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.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Why Conservatives Reject Jeb Bush & Why A 3rd Party Won't Work

Here's the Nonsense:  Even if Jeb Bush isn't everyone's favorite choice, he has shown himself as a conservative on a number of issues and should be supported.  If not, then we will need a 3rd party to win again.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Jeb cannot be considered conservative or a good candidate for any reason.  But if you think a 3rd party is the answer, you really don't know the condition of our country.

Within 2 days of the 2012 election I stated that Jeb Bush would be the preferred nominee for the Republican nomination in 2016.  Many were shocked.  One radio host even stopped me during an interview and marked his calendar to note my prediction and said he'd watch to see.  Well, now we're seeing it come to pass.  A new CNN poll is reporting that Jeb Bush has surged to the lead among Republicans for the 2016 nomination.  And it's a dramatic lead with the top 10 potential candidates coming in with these results:

Bush 23%
Christie 13%
Carson 7%
Huckabee 6% / Paul 6%
Rubio 5%
Ryan 5%
Cruz 4%
Jindal 4%
Perry 4%

The poll was supposed to be taken of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican.  If the poll is accurate, it means that the American people really didn't mean what they said by their votes in the midterm elections last month.  The message from that election was loud and clear that they wanted Obama stopped and the establishment Republicans stopped.  Yet according to these poll results, they prefer establishment Republicans.  

We should always note that when a candidate is easy to beat, the left either don't say much or make positive comments about the candidate. But when they scream about a candidate and make all sorts of ridiculous and false claims about them we should know that that candidate is too big a threat to them.  They aren't complaining about Jeb, they're liking him.  They scream about Cruz, just like they did about Palin.  And they used to take potshots at Reagan, too.  

These poll results don't answer the question the mainstream media is asking, which is why conservatives reject John Ellis Bush (Jeb).  They can't understand why the base, which are by a far majority conservative, reject Jeb.  I've even read lists of Jeb's accomplishments as governor of Florida that claim to show his conservative side on many social issues.  The reporters ask how he can be rejected when he's so conservative on those issues and only disagrees with the base on 2 issues.  

But those issues are amnesty for criminal immigrant invaders and a national Common Core curriculum for our schools.  Even if Jeb is conservative on all other issues (which I don't believe that he is), those two issues alone are enough to disqualify him from being considered to be a conservative.  What the left (and that includes the establishment GOP) don't understand is that there is no negotiation on some issues.  These are two of those issues.  If you reject the conservative position on them, that's enough to prove you're not conservative.

And unlike the left, who have no standards or true values because they have no morality, true conservatives understand that being wishy washy on issues like these means you're spineless, not extreme.  But if they want to call us extreme, so be it.  I, like any other conservative, will proudly wear the label of extreme if that's how they want to refer to us.

A good example of Jeb's wishy washiness on social issues is his record of supporting abortion in limited circumstances.  Sorry, but a parent who truly loves their child would die for that child.  You cannot justify killing the child because of a terrible event that happens to you.  It's not the baby's fault that something bad happens or could happen.  Something bad happening doesn't justify killing someone to make your life easier or longer.  Two good examples have been reported in the recent past where mother's gave their lives to save their unborn children.  You can read about them here and here.  Real love sacrifices for the best interest of others.  But Jeb, while saying he's pro-life, is willing to give up some of his principles by allowing an exception so that some people still could kill their child.  A true conservative stands on principle, even if it's not popular or comfortable.

So, with those areas where Jeb has proven himself unworthy to be considered a true conservative it's no wonder that conservatives reject him.  And it's also no surprise that the Democrats and establishment Republicans don't understand.  They'd have to have principles to understand.

But with the early push to get Jeb in place as the front runner for the 2016 nomination, we are presented with a clear question.  And I have to admit that I'm not sure what the answer is anymore.

I've always taken the position that conservatives should vote their hearts in the primaries, but vote with their head in the general election.  That means that you fight hard during the primaries to get your candidate to win the nomination.  But once the primaries are concluded, if your candidate didn't win then you should be rational and vote logically for the better of the Democrat or Republican candidate in the general election.  

That means that when conservatives didn't win the nomination when George H. W. Bush won it, or when Bob Dole won it, or when George W. Bush won it, or when John McCain won it, or when Mitt Romney won it, I supported them anyway because they were the better choice than their Democrat opponents.  I'm no longer sure that was the best position to take.  Had we fought back then to establish a 3rd party we would have had time to build it to enough strength to win elections today.  (Go to end of column and read note by * to read further discussion of why George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush also fit into this group.)

Matt Barber, in one of his most thought-provoking columns to date, has written a very important column you can read here.  He makes excellent points that have me thinking and possibly rethinking my position of supporting the Republican Party for so long.  

I have always thought we needed to fight to take the Republican Party back to its conservative roots and a re-embracing of its platform.  But that has not succeeded.  Instead we've allowed the establishment GOP so much power that they have used it to sell out the values of the base and become nothing more than helpmates to the Democrats.  
The problem is that we only have one election cycle left to turn this country in the right direction.  2016 is the final chance or we will lose the ability and freedoms to take it back.  Some say we're almost over the cliff, but I have come to conclude that we're already over the cliff and as the tail end of our republic goes flying past careening over the cliff this is our last chance to grab it and try to pull it back.  

Given that that is the situation we face, there is not enough time for a 3rd party, as some want, to be formed and built to strength to take the country back.  It would take numerous election cycles for a new party to become strong enough to win a national election and we don't have numerous cycles left before it's too late.  We've got ONE.  So it seems that our only hope is to fight with everything we have to take the Republican Party back.  But that fight must start now with the efforts of most Americans being involved.  

Usually most voters don't pay attention to what's going on or get involved until after Labor Day of election year.  That gives about 60 days until the election and we don't have that luxury.  We must start now to win the primaries early in 2016 so that we control who the candidate is.  That applies to the congressional elections that year, too.  Waiting until after the primaries, until after Labor Day, is too late to do anything.  That's what happened in this year's midterms and we ended up with mostly incumbent establishment Republican candidates to vote for against Democrats.  That cannot happen again.

So, do I think it's time to abandon the GOP?  While I struggle with this question, I'm not ready to give up, but I do think we're on our last moments of opportunity.  If we don't act now, it will be too late to act later.

UPDATE 12-31-14:  After receiving questions in the past 2 days about my position on this, and in light of what I wrote two weeks ago about Donald Trump, I will say that I do believe the best solution for the Republican Party is to find a businessman or businesswoman who understands how to solve problems and run an organization efficiently as their candidate for president.  I have yet to see a politician with the kind of needed mindset to solve America's problems.  I doubt the politicians would accept a businessperson, but it is necessary.  And, as I said a couple weeks ago, if Trump decides to run for president I have no doubt his skills would get him the nomination.  In fact, if Trump is the Republican nominee, it won't matter who the Democrat nominee is because Trump will win the presidency.  The exception to that will be if the establishment Republicans would succeed undermining someone they'd see as a newcomer to their game.  I have no doubt that someone like Trump would be a threat to the system they've set up and the establishment would rather have a Democrat win than someone from outside their clique.  But, I will warn those who doubt that if a marketing expert like Trump runs, even the best efforts of the politicians most likely won't be able to stop him. Marketing is far more powerful than people outside that world realize.    

* I mentioned that George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush fit in with the establishment losers in the list of Republican candidates.  We have not had a true conservative win the Republican nomination since Ronald Reagan.  George H. W. Bush may have been Reagan's vice president, but he was selected to bring in Republican votes that Reagan couldn't win, especially the northeast (home of the establishment GOP), not because he was conservative.  Go back and learn about the 1980 primaries and you'll see that the big difference between Bush and Reagan was the fact that Reagan was conservative but Bush was part of the establishment.  Yes, George H. W. Bush won election in 1988, which he won simply because he was Reagan's VP and the American people hoped he'd continue Reagan's policies.  But he lost in 1992 because he abandoned the Reagan policies and when the American people saw that, they dumped him.  

Then in 2000 when George W. Bush won, it was not because he was conservative (remember, he called himself a compassionate conservative because he didn't want people to think he was one of those extreme right-wingers who had no heart), it was because America had Clinton fatigue and that played against Al Gore.  The fact that Gore has no personality helped, too.  And W's reelection in 2004 was simply because we were in a war (America has always leaned to reelecting any president in office during a war) and also John Kerry was another mannequin candidate that had no appeal to the American people.  It was not about Bush being conservative, it was mostly about luck.  Had there been a skilled politician with the campaigning ability of Bill Clinton on the national scene in 2000 or 2004, there's no doubt in my mind that America would have fallen for him and elected him over Bush.  

America has not had a conservative nominee for president since Ronald Reagan.  And the only reason we had Reagan is because the grassroots got upset in 1976 when Reagan didn't get the nomination and Ford got it instead.  They rose up and worked hard so that in 1980 Reagan won.  That's exactly what has to happen now for 2016 or whoever the establishment candidate is (probably another Bush!), will be another disaster for America.

Sunday, December 28, 2014

Voters Must Change Or America Can't Be Fixed

Here's the Nonsense:  Sometimes we could choose better people for elected office, but for the most part we do okay.  After all, a person's private life isn't any reflection of what kind of leader they'll be.

Here's the Horse Sense:  What a person is in private shows exactly what they will be in public life.  You cannot separate the two, but the American voter pays no attention to these details when they elect people.

People don't want to face the facts.  America doesn't now how to choose leaders.

As I wrote a few years ago in my book, No Tomorrows, there are 3 core reasons why America faces imminent collapse.  One of those is our debt.  Debt drives our economy and with over $135 trillion in national debt and unfunded liabilities we cannot keep spending, but must cut WAY back in order to have a chance at surviving.

Another reason, which I have spoken a lot about lately, is the moral depravity of our society.  America has abandoned God and the moral responsibility that goes along with faith.  We justify behavior that is nothing short of ungodly and refuse to consider that unless we change, there is no hope for saving this country.

The other problem is who we pick to be our leaders.  It's not the leader's fault, it's ours.  We pick them with no thought as to the kind of people we're choosing.  As I talked about in my book, The Leadership Secret, the kind of people we choose to lead must be people of utmost integrity.  Out of the 537 people we elect to run our country (president, vice president, House members, and members of the Senate) I would bet that it would be hard to find a few dozen that have real integrity.  Certainly if God were to look in our government for righteous people He would find it is much like Sodom and Gomorrah, where He found only Lot and his family.  

It's not just about the man (or woman) we need to be concerned, but also about their family.  A person's family will tell you a lot about what kind of leader they will be.  

That's why God is so firm on the fact that a man cannot serve in a leadership role of a church if his family is not living the right kind of lives.  How his family lives reflects his leadership ability.  If he fails there, then he is not fit for leading in God's church.  It doesn't mean he can't usefully serve, but leadership is not a place where he is to be allowed.

While the Bible doesn't specifically give us a standard for elected leaders, it seems that a standard like the one God requires might be a good guideline for us to use when selecting people for public office.  

But America chooses people of low moral character and terrible disposition.  The position of president, for example, has come to be treated like royalty when, in fact, the president of our nation should be the highest level servant in the country.  And that means that they should be more of a servant than anyone else.

What I mean by that can best be described by the typical business organizational chart.  You've probably seen them.  They look like a pyramid with the CEO or owner at the top of the peak and everyone else in the organization under them.  

As a business consultant when I look at an organization the first thing I do is turn the chart upside down.  That's how a leader should see it.  The person who is CEO or owner should be at the bottom supporting all the people who work for them.  Their main job is to facilitate the success of their people and they do this through service.  The higher you go, the more you should be a servant whose main priority is making sure the organization runs smoothly.  This is done by making sure people have no obstacles blocking them from success in the performance of their jobs.  

Turning that idea to politics, that is exactly what our elected officials should see their jobs as.  They are servants, with the person who is president being the one whose life is one of service more than any other.  If they don't see themselves in that role, then they are not cut out to be a leader.  In fact, they prove they are not a true leader.  The current occupant of the White House is a perfect example.  He and his wife act like they are royalty and have total power over the nation, which is not what a true leader does.  And sadly, the American people allow it.

Much of the detail of the lives of elected leaders is kept quiet.  The media doesn't report much of these kinds of things and certainly the Secret Service and other government employees abide by an unspoken code to keep things quiet.  But in doing so they are doing a disservice to America.  We should know what these people are like in private because nothing will tell you more about someone than their personal, private life.  In fact, the old saying that who a person is really comes out when they are in private is really true.

But not everything is secret or kept under wraps.  A lot of this stuff can be found if a person is minimally diligent.  And we all should be as we look at the people we elect to office.

Recently Ronald Kessler was speaking at the Freedom Center's Wednesday Morning Club about his new book, The First Family Detail, which talks about what the Secret Service agents assigned to the first family deal with in their jobs.  He also gives some insights into what these elected officials are like in real life.  

Take a look at the following examples of the lives of the people we've elected in recent decades:

Barack Obama - We all know that the president spent 20 years listening to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's anti-white, anti-America, anti-Israel preaching.  Good people would walk out of such a place.  But Obama not only stayed, he had his entire family there listening with him.  And, from what we hear, Michelle was even more attracted to Wright's teachings.  Of course we also have heard Obama say he didn't hear those teachings, which is clearly an outright lie.  

The fact that he stayed there for so long, exposed his family to these things, and then lies about it should have told us quite a bit about him.  

However, we also should know that agents say that he and Michelle treat them with respect and are considerate to them.  But that is small consolation when they've heard Michelle urge Barry to attack Republicans more aggressively and side with blacks in racial controversies as opposed to trying to see things through a neutral lens.  As Kessler said at the Freedom Center, "I think that certainly has contributed to the violence and rioting.  Because he's essentially sanctioning the idea that we're all racists.  And of course, that goes back to Reverend Wright.  That was exactly his mindset.  And we're seeing it now with President Obama."

George W. Bush - One of the key problems Bush inherited when he entered the presidency was the lack of communication between governmental agencies, especially security agencies. The FBI and CIA were notorious for not communicating or sharing important information that would allow for better protection of America.  Bush changed that and made it such that if they didn't cooperate they were in trouble.  Under Clinton's Attorney General (Janet Reno), there was a wall that said that the agencies couldn't talk to each other.

Bush created the Counterterrorism Center where CIA and FBI sit side-by-side, 24/7, analyzing information.  They talk to each other all day, every day.  This was essential in the Bush administration's ability to keep us from another terrorist attack.  

George and Laura Bush also were very considerate of the agents who protected them.  That's why, for example, they waited until the day after Christmas to leave Washington.  They wanted the agents to be able to spend the holiday with their families.    

Bill Clinton - His constant skirt chasing is only too well known not just in America, but around the world.  That disgusting behavior along with his reputation for lying, but getting away with it because he was just a good ol' boy, shows how far we've fallen as a nation.  If the American people still had a moral base, they never would have let him get away with it.  The fact is that if a man will cheat on his wife, he can't be trusted in anything.  You cannot separate personal life from public behavior.  

And Bill's marriage to Hillary, which is clearly not anything more than a marriage of convenience that allows each of them to benefit from it, while ignoring the true commitment involved in a real marriage, also shows us a lot about him.  He does things, even something as sacred as marriage, for political power and personal gain, not because the institution of marriage means anything to him.

His unfaithful behavior has had such an impact on his family that before she got married, Chelsea called her mother for comfort worried about the possibility of it happening to her in her own marriage.  The damage that Bill's behavior has caused will carry on for generations in that family.

But we can't forget about Hillary, too.  Not just because she's Bill's wife, or was the First Lady, or was  a Senator, or was the Secretary of State (any of these alone would be enough reason to consider her behavior when thinking of leadership qualifications), but also because there's a lot of talk of her running for president again.

Secret Service agents tell stories of how miserable she makes life for them.  She explodes at them and makes them feel they can never do anything right.  She even complains when her limo goes over a bump in the road.  Being assigned to her detail is considered the worst assignment in the Secret Service, it commonly being considered as punishment.  

These are people who will give their lives to protect her, but she treats them terribly.  Kessler said, "Should we elect someone who treats other people in such a shabby way, who at the same time claims to be compassionate, to care about the little people?  She's going to be a champion of the middle class?  And yet, she cannot treat agents who are there to protect her, and even take a bullet for her, with decency."

And her behavior has been watched and copied by her chief of staff, Huma Abedin (wife of Anthony Weiner), who is known to be just as nasty.  When she doesn't have proper ID with her she gets indignant and asks, "Do you know who I am?" showing her arrogance and disdain for the agents.  

Nasty people beget nasty people. 

And one last thing about the Clintons.  Should a person like Hillary be considered qualified for elected office when she'll overlook all of Bill's behavior, act the way she does with people who are there to protect and serve her, and even put up with her staff acting the same way?  Her behavior exposes her lack of leadership qualifications.

George H. W. Bush - When he was Vice President the naval stewards at the Naval Observatory, which is the VP's residence, would make pastries and cookies.  They would hide them to keep the nighttime agents from taking them.  One morning at 3:00AM one of the agents was looking for the cookies and heard the vice president behind him ask, "Where are the cookies?"  They ended up looking for the cookies and together had them with milk.

Barbara Bush would offer to do the laundry of agents when they were at the Bush's Kennebunkport home.  She'd make sure the agents were dressed warmly and would insist that George get his hat and give it to an agent who would need it.  They were very decent and considerate people.

Ronald Reagan - Kessler says that Reagan was just as genuine and gracious in real life as he seemed to be on TV.  He greeted the pilots and copilots in the cockpit of Air Force One whenever he boarded the plane. (Jimmy Carter only did that one time in four years in office.)  

Nancy was more cold and difficult to deal with because of her loyalty to her husband.  It's also quite possible that the assassination attempt on Ron's life early in his presidency made her even more protective.  She would even give him instructions to wear his hat and gloves.

After he left office, before he got Alzheimer's disease, he would go out to spend time talking with the agents.  He remembered the names of each agent, too.

Jimmy Carter - Kessler says that Carter pretended to be a jolly peanut farmer and man of the people, but behind the scenes he was nasty to Secret Service agents.  He told them not to say hello to him in the morning.  He pretended to carry his own luggage for the press, but the suitcases were empty and as soon as the cameras were gone he stopped carrying them.  

He'd show up at the Oval Office at 5:00AM and tell the Press Office to tell the media that he was there working at 5:00AM, but then he'd sleep on the couch in the Oval Office. 

Certainly these are only a small snippet of examples that have been given here.  But they are enough to make the point that what a person is in their personal life affects their public life.

Who we choose for leadership is a major factor in determining where the country is going.  Unfortunately voters have not paid attention or held our elected officials accountable.  The result is two parties that are out of touch with the majority of the American people.  In fact, they are not just out of touch, they ignore the America people, which has been already seen by the actions of the GOP since the midterm elections.  The voters sent a clear message they wanted to stop what was happening in Washington and the GOP leadership has ignored it.  Yet I've heard that Mitch McConnell, the new majority leader of the Senate, has even said that it's more important to get along with the Democrats than it is to stand up against Obama's illegal actions.

America doesn't just elect a few bad leaders, we mostly elect bad leaders.  The few exceptions are rare.  It's going to take a lot of work from now until the elections in 2016 for us to even stand a chance at turning this country around.  It's the last chance we have, and things are not looking good.  A new CNN poll of Republicans and Independents who lean Republican has Jeb Bush in the lead for the 2016 nomination and Chris Christie in second place.  

With those kind of poll results it should tell us how out of touch MOST Americans are with what's wrong with our country and what needs to be done to fix it.

Thursday, December 25, 2014

The Impact of Jesus

Here's the Nonsense:  Christmas really isn't that important.  Only those who believe in Jesus should care about it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Christ's birth and life has impacted the world more than anything else in history.  To think otherwise is to ignore the last 2000 years of history.

It's Christmas morning and I hadn't planned on writing a blog post this week.  But somehow this morning as I was thinking about Christmas and what it truly means, I had to share my thoughts.

Christmas has become mostly a celebration of traditions that have nothing to do with the real meaning of the holiday.  People, even those who profess to be Christians, are caught up in family gatherings, holiday meals, decorations, and all sorts of things that, while nice, really too often become the focus of this time of year.  And when that happens, we are putting other things before what is truly important.  

But as I thought about Christmas this morning I found myself with way too many thoughts to share.  Then I remembered many things I'd read over the years that other people have said about the impact, the importance of Jesus Christ's life in world history.  So, I spent some time looking up some of those quotes and want to share them for you to reflect upon during this Christmas season:

Jesus Christ’s Impact on History

H.G. Wells said:
“In the reign of Tiberius Caesar a great teacher arose out of Judea who was to liberate the intense realization of the righteousness and unchallengeable oneness of God, and of man’s moral obligation to God…This was Jesus of Nazareth…Is it any wonder that to this day the Galilean is too much for our small hearts.”
When asked which person left the most permanent impression on history, Wells replied that judging a person’s greatness by historical standards:
“By this test, Jesus stands first.
“I am a historian, I am not a believer, but I must confess as a historian that this penniless preacher from Nazareth is irrevocably the very center of history. Jesus Christ is easily the most dominant figure in all history.
“Christ is the most unique person of history. No man can write a history of the human race without giving first and foremost place to the penniless teacher of Nazareth.”
Napoleon Bonaparte said:
"You speak of Caesar, of Alexander, of their conquests and of the enthusiasm which they enkindled in the hearts of their soldiers; but can you conceive of a dead man making conquests, with an army faithful and entirely devoted to his memory? My armies have forgotten me even while living, as the Carthaginian army forgot Hannibal. Such is our power.
“I know men and I tell you, Jesus Christ is no mere man. Between him and every other person in the world there is no possible term of comparison. Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have founded empires. But on what did we rest the creations of our genius? Upon force. Jesus Christ founded his empire upon love; and at this hour, millions would die for him.
“I search in vain history to find similar to Jesus Christ, or anything which can approach the gospel.  Neither history nor humanity, nor ages, nor nature, offer me anything with which I am able to compare it or to explain it. Here everything is extraordinary.”
Ernest Renan (French historian) said:
“All history is incomprehensible without Christ. 
“Whatever may be the surprises of the future, Jesus will never be surpassed.”

Kennesth Scott Latourette (former President of American Historic Society) wrote In A History of Christianity:
“It is evidence of His importance, of the effect that He has had upon history and presumably, of the baffling mystery of His being that no other life ever lived on this planet has evoked so huge a volume of literature among so many people and languages, and that, far from ebbing, the flood continues to mount.
“As the centuries pass by, the evidence is accumulating that measured by its effect on history, Jesus is the most influential life ever lived on this planet. The influence appears to be mounting.
“No other life lived on this planet has so widely and deeply affected mankind.”

George Bancroft (American historian) said:
“I find the name of Jesus Christ written on the top of every page of modern history.”

Will Durant (historian and philosopher), when asked what he felt the apex of history was:
“The three years that Jesus of Nazareth walked the earth.”

As impressive as all those quotes (and many others) are about the impact of Jesus' life, what I've found that may be the most well-written, profound description of the impact of the life of Jesus might be this piece called One Solitary LIfe by Dr. James Allan Francis:

One Solitary Life

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village as the child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another obscure village.
He worked in a carpenter shop until he was thirty and then for three years was an itinerant preacher.
He never wrote a book.
He never held an office.
He never owned a home.
He never had a family.
He never went to college.
He never put his foot inside a big city.
He never traveled two hundred miles from the place where he was born.
He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness.
He had no credentials but himself.
He had nothing to do with this world except the naked power of his divine manhood.
While still a young man the tide of popular opinion turned against him.
His friends ran away.
One of them denied him.
Another betrayed him.
He was turned over to his enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed upon the cross between two thieves.
His executioners gambled for the only piece of property he had on earth while he was dying, and that was his coat.
When he was dead, he was taken down and laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.
Nineteen wide centuries have come and gone and today he is the center of the human race and the leader of the column of progress.
I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, and all the navies that were ever built, and all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon the earth as powerfully as has this one solitary life.

Think what you will, but the fact remains that no life has ever impacted the world like that of Jesus.  No person or other religion has inspired hymns like the great hymns heard in Christian cathedrals.  No other religion has inspired the creation of schools and hospitals that Christianity has.  No other belief system has caused so many people to give their lives in service, even in death, to help others than the belief system of people who've come to know Jesus in a personal relationship.

This is a very special season because it marks the point in history when God became incarnate and chose to dwell among us to reach out to us and save from eternal damnation any of us who choose to accept His gift.  

That is the reason for the season.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

Sony Hack And The Foolish Statements Of Conservative Talk Show Hosts

Here's the Nonsense:  Sony should have stood up to the threat and not bowed to the threats.  America needs to be strong and not allow itself to be bullied.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Sony and America are two different things.  Sony made a business decision and, frankly, if they hadn't they'd risk the future of their company.  It's foolish to expect of them what we should expect from our government.

As the story has unfolded about the North Korean hack on Sony that ultimately has led to the cancellation of their movie, The Interview, I have heard way too many conservative talk show hosts make foolish statements about what has happened.  They need to think things through before making such statements.

What I'm referring to is the fact that many conservative talk show hosts have been very upset and spoken out against Sony's decision to cancel the release of The Interview.  They talk of America needing to stand up against the bullies of terror and so forth.  While I agree that it is important for America to stand up when threatened, for if we don't, they will be no different than the schoolyard bully of our youth.  You can't appease them.  When you try to, they only are encouraged to do more bullying.

But the point here is that that is the position America must take, which of course we cannot expect of the current administration as they are not only weak, but appeasement is part of their ideology, even though they, themselves, are bullies.  But when it comes to world powers, they are the kind of people who believe that if you just back off and show the enemy that you won't bother them, they believe that the enemy will leave you alone.  It's exactly the same as Neville Chamberlain believed of Hitler, and we all know where that led.

Back to the point.  The reason these hosts are wrong in their criticism is that it's not America that cancelled The Interview, it's Sony.  Sony is a private corporation (and the parent company is Japanese, not American).  They had many of the theaters they distribute their movies to tell them that they would not show the movie because they were concerned about the terror threats of attacks at the theaters if the movie was shown.  So, Sony faced a situation where income would be limited because theaters would not play the movie.  

But even more important, both the theater owners and Sony made a business decision, something I'm sure most talk show hosts don't understand because, well, they are talk show hosts, not businesspeople.  That's okay, but they need to walk in the other person's moccasins before speaking out, even if that walk is only a mental exercise trying to understand why the decision was made.

I'm a businessman and have been for over 39 years.  I am sure that Sony and the theater owners looked at the threat and realized that if that movie is shown and someone gets harmed, their liability is huge.  We live in a very litigious society.  The potential for a lawsuit (or series of suits) is gigantic.  They can even look at the damage that happened to the movie theater in Aurora, CO after the shooting rampage there a few years ago.  It destroyed the business.  People would no longer go to that theater.

For Sony and the theater owners, this was about avoiding a financial disaster.  It's that simple. And unless they were protected by some law that Congress would pass saying that they couldn't be sued in a situation like this, it's absolutely understandable that they would make the decision they did.

Let me add to that that even if there were laws that protected them, if they still went ahead with the showing and an attack occurred, the damage to their image would be devastating.  People would refuse to do business with them again, just like they did with the Aurora, CO movie theater after the shooting.  The risk to the theaters goes far beyond just this movie.

So, to criticize them for protecting their business interests is foolish.  Sure, it'd be nice if they took a strong stand against the threat, but the threat goes far beyond just what the terrorists might do.  Sony and the theater owners are not the American government. They are businesspeople simply making a business decision.

That may not sit well with conservatives, but I can't imagine any successful businessperson making a decision otherwise.  Putting all emotion aside, the only logical thing for them to do is exactly what they did.  What the American government should do is an entirely different discussion.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Say It With Me: Republican Leadership Are Not Our Friends

Here's the Nonsense:  The Republican Leadership showed this past week that they can't be trusted.  Why didn't anybody warn the public what kind of people they were?

Here's the Horse Sense:  I did warn the public, but obviously people saying that weren't paying attention.

This past week the House and Senate voted in a new spending bill without any consideration for the American people.  The majority of Americans want the mess in Washington brought under control.  That was the message of the midterm elections.  But the establishment Republicans who control the Republican Party went against the voters and brought a $1 trillion spending bill to passage while ignoring the American people.  They are not our friends and anybody who thinks they are is a fool.

After the vote came through in the House I was on some radio talk shows and we received calls from listeners.  What was stunning was that MORE THAN ONE CALLER ON MORE THAN ONE SHOW actually called in complaining about what the Republican leadership had done and then asked why no one had warned them about what kind of people the Republican leadership were!!

I couldn't believe it.  Anyone who knows me well knows I hate the phrase "I told you so" but this was one rare time when it was appropriate.  I reminded those callers and listeners that not only had they been warned, but if they were personally paying attention they would have seen it coming without a warning.  Paying attention to what's happening in our government is the responsibility of all Americans.

Needless to say, I'm sure that offends some people.  But it's true.  And I'm more interested in truth than in whether something offends someone.

So, just to give a sample of the times I talked about the establishment Republicans not being trustworthy, here are links to the blog posts I did since September 1st this year talking about them (please note that you can go as far back in my blog as you want and you'll see me talking about this from way back, this isn't new and no American should be surprised by their actions):

The surprise on the part of voters should show us all that Americans are not paying attention to what's happening.  With that attitude, there is no hope for America because it's the voters who can save this country, but if they won't do it there is no other recourse.

So, say it with me so we all understand it and don't forget:  


Tuesday, December 9, 2014

Communists Take Over German State Government - And America's Next

Here's the Nonsense:  Maybe people in other countries would elect communists, but it couldn't happen in America.

Here's the Horse Sense:  For about a century there's been an ongoing effort to change our government and it's becoming more of a reality every day.  They play on people's economic struggles and lack of critical thinking.

The UK Telegraph is reporting that Germany's far-left party, with communist roots, has been elected to control the state government of the German state of Thuringia, formerly a part of East Germany.  This is an amazing success for them considering that Germany just reunited 25 years ago and ended communist control of East Germany.  How they forgot what life was like just a short 25 years ago and were sold a bill of goods to head back in that direction again is an important lesson for Americans.  America is under assault and nearing takeover, too, but few recognize the danger.  

Even though the progressives deny being communist, it doesn't take much to see that their ideology is just that.  And, when you add that to the fact that a large number of politicians in American government embrace that ideology, the future looks bleak.  

Let's look at what happened in Germany to understand the threat America faces.

The German State of Thuringia is relatively poor by German standards and suffered severe economic problems after East and West Germany were reunified in 1990.  High unemployment has continued since reunification.  This, like America today, creates a problem as people try to survive and are looking for any solution to end their misery.  

While America's government tells us our economy is doing well and puts out numbers such as a 5.8% unemployment rate, the fact is that that is a manipulated number used to lie to the public and make the government look good.  In reality, unemployment is about 23% in our country. 

Even people like Donald Trump pointed out the lie that are the Obama administration's economic numbers.  WND is reporting that Trump is speaking out about it.  Trump says the number is 18%, but WND's article goes on to report that John Williams, an economist whose website compares the numbers the government reports to the correctly calculated numbers as saying the governments are virtually meaningless anymore.

Trump is showing more clear-headed thinking than the politicians in America.  While his estimate of the Obama administration's economic numbers may be more conservative than's, he clearly sees through the lies the American people are being told. 

Trump was frustrated after supporting Romney in the 2012 elections and my guess is that he's going to run in 2016.  America needs the mindset of a businessman, not a politician, if we are to have any chance to turn our economy around.  Given that Trump is one of the world's top marketing minds, he would be able to sell his message to Americans more effectively than a politician.  And if he runs, I have no doubt he'd be the Republican nominee, even though the politicians wouldn't like it. 

The real point of this post is that the economic numbers show us why so many Americans are suffering and desperate for relief.  This is exactly what has happened in Germany's Thuringia.  People are desperate and when they are, they become open to the false promises of communism's socialist economic model.  Sadly they don't see through it and pay attention to the fact that socialist economics have never succeeded anywhere.  Instead they are desperate and when someone promises hope and change, they fall for it.

You'd think a country like Germany would remember how terrible things were under communism just 25 short years ago, but their desperation causes memories to fade.  Add to that the fact that young people often reject the advice of their elders and bring upon themselves the same problems their parents suffered through because they refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past.  Instead, they fall for the lies all over again.

My father always told me that a smart man learns from his mistakes, but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.  Few people, especially young people, learn from their mistakes.  And it is extremely rare that they learn from the mistakes of others.

With a recent history to look to, Germans should reject communist ideas without hesitation.  They should remember that after World War II the Soviets took control of eastern Europe.  With this came the split of Germany into east and west.  Those in West Germany lived under a democratic government with freedoms common in other western European countries, but East Germany was in bondage under communism.  

Initially the Soviet troops murdered, raped, and pillaged all throughout that part of Europe.  Eventually things settle in to East Germany having their own government called the GDR (German Democratic Republic) and life started to stabilize, but for citizens it was only at a very low level.  Freedoms were gone and opportunity and basic necessities were hard to come by.

East Germany was like the other Soviet controlled countries.  Shortages of goods were constant problems.  Even when goods were in stock, there was little variety of them.  Often there was only one type of a given product or one flavor of a type of food.  While citizens could purchase cars and appliances, to purchase them required long waiting periods.  

Waiting in lines was a part of daily life and shopping was an ordeal.  Women would go from store to store on a daily basis to get items and averaged 2 hours waiting in line daily, 7 days per week.  

Because the government controlled employment, most people had jobs, but wages were low and an old joke from that era was:  "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work."  Most industrial workers belonged to labor unions, although the unions were run by the government and used to help factory managers achieve their production goals required by the government.  They were not there to benefit workers.

Housing was always in short supply. It was common for 2 or 3 generations of a family to live in a three-room apartment. Newlyweds often waited years for a small apartment of their own. 

Universal public health systems, known as "socialized medicine," was typical in Soviet countries and covered everyone. The government and state-owned businesses paid the costs of doctors, health clinics, and hospitals.  But the quality of healthcare was far below that in free market healthcare systems like America had.  Care would be limited.  Rationing care was how they controlled cost and, just like we see today in countries like Britain and Canada, the ability to get needed care was limited.  Those who wanted to travel to seek care elsewhere, as many British and Canadians of financial means do today, could not do so both due to cost and to government restrictions on travel.

The government provided all education for free and controlled the curriculum.  The goal was more about indoctrinating young people to be good citizens of the state.  Few citizens were allowed to move out of East Germany, with the exception of retirees.  Since the state provided a retirement pension for all citizens that, along with the other "benefits" the government provided created a financial burden on the government that they could not sustain.  In order to reduce costs, they allowed some retirees to move to West Germany thereby reducing their financial obligations.  (Another proof of the folly of the socialist system of economics.)

While some people think these things sound pretty good, we have to also remember that under the communist system of government it was the government that determined what was in the best interest of the people.  They believed that the interests of the society as a whole outweighed the interest of the individual, and as a result individual rights really didn't exist.  

While many people don't like to hear it, this is exactly the ideology promoted by Hollywood in such shows as Star Trek where it was common to hear the characters say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."  The difference between Hollywood's version and real life is that Hollywood has a controlled storyline that makes everything look good because they control the script and, therefore, the outcomes.  But under a communist regime the government harshly suppresses human rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.  (Those are our basic First Amendment rights in America, but we have many American politicians trying to abolish the First Amendment these days as they work towards the progressive goals of controlling the lives of citizens.)

The government also licensed newspapers and other media, and even churches so that they could control them. The practice of religion was discouraged.  In fact, those who practiced religion that the government found unacceptable were often persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and even killed.

The German Democratic Republic's State Security Service (called the Stasi) was probably the most terrifying secret police organization in Eastern Europe, actually making Hitler's Nazis look mild in many ways.  Remember, Hitler only retained control for 12 years, but the Stasi controlled East Germany for 40 years, far more time to "fine tune" and "perfect" their methods and schemes of terror on the citizens.  

The Stasi kept files on an estimated 6 million people. Considering that the population of East Germany was 19 million in 1949 and 16 million by 1990, that's a huge portion of the population.  That would be equivalent of about 100 million Americans having files kept on them by the government.  Stasi agents used phone taps, bugging devices, and cameras to spy on citizens. They used a huge number of informers to get information and rumors about neighbors, co-workers, and relatives.  Even church ministers were known to inform on members of their congregations. This caused a state of fear among the citizens as they knew they could trust no one.

Those are some tidbits from history to remind all of us what the people of East Germany were subject to as recently as 25 years ago.  And yet they still have decided to put communists in control of their state!  

So, why would they do it?

It's quite simple.  When people are hungry and poor, they will turn to any source to try to alleviate that misery from their lives.  And at that point they are very susceptible to the lies of communism that promise to make things fair and equal.  It sounds so good to them when they hear some politician say that things are better for everyone when those at the top have to share more of what they've earned.  (Hmmm.... sounds like our president when he was originally running for office.)  

That is the lie of progressivism, socialism, and communism.  And don't miss it, they are all the same. Socialism is the economic model of communism.  Progressivism is the new name they are calling themselves because they don't want people to know who they really are.

People in America today are constantly crying out that things aren't fair.  Anyone with half a brain should know that life isn't fair and that you shouldn't want it to be fair.  Why?  Because that means that someone has to decide what is fair.  And how do you know that you will always have the right person in charge to make that decision?  

Progressives promise fair outcomes.  But that won't work because that cannot be guaranteed.  The only thing they are truly guaranteeing is that they will decide what is fair and that's what you'll receive, whether you agree with their definition of fairness or not.

The only fair system is one where people are given equal opportunity and they can achieve based on their own work and no one else's.  If you have equal opportunity then the outcome is primarily determined by your effort, not by someone else's determination of what you should get.

East Germany didn't have freedom, they had fairness based on what the government determined.  They got rid of it 25 years ago and already people have forgotten what life was like before.  So, they've elected people who are communists to bring back that "fairness" without even thinking of the consequences they face in doing so.

Do you think it can happen in America?  Of course it can.  Americans have already elected these same kinds of people and we're in danger that those people have just about eliminated any competition for political office.  With limited exception, they are becoming our only choice in elections anymore.  As an example, here's the membership list of the Congressional Progressive Caucus:

The Democrat Party is controlled by them.  The establishment Republicans like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are heavily influenced by them.  And Americans are in danger of losing their choice of solid conservatives to run our country.  The conservatives are in the minority.  And with Americans hurting economically, the chances are greater and greater all the time that Americans will continue to vote for people and programs that will abandon our free market system and replace it with a system of promised "fair" outcomes.  And I guarantee that citizens will, in the end, not like those outcomes.  But by then it will be too late.  

Monday, December 8, 2014

Boehner Tricks Conservatives To Help Harry Reid & Obama

Here's the Nonsense:  The Republicans need to show they can work with the Democrats to get the support of the American people.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Republicans were given support by the people in the last election, but they are throwing it away.  They have decided to block, fight, and attack conservatives instead of fight to save our nation.  They have simply joined the Democrats in their goals.

Once again House Speaker John Boehner and the establishment GOP are working against America's best interest by supporting Democrats over conservatives.  In the latest action worthy of Benedict Arnold, House Speaker John Boehner and his minions have manipulated timing of a spending bill to force through legislation that will only support Harry Reid, Barack Obama, and the rest of the Democrats trying to destroy our nation.  The Hill is reporting that Boehner has delayed a $1 trillion spending bill until the last minute so it can be rushed through Congress before the Dec. 12th deadline at the end of this week.  This does nothing but cut off conservatives from having input on the bill and supports the last ditch efforts of Reid and Obama to utilize the current Democrat-controlled Senate in their favor before the end of this Congress.

Many people think I'm a broken record continually saying that the establishment Republicans who control the GOP will not stand up to the Democrats to save America.  In fact, many of the complaints I receive are because of my attacks on the establishment GOP for siding with Democrats against conservatives.  Fools think that speaking out against the establishment GOP hurts the Republicans, but in reality not speaking out keeps people from seeing what they're doing to harm America.  That, in turn, keeps Americans from demanding change in the party that would allow it to return to its conservative roots and start a turnaround of our country to save it for our children.  So, as your complaints fall on my deaf ears, let's look at yet another situation where the GOP leadership is dropping the ball.

In an effort to eliminate the ability of conservatives to scrutinize and suggest changes to the $ 1 trillion spending bill, Boehner has delayed introduction of the bill until the last minute before the final session of Congress ends.  As The Hill's article states:

“Here we are doing the appropriations bill the last couple days” before a government shutdown, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (Republican of Kansas) said in an interview this week. “That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid. That’s to squeeze us.”

By delaying it until the last minute, Boehner isn't allowing enough time for review of the bill, let alone for suggestions to be proposed that may change it.  Worse yet, he has kept the content of the bill secret as a way of keeping conservatives from knowing what they will face in the last minute legislation.

The Hill article also quotes Rep. Walter Jones (Republican of North Carolina) as saying, “They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?” And goes on to quote him as saying,  “I think its aimed at screwing over the American people. You can quote me on that.”

The bill is being released for review today, Monday, and will be voted on this coming Wednesday, the day before funding runs out.  Personally, I think they should let the funding run out.  But the Republicans are too afraid that Obama will once again blame them for a government shutdown as he successfully did when he shut it down the last time.  Republicans have already forgotten the mandate the voters gave them a month ago in the midterm elections to stop Obama's actions.  They are showing their true colors, which is that they are on the same path as the Democrats to destroy America. 

In the case of the Democrats I believe that it is a conscious and intentional path they take to destroy the America we know and love.  As for the establishment Republicans, while I think some of them fully understand what they're doing, I believe the others are just too stupid and out of touch to actually realize what they're doing.  Certainly they don't understand basic economics.  I doubt many of them could successfully balance their checkbooks.

The election did not make the difference that a lot of Americans thought it would.  It's no surprise here as I've been saying since the primaries that American voters dropped the ball by not throwing out the incumbents during the primaries and bringing in solid conservatives to replace them. 

If there is still time to pull our country back from the cliff we have already gone over towards our doom, we have only one election cycle left to do it.  That cycle is the 2016 election and it's about more than just the presidency.  The congressional elections that year will be as critical as the presidency.  But to succeed the grassroots of America must stand up and demand change and it must start now.  It was the grassroots who stood up and demanded Ronald Reagan be the candidate in 1980, and we need the same kind of action for 2016. 

During every election cycle the American electorate does not pay attention or get involved until after Labor Day of election year.  That will be too late.  We have 2 years and we must use every minute of every day or there is no hope for our children and grandchildren. 

You have no excuse if you're taking time for leisure activity or pursuing personal desires.  Going out for a leisurely game of golf, watching a sporting event, playing video games, taking a vacation, or anything else that caters to your personal liesure is a waste of time.  If you really care about America, then this must be a nonstop fight 24/7 for the next 2 years.  It's up to us to educate the rest of America and bring them on board to join the fight.  Without that, we might as well throw in the towel now.