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.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Gowdy's Rubio Endorsement Raises Questions About His Conservatism, But Was He Really A Conservative In The First Place?

Here's the Nonsense:  It makes no sense that a conservative like Trey Gowdy would endorse RINO Rubio for his 2016 run for the presidency.  

Here's the Horse Sense:  There were warning signs that Gowdy wasn't the conservative that people thought he was, but too often voters base opinions on superficial observations and information.  

The shock of conservatives at Trey Gowdy endorsing establishment Republican Marco Rubio for president is now leading many to question Gowdy's conservatism.  But should Gowdy's endorsement surprise us?  Or was there evidence all along that showed us what Gowdy really is?

One of the biggest problems with voters today is that they really don't pay attention to what's going on.  The vast majority of voters don't have any idea about most of what those of us who read news regularly know.  And yet, even some of those who stay informed on what's happening in the news are guilty of basing opinions on superficial observations and information.  Trey Gowdy is a perfect example where people misread who he is because they didn't pay attention.

Gowdy was accepted as conservative because he was able to ask hard questions in hearings.  But people didn't think about the things he did outside those hearings, too.  Without looking at the complete picture we don't see the real marks of someone's political ideology.  After all, it's our actions, not our words, that say who and what we really are.  

Gowdy's ability to ask hard questions doesn't mean he is a conservative.  What it shows is that he's very good at being a prosecutor, a job for which he was trained and worked at for years.  It should be no surprise that he is able to ask tough questions.

While the questions got our attention, that attention should have been drawn to start asking questions and examining Gowdy's actions to determine who and what he really is.  But that's too much work for most people.  The average person just wants to accept things at face value and that's one of the reasons we've gotten to where we're at with our government today.  

Voters have not upheld their civic responsibility.  They have not done their jobs watching over our elected officials and holding them accountable for the things they do.

People should have been asking questions when they saw Gowdy continually support John Boehner (for an example click here).  The warning light should have gone on when Luis Gutierrez praised him for position on immigration.  Gowdy responded by praising Gutierrez in return.

Gowdy also supported Obama's fast track authority on his trade deal.

And Mark Levin warned about his RINO tendencies.

Gowdy even supported Paul Ryan as House Speaker.

It's no surprise that Gowdy endorsed Rubio.  We've now clearly seen his true colors.  But I am sure there will still be foolish people who will think he's conservative.

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Trump's Christmas Gift To America

Here's the Nonsense:  Donald Trump's presidential campaign has been nothing but a sideshow and distraction from what's really important in America.  We'd be better off without it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Donald Trump has given America a great gift with his campaign.  No other candidate has come close to doing what he has done for America during this campaign.  This is a great Christmas gift to us.

Whether you like him or not, you need to be thankful for Donald Trump this Christmas.  


Because he's given a Christmas gift to America that's critical to the salvation of our nation.

In an article timely for the holidays, John Nolte at Breitbart has noted what Trump's campaign means to America and it exposes the huge gift Mr. Trump has given our nation this Christmas. 

What's the gift?  It's truth.  That's right, T-R-U-T-H.

Here's what Mr. Nolte listed to back it up:

1.)  Illegal Immigrant Crime - When announcing his run for the White House, Trump exposed the crime wave that has come with illegal immigration.  The media tried to attack, but in the end Trump was shown to be correct.

2.)  American Muslims Celebrated 9/11 - Trump was accused of lying but in the end it was proven that he was correct.

3.)  Way Too Many Muslims (including American Muslims) are Radicalized - Trump called for a temporary ban on immigration for Muslims and in doing so he caused the truth to come out.  According to Nolte:  "The humiliating lengths to which the Washington Post's serially-dishonest Philip Bump went to spin these disturbing and indisputable numbers, tells you just how politically dangerous it is to reveal them."

4.)  The Republican Establishment Is a Gang of Vicious Crybabies - While refusing to accept the GOP establishment's money or help, Trump called them out for what they are and exposed their lies and conniving efforts to ignore the voter's mandates while aligning themselves with the Democrats.  As Nolte said so well, "The scales that have fallen from our eyes would fill a galaxy."

5.)  Hillary Clinton Treats Women Abused By Men Like Garbage - This is amazing, or, as Nolte says, "Oh, baby!"

Trump has overcome political correctness and driven truth home as the standard for this election.  Without his efforts, this entire campaign would simply be a funeral procession to the burial of America in November 2016.

Thank you Mr. Trump for the hope you've given to millions of Americans.  We could have asked for no better Christmas present.

Monday, December 21, 2015

Obama Says 2016 Will Be A Good Year For His Agenda

Here's the Nonsense:  President Obama says he's looking forward to a good year of getting the legislation he wants passed in 2016.  He doesn't seem to remember that the Republicans control both the House and Senate and they'll never stand for it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Republican Party is controlled by establishment Republicans who are so afraid that they'll give the president everything he wants (and then some) because they're afraid that challenging him will result in them being called racist.  Unless we get rid of them, this will continue far beyond Obama's presidency.

The Washington Times reported that President Obama said he's never been more confident about his agenda for the next year as he is for 2016.  He believes the last year of his presidency will be full of huge successes for his agenda.  Will 2016 prove to fulfill his wishes?

The article says:

A supremely confident President Obama said Friday he's "never been more optimistic about a year ahead" than he is right now, and he made the case that 2016 could be a landmark year in which he is able to enact even more of his agenda before leaving office.

And the president has even said he believes that the Republicans will come around and support his efforts on climate change, too.

Just this week the Republicans sold out the American voters again by passing an omnibus bill costing over $1 trillion, with the majority of Republicans and Democrats supporting it.  I don't have to go over the details as I'm sure you've all heard and read plenty about the giveaways that were in it.  The bottom line is that the Republicans didn't fight at all and the new House Speaker, Paul Ryan, led the way to prove he can live down to the level of his predecessor, John Boehner.

But maybe I'm being too hard on Ryan.  When challenged about not standing up against what was the spending bill, the Republican leadership was quick to say that they just had to get this through and not to worry because they'd really stand firm in 2016.  (Yeah, just like they stood strong in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and the first 11 months of this year!)

Many people may think that the Republicans will finally take a stand but I don't see it.  They've never taken a stand on anything, so why would they do it now?  They have proven themselves to be no different than the Democrats.

In fact, when researching my book, No Tomrrows: How to Halt America's Imminent Collapse and Return to the American Dream, back in 2011 I was able to confirm that the progressive plan has always been to make the American voters think the two parties are different when, in reality, both parties have been developed to be on the same path.

In his book, Tragedy and Hope, the late professor Carroll Quigley (a liberal and globalist who taught at Georgetown University) said:

"...The two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can 'throw the rascals out' at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy."

And that's where we've gotten to today.  The leadership of both parties is headed in the same direction and unless we replace the majority of them with outsiders, Obama's final year will be follow by more of the same under the next administration, whichever party wins the election.

This is nothing new.  During the 2014 midterm elections Mitch McConnell vowed to crush the Tea Party.  And now, he's done it again. The Hill is reporting that McConnell is once again speaking out against Candidates that are not part of the establishment GOP.  

Don't think that if a non-establishment candidate wins the 2016 election that there won't be a terrible fight during the entire term of their administration.  McConnell and his counterpart, Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House.  They will fight tooth and nail and get the Democrats to help them so that they can destroy that president.

But first, they have to try to destroy the chances of outsider candidates winning in 2016.  Former Rep. Tom Tancredo is speaking out against these people in a recent article where he wrote that these people in the establishment must be defeated.  Tancredo asks if we've had enough yet, and the answer should have been yes a long time ago.

This is why outsider candidates are so important in this election cycle, and not just in the presidential race.  The recent disaster of a spending bill will be repeated in every other piece of legislation they put through if we don't stop them now.  We must clean out both the Senate and House in 2016.  And to do it, we must be working now because the primaries start right after the holidays and all the decisions of who we can vote for will be decided by mid-July.  Once the primaries are over, there are no more chances to get good people on the ballot.

And given the representation we currently have in the House and Senate, you can bet that Obama will continue to get what he wants in 2016.  It will be a very good year for him... and a very bad year for the American people.

If we can survive until the 2016 election, we still have this one last chance to get our government back. But it is a last chance, and not just another chance.  If we squander the opportunity life in America will never again be what it once was.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

One RINO Figured It Out. What Will It Take For Others To Get It, Too?

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Moderate Republicans (what some call RINOs) understand that we face dangers from terrorism in America.  But they understand that we must be accepting of people of all types from everywhere in the world if we are to live up to America's greatness.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Like it or not, we are at war and it's now in our backyard.  At least one RINO has woken up, but what will it take for the rest of them to realize the danger we face?

Newsmax has published an article by RINO economist Larry Kudlow that was rather surprising.  It seems that Larry has woken up to the fact that right now we can't just have open borders anymore.  He's still pro-amnesty (you're not going to get a RINO to change entirely overnight), but right now he's agreeing that borders need to be sealed while we get control of the terrorism crisis that we are facing.  What will it take for other RINOs to follow Kudlow's example?

Kudlow writes:

"I know this is not my ususal position.  But this is a war.  Therefore I have come to believe there should be no immigration or visa waivers until the U. S. adopts a completely new system to stop radical Islamic terrorists from entering the country.  A wartime lockdown.  And a big change in my thinking."

Later in the article he says:

"My shift in thinking comes from a deep desire to strengthen homeland security.  Hopefully an immigration freeze will not be in place for very long.  But for now I believe we must do it."

Clearly the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino has driven Kudlow and many Americans to be more concerned than ever for our security.

The way we live in America is changing as the threats are increasing.  Just this past Saturday 3 malls in various parts of America had to be evacuated due to bomb threats.

America is forever changed by that attack.  Of course, we thought America was forever changed by 9/11 yet it didn't take long for Americans to go back to their old ways.

Now, the terrible carnage in California has given a wake up call to a big time RINO who is pro-amnesty.  He's stoppedand realized that we're in a war and drastic action should be taken.  What will it take for others in America to open their eyes?

I hate to say it, but my guess is that many people's eyes won't be opened.  They are blinded by political correctness so much that when someone suggests closing our borders temporarily to protect our nation, their response is to utter something stupid about it being unfair to people.

Folks, we're at war and the protection of our nation and its citizens is foremost.  It's tragic to think that some people need disaster to wake them up.  But unfortunately some Americans are asleep and ignorant to the dangers in our midst.  Even the media who cover these events continue in their blindness as they embrace their progressive ideology and ignore what is before us.

I hope and pray that it won't take more disasters to wake the entire country up, but unfortunately many people let their ideology and political correctness keep them from ever having common sense.  And if it's one thing America needs right now, it's common sense.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

Trump On Muslim Immigration: Too Far Or Not Far Enough?

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Trump is too extreme.  America is a melting pot and we have no right to close our borders to any group of people.  After all, we are a nation of immigrants.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Trump's statement that we should stop Muslim immigration temporarily to get immigration under control and protect our nation is clearly one of a man who wants to protect America.  But the bigger question is whether Trump went far enough.

Breitbart is reporting, in a not so surprising move, that Donald Trump is calling for a complete shutdown of Muslim immigration into the United States.  The media, the Democrats, the establishment Republicans, and virtually all of the other presidential candidates are having fits about it.  They are all saying the same thing, that this is not who America is.  Some are accusing Trump of everything from insanity to racism.  But is Trump wrong?  Did he go too far?  Or did he not go far enough?

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is taking the position that it goes against everything we stand for and believe in.  Many other presidential candidates taking a stand against Trump's statement. Even the mayor of St. Petersburg, FL has spoken out banning Trump from his city.

And we can't forget Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders who said that we are fighting a war, but it's against climate change (leave it to the Democrats to be so out of touch with reality that they come up with that garbage).

And with all this, I have little doubt that Trump's stature will grow once again with American voters. has reported that ISIS is trying to infiltrate the U. S. as refugees.  Certainly that's the core reason that Trump wants to get control of our borders.

But all those decrying him as a racist are more concerned that America not offend anyone than they are about our safety. 

Pat Buchanan has warned for a long time about the dangers of uncontrolled immigration.  In fact, just last summer he wrote an article saying it was the issue of the century.

It couldn't be more obvious that Trump is simply trying to protect America.  He did say that Muslims who are already here can stay and he'd halt new Muslim immigration temporarily.  It's not like he said he'd ban them from ever coming to our country.  And that's why the American people will support Trump, because he's interested fulfilling the number one job of the federal government, which is to protect our nation.

But I have a question.  Did Trump go far enough?  If we really want to make our country secure, wouldn't the smartest answer be to halt all immigration until we have control of this situation?

Throughout history nations have controlled their borders, and the main reason has been for security.  Why should America be any different?

And since we don't know who is a Muslim and who isn't, how would a government make sure those are the people they are keeping from immigrating?  We've heard enough stories of people from many northern European nations who have joined ISIS.  How do you know whether a blond haired, blue eyed Swede has become a member of ISIS or not?

You can't tell who is safe by looking at someone.  And we know that Islam teaches that it is okay for their followers to lie if it is beneficial for Islam.  So, why would we leave any door open?  Why wouldn't the smart thing be to shut down all immigration temporarily until we know how to deal with all of this?

The politicians and politically correct will argue that it's not who we are.  But my question is how anyone, especially a politician who wants to be a leader in our government, call themselves an American if their number one priority isn't to protect our nation, regardless of who it offends?

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Nothing Coming Out Of Obama's Administration Is Trustworthy

Sometimes you read something better than anything you could write yourself.  The following post is one of those.  My friend Sylvia Thompson has written this article for and has given me permission to reprint it here.  (Click here to go to her original article)  Believe me, Sylvia is a gifted writer whose work people should read regularly.  This one is a must read.

Why should any American trust the information coming from Obama or his mouthpieces regarding Syrian refugees? The short answer—none should.
Although we can disregard anything that Obama says, because his intentions toward this country have been proven to be toxic, we must still be suspect of those in his shadow. Administration officials who are involved in the Syrian refugee discussion are parroting the party line. They assume that if they say there is a “stringent vetting process” for refugees, we must take this statement as fact. It is very likely to be an outright lie.
Operatives in the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Homeland Security have cautioned that there is no mechanism in place to ensure that Islamic terrorists cannot and will not infiltrate the Syrian refugee flood.
Beyond that, even if there were effective tracking mechanisms, the sinister, mediocre minds in the administration cannot be trusted to use them properly. They follow Obama’s directives, and Obama has no desire to staunch the flow of untraceable Muslims into this country. Their being here serves his purpose; the more there are the more chaos they can cause to destabilize the American culture.
Coupled with a keen understanding of Obama’s intentions, patriotic Americans are aware of and equally disturbed by just how few radicalized Muslims it takes to wreak havoc on a community or a country.
Only two Muslim Tsarnaev brothers (whose parents were asylum-seekers) killed several innocent bystanders watching the Boston Marathon, including one eight-year-old boy. Only one Muslim, Major Nidal Hasan, killed many more on an American military base. Only 19 Muslim terrorists took down the World Trade Center buildings and crashed four planes killing several thousand innocents.
With the appropriate weapons, it does not take more than a handful of Muslims to do irreparable damage. A handful that could feasibly be among those coming into the country as refugees, to add to the threat posed by those who are already here. Ignoring this fact is at best idiocy (not compassion) and at worse, treasonous.
All the blather coming from Obama and his minions on the Left about how this nation’s “values” are diminished if we refuse Syrian refugees is pure leftist propaganda. The blather has one purpose and that is to “guilt-trip” Americans into succumbing to Obama’s nefarious scheme.
It is a sick joke that he, of all people, presumes to speak for “American values.” Barack Obama has no values that are not anathema to the American Founders and a majority of American people.
He fervently supports the killing of living children in the womb. Planned Parenthood, the largest baby-killing organization in the country, is his trusted ally.
He is the architect of the moral degradation of the country, using his presidential powers to intimidate any who oppose the homosexual and other deviant agendas.
He is virulently anti-Christian and pro-Muslim; anti-Christianity and pro-Islam.
His poisonous influence over the judiciary has made a mockery of the legal system and he openly shows contempt for law enforcement. Many Americans no longer trust that system, which could eventually lead to gross lawlessness and even civil war.
Cloaked in his half-black status, he has orchestrated the most malignant racial hatred in America since Jim Crow, the era of legalized racial division in this country.
And most dangerous, he openly expresses his disdain for America on the world stage leaving us vulnerable to our enemies, many of whom are Islamists.
Every time I hear a ruling-class flack of any race on a news broadcast or on radio attempting to justify Obama’s actions in any way, I bristle. There is no reason for anybody to be as intelligent as these people are and yet so ignorant. They should know, by now, that everything of consequence that Obama does is by design and with deliberation, either his own or that of his background players. And none of it is to America’s lasting benefit.
I’m speaking here of people who are not hardcore leftists, per se, but who are easily duped, “made-to-order” fellow travelers. They are probably decent folks (mostly white) who simply cannot read Obama. They cannot fathom that they gave presidential power to someone who is set on the destruction of America.
Barack Obama lies, obfuscates, humiliates, and divides and no amount of doublespeak coming from compliant media, Democrat lackeys, and elitist Republicans can hide these facts, anymore. Unless he is stopped, he will achieve his goal of bringing America to ruin.
It is far past time for severe pressure to be brought to bear on political leaders to do their constitutionally defined jobs. If they will not impeach him, we must insist that they thwart his every destructive move until he can be officially removed in 2016.
Barack Obama is a danger to this country’s survival. That is the bottom line.

Sunday, November 22, 2015

First Amendment Free Speech Going, Going, Gone

Here's the Nonsense:  The First Amendment is fine.  Some people have become too offensive with their rhetoric and it's time to have the government force them to stop saying such offensive things.   

Here's the Horse Sense:  America's founders fought and died for the right to say whatever they chose.  They felt it more important to allow a person to speak their mind and offend someone than to shut them down and take away their basic freedom of speech.  They knew that without freedom of speech that freedoms are lost and never realized. is reporting on a Pew poll that 40% of Millenials are okay with the government banning offensive speech. The Millenials clearly show no knowledge or forethought in coming to that conclusion.  They have no idea what fulfillment of that view will mean to their freedom.  But there's something far more important that this poll exposes.

To think it's okay to ban offensive speech assumes that you will always be the arbiter of what is offensive.  What the Millennials don't think about is what happens when the government comes under control of people who think what the Millennials say, think, or believe is offensive.  Then, suddenly, they are on the receiving end.  What was once okay in their minds (banning what others said that they disagreed with) suddenly becomes a horror story when they realize that they can no longer express themselves the way they once did.  The government that they thought was their friend becomes their slave master.

Millennials (18-34 year olds) will determine the future of your children and grandchildren.  They are the future, even though they are ignorant about the lessons of history.  They will determine the freedom or slavery that Americans will have, even though they don't understand they are destroying the First Amendment rights that have given all of us the freedom we have enjoyed for over two centuries.  

But those who think the government should  control speech don't realize that when that happens the lives they enjoy in America today will never be the same. 

Half of these Millennials aren't even adults.  You may argue with that statement saying that they're 18 and older so they're all adults.  I'd argue not only that science has proved that the human brain isn't mature until well into your 20s, which means that if they're adults it's certainly not due to maturity of their brains, only due to an arbitrary age determined by people as worthy of being called adult.  

And it could also be argued that our own government has established laws under Obamacare that tell us they are considered children until they are 27.  Considering the ridiculous and often horrendous things students are taught and indoctrinated with in our schools, maybe it would be wise to consider changing voting age to at least 27 so they've had a little time to mature (In fact, 35 might be even better so they have some life experience under their belt.).

But, while the lack of maturity plagues our society today, I have gotten away from the main point of what I see in this poll.  The fact is that while the result being focused on in this poll is important, what is even more interesting is something that is glaring in the results and should teach us about our society.  Look at this chart:

Notice that while 40% of Millennials support government controlled speech, 27% of Gen Xers (35-50 years old) support it, 24% of Baby Boomers (51-69 years old) support it, but only 12% of the Silent generation (70-87 years old) support it.

That last number may be the most significant in the poll.  The Silent generation have 88% who are against the government controlling speech.  

Why is that significant?  Because the Silent generation are the last people who were alive during World War II.  They are the last people who could truly understand what it's like to live through the horrors of the Nazi regime.  And that life experience would shape more clearly a person's views about freedom than the rest of us could understand.  (Yes, there have been other terrible governments since that time, but none that have caused a war so big that a world war was fought to stop the atrocities from spreading throughout the world.)

Since that time, those of us who are younger have lived at a distance from what happened.  Some of us, like myself, had parents who served in the military during World War II.  For others it was grandparents or even great grandparents.  And as each generation has become further removed from what happened our society has forgotten more and more of the atrocities and the cost paid to maintain freedom in the world.  Add to that our educational system has taught less and less about World War II and students know little, if anything about what happened, why it happened, and why it is important to make sure it never happens again.  Not knowing and understanding history is a curse that causes us to repeat it.

I've had the honor and privilege of meeting Nazi concentration camp survivors and hearing from them exactly what they went through.  I've heard the stories of the soldiers who liberated the concentration camps and the horrors they found.  And I go out of my way to read at least one or two books every year about what happened because it is so important that we understand and don't forget it.

Why am I addressing this poll in light of World War II? Because what happened in that time has a great chance of happening again if we don't remember it, learn from it, and fight to make sure it doesn't.  And the loss of our First Amendment rights is the cornerstone of protection from that happening.

Today we see a growing acceptance of foolish thought that says "you shouldn't have the right to offend me."  Unlike our country's founders who fought and died for the right to be offended, today more and more people wear their feelings on their sleeve and are more worried about hurt feelings than about freedom.

Whatever happened to teaching our children that sticks and stones can break our bones but words can never hurt me?  

Certainly we don't want to offend people intentionally.  And we want to teach our children to be respectful, even of those with differing ideas and beliefs.  But when it comes down to it, the freedom to say what you believe is essential to a free society, even if it offends someone.  Without freedom of speech, freedom is gone.

Many conservatives think we are in danger of losing our First Amendment rights, especially that of free speech.  I've written and spoken many times about not just the threat of losing those rights, but the fact that they are already lost.  

Sure, you can still say what you think about many things in many places.  But if push comes to shove and you end up in court, don't bank on a defense based on the Constitution being ruled in your favor.  The Supreme Court has already ruled against supporting the First Amendment, even though they'd not say it in those words.  But if push comes to shove and you end up in court, because we've seen the Supreme Court not uphold the First Amendment rights of citizens, there's no guarantee how the court will rule on any future First Amendment cases.

To make sure you don't get court protection, a large number of Americans are now lining up to agree that the government should abandon the First Amendment take away your right to say what you think.  We are currently seeing many examples of this on college campuses in protests and classrooms, along with media figures promoting this idea, too. 

You may think that a new president will fix all of these types of problems.  But that won't happen no matter who the new president is.  The problem is in the American people.  

The American people aren't involved in our government, even though our founders created our nation to be controlled by the citizens, not a group of self-proclaimed elites in Washington.  We have allowed these misfits to take over our government (and I'm speaking of those in both parties, not just Democrats).  We've also forsaken our responsibility to raise our children to understand how our government works, what their responsibilities are, and that they must be involved and hold politicians accountable or our nation will fail.

Today we have foolish, immature and uneducated children throughout our society at all ages, not just those who are legally still of an age considered to be pre-adult.  They have no idea what's happening in our government or that our nation is about to collapse.  They are more concerned with self than with anything else.  

Instead of putting others first, they have learned to put themselves first and the result is going to be an America under complete control of the progressive communists.  Freedom will be redefined to be what the government wants and American citizens will ignorantly accept it because they won't have any knowledge of how and why America was created or what has made America exceptional above all other nations on earth.

It's time that people with the mindset exposed in this poll be awakened with a harsh dose of reality to get them on track to support America.  

There are far too many people agreeing with them to think that America's future is bright unless a change occurs very quickly.  Those who do understand need to be educating those around them.  Knowledge is our best weapon to take America back.  But if we don't let others know what is happening and why it's important, the American voters won't have the knowledge to make the decisions necessary to elect the people we need to save our country.

Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Leading The Way In Stupidity, Colorado Governor Chooses To Welcome Syrian Refugees

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Colorado's governor is showing compassion and caring by welcoming Syrian refugees.  What happened in Paris isn't a problem for America because we can vet these immigrants to assure our safety.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Even mainstream media and members of Congress have warned about the dangers of bringing in Syrian refugees.  Colorado's governor is gambling by opening the door to a potential Trojan Horse.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper has decided not to join 26 other governors (in other words, the governors with common sense) in refusing Syrian refugees.  The Denver Post is reporting that "Colorado will not join states where governors are asking to block the White House from sending them Syrian refugees in the wake of the terrorist attack on Paris Friday."

Hickenlooper said, "Our first priority remains the safety of our residents.  We will work with the federal government and Homeland Security to ensure the national verification processes for refugees are as stringent as possible.  We can protect our security and provide a place where the world's most vulnerable can rebuild their lives."

I guess the Colorado governor hasn't heard the reports that a House Homeland Security Committee was told back in February by the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the National Counterterrorism Center that there's such an intelligence gap that there is no way to vet these people.  In other words, THERE'S NO WAY TO BE SURE THEY'RE SAFE!

And CNN is reporting that Rep. Peter King said this morning on MSNBC that no Syrian refugees should be allowed into the country because the vetting system is a farce.

But Colorado's governor thinks he knows better.

Since Colorado became a blue state its citizens have seen even more stupidity from government than they did before. Colorado was not a conservative Republican red state before changing, it was establishment Republican red, so it wasn't that far from what Democrats promote.  But since turning blue there have been a number of things that push the progressive agenda even further in the beautiful Rocky Mountain wonderland of Colorado.  If the legalization of marijuana wasn't bad enough, now they're opening the door to a potential Trojan Horse just like Europe has done.

Is this due to stupidity or what?

It's certainly easy to see it as stupid (which it is).  But what's worse is that that may not be the reason this is being done.  

No, I think the Colorado Governor knows exactly what he's doing and he's taking a chance and throwing the dice that nothing bad will happen and it will be a political win for him.

How, you ask, could this be a political win for him?  Very simple.  It's the politically correct thing to do to help advance the progressive agenda of the Democrat Party.  

The more immigrants they can bring into this country that are fleeing bad lives elsewhere (whether it's in Central America or the Middle East doesn't matter), the more future Democrat voters they bring into the system.  Studies have shown that most of these people become Democrat voters, and the more they can bring in the better chance they have at controlling all future elections.

But I think there's a personal benefit that the Colorado governor is seeking, too.  

Never underestimate the "What's in it for me?" mindset of people, especially Democrats.

Governor Hickenlooper has a desire to continue his political career beyond his governorship.  And he's been talked about as a potential vice presidential candidate for 2016.  By being a good soldier for the progressive agenda and towing the party's politically correct line he increases his chances of being chosen for that role. 

Sunday, November 15, 2015

Paris Shows What The Number One Issue Is For Our 2016 Elections

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Europe is making some mistakes in their immigration policies.  It's a good thing it's over there and not here.  We certainly don't face the threats they face.

Here's the Horse Sense:  What happens in Europe is just a precursor to what will happen here.  The threats they face are no different than the threats America faces.  Immigration has to be our number one priority in the upcoming elections or America won't survive.

Breitbart London has published an article showing all the terror attacks France has suffered this year. Over and over again the French have had to deal with terrorism.  France is not the only nation dealing with this.  Anyone who reads even the smallest amount of news has most likely seen that terrorism is on a rampage throughout the world, and especially in the west.  What does it mean for America?

I could go on and on listing attacks in countries around the world.  I could list the threats terror groups have made.  We could talk about how ISIS has taken over a large part of Iraq and Syria.  We could add to that the other incidents they've had direct or indirect involvement in throughout the world.  We could go through the numerous threats they've made to destroy all of us.  It could even be mentioned that it's reported there are 1000 active ISIS probes the FBI has going in America right now.

But all that would be redundant.  

The bottom line is that the number one issue for the 2016 elections has to be immigration.  Immigration has a larger impact on our nation and our future than any other issue.  If we don't fix our immigration system and seal our borders, there won't be a future for America.  We will either be enslaved or dead.  If we're enslaved, it will be to the fear they will instill in us or to the forced ideology they will place upon us.  If we don't succumb to their terror, we will die and the unique nation we've been will die with us.  There won't be any other choice.

I don't know about you, but unlike the leftists who believe in Neville Chamberlain's methods of appeasement, I believe that the majority of us workaday Americans would rather fight to the death than give in to the threats and demands of terrorists.  

That fight has got to be the central issue of the 2016 election, if we can last that long.  The first job of the federal government is to protect our nation and it cannot be protected from threats with the open borders and immigration system we have today.  (If Congress would do their job we'd be watching an impeachment process to stop the illegal actions that have continued ceaselessly in this administration.  That's why about 90% of those in the House and Senate need to be replaced or forced into submission to the will of the voters, too!)

Many people think their chosen issue is the most important in 2016.  But if that issue is not immigration, then they have their priorities in the wrong place.  

When your house needs new carpet, a new paint job, and a leaky roof fixed you don't choose to replace the carpet or paint the walls before you fix the roof.  You have to fix things in order of importance.  In America, the number one priority has to be immigration or the rest won't matter.

Our current system has left us open not just to illegals coming and taking jobs and benefits costing taxpayers billions, but has also left us open to terrorists coming into our country.  It is quite possible, and most likely, that we already have some who've gotten in.  Just like Europe, we have a Trojan horse on our hands.  We saw it revealed in the Paris attacks this weekend.  It could very easily happen here today. This is not a future threat, it is very real and very present right now.

Pick your candidate carefully.  

Some politicians want to continue our open borders and lax immigration system.  

Some politicians want you to think they are for controlling our borders and immigration, but actually want to continue on the path we're on.

Other politicians say they want to close our border and bring immigration under control, but we need to be careful not to choose one who is just telling us what we want to hear.

Saving America starts with secure borders, enforced laws, and an immigration system that is structured to benefit our nation and our citizens.  Anything less just continues us on a dangerous path.

Saturday, November 7, 2015

What's The Real Reason Fox Removed Christie & Huckabee From Top Tier Debate?

Here's the Nonsense:  Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee didn't qualify for the top tier debate because the random calculations done using the polls showed they weren't eligible.

Here's the Horse Sense:  While not the strongest in the polls, Christie and Huckabee being blocked from the debate seems fishy.  It seems more likely their campaigns were dangerous to the goals of those in control of the debate.

In twisted gyrations to justify their action, Fox has removed Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee from the next top tier debate.  You may ask why it matters that it was Christie and Huckabee.  It may not be as simple as the excuses Fox is using to justify it.  It may very well be an effort by Fox to remove them from serious consideration in the presidential primaries because of the danger each of them present to Fox's chosen candidates.

Fox Business is no different than Fox News.  It's controlled by the same people which means it has the same goals as Fox News.  And now its the turn of Fox Business to help achieve their goal of helping the chosen GOP establishment (GOPe) candidate to win the Republican nomination.  (Why do you think the management and other hosts on Fox supported Megyn Kelly's lies about Donald Trump?  It was because he was destroying Jeb Bush's campaign.  An effort Jeb has now taken over himself and is successfully killing it on his own.)

Fox's promotion of establishment candidates is no secret. Like the other networks who support the leftist Democrat candidates, Fox also supports leftist candidates, but these are Republican leftists.  Remember last year when the Washington Examiner reported that Rupert Murdoch said he supported either a Bush or Clinton presidency?

So, what does this have to do with Chris Christie and Mike Huckabee?

Breitbart is reporting that last Tuesday Chris Christie was once again condemning Rubio for his support of a lawless presidency.  This time it was on Laura Ingraham's show where Christie pointed out that Rubio has said he will not revoke Obama's executive amnesty, but instead would leave it in place until legislation could be passed to replace it. Christie said that the executive amnesty is illegal and if Rubio leaves it in place he is ignoring the law.

Even Chuck Schumer talked this week , as reported by HotAir, of Rubio's involvement in the Gang of Eight amnesty legislation and strong support for it.

With Rubio still fooling many voters into thinking he's a conservative, the GOPe sees he's the guy to get behind to take Jeb's place if and when Jeb is done.  Left wing financial backers like Larry Ellison and big business GOPe financial backers like Sheldon Adelson have thrown support behind Rubio.

All this excitement about the irresponsible little liar has the GOPe worried that he may lose his momentum.  And for that Chris Christie stepped over the line in publicly pointing out Rubio's stand for lawlessness.

Given Christie's attacks on Rubio, it's quite possible that Fox decided it was time to get him off the main debate stage and remove him from much of the limelight.  I'm not a Christie fan politically, but he is excellent on stage and his performance at the debates, for what little time he's been given, has been very good.  He's persuasive and extremely good at presenting his argument.  To have someone with his communication abilities attacking a GOPe choice is dangerous and I am sure the GOPe doesn't want that and Fox is happy to do their bidding.

As for Huckabee, his situation is a little different, but once again is someone that does not fit the GOPe narrative. Huckabee is another excellent communicator.  When he speaks he's interesting and even entertaining.  He's developed a reputation for being extremely likable, even by his competitors.  The public likes him and because of these things he has credibility.

So, what's the beef against him?  Quite simply, it's morals. 

No other candidate has spoken out as much or fought harder for social issues during this campaign season.  Huckabee's latest book, released last January as a launchpad for issues in the 2016 campaign, addresses many of the critical social issues that are tearing America apart.  Huckabee speaks regularly about the fact that if America doesn't abandon its socially irresponsible culture and return to the values that founded our nation, then there will be no hope for our future.

Huckabee's spoken out continually about these issues and this is a thorn in the side of the GOPe who don't believe in these values at all.  (Anyone who's listened to Rush Limbaugh for any reasonable length of time has heard Rush tell stories of how GOPe leaders have tried to get him to push his listeners to abandon these issues and support such things as abortion, same sex marriage, etc.)  

This is a big threat to the GOPe, too.  When you have the GOPe candidates like Rubio living their lives and promoting government policies that abandon the core values our founders based our entire governmental system on, those candidates are in danger when someone is pushing as hard as Huckabee is to abandon our immorality and elect leaders who will help lead us back to faith in God and the morals and culture most in our nation once embraced.

The best way to deal with that is to take advantage of the situation where Huckabee's poll numbers aren't doing very well and eliminate him from the limelight, too.  If fewer people hear him, he is less of a threat.  

And once again, Fox is working hard to get Jeb or Marco nominated.  The best thing they can do when they have someone like Rubio, who's career is typical of a two-faced politician, is to get Huckabee, the man who is bringing light to social issues more than any other, off of the main stage where the light he shines will expose the hypocrisy of their candidates.

"But," you say, "Christie and Huckabee didn't qualify.  There's nothing sinister here."  

That is questionable.  Some people have raised legitimate questions about just how Fox came up with this decision.  And, believe it or not, the left-leaning Huffington Post may have done the best job reviewing the situation.

In an article questioning logic of Fox's methods, HuffPo's article said, "Fox Business Network averaged four national polls to decide which Republican presidential candidates to include in the Tuesday debates.  But unlike other networks that have hosted debates this year, Fox Business used stricter criteria and only the last four polls of its choosing."

The article continued, "According to the Fox Business rules, candidates needed an average of 2.5 percent in the four most recent national polls to be included in the primetime debate.  Christie and Huckabee barely missed -- each had an average of 2.25 percent across the four polls used."

But that's not the interesting part.  The article writes that, "...with an average sample size of 445 respondents across the four polls used, there is only a 60 percent chance that Sen. Rand Paul actually leads Huckabee and Christie [emphasis added], with his average right on the 2.5 percent threshold to their 2.25 percent.  Under any other circumstances that distinction would be too close to call, but in this case it's the difference between debate opportunities.  

The article goes on to talk about the polls Fox chose to use and how a slight change in just one of the polls could have changed who would be removed from the top tier debate.

But why would Fox want Rand Paul instead of Christie or Huckabee?  The answer is simple.  Rand Paul has a unique following of libertarian supporters who will stick with him to the end.  Paul will take those votes away from outsider candidates like Carson, Trump, and Cruz, which will give the GOPe candidate a better chance to win the nomination.  

The goal of the GOPe is to make sure that none of the outsider candidates get the nomination and the chosen GOPe candidate does get the nomination.  

Remember the report by Examiner that said the GOPe would consider running their candidate as a 3rd Party candidate if Trump became the nominee?  Don't think that they wouldn't consider that same thing if Carson or Cruz, the other outsider candidates, were to win the nomination.  Trump was the target of the comment because he's been the leader in the polls.

The last thing they want is to lose power and if a non-GOPe candidate gets the nomination and wins the general election, the GOPe will be in dire straits as that new president will lead the way in replacing them.  They'd rather have the power of leading the minority party than have no power at all.  That's why they would rather a Democrat win the election than a non-GOPe candidate.

And supporting and promoting that agenda is Fox.  So, the chances of Christie and Huckabee being removed from the top tier debate because of some random calculation seems about as likely as Barack Obama being open to a legitimate compromise with the Republicans.

Sunday, November 1, 2015

Ted Cruz's Big Problem That Could Cause Hillary To Be Our Next President

The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense.

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz would be the best candidate to go against Hillary in 2016.  With his intellect, debate skills, and principled stand on issues he'd be impossible to beat.

Here's the Horse Sense:  As good as he is, even with some criticisms he can overcome with most people, Ted Cruz has a problem that could ensure a Hillary Clinton presidency.

America is collapsing.  The results of the 2016 election will determine whether we have a chance to turn our country around or if that will be the last election before it's too far gone to save it. To anyone who's done their homework, it is clear that there are only 3 non-establishment GOP candidates that have a real chance at the nomination;  Ben Carson, Donald Trump, and Ted Cruz.  But what do we do if we have a candidate whose nomination would be an almost sure guarantee to give the presidency to Hillary Clinton?  Think I'm crazy? There's a serious chance that one of the favorite candidates of conservatives would cause just that to happen if he is nominated.  If we know that, should we still support him or choose another candidate that doesn't have the same danger hanging over their head?

After his performance at the last debate, Ted Cruz received a bump both in the polls and fundraising.  He's clearly the most solidly conservative candidate running.  His ability to take apart someone's argument makes him a favorite of many conservatives.

All that said, there are a number of problems Cruz has that his followers refuse to see, but they are there.  Those include:

1.)  A lack of any executive experience, having never run anything prior to this run for the presidency.  In addition, he's served less than one full term in the Senate before this run.  This is exactly what Obama's background was when he ran for the White House in 2008.  I have no doubt that this would be something the Democrats will use against him in the general election.

2.)  Many who are not big fans of his react to him as being cold and harsh.  Some of that is the way he speaks along with how he sounds (his voice is often referred to as nasal sounding and his speech is seen as too intellectual).  You may think that's no big deal, but Americans are superficial and judge people on the most unimportant details.  How often do you hear someone criticize people based on their appearance and not the substance of their argument? 

3.)  This may not appear to be a weakness, but it actually is. The GOP candidates were criticized for speaking below a college level at the last debate, with every candidate speaking between a 5th grade and 9th grade level (Trump at the 5th grade level, Cruz at the 9th grade level and everyone else in between), the fact is that anyone who's studied marketing communications and public speaking knows that you should always speak between a 5th grade and 8th grade level to make it easy to understand.  That is also the level that accomplishes the most persuasion.  

Trump's marketing brilliance includes his understanding to speak at a 5th grade level and thereby assure the understanding of the audience and win more support.  Cruz speaking at the 9th grade level, slightly above the 8th grade maximum for most effective persuasion, does make him sound condescending to some people.  

Remember, Cruz's greatest strength is winning debates and courtroom arguments.  But you don't persuade people by thumping them in a debate or argument.  You persuade them by speaking to them in easy to understand terms that empathize with their frustrations and pain.

4.)  Another problem for Cruz is his age.  He's very young.  Now you're probably thinking he's 44 years old and that's 9 years older than he is required to be under the Constitution to be president.  But 44 is very young when it comes to life experience.  The difference between someone who is 44 versus someone who is 60 or 65 is immense.  

When our founders put the requirement to be president at 35 years of age, the average lifespan at birth in America was about 40.  Today our average lifespan is about 75.  People had to grow up at a different rate in colonial America.  35 was to 40 back then as 65 is to 75 today.  Any thinking person wants a president who has a great deal of life experience to draw from when handling the biggest, most difficult, and most important job in the world.

But that's NOT his biggest problem.  He probably has a fair chance of overcoming some, if not all of those problems with many voters.  His biggest problem, should he be nominated, will come in the legal fight the Democrats will bring regarding his nomination.  They will challenge his constitutional eligibility for the presidency and the legal battle will be horrendous.

I'm sure with my saying that I've just lost a bunch of readers, but it's critically important because of what could happen.  

Cruz's problem is not the same as it was for President Obama.  And what the media and some attorneys have said about the issue is most likely far from what needs to be considered. Don't forget that pundits and talk show hosts, even those who are attorneys, are not the ones the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) goes to when they are considering their decisions.

This is important because of what could happen if Cruz were to win the nomination.  We need to remember that Cruz, more than any other candidate, represents to the Democrats a move far to the right politically for America.  Progressives have worked for a century to get America as far left as it is today.  A Cruz nomination would be fought tooth and nail.  It's virtually guaranteed that the Democrats would take it to court challenging his eligibility as a natural born citizen.  Don't forget that Hillary Clinton was the first to raise the question of Barack Obama's eligibility in the 2008 campaign so she's fully aware of the issue.

At this point I suspect many of you are saying that I'm just anti-Cruz.  The fact is that I was a Cruz supporter before most people even knew he was going to run.  But after learning what I'm going to share with you, I didn't feel I could support him any longer.  To do so would be heading towards a potential disaster that we can't afford.  America is in dire straits and may not survive, even if we do elect a good president.  

We need every chance we can get to win this election because I don't believe we're going to have another chance to save this country if we lose in 2016.  The politicians in Washington, Democrat and establishment Republican alike, continue to move to take away more of our rights and there's little chance we would still have the same ability to vote for changes in the same way we do now after 2016 if we lose.

Many will say that Cruz has said he's eligible.  Some are even saying that some attorneys said it.  But the real issue will come down to what SCOTUS says because this has never been ruled on before.  The term "natural born" is not defined in our founding documents, and the courts have never dealt with this issue.

America's founders obviously had something special in mind when they used the term "natural born" in their requirement for the presidency.  Nowhere else in our founding documents did they have this requirement.  So the term "natural born" must be something special.  And since that is a requirement in the Constitution in order to be president it would require a SCOTUS ruling to define what the founders meaning was.

We need to remember that it doesn't matter how strongly we believe in our argument regarding the proper definition.  What matters is how SCOTUS would rule.  If we're honest with ourselves, we've seen this court rule against absolutely solid arguments too many times in the past.  Often they rule politically on too many important decisions (i.e.; Obamacare) instead of based on good understanding of the Constitution. 

What we need to look at is how they've handled cases in the past when it comes to original intent of the founders. 

Recently I was privileged to meet the man who would most likely influence the court's decision more than any other. Rob Natelson is a conservative constitutional scholar that was introduced to me by a friend.  We had lunch and talked about many issues, one of which was the eligibility issue.  

The reason Natelson is so important to this discussion is that his expertise on constitutional matters has been referred to by this SCOTUS more than any other scholar.  Just since 2013 SCOTUS has cited him 17 times in 5 different cases.  So the chances are very good that they would look to him again regarding the original intent of the founders on this issue.

As we had lunch, Natelson told me that the founders looked to British law as their example when they were setting up our legal system.  That made sense given that they had been British subjects.  In an article he wrote for the Tenth Amendment Center, Natelson wrote:  "A subject was natural born if he was born in Britain or a British territory or, if born abroad, his father was at the time a loyal subject not engaged in treasonous or felonious activities. Although the American Founders did not require natural-born status for Congress, they did insist that the President have that status.  They also imposed a residency requirement of 14 years and a minimum age of 35."

Mr. Natelson explained that what that meant for America is that being natural born was dependent on the child's father (remember, women at that time in history didn't have the same rights as men, so those who argue about both parents having to be citizens aren't considering the culture in which they lived).  So, since Ted Cruz's father was not an American citizen when Ted was born, plus the fact that Ted was born in Canada, he would not be considered natural born by the founders definition.

Mr Natelson told me that based on that, he believed Cruz to be ineligible.  Given that opinion and his influence with SCOTUS, I would say there is a very big possibility that Cruz would be ruled ineligible.  

If this happened during the election it would:

  1. Throw the GOP into turmoil as they scrambled to replace him as a candidate.  
  2. Raise doubt in the minds of voters who would wonder if any GOP candidate could be trusted after Cruz had been sold to them as a legitimate candidate only to result in a ruling that proved otherwise.  
  3. Republicans would also lose control of the Senate and House as Americans would want to punish them for their deceit.
  4. And worst of all, it would assure a Hillary Clinton victory in the run for the White House.

The downside if this were to happen would be far greater than choosing to get behind a candidate now that doesn't have that potential problem.  Changing now, before the primaries have even begun, would allow Cruz to see he doesn't have the support and he could return to the Senate.  We could support him, elect other conservative senators, and fight to replace Mitch McConnell with Ted Cruz.  That would secure the Senate in conservative hands and leave us only the House to eventually be moved to conservative leadership by replacing House Speaker Paul "RINO" Ryan. 

The issue is not whether Ted Cruz would be a good president.  

It's not whether he might have a chance to win this issue in court.  

It's whether it's worth the risk during the most critical election year in history to take the chance that we might end up with a candidate who, in the end, is ruled ineligible and the result is a Hillary Clinton presidency.  

We have a number of good candidates available to us.  We would be better off getting behind someone without the eligibility baggage to be sure that at the last minute we don't lose our last chance to save this nation.