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


Monday, July 28, 2014

Obama Again Reveals His True Plans, But Do Americans See It?

Here's the Nonsense:  President Obama is right when he says that we should embrace a new economic system that fixes the unfairness caused by the wealthy and businesses in our economy.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The president simply wants to take down America's economic system to replace it with a system that will leave us with an economy and prosperity level of Soviet-era communist countries.  Americans have to make a choice about the future of America.

Breitbart is reporting that, in his Saturday address, President Obama said:
"When some companies cherrypick their taxes, it damages the country's finances," adding, "It adds to the deficit.  It makes it harder to invest in the things that will keep America strong, and it sticks you with the tab for what they stash offshore." 
"...they're renouncing their citizenship and declaring that they're based somewhere else, just to avoid paying their fair share."
"...let's embrace an economic patriotism that says we rise or fall together, as one nation, and as one people."

The message is huge.  Obama is revealing once again what his true plans are for America.  But most Americans will miss it.  

What Obama is saying is that Americans need to accept the idea that the government has the right to steal, in this case from businesses. And he is also trying to get people to think it is evil for companies to seek what is in their best interest, their bottom line.  

Obama has spent his entire career, first as a community organizer and then as an elected politician, vilifying business as evil.  This creates an "us versus them" mentality among his listeners that is ripe for the progressive message that things are not fair and something needs to be done to make them fair.

With that mindset people are ready to be led down a path of destruction as they listen to the progressive "solution" that only government under their leadership can make things right.  This gets people thinking that they will be taken care of and never have to worry again.  It's a faux message of security that people grab onto, especially in times of economic difficulty, hoping that the government will save them... but it won't.  It can't.

It is a message that gets people thinking that the government will take care of them and they will never have to worry again.  They don't have to be responsible.  They can just ride along and have their desires met by somebody else.  No responsibility, just leisure and an easy lifestyle.

This mindset doesn't understand that businesses are what drive our economy, not the government.  Government can only make it easy or hard to do businesses.  They cannot make the economy good.  In fact, unless kept on a strict leash, they can and will make the economy bad, as we see happening today.

Businesses are, by nature, intended to make money so they can grow and prosper.  And that prosperity is passed on as they hire more workers, buy more supplies, and invest their profits.  Businesses are in business to make money, and when they do the economy thrives.  

Let's go back and look carefully at what Obama is saying:
  • Obama says that by seeking legal ways to protect themselves from paying too much in taxes that it damages the country's finances.  In other words, he can't spend as much because the big, bad businesses have the nerve to not give him more money. 
  • He says it adds to the deficit.  That means that the country has to borrow more money to keep spending like drunken sailors instead of being responsible and living within a budget that we can afford. (My apologies to drunken sailors, I know that you're more responsible than our government!)
  • He says it makes it harder to invest in things that will keep America strong.  Once again, he believes that strength comes from spending (his definition of "investing" can only be described as outrageous, uncontrolled spending).  And that spending is to be on social programs that have been proven not to work.  
  • Then he adds that it sticks the citizens with the tab, when in reality the tab we are being stuck with is that of rampant, irresponsible spending that is so out of control that we are the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.
  • He goes on to blame his inability to get his hands on more of the corporate money on the very companies that provide jobs and create a successful economy for our nation.  He does this instead of taking responsibility for increasing our spending and debt more than the mind can comprehend.  
Obama's goal in saying these things was to once again try to get the American people to support his ridiculous idea that fairness is what he determines it is and that if things are's fair, then only the government can make them right.  Once again, this helps create discontent, which is part of the progressive plan, so that as things continue to get worse people will become more receptive to progressive politicians who promise fairness.

They try to get voters to think that their lives aren't fair and that the government has the answers to fix it.  

The tout the idea that "social justice" is the answer, but it is really just taking what someone has earned as a result of their own hard work and giving it to someone else.  And no, it's not a fun story like Robin Hood.  It's about taking YOUR hard-earned resources and giving them to someone else because the government determines that you don't have the right to the fruits of your labors.

I've got news for them.  Life is not fair.  Period.  And government is the worst answer to problems.  Another period.

The prosperity that we have lived with and enjoy in modern America has come about because of our free market system that has allowed people to prosper as a result of their hard work.  Doing things the progressive way allows them to decide at any given moment whether you should keep what you've earned or whether it should be taken and given to someone the government says deserves it more.

But this is not just who Barack Obama is, it's who the progressives are.  They have taken control of the Democrat Party and infiltrated our government to collapse it and replace it with their socialist/marxist style-system.  They have indoctrinated Americans over the decades to think that marxist ideology is no longer a threat, but it is alive and well and living under the name of progressivism.  If you don't believe it, just to a little honest study and it's easy to see there really is no difference.  So, unless we understand that the only option is to defeat the Democrat Party, we will lose this nation.

Barack Obama has never hidden what he is doing.  All the citizens had to do was pay attention.  But this time, just as before, I doubt that Americans are seeing it.  There is no longer much critical thinking done by Americans.  There is just a blind following of their narcissistic desires with no thought or care for the future that our children and grandchildren face.

Those selfish desires have brought our nation to its knees.  So now that we are humiliated from allowing this to happen, we need to ask if we are willing to respond in a whirlwind of fury to fight with everything we have to save this great republic that is the last hope of liberty for the world.  Or, do we stay down on our knees like a prisoner about to be executed and allow them to finish us off and let the great America we have known go into the dustbin of history?

It's your choice.


Tuesday, July 22, 2014

Court Finding Is Potential Crippling Blow To Obamacare

Here's the Nonsense:  Obamacare is solidly entrenched as valid and good law as supported by the Supreme Court.  Nothing is going to remove it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Obamacare is not good law, it's questionable at best. This ruling shows it has a weakness that may be devastating to the law's future.

We've all been waiting for it.  Most Americans have been hoping for it.  And now the U. S. Court of Appeals for Washington, D.C. has issued a ruling that almost 5 million subsidies given to Obamacare subscribers are illegal. Could this be the Achilles heel that takes Obamacare down?

Since its inception as an idea, long before it was even passed into law, the majority of Americans have been against Obamacare recognizing that it would destroy the quality healthcare that Americans have come to enjoy.  Constitutionally it didn't stand as legal, but Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts changed his opinion at the last minute in a twisted attempt to make it appear legitimate and pushed the vote that allowed it to stand.  While Americans screamed "foul play" their cries fell on deaf ears.  Congress, who is supposed to represent the people, didn't listen and stop the fiasco (the House has the constitutionally authority to defund it, but wouldn't).  

With the exception of a few brave and honorable elected officials, most sat on their hands and did nothing to stop this monstrosity of a law that is a foundation stone in the plan to destroy not just our economy, but our republic.  

Fortunately that didn't stop Americans who care about our future.  Lawsuits have been brought against Obamacare for a variety of reasons.  Some, like the recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case, have had positive outcomes for liberty, but still aren't enough to do a death blow to the law.

Many cases are working their way through the court system and some may eventually land at the Supreme Court.  This case about subsidies is very close, having made it to the appeals court level.  And this may give Americans a chance at seeing this law stopped before it does the guaranteed damage it will do not just to our economy and nation as a whole, but to individuals as they will find the care they receive will be substandard and even limited or non-existent if they don't fit the criteria the government bureaucrats decide are required to get care.  (If you haven't seen the work Dr. Ezekiel Emmanual, brother of Rahn Emmanuel the former White House Chief of Staff and current Mayor of the sadly failing progressive city of Chicago, then you don't understand how bad it's going to get.  Dr. Emmanuel is one of the key architects of the design of Obamacare and has published works worthy of Nazi Germany showing that only certain people should be given any significant level of care.)  

In a rather negative report, CNBC covers the decision and it's sister case that's pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in detail.  While CNBC may think it's negative and be promoting the idea that this decision will not stand.  Whether they're right or not we do not know.  But we must remember that no one knows because no one can foretell the future.  Americans need to be praying for a good outcome on this issue.  This could create a situation that was unforeseen by the administration and help result in the eventual end to this terrible law.

UPDATE (07/22/14 5:14PM ET):  Since the publishing of this post CNBC has now reported that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled on the similar case on this issue.  They have ruled that the federal subsidies are legal.  This split between the two courts could potentially take this issue to the Supreme Court, giving them another chance to correct some of the damage they did by their original Obamacare decision.

2nd UPDATE (07/23/14 7:59 ET):  National Review is now reporting"President Obama’s old Harvard Law professor, Laurence Tribe, said that he 'wouldn’t bet the family farm' on Obamacare’s surviving the legal challenges to an IRS rule about who is eligible for subsidies that are currently working their way through the federal courts."  While skeptics legitimately question whether our court system can actually do their job and not legislate from the bench anymore, Professor Tribe has a long career of legal expertise and still believes that the final result in these cases could be sound judicial ruling instead of the common imposition of a judge's ideology in their decisions.  National Review's article cites Tribe and other legal experts who raise a legitimate argument as to why the ultimate outcome should be a ruling that does severe damage to Obamacare. 


Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Finally, The House Uses Their Power Of The Purse To Reign In The IRS

Here's the Nonsense:  The House has cut some funding of the IRS and that is a bad idea because it will cause more who cheat on their taxes to get away with it since the IRS won't be able to afford to do as many investigations and audits.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The House action to cut some IRS funding is good news, but there will be tough consequences Americans will pay for it.  The House must do more to get our government under control.

In a report that seems filled with angst, the AP is reporting that John "Spineless" Boehner's House of Representatives has voted to cut the IRS Enforcement Division's budget by $1.25 billion, which is about a 25% cut.  The AP reports it while whining that it is "a 25 percent cut that would mean fewer audits of taxpayers and make it more likely that people who cheat on their taxes will get away with it." They are more interested in having a strong-armed government controlling citizens, especially conservatives, than they are in stopping lawless, out-of-control government.  But will the result be good or bad?

The debate has gone back and forth in conservative circles as to how to reign in the abuses of the IRS.  Many have called upon House Speaker John Boehner to use the power that our constitution gives the House of Representatives to control the money used throughout government.  By cutting funding to things they can have a powerful impact on what happens in our nation.  But until now they have not had the backbone to use that power.  For example, when conservatives were calling for the defunding of Obamacare, which the House had the power to do, those calls fell on deaf ears.  Why Boehner and the other establishment GOP members of the House wouldn't take a stand is up for debate.  Their public reason had to do with bad timing and fear that it would make the GOP look bad for taking on the first black president's signature law.  Personally, I believe they wouldn't take it on because they really don't want it to go away.  I think the establishment GOP wants the power and control that Obamacare gives the government over citizens, just like the Democrats do.  But regardless, it is a perfect example of something that the majority of Americans want stopped and the establishment GOP wouldn't listen and do just that.  

But this time they have actually taken a stand and defunded some of the IRS power.  This is very good news.  This is a good lesson for them that they can use that power they have to do what the American people want.  Even though it's good news, though, will the result be good or bad?  

This is a difficult question.  I agree with the action, but I can see it backfiring on American citizens.  The leftists who control our government are going to be very upset about this.  And leftists are known to retaliate against those who disagree with them.  They cannot stand disagreement, criticism, or even humor.  So my suspicion is that even though this will have an impact on the IRS, I think there's a good chance that the result will be the IRS, and other government agencies, will double-down and use what funding they do have to focus even more on conservatives.  

By doing what they've done, the House may be facilitating harsher actions against conservatives.  What the House needs to do is reign in spending throughout the government.  They have the power and can use it to put pressure on each area of government that is out of control.  Cutting funding to Obamacare, the EPA, etc. will send a message and each time some agency abuses their power, the House should cut even more spending.  And they should not just do it to the agency that is directly involved in that abuse.  They should do it across the board sending the message that an elementary school teacher sends when they tell the class that every time someone misbehaves, everyone will lose privileges.  It adds peer pressure to keep in line those who choose to step out of line.

We must support the House for doing this and let them know we are behind them.  When they do something good they should be encouraged.  But we must also remember that the left will not stop doing what they are doing without a fight.  And that fight will be against the very Americans you see every day at work, in your neighborhood, at your church or synagogue, and everywhere else.  







Sunday, July 13, 2014

Compassion For Illegals? How About Compassion For Black Americans?

Here's the Nonsense:  We must have compassion for those poor children coming across our border, legal or not.  It's the right thing to do to accept them into our country.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Not only is accepting them the wrong thing to do, it ignores what this mess is doing to our fellow-Americans.  Real compassion says to protect our fellow Americans from this invasion.

Has anyone noticed that the Democrats who are pushing this whole illegal immigration mess have forsaken their most loyal party members in doing so?  That's right.  By pushing illegal immigration amnesty for millions of poor and needy foreigners who have come here hoping to join in on the freebies the American government is known to give out, they are bringing in more people to take the few jobs that are available in our country.  And that will impact the black community more than any other.  Some blacks are waking up to it and speaking out, but the Democrats don't care at all about the plight of black Americans.  Blacks are being thrown under the bus by the Democrats and they don't even know it.


We now have some blacks speaking out against what's happening on our border.  Breitbart published an article telling of a woman who was on Laura Ingraham's show telling of how bad things are for her family in Baltimore.  She told how her children could not safely ride their bikes in their neighborhood and she couldn't even take out the trash without locking her door.  She raised important issues for this administration.  She asked where she could get asylum and refugee status.  She recognizes that our government is putting money (that we don't have, by the way) towards these illegal immigrants while we have people in America in desperate need.


Update (7/14/14 12:34PM ET): And now it appears that the black community in Obama's own home district of Chicago are upset with him about this issue.  Gatewaypundit is reporting that some are even saying "he will probably go down as the worst president."

These are not lone stories.  Other stories have appeared where similar questions are being raised by blacks.  And they're legitimate questions.  We do have an obligation to take care of Americans before other people.  But the Democrats don't care.  The attitude the Democrats are showing says, "Who cares about the blacks?  They'll vote for us no matter what we do, so let them suffer with high unemployment, high crime in their neighborhoods, and other injustices.  What matters is for us to get these illegal immigrants into this country and give them citizenship so we can get more Democrat voters.  Blacks will always vote for us so it doesn't matter how we treat them."


The history of the Democrat Party with the black community has been long and consistent.  They have consistently caused the terrible treatment of blacks.  Fighting to keep them from freedom, to keep them from equal rights, to keep them from having the same opportunities as other Americans.  The Democrats have falsely told the black community that the best thing for them is to let the government provide minimal needs for them.  This is nonsense. The best thing is to help them get to a higher standard of living.


And sadly the majority of the black community have bought this bill of goods the Democrats have sold them.  Like a slick, fast-talking salesman who sells snake oil, the Democrats have sold the black community the lie that they care about them.

For the most part blacks in America don't recognize that they are simply being used by the Democrat Party (I wrote about it before here).  Their best interest is something Democrats don't even think about.  They just want the black vote and will tell any lie to get it.  Few Americans know enough about America's political history to know that the Republican Party was not only the party of which Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a member, but it was the party that was built with freedom and equal rights for blacks being one of the key foundation stones.  


The illegal immigrants flooding this country with the help of the Democrats will do more damage to the black community than any other.  Sure, the diseases and crime will affect all Americans, but the additional influx of lower-skilled labor will take more jobs from blacks as their community statistically relies more on those types of jobs than other racial or ethnic groups.  The nation's highest unemployment levels are in the black community and will be exacerbated by these illegals.  Standing up against the outrageous flood of illegal immigrants is about our borders, our security, our safety, and about standing up for fellow Americans who will be the most impacted by this mess.

If Republicans want to win new voters onto their roles, the black community would be a natural place to seek those votes.  Traditionally the black community embraces more conservative values than other racial groups in America.  While the influence of the lies of liberation theology have infiltrated many of their churches and ministers (just listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton for examples of this fallacy they call Bible teaching), the black community on the whole still has deeper connection to churches and traditional conservative values than even they realize.

If conservative Republicans would work to get the black community back, they would have a big increase in their voting strength while helping fellow Americans who need our help now in the face of the immigration debacle.

But winning anyone to your side in an argument takes time and effort.  It's not just about helping people once or about having a good argument against their political views.  Before any of that can matter people must see that they are important and cared about by those trying to win them over. 

While I long ago left the Republican Party and became an independent, I realize that the Republican Party is the only party that has a chance at saving America, so I support conservative Republican candidates.  There is not enough time left to start a new party or build an existing third party to the strength needed to save our nation.  So while we conservatives fight to get the Republican Party back to embracing its own platform, we must also bring others in to help us.  The black community is a community that was traditionally Republican and they've been hijacked.  Fighting to help them will win us the chance to be heard and allow us to start to win them over to help in America's turnaround.

The establishment Republicans (also known as foolish Republicans) think that giving amnesty to illegals will win the GOP the Hispanic vote.  It won't.  It never has and never will.  Winning back the black community can give needed help in our efforts to save America.  

Many people incorrectly think that Barack Obama and his sort represent the black community.  He doesn't.  He, like the Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of this world, are not interested in helping the black community.  They are interested in power and their lives prove it.  So let's show people by our lives what we really believe in and win people over to our side.  

The media are crying the blues for the illegal immigrant children flooding into our country.  They tell us that we can't turn our backs on them as that would not be the compassionate thing to do.  Yet the stories we are hearing about what these children are enduring in their trek to America is horrendous.  One third of girls making the trip are being sexually assaulted.  Children are being abused at unheard-of levels.  

The compassionate thing to do is to stop the incentive for their parents to send them on that trip to America in the first place.  If we close our borders tight and send those who have made the trek back, the message will travel that you can no longer get into America unless you follow the standard legal process.  That will remove the incentive for parents to send their children on that dangerous trip.  And keeping those children from going on the trip and avoiding the danger in the first place is the truly compassionate thing to do.

And while we're speaking of compassion.  The other compassionate thing we need to do is to stand up to protect Americans from the disaster that is upon us.  Standing up for our black friends and fellow-Americans is truly an act of compassion.  



Wednesday, July 9, 2014

Does Chaffetz Know A Secret About 2016 Election?

Here's the Nonsense:  Romney will run again in 2016 and win the presidency and save America from the mess we are in.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Romney very well might be the candidate, but it will be another big mistake if the GOP runs him again.

GOP Rep. Jason Chaffetz is raising eyebrows with his claim that Romney will run for president again in 2016.  Politico reported that Chaffetz was on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and said,  “I think he actually is gonna run for president. He probably doesn’t want me to say that.”  Chaffetz is a Republican from Utah and his comment raises an interesting scenario for 2016.

Many are saying that Chaffetz is just speculating, and he may be.  But on the other hand, he did say regarding another Romney run, "He probably doesn't want me to say that."  Is that speculation, or the comment of someone who knows?  Usually when a person says that a person probably would not want them to say something, it means that they have inside knowledge and are simply confirming what they know to be accurate.  

But whether it's speculation or not, the idea of a Romney run could fit the establishment GOP idea of a perfect candidate.  It was obvious that until recently the establishment's chosen candidate would have been Jeb Bush.  But Bush has not shown as much interest in running as the Karl Rove's of the establishment would like.  And Chris Christie, another former establishment GOP favorite, stumbled with his handling of issues in New Jersey and seems to have moved out of the favored status of the establishment.

It is very typical of establishment thinking that they would see how Romney was not only right about some issues during his 2012 campaign, but that many Americans have admitted that he would have been the better choice over a reelection of Obama.  Establishment GOP leaders could very well think that voter's remorse could drive a victory for Romney in 2016.

Certainly Romney has the experience of turning businesses around that would benefit him as president.  And he has proven himself to be an honorable man, something we certainly don't have anywhere near the presidency right now.  We all know that should something happen to the president, the vice president is next in line.  But what most people don't know is the order of succession after that.  If the vice president cannot serve then the order of succession is:

  • Speaker of the House of Representatives
  • President Pro Tempore of the Senate
  • Secretary of State
  • Secretary of the Treasury
  • Secretary of Defense
  • Attorney General
  • Secretary of the Interior
  • Secretary of Agriculture
  • Secretary of Commerce
  • Secretary of Labor
  • Secretary of Health and Human Services
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  • Secretary of Transportation
  • Secretary of Energy
  • Secretary of Education
  • Secretary of Veterans Affairs
  • Secretary of Homeland Security


Look at that list and think of the people in those positions and you'll see the U. S. has no one in the list who has shown themselves to be capable of helping our nation.  Romney stands far above any and all of them in comparison.  

All that said, he's not the man for the job.  You can have experience, integrity, and many other qualities but it doesn't mean you're the person who should lead America.  While certainly a better choice than anything the Democrats have to offer, Romney is still an establishment Republican himself who believes in big government and even refuses to admit the failures of his signature law as Massachusetts governer, Romneycare.  And I'll remind you that Romneycare was the blueprint for the disaster we know as Obamacare.  Romney's own advisors worked directly with the Obama White House to develop Obamacare.  And Romneycare has now shown itself to be a failure in Massachusetts.  But Romney has never promoted repeal of Romneycare, so we can't think he'd do much, if anything, about Obamacare.

No, Mitt Romney is a good man who I'd welcome as a friend, neighbor, and business colleague.  But he isn't the man to turn the United States around.  For that we need a solid and committed constitutional conservative.  There hasn't been one win the GOP nomination since Ronald Reagan.  Many voters today have never in their voting lives had the chance to vote for a constitutional conservative.  If we give them that chance, we could see another major turnaround of America like we did under Reagan.  If we allow the establishment in the GOP to choose again give us a candidate like Romney, we will lose, whether he wins or not.





Monday, June 30, 2014

SCOTUS Ruling Gives America A Chance To Avoid 1000 Years Of Darkness

Here's the Nonsense:  While today's Supreme Court decision about birth control is important, it's just one of the issues that needed to be dealt with but certainly not the most important one.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Today's Surpreme Court decision is not just about birth control, it's about the most important freedom American's enjoy.  It is critical if America is to survive as a constitutional republic.

I've said that America is about to fall into the thousand years of darkness that Ronald Reagan warned us about.  And with that I've said that two issues this year would determine whether there is still a chance to save our nation.  One of those issues was ruled on by the Supreme Court this morning.  That is the issue of religious freedom and was brought to the court in what most know as the Hobby Lobby case.  The ruling of SCOTUS gives hope for America.  It is the first of two issues America must deal with this year and that are pivotal in the fight to save our nation.

The battle to save our constitutional republic focuses on many areas, but this year there are two that are pivotal in whether we will still have a chance to save America.  One was ruled on this morning by the Supreme Court, the other will be the outcome of the midterm elections in November.  And with the SCOTUS ruling, which protects religious freedom, the most important of the two has been won and should give hope and new energy in our fight for our nation.

While many are writing today about the four drugs that are the basis of the specific objection of the companies involved in this case, and others are writing about women's "rights" and even about Christians forcing their beliefs on the population of the U. S. (and those are all valid and interesting discussions), I would like to remind all of us of how important religious freedom is to Americans and why it is the basis of the single most important amendment to our constitution.

The First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;  or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;  or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."  

Notice that the very first thing that is addressed is religious freedom?  Why?  Because they understood how important freedom of thought and belief was to all freedoms.  Without that freedom, all other freedoms fall apart.  It is the foundation stone upon which a free society is built and secured.

To understand the importance of religious freedom we must look at a brief history that led up to and dramatically affected the mindset of many of our nation's founders as our nation was formed.  Much of the beliefs were based on the thoughts of John Locke.  Locke was especially influential when it came to his views regarding the repeal of the French Edict of Nantes.

The French King Henry IV, as Wikipedia shows, was King of Navarre (as Henry III) from 1572 to 1610 and King of France from 1589 to 1610.  He was baptized as a Catholic but raised in the Protestant faith by his mother, the Queen of Navarre, he inherited the throne of Navarre in 1572 on the death of his mother.  As a French "prince of blood" by reason of descent from King Louis IX, he found it prudent to abandon his Calvinist Protestant faith.  His coronation was followed by a four-year war against the Catholic League to establish his legitimacy.  He promulgated the Edict of Nantes in 1598, which guaranteed religious liberties to Protestants, thereby effectively ending the Wars of Religion.


The Edict of Nantes gave Protestants the right to hold public worship in many parts of France, except in Paris.  The Huguenots (Protestants) were granted full civil rights and a special court was established to settle disputes arising from the edict.  The schools at Montauban, Montpellier, Sedan and Saumur were permitted to be Huguenot.  One hundred cities were given to the Huguenots for an eight year period.  For areas where Catholicism had been interrupted, they were reestablished and extensions, by Protestants, into these Catholic areas were prohibited.   

Pope Clement VIII and the French Catholic clergy disagreed with the Edict of Nantes.  In 1629, the chief minister of King Louis XII annulled the edict’s political clauses.  In 1685, Louis XIV revoked the entire edict and took away the civil and religious liberties of French Protestants.  Within just a few short years more than 400,000 French Protestants had emmigrated to other countries, which severely impacted the French economy.  (A separate study of the impact of Protestantism on an economy is not a topic many people find easy to accept, but will reveal that Protestantism was a core ingredient in the rise of prosperity in nations where it flourished, especially America).  Those Protestants who were still in France did not see their civil rights restored until the French Revolution of 1789 – 1799.

With that history in mind, Locke wrote A Letter Concerning Toleration in 1689 where he shows that Martin Luther's work in the Protestant Reformation created views that each person should access God through individual prayer and Bible study and not rely on a church to determine a relationship with God.  This is often known as the priesthood of the believers, where Luther embraced the original New Testament teaching that each believer is seen as a priest serving God.  That belief puts the individual in a position above the church and the state, with direct access to God and truth. 

Each person now had the duty and right to seek this truth from God, through both the Bible and through nature.  The church and the state exist to support and protect the rights of the individual.  There is a separation between church and state because their jurisdiction is limited to their separate spheres of concern:  spiritual and civil.  The separation is of equality and mutual respect, with each respecting the sovereignty of the other in its own sphere.

Thus the individual's rights resulted from the duties that they owe to God, thereby also placing a resistance to the state when it tries to infringe on the spiritual rights of man before God.  This was the underlying thought that was embraced by many of America's founders, and thereby inspired the thoughts behind the First Amendment.  

The right to freedom of religion includes the right to freedom of thought and belief.  Without that right, there is no foundation for any freedom.  This is why the Supreme Court's decision today is critical if we are to maintain a chance at turning our nation back to what it was founded to be. Our freedoms depend on it.  

Now, the second most important event in 2014, the midterm elections, are in November and will determine how big the task ahead of us is to restore America's constitutional republic.  From what we've seen in the primaries it is a huge task that if we embrace will mean it will take many generations to turn this country back to what it was founded to be.  If we are successful, our children and grandchildren will have to pick up the mantle from us and carry the battle on so that their grandchildren will have the nation our founders gave us.




Monday, June 23, 2014

Is Hillary Throwing Obama Under The Bus?

Here's the Nonsense:  The new book by Edward Klein about the feud between the Clintons and Obamas is nothing but gossip, but it does tell us a lot about them from behind the scenes.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Klein's new book may or may not be accurate, but it certainly may be that he's being used as a tool for the Clintons and doesn't even know it.  The Clintons may just be using him to help throw Obama under the bus.

Speculation of a presidential run by Hillary Clinton has gone on for years. Today she's touted as being the best candidate the Democrats could run, but things in her past haunt her, especially the Benghazi disaster.  Now a new tell-all book may be doing more than just giving a glimpse behind the curtain.  It may be an opportunity the Clinton's are using to attempt to throw President Obama under the bus regarding what happened in Benghazi.

In his new book, Blood Feud, author Edward Klein has written another book opening the doors to what are supposed to be secret, accurate accounts about key figures in American political life.  This time the book is supposed to uncover the hatred between the Clintons and the Obamas.  Unfortunately all too often in these types of books, the sources are not named and quotes are written on condition of anonymity. So, while Klein may have sources he's used to come up with the stories in the book, I wonder if some of those sources might just be planted to get Klein to put out information that will benefit the Clintons.  And Klein might not even realize it.

What makes me wonder about this is what Klein writes about the Benghazi tragedy and Hillary's involvement.  The New York Post has published an article by Klein about this section of the book.  It says:

“Hillary was stunned when she heard the president talk about the Benghazi attack,” one of her top legal advisers said in an interview. “Obama wanted her to say that the attack had been a spontaneous demonstration triggered by an obscure video on the Internet that demeaned the Prophet Mohammed.”
This adviser continued:  "Hillary told Obama, 'Mr. President, that storny isn't credible.  Among other things, it ignores the fact that the attack occurred on 9/11.'  But the president was adamant.  He said, 'Hillary, I need you to put out a State Department release as soon as possible.'"  After her conversation with the president, Hillary called Bill Clinton, who was at his penthouse apartment in the William J. Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and told him what Obama wanted her to do. 

“I’m sick about it,” she said, according to the legal adviser, who was filled in on the conversation. “That story won’t hold up,” Bill said. “I know,” Hillary said. “I told the president that.” “It’s an impossible story,” Bill said. “I can’t believe the president is claiming it wasn’t terrorism. Then again, maybe I can. It looks like Obama isn’t going to allow anyone to say that terrorism has occurred on his watch.” 

That story clearly points the blame at Obama for the mass deception about what happened on that terrible night in Benghazi.  And that would be just what Hillary would want to try to distance herself from responsibility, especially if she decides to run for president in 2016.  

The Benghazi scandal is the key issue that could derail a run by Hillary for the presidency.  Even though no one, not even Hillary herself, has been able to list a single accomplishment of any part of her role as Secretary of State (or any other part of her life including as First Lady and senator), Benghazi is the one issue that could hurt her.  

Everyone is willing to look past her worthless and unaccomplished career, but what happened in Libya haunts her.  It will be a critical issue that Republicans would try to keep at the forefront of the news should she run in 2016.  If the Clintons can successfully make the public believe that she was not responsible and Obama was, then they have a chance at making her look like a victim that was just following orders (Not a good defense, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to make it work.).

The Clintons are known for doing whatever it takes to win, even if it means blaming others (ask the women who had to deal with them when Bill got himself in trouble with sex scandal after sex scandal).  And even though Klein writes the book with the idea that some undisclosed source has revealed this, I would like to suggest that it wouldn't be surprising to find that the Clinton's made sure this story got into the book in an effort to try to clear Hillary of responsibility.  Klein's sources may very well have been planted to make sure he got the information they wanted made public.

I am still not convinced that Hillary will run in 2016.  She ran in 2008 and it was said the nomination was hers for the taking long before the primaries started. But something changed during that primary season (a story too long to go into here) and suddenly she was pushed out of the way for Obama.  That could happen again.  The media was sure she had the nomination in 2008 and they're sure now.  They've certainly been wrong about enough things in the past that their view should not be taken that seriously.

But the Clintons play every side of issues until they decide what they are going to do. Right now they are positioning themselves so they're ready should they decide that Hillary will run.  If she doesn't, this story still helps to clear her name for her legacy.  The looming question that remains is whether this story will cause retaliation by the Obamas against them.








 

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Most Conservatives Are Missing The Most Important Story This Week

Here's the Nonsense:  There are a lot of important stories in the news. Raising awareness about any of them is good enough.  We just need to make sure people are educated.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Many stories in the news are important and need to be brought to the public's attention.  But there is one this week that overrides them all and is not getting the attention it needs.  There are only a few days left to do anything about it.

There are big headlines this week that should be addressed, but the most important one is not being given the priority it needs to have.  Today as I write this it is Sunday, June 15.  On June 19 the vote on a replacement for Majority Leader Eric Cantor's replacement will be held.  The person who gets this position is a huge determiner of where the Republicans in Congress are headed.  With so few days to build support for a conservative candidate, every conservative media source should be hammering home the importance of the pressures that need to be put on our representatives to vote the right way.  But instead, I see very little being written or spoken about it.  The conservative media are too focused on other stories that, while important, are not near as urgent as this one because this one only has a few days to succeed or die.  And if it dies, it will be another blow to conservatism and the elimination of one of the last chance's to get Congress under control.

The important stories in today's news are mind-boggling in both content and number.  Just a sample of those vying for the position of most important include:  

1.)  A little reported story in Iraq that Americans were evacuated except for about 100 American contractors.  They were left to fight off the terrorist insurgents of ISIS who had surrounded the air base outside of Baghdad where they were trapped.  American flights getting our people out had ceased at the end of last week and those 100 remained fighting to keep ISIS from taking over.  Obama wouldn't commit to even sending air strikes to help them while they get out.  Sound familiar?  Leaving Americans behind, whether it's in Benghazi, Libya or Iraq doesn't seem to matter to this administration. The only ones he shows any worry to get out of harm's way are those that appear to be deserters (pronounced "Bergdahl").  Certainly this is an important story, especially given the urgency those people are facing.  But it should be a no-brainer that we should always, ALWAYS go back for our own and use any means necessary to get them out.

2.)  Certainly another important story is the bigger story of Iraq's fall to ISIS overall.  The Guardian reports that even Iran has sent in troops to help Iraq.  Iraq and Iran have asked the U. S. for help, but we have a president who says he'll think about it, and then gives some poppycock story about needing to get a commitment from Iraq as to their willingness to be open to political negotiations before he'll do anything.  Then he heads to a golfing weekend.  

We shouldn't have left Iraq when we did or how we did.  Even if we made a mistake going to war there doesn't mean that you leave people without help who clearly are not able to help themselves.  I heard K. T. McFarland say last week that Bush shouldn't have gone into Iraq and Obama shouldn't have left Iraq.  I think those are some pretty accurate words.

3.)  If those stories aren't enough, the Daily Mail is reporting that the IRS is now saying that those two years of Lois Lerner's emails that the House had subpoenaed have been lost due to a computer problem.  Isn't that convenient?  As the bloodhounds get closer and closer to the truth, the key email evidence in the investigation are suddenly lost.  

Hey, I've got an idea.  Why doesn't the investigating committee just subpoena them from the NSA?  No matter what they tell us, we all know they have them (and every other electronic communication of any kind from every American).  Privacy is non-existent in America anymore, so let's at least use this wicked system the government has set up to spy on all of us to get information we need to ferret out some real crime.

And the list of stories goes on and on.  

But as important as they are, they pale in comparison to Idaho Republican Raul Labrador choosing to run against Kevin McCarthy for the Majority Leader position in the House of Representatives.  Most people won't even read this until tomorrow, June 16.  That means they have only 3 days to make an impact that will push the election Labrador's way.  As liberal as Cantor's establishment Republican views are, McCarthy is much further to the left.  That will only enable John Boehner and his buddies to continue to give in to this administration and sell America out.  Getting someone like Labrador into a high leadership position like Cantor has held gives conservatives a voice in leadership and a chance to push back to get control of our nation again.

The establishment GOP won't easily give up their power and their ill-conceived notions of where to take America.  Eric Cantor's loss in his primary election this past week was good news for conservatives.  But it's not enough.  

Former RNC Chairman Michael Steele is now suggesting that Cantor should get his old job as head of the RNC.  That would ensure an ongoing stranglehold by the establishment on the RNC.  With Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy being pushed into Cantor's old job as Majority Leader, the establishment shows it has learned nothing and intends on business as usual, which is a death sentence for America.

With so little time left before this soon to be held election, it's imperative that EVERYONE is contacting their representatives and putting pressure on them to vote for Labrador.  The primary elections this spring have not gone very well for conservatives.  If we miss this chance, we've just given up one of our last hopes at successfully turning America around.

So, if you're in the media you should be writing and talking about this over any other story for the next few days.  Conservative citizens should be putting pressure on their representatives and talking to everyone they know and meet to do the same.  Until June 19th, nothing else matters.  



Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Cantor Primary Loss Is Not As Much Good News As Conservatives Think

Here's the Nonsense:  Eric Cantor's defeat is proof that Congress will return to the control of conservatives in the midterms this fall.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Eric Cantor's defeat is good news, but there are a lot of signs that it is minor compared to the work we have left to do to save America.

Eric Cantor, the second most powerful Republican in the House GOP leadership, lost his primary election in Virginia yesterday.  The left is screaming that the extremist Tea Partiers have impacted the GOP.  The establishment GOP are worried about the undermining of their control and power.  Conservatives are excited and enthusiastic about the future, but they need to be careful and realize that this is not the victory they're thinking it is.

Certainly it's very good news that Eric Cantor has lost his primary.  The major reason was his stand on immigration amnesty, but it's also due to voter frustration with the establishment GOP having sold them out for power.  Voters in Virginia had the wisdom to do their homework and throw Cantor out, something the rest of the nation should learn from.  Voters that are paying attention, which are few in number, are fed up with Washington and both the Democrats and establishment Republicans.  If they'd band together and educate the majority of voters, this could happen across the nation.

A perfect example of what didn't happen in this year's primaries (but should have) is Senator Lindsey Graham's win.  Conservatives across the nation have come to despise the positions that Lindsey Graham and his buddy John McCain have taken over the years.  They have sided more with Democrats than the voting base.  But somehow the voters in Graham's district keep electing him. It's hard to believe in a strongly red state like South Carolina.  

And that's the problem we need to be aware of while we bask in the glow of conservative victory against Cantor.  If Graham can still win in a state that brought us Jim DeMint (a sad loss to the Senate when he retired) and Trey Gowdy, then we have to be very careful not to get overconfident when someone like Eric Cantor is defeated in Virginia.  

Cantor's defeat is reason for celebration, no doubt.  But the fact that Graham can still win says that we've got a very long road to take this country back.  We should use the Cantor defeat to inspire us to dig in our heels and work even harder to try to save America.  

There are many bad things happening in our country and little will be done to hold this administration accountable.  But the key to victory against the progressives in both the Democrat party and the establishment Republicans is educating our fellow voters.  Few American voters really know what's happening in our country.  If we don't educate them they will continue to reelect the Lindsey Graham's to office.  The fact that we haven't done that already and establishment GOP candidates did extremely well in the primaries this year may already have doomed our chances.  

But we must continue the fight, which means putting such pressure on the establishment GOP that they move to the right and embrace the conservative values to which Americans hold.  You can bet the establishment GOP will be doing everything in their power to see that Tea Partiers are defeated in November, even though it would mean more control by the Democrats.

The chances of saving America hinge on two issues this year.  The first will be yet this month when the Supreme Court rules on religious freedom in the Hobby Lobby case.  America was founded by the people whose families came here fleeing religious persecution and seeking freedom and opportunity.  It's the cornerstone of our nation.  If it fails, our freedoms are doomed.

If it does fail, the only chance to save it will be dependent on the results of the midterm elections this fall.  If we don't get control of Congress back in the hands of the people, there will be no stopping whoever is president now or in 2016.  We have 5 months before those elections.  If religious liberty fails in the Supreme Court this month, only a successful takeover of Congress can bring it back.  And if it's not brought back by the Congress elected in November, it will be too late to get it back in the future.

Sunday, June 8, 2014

California Chrome Won The Belmont Stakes?

Here's the Nonsense:  The Triple Crown is a tough set of races.  It doesn't matter that the rules are set up to create less of a chance for a winner.  Either you win or not, even if your competition is allowed to be more rested.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Triple Crown is really not set up properly for an honest competition. Horses are allowed to compete in any of the 3 races without competing in the Triple Crown.  But this puts horses who haven't endured as much physical stress in competition with fresh horses and thereby reduces the chances of a Triple Crown win.  

Much of America was hoping for California Chrome to win the Belmont Stakes on Saturday, which would have made him the first Triple Crown winner in horse racing in 36 years.  However, for those of us who watched the race, disappointment set in when he ended up in a dead heat for 4th place.  But did he really lose the Triple Crown, or are we not hearing the whole story?

After the race pictures, were taken of an injury to California Chrome's foot.  No one was sure how he got injured, but it was said to be a painful injury.  That alone could be good reason for a finish short of first place.  But while that's a sad thing that may have robbed him of better performance, the real question is how the competition is held.  

One of the things that many people don't realize is how exhausting these races are to these horses.  First the Kentucky Derby, which is a monumental win for any horse, followed by the Preakness, another demanding race, and finished up with the Belmont, the longest and toughest of the three races, the Triple Crown is nothing short of grueling for any horse to complete, let alone win.  

But is it right that horses can choose to compete in only one or two of the races instead of all three?  Are the chances of winning the Triple Crown harder for those who compete in all 3 because their win could be undermined by a horse that is fresher and able to run at a different level of performance because they do not have the earlier races taxing their bodies?  That's what some are claiming and it's a reasonable inquiry.

If the Triple Crown is to be a true ultimate test of 3 year old race horses, then shouldn't the Triple Crown be limited to horses only competing in all 3 races?  Sure, if you don't compete in all 3 races, you can't win the Triple Crown.  But if, as happened Saturday, a number of horse owners chose not to compete for the Triple Crown and so they hadn't participated in one or both of the races prior to the Belmont.  The result was that their horses were racing for the win of the single event of the Belmont and due to their rested state were able to compete at a different level than horses competing for the Triple Crown.  Because they could win the Belmont without being Triple Crown competitors means that the Triple Crown contenders have a reduced chance at winning.

California Chrome was only beaten by horses that had not competed in both races before the Belmont.  Technically, he came in first of the horses that competed in all 3 races.  So, of those horses, he was the winner.  Wouldn't it only be right for horse racing to make the Triple Crown only allow horses in each of the 3 races that are competing for that title?  That would show a true competition of the horses who went the distance by running in the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, and Belmont Stakes.

I'm sure no one is going to change the way things have been done for all the years the Triple Crown has been run.  But it's too bad because little California Chrome had won the hearts of Americans and it would have been nice if he'd won the Triple Crown title, too.

Regardless of why California Chrome may not have won the Triple Crown, he's won the hearts of America.