded.  

Modern British society was founded upon the Judeo-Christian values that also are foundational to American society.  But Brits have slowly, over time, rejected those foundational values and allowed themselves to be influenced by failed value systems from other societies.  America is doing the same thing, we are just a few decades behind them in the process.  

When you add the influx of large numbers of Muslim immigrants bringing their faulty and failed value system into Britain, it has changed Britain's core (and has done so, too, in every country where it's been allowed to happen).  This is because Britain has quit expecting people who come from other countries to assimilate into their society.  When a nation does not require assimilation, the nation will be changed and even destroyed if the value systems it is allowing in are faulty.

London's new mayor is a Muslim who says he wants London to separate from Britain when it leaves the EU and he is welcoming all Muslim migrants to his city.  Areas of Britain are fully controlled by Muslims who have essentially set up Sharia law in those areas.  London is now known by many as Londonistan.

Just a few years ago Christian Action Network released a documentary about what was happening in Britain with Muslim immigration.  It showed how their society was being destroyed.  I guest-hosted a radio show at that time and had Martin Mawyer, the head of Christian Action Network, on to talk about it.  He told me that Britain only had a few years left before it falls and that the rest of Europe was close behind.  Then he added that America was on the very same path.

Britain's political correctness has caused a wholesale rejection of the Judeo-Christian foundation their country was based upon.  For example, the churches you find in Britain are more architectural models to be studied than they are used for spiritual purposes any longer.  Many Jews in Britain fear for their safety and are leaving the country because of the changes they see in their society.  Almost a year and a half ago I posted a piece here about a family moving to America because of it.  

Britain has abandoned what once was the foundation stone on which Britain's greatness was built, and that is why Britain is failing.  The infiltration of the Islamic culture combined with Britain's political correctness is a recipe for disaster.  Short of major changes, Britain as we've known it in our lifetimes will cease to exist in the not too distant future.

Leaving the EU may give Britain some sovereignty for a short period of time, but it will still fail.  Short of the British people re-embracing their Judeo-Christian roots, they cannot survive.  And Americans need to pay attention because this is the very thing at the core of the destruction of America.  Everything else people talk about are symptoms of this, not causes.  Unless this changes, America, too, will ultimately fail... regardless of what happens in our elections. 





Sunday, June 19, 2016

AG Lynch Having Orlando Shooter 911 Calls Edited To Make America Safer

Here's the Nonsense:  In response to events like the attack in Orlando it's best to cover up what really happened and be careful not to say things that may be inflammatory.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Only honest, plain spoken truth and common sense will save America.  Covering things and mincing words will only cause America's fall to continue.

RealClearPolitics.com is reporting on an interview of Attorney General Loretta Lynch by Chuck Todd at NBC.  In the interview Lynch says that transcripts of the 911 calls by the Orlando shooter will have references to Islamic terrorism removed prior to their being released.  So, Obama's most transparent administration in American history has decided that a lack of transparency is best for the American people.  

I guess ignoring and covering up the facts is our government's idea of how to make us safer.  

The article also mentions a Salon report saying:  "Everybody who was in the bathroom who survived could hear him talking to 911, saying the reason why he's doing this is because he wanted America to stop bombing his country."

So, his wanting the US to "stop bombing his country" doesn't reveal an allegiance somewhere else?  

But the president clarified it for those of us who aren't smart enough to understand.

"We see no clear evidence that he was directed externally, " President Obama said.  He went on to say, "It does appear that at the last minute, he announced allegiance to ISIL.  But there is no evidence so far that he was in fact directed by ISIL, and at this stage there's no direct evidence that he was part of a larger plot."  

So, if a terrorist doesn't receive direct orders from a terrorist group, but is only influenced by the terrorist group enough to proclaim their allegiance to them, then we're supposed to think that the terrorist group had nothing to do with it and we shouldn't be concerned about them?  And, of course, we're supposed to just ignore the fact that the Islamic State posted messages of support to social media when the Orlando attack happened.

The nonsense spouted by this administration defies any sense of logic.  Whether the Islamic State directly told this terrorist to do what he did or not does not mean that we should ignore their influence.  And the fact that all of these terrorists, whether it be the Islamic State acting in the Middle East or terrorists in Europe or here in American cities like San Bernardino and Orlando, give praise to their religion and its god should be enough for any half-thinking person to know there's a problem that has to be dealt with.

And yet we not only have this administration, but we have Republican politicians attacking Donald Trump for his no holds barred reaction that speaks plain, simple common sense.  Just like the Democrats, the Republicans are caught up in political correctness.  If America is to survive, we need common sense and complete rejection of political correctness.  Otherwise our nation will be burning like the Middle East.




Monday, June 13, 2016

Orlando Could Cause The Biggest Jump In Support For Trump Yet

Here's the Nonsense:  Trump may have support among some, but the core constituencies that support Hillary will never move to Trump.  Not even a terror attack could get them to move.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The terror attack in Orlando is waking up even more people as to the importance of this election.  The radical Islamic attack on the gay nightclub is having an impact in the gay community that the left never expect.

For a long time many of us have asked what it will take to wake people up to the hypocrisy of the left.  All too often we've seen them act hypocritically over and over again only to see many groups continue to support them and justify that support with irrational rantings of the Democrat talking points.  But it looks like this time that is not working so well any longer for some people.  And that could cause the biggest jump in support for Donald Trump yet.

The terror attack in Orlando this weekend appears to be that event.

While there are still foolish leftists trying to sell us on the idea that the problem is gun control laws, their anti-Second Amendment views have been exposed so vividly now that there are some people beginning to realize that the left's solutions won't protect Americans from the dangers of this world.

Terror is once again not just in our backyard, but it is right in our front yard.  Orlando's tragic events took a huge toll on America and has made people realize that even though the president and his cronies won't use the term "radical Islam" the fact is that radical Islamic terror is here and specifically going after certain groups and people.

The Orlando terror attack was specifically aimed at the gay community in America.  And some in that community have finally come to realize that the left ignores the safety of that community while claiming to be its friend.  The president's political correctness that pervades the Democratic Party (and the GOP Establishment goes along with it, too) puts looking the other way whenever any question is raised about radical Islam as more important than anything else, even when it endangers other politically correct groups in America such as the gay community.  (Note:  It has been reported that the RNC asked Donald Trump to not comment on the Orlando attack, but just give condolences.  Fortunately Donald Trump doesn't bow to the RNC, but speaks his mind without fear or reservation.)

Many of us have asked how the gay community can support these people when the very Islamists the Democrats actions protect are murdering gay people around the world, and now even here in America.

But when you find yourself facing people who are going to kill you, it would only be logical to wake up and side with those who will protect you.  Some in the gay community are doing just that as they realize that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton won't protect them from radical Islam.  In fact, it appears that already some in the LGBT community have decided it's time to move their support to Trump.

Gateway Pundit is reporting that the Phoenix LGBT tweeted the following:














This is a huge positive development for the Trump campaign and an even bigger loss for Hillary Clinton's campaign.  Once a core constituency starts to leave support of a candidate, it can be like a snowball starting an avalanche that can't be stopped.

Clinton has already seen Trump gain higher support among the black community than any Republican has had in decades.  Current polling shows 26% of blacks support Trump.  And the Democrats think that Trump will get no support from Hispanics, but current polling shows 37% of Hispanics support Trump.  For Hillary to be losing so many in her core constituencies could be a sign of real disaster.

The Phoenix LGBT, like so many other Americans, get it.  They understand that we're fighting for our lives, not just the survival of our nation.  Any Republican politician that hasn't gotten on board to support Trump and defeat Hillary (which also means defeating enemies like ISIS that the Democrats won't stand up to), isn't worth listening to.  In fact, they don't deserve their elected office.  

Whether it's Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell taking their cheap shots at Trump for a variety of reasons or any of the other former Republican candidates like John Kasich, Lindsey Graham, or Ted Cruz who make excuse after excuse for not supporting him, it doesn't matter.  There is no love for America in a Republican who won't do everything they can to defeat the Democrats in November, including supporting the Republican nominee.  If they won't get on board, they don't deserve reelection to their current offices when the time comes.


  






Sunday, June 12, 2016

What Does Campaign Efficiency Have To Do With A Candidate's Qualification For The Presidency?

Here's the Nonsense:  Campaigns are all different.  What one campaign needs for staff and expenses compared to another means nothing.  

Here's the Horse Sense:  Right in front of us we have a perfect example of how a candidate, if elected, would handle administration of the nation's business.  If they are wasteful in their campaign, they will be wasteful with our money when in elected office.

There have been all sorts of arguments laid out as to why Donald Trump is the only choice for president.  People have talked about his border wall and getting immigration under control.  His views on national security have been shown as another important area that is critical to America's future. Jobs and the economy certainly have been cited as reasons he is a far better choice than the Democrats.  And a strong military is certainly a driving force for many.  

These are not the only reasons, but some of the most common that you hear.  But a simple fact many people seem to miss comes down to business knowledge, experience, and savvy.  Most people in the media ignore this factor because they really have no idea what it takes to start, build, and run a business.  

But businesspeople can understand it.  And, quite simply, everyone should understand why a successful businessman is the best choice to lead America.  

If you've ever taken on personal risk by putting everything you have on the line to make a business successful, then you know what I'm talking about.  People who go into business learn quickly that efficiency is critical for survival.  

I remember years ago when I owned a business that was doing well in a very competitive market.  Profit margins were tight and I had to keep overhead low and be very efficient.  I had to watch every dollar spent to assure the biggest success.  Even when my businesses have been extremely successful I've always kept an eye on costs to make sure we can be as efficient as possible.

And, during years where I've been hired to run businesses for other people I've done the same thing.  No business or organization has unlimited resources no matter how big they are.  And only a fool spends money wastefully.

Yet there has been story after story of the failed campaigns of other Republicans during this primary season that showed they spent exorbitant  amounts of money during their campaign.  A perfect example was the Jeb Bush campaign that spent lavishly when they should have been watching every dime.

Whether it's the Republicans or Democrats who've been running, there have been few examples of money being handled well by the campaigns... with one exception.  That exception is the Trump campaign.

Donald Trump's huge success in business causes him to be very careful with money.  He has more money than all of the 2016 candidates who've run put together (that's all the candidates on BOTH sides of the aisle), and yet he is more careful how he handles money than any of them.

And, as proof of his understanding of budgeting, labor costs, efficiency of operations, etc., a recent graph has been put out comparing his costs to those of the two remaining candidates, Sanders and Clinton.  See chart below and click here for link to original source:


It's apparent that Clinton and Sanders have no idea how to run something efficiently.  They would make no efforts to cut wasteful government spending.  They would make no attempt to create efficiency in the government bureaucracy. They would only do what all politicians do, increase spending and pay for it with increased taxes and debt.  They would crush the chances of a future for our children and grandchildren.

With America facing the largest debt of any nation in world history, a debt that may very well be so large we may never be able to pay it off, the last thing we need to do is be inefficient in how we handle our money.

Donald Trump's life has been about running businesses efficiently.  That's something he brings to the presidency that no other candidate brings with them.  It's yet another reason why getting off the sidelines and joining the fight to see to it that Trump wins and the Democrats lose is crucial to our future.