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, February 23, 2015

For Democrats It's Only About Power And Never About Principle

Here's the Nonsense:  Democrats are the party that stands up for people.  They always put the best interest of others ahead of personal motives.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The ONLY thing Democrats are interested in is power and control.  They are unprincipled and this recent story about the DNC chair is a perfect example.

A mostly overlooked story in Politico reveals the lack of principles that are prevalent among Democrats.  DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz has shown her true colors by compromising her principles when faced with the thought of possibly losing her job as DNC chair.  While this is no surprise, it is a perfect example of just how Democrats work.

Democrats, especially the White House, have been less than satisfied with the job she's done.  It is said she is too apt to pursue an independent agenda instead of one with the blessing of the White House.  But instead of facing their dissatisfaction and trying to find solutions that would allow her to keep her job, Ms. Wasserman Schultz has considered strong-arming President Obama.

The Politico story says of Wasserman Schultz:  "when she sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic."

So, she believes that he is anti-woman and anti-Semitic, but she's willing to abandon principles that should cause her to stand up and fight for women and Jews so that she can keep her position of power.  

As a Democrat she is supposed to believe that the Republicans are pursuing a war on women, but when it comes to Democrats, she'll only stand up for women if she can use it to keep her job.

Add to that, she's Jewish and yet she will allow Obama a pass for being anti-Semitic as long as she keeps her job.

Talk about hypocrisy!

But this is who Democrats are.  There are no heartfelt principles.  All they are interested in is power and control.  Why do you think we keep seeing Obama violate the Constitution and take actions that are illegal?  It's because he wants more and more power.

That's who these progressives are.  And that's why Americans are losing their rights and freedoms, because these people will do anything in return for gaining and maintaining power.

Why are Democrats getting away with it?  A perfect example was this past weekend when warning came out that numerous shopping malls are in danger of terrorist attack, with Minnesota's Mall of America specifically being named as a target.  I heard a news report about the terrorist threat in which they played a short clip from an interview with a customer shopping at the Mall of America asking him what he thought about the heightened security and the terror threat at the mall.  He replied that he didn't see much difference in security, but that he didn't worry about it because life was too busy to spend time listening to the news.

Did you get that?  Life is too busy to spend time listening to the news!  That explains in a nutshell why America is in trouble.  People aren't involved.  They're not even paying attention to what's in the news.  They're more interested in their lives than they are in what's happening in the world.

It's no wonder America has little chance of survival.  Americans have sold their souls for their self-interests.

Tuesday, February 17, 2015

Jews Fleeing Europe: Are They Safer In America Or Israel?

Here's the Nonsense:  Jews are in danger throughout the world.  Some are running to America and we will make sure they are safe here.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Contrary to our historical image as a place of refuge from the problems in the world, America may not be that place for Jews much longer.

The U. K. Telegraph published a story about a Jewish family in Britain that are finding that it is no longer safe for Jews to live in their country, so they are moving to America.  They thought about moving to Israel, but chose America instead.  They believe they will be safe here and are moving to Arizona.  They have two teenage children, one which is in college with plans to go to Berkeley.  When I read all of that my heart broke.  I wanted to reach out to these people and inform them that they may be making the wrong decision.  I found myself surprised by and fearful for this family.  They are making the wrong decision if they want to be safe.

Britain is the country out of which our nation started.  It holds a special place for me personally as it is the land from which my ancestors came.  As a nation, the roots from America to Britain are deep and the ties have been strong since we settled our major differences in the American Revolution and the War of 1812.  Frequently things that happen in Europe, especially in Britain, become things that follow over to America and happen here, too.  Sometimes that's good, sometimes it's bad.  This time it's bad, it's very, very bad.

The family in the story, I believe, are making the wrong decision.  Why the wrong decision?  Because America has a growing undercurrent of anti-semitism these days.  The son who will attend Berkeley will be surprised to find it is not as open to Jews as their family hopes.  Just this past year there have been stories reported about anti-semitism at that school and others around our country.  And this has spread from other parts of the world to infect our nation.

Europe is in terrible shape.  The Washington Post is reporting that after the rise of antisemitism and the terror attacks in France, Jews are planning an exodus so they can be safe.  Fox News has also reported similar stories. has reported on a new study called White Papers Of Hate.  It reports that racism, xenophobia, and radical nationalist movements are on the rise in 19 European countries.  The 1000 page study reports on incidents of anti-Semitism and hate crimes against religious minorities and immigrants between 2012 and 2013.

Just a few weeks ago, on Friday night and Saturday morning, January 9th and 10th, Jews who worship at the Grand Synagogue in Paris did not have services.  It was the first time since the Nazis occupied Paris during World War II.  The synagogue was closed for security reasons.

Yahoo News is reporting that hundreds of Jewish tombs are being defaced in France.  The level of anti-Semitism in Europe is increasing.

In France in 1999 there were approximately 80 reported anti-Semitic incidents.  In each of the following years the there were at least 400.  And there were over 600 in the first half of 2014.  The Jewish populace in France makes up less than 1% of the total population, but they are victims of 50% of the crimes the French government classify as racist.

Within a one week period in the summer of 2014, 8 French synagogues were attacked, one of which was fire bombed.  A kosher supermarket and a pharmacy owned by Jews were looted.  And a mob of over 400 people were shouting, "Slit Jews throats." and "Death to Jews."

Due to safety, few Jews attend public schools in France anymore.  Most attend religious schools, many of which are Catholic schools.

France is just an example of things that are happening in other European countries, too.  Italians have protested Israel and called for a boycott of Jewish merchants.  In Germany there have also been mobs shouting anti-Jewish rhetoric.  And there have been crimes and other anti-Semitic acts throughout Europe.  Places like Brussels, Frankfurt, and London are among the many that have seen these incidents recently.  And this past weekend a terror attack against Jews occurred in Denmark.

Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu is calling on Jews to move to Israel to be safe.  And he's wise to do it.

While many who are against Jews claim it's because they don't agree with actions and policies of Israel's government, when European Jews are attacked, it really isn't about Israel's government.  It's about hatred of Jews.

So, as they have many times over the millennia, Jews are having to leave to remain safe.  No people in world history have suffered the repeated attacks and prejudice against them that the Jews have.  Things are too reminiscent of what happened in Germany in the 1930s.  If you have ever spent any time studying what happened during the Holocaust (and if you haven't, YOU NEED TO), you can understand the concerns rising among Jews around the world.  I've been an avid student of what happened in Germany during World War II and honored to have met, on 3 different occasions in my life, survivors of those Nazi concentration camps.  Their stories will keep you up at night (which is a good thing because we should all be disturbed by the evil that man is capable of).

As the problems rise in Europe these days, we are also seeing some of those attitudes rise in America, too, and we should all be very concerned.  On Sunday, reported that 30 homes in Madison, Wisconsin were painted with anti-Semitic slurs.  Anti-Semitism is not limited to the Middle East or Europe, this sickness is even in our own backyard here in America.
People get tired of hearing comparisons to Nazi Germany, but it is very appropriate. In recent history Nazi Germany represents what many at the time thought never could happen. In desperation to get out of the circumstances they were living in, the German people became fools and fell for the lies of the left.

(Yes, I said left.  The Nazis were fascists, which are leftists, not hard right conservatives that the left has tried to say they were. Their ideology is a socialist ideology with only slight differences from communism, which Hitler fully understood.  But the left tries to call them right wing to demonize conservatism.  It's been such a successful demonization that I've had many Jewish friends over the years tell me that the reason they don't trust conservatives is that they fear they are too close to becoming Nazis.  They don't really understand that conservatives are really the ones who are more concerned about their safety and freedom than the left.)

Talk to any person who has come to America that lived under a totalitarian regime and they will tell you that America is moving in the same direction that they saw their countries move as they fell to totalitarianism, be it the Nazis or the Communists.  We are seeing in America a dehumanizing and marginalizing of targeted groups of people so that the left can blame the problems in America on them.  In Germany the Jews received the majority of this treatment.  It started with slander against them and then moved to legal sanction and ended up in putting them in concentration camps.  Will America end up with concentration camps?  I have no idea.  But even falsely slandering someone to destroy their credibility is terrible.  And legally sanctioning someone just for being who they are is despicable.

But we cannot forget that what the Nazis did was done in incremental steps.  Had they tried to do it quickly, there would have been resistance.  But by starting slowly with slurs against the Jews and creating an environment of distrust against them, they were able to incrementally move the attitude in Germany against them. 

With the pro-muslim, anti-Israel attitude of this administration, we are seeing a slow buildup of anti-Jewish thought in America.  And no one is standing up to stop it.  For Jews elsewhere in the world looking to move to somewhere safer than where they are, America would probably only be a temporary refuge.  Since the American people are not stepping up to stop the destruction of our nation, but instead are too focused on themselves, chances are our nation will not turn around, but will continue down the path we're on.  That means that Jews will only be safe here for a temporary amount of time.  And Christians will be in the same boat.  Conservatives, regardless of religion, won't be far behind.

For Jews throughout the world seeking a safe place, Israel will be the safest for them. (I describe why I believe this as a footnote to a comment I wrote earlier.  The footnote is at the end of this post.)  For the rest of us, we have nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.  As I've said many times before, unless and until Americans abandon their immoral ways and turn to God, it won't matter who we elect to political office.  But if we do abandon those sinful ways, then we will be able to elect true leaders who can turn America around.  It's our choice.  While I don't believe that Americans will, I hope I'm wrong and people make the right choice.

* I know some of you are wondering why I'd think Israel could be safer than America for Jews when it's surrounded by 100 million Muslims that are committed to its destruction.  I believe God and His promises.  God chose the Jews out of all the peoples of the world.  He made them a nation and even though they had their ups and downs in their relationship with Him over the millennia, He made a promise to them.  He promised that after all their dispersion throughout the world, that one day they would come back to their land and become a nation again.  That happened in 1948.  And He also promised that when they finally did come back they would never lose that land again.  In fact, He promised that in the end times they will be attacked and would be saved by God stepping in miraculously to protect them.  Click here to read some of the amazing things that happened just this last summer in their fight against Hamas.  I believe in that promise and, therefore, I believe that Israel is the safest place for the Jews.

Monday, February 16, 2015

What Will America Do When Our First Soldier Is Captured By ISIS?

Here's the Nonsense:  America is working with other nations to stop ISIS.  Our efforts are important, but this must be led by Muslims to have real impact.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The Muslim nations don't have the power or resources to end the murderous rampage by ISIS.  Only America does and it's time we put on our big-boy pants and step up to the plate and deal with this.

We've seen the reports of ISIS atrocities.  They're beheading captives, they burned the captured Jordanian pilot alive, they're slaughtering anyone who does not bow down to them and their distorted view of God and leaving a wake of death as they spread throughout the Middle East.  We read reports like 21 Christians being beheaded to ISIS parading 17 captured Kurdish fighters in cages through a town with the plan to burn them all alive, their atrocities seem to have no bounds.

We are told that ISIS is spreading beyond Syria and Iraq throughout the world and even has cells now in the U. S.  They are fighting in Iraq near where American troops are located.  And now the Colorado Springs Gazette is reporting that 4000 troops from Ft. Carson, which is in Colorado Srpings, will be heading to Kuwait and what may be a direct confrontation with ISIS.

All of this is happening and it made me think of a report by WND about Mike Huckabee being at a dinner for the Endowment for Middle East Truth and telling the story of a father who took his 11 year old daughter to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem.  Yad Vashem was established in 1953 as the world's center for documenting, researching and remembering the deaths of millions during World War II.  The museum shows the horrors inflicted on the victims of the Nazis.  At the conclusion of the exhibit there was a guestbook and the little girl wrote a simple question:  

"Why didn't somebody do something?"

That's the question we all need to ask about ISIS.  Why isn't somebody doing something?

Sure, you could say that America and some other nations are doing air strikes.  You could even talk about the Kurds who are fighting so valiantly.  But in reality not much is being done when you consider the available power we have to deal with this.  In fact, the bottom line is that what is being done is not enough to stop ISIS.

Some will say it's not our problem.  That's what many said when Hitler was devastating Europe in the 1930s.  No moral human being can look the other way when injustice is being done. 

America is (or at least at one time we were) a noble nation.  We have stood up for the little guy many times in our history.  We have risked our lives to stop evil in the world because we've always known that those who are being attacked could just as easily be us.  We've also known that if you don't stop bad things like this, they will eventually happen here. 

But today Americans have become so narcissistic that we don't care what happens elsewhere.  We are no longer smart enough to understand that what happens elsewhere is just a hair's breadth away from happening here.  And it will happen here if it's not stopped elsewhere.

In fact, with the troops we now have there and the limitations we put on their ability to fight, it's only a matter of time before one of them is captured by ISIS. (Click here to read about how we've restricted our military in how they deal with the enemy, which does nothing less than put our people in greater danger.)

You can be sure that they will get the worst treatment of any captive that could be taken, with the possible exception of how an Israeli would be treated.  We will see Americans who are captured go through the worst, torturous death that can be imagined.

When I read the article about 4000 troops from Ft. Carson going to the Middle East I couldn't help but think that these people live not too far from me.  Ft. Carson is about 35 miles from where I live.  I've done business with that base and have met many of their people who've been to Afghanistan and Iraq in recent years.  It's possible that I've met some of these very people who are now heading to a possible confrontation with ISIS.  And when I realized that I couldn't help but wonder how Americans will react when an American soldier is captured, tortured, and put to a terrible death by ISIS.

Sure, the American people will be mad.  But what will our nation do?  The answer is that we will do little or nothing as a nation.  We are not willing to do what is necessary to stop this madness.  Our nation has become too politically correct.  And this is not the government's fault, it's the citizen's fault.  We've allowed this to infiltrate our nation and elected people who support it. 

The president has asked for congressional approval of his plan to deal with ISIS.  Many people, from military leaders to average citizens have voiced what they think is the solution to dealing with ISIS.  But virtually no one is facing the reality of the situation and putting forth the solution that will work.  Why?  Because even though it would be effective, it would be wildly unpopular and Americans are not willing to be unpopular.

America is no longer the tough, look 'em in the eye and make 'em back down no matter what it takes kind of country we once were.  And we never will be again. You may not want to hear that.  In fact, for some those might be fightin' words.  But reality is reality and America isn't what it used to be even a short time ago.  As I said before, we have become so self-absorbed that we don't care about others or what the future holds.  We just want to be entertained and taken care of.

The Islamic State, or what most of us call ISIS, is on a rampage throughout the Middle East.  Most say it's like nothing we've seen in about a millennia.  The U. S. government, under the leadership of President Obama, has joined with other nations to try to deal with them.  But there really hasn't been any serious damage done to them.  And now the president is talking of his new plan to deal with them and wants congressional approval to do so, even though he has all the authority he needs from previous approvals they've given him and his predecessor, George W. Bush.

This administration talks of getting the Arab countries to take on the task of defeating ISIS, just like George W. Bush talked of getting the Arab countries to take on defeating terrorism.  But the fact is that neither administration has had much success in achieving those goals.

Last year I was guest hosting a radio show and interviewed Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis at Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy.  While speaking with her about the Middle East she told me that the U. S. government finds it almost impossible to determine who the good guys and who the bad guys are in the Muslim world.  She said that when we try to support people like the Syrian rebels, we assume that if we train and arm them they will fight against terrorists, but we often find that they end up turning against us.  

We have no legitimate way to tell the difference between who would be loyal to our cause and those who might turn against us.  In fact, frequently we are seeing them join ISIS instead of holding to any principle that would cause them to take a stand against them at all costs (which is what is needed if someone is going to be your ally).  So, the idea of enlisting them to take the lead in the fight is ridiculous.  

We consistently hear of supposedly U. S. - friendly nations like Qatar and Saudi Arabia allowing funding of terrorism to come from their countries.  And these are supposed to be solid American allies.  But America does nothing to challenge them.

When President Bush said that those nations that were not with us in the fight against terrorism would be considered against us, he conveniently ignored the problems with these kinds of "allies."  And President Obama has done the same.  

Of course the Bush family has strong ties to the Saudis.  It's also been said that funding for President Obama's Harvard education was raised by Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal's advisor, Khalid Al-Mansour.  So America's leaders appear to not be able to put pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia because of these personal ties our leaders have to them. 

Therefore, they come up with this ridiculous idea that we have to trust some Arab groups to lead the fight against terrorism even though we can't be sure who, if any, will be loyal.

The only way to stop ISIS, or any terrorist group, is to understand them so you know how to deal with them. Understanding your enemy is key to defeating them.  (This is also why conservatives have not been able to defeat progressives like Obama, they refuse to face the reality of who these people are, but I digress so let me get back to the point of this post.)

We must understand that these people do not see the threat of death as a real threat. They see death as a good thing that sends them to paradise.  They have no fear of death, which makes most military operations against them insignificant.  After all, you can't beat up someone expecting them to get to the point where they'll ask you to stop if they don't mind being beaten up, or even worse, welcome being beaten up. That's what we're up against.  So the idea of military attacks that batter them silly until they give up are useless.

America faced this very kind of enemy once before.  It's not been a millennia since we've seen the kind of mindset that isn't deterred by death.  That enemy was Japan in World War II.  The Japanese were not only willing to die, they believed that to surrender was a disgrace worse than death.  In fact, they believed that the disgrace was so great that it would leave a shadow over the reputation of their families.  They believed it was better to die than surrender.  And their willingness to do so was seen in their use of such things as suicide pilots (the kamikaze pilots).

Japan was a terrible enemy during that war.  They would torture and kill civilians and POWs in ways that are reminiscent of what we're seeing with ISIS (beheading was common as was burning people alive).

This is what America faced in World War II.  And when President Harry Truman was faced with the decision to use the atomic bombs we had developed, he knew that this would cost far fewer Allied and Japanese lives than a land invasion of Japan.  (To read more about what went into Truman's decision click here.)  After the two bombs were dropped in August of 1945, within 5 days of the bomb hitting Nagasaki, the Japanese surrendered, even though they did not believe in surrender.

What a lot of people don't know is that the Japanese military leaders didn't want to surrender.  They were committed to the war, but the emperor of Japan decided that they had to surrender and did so.  The Japanese military followed their orders and stopped fighting. 

The difference between the Japanese and ISIS is that ISIS is not a country with a leader that can make the decision for them to stop.  Whatever their leadership, ISIS fighters are loyal to their cause and will not give up.  Unlike the Japanese of World War II, even a nuclear weapon killing large numbers of them isn't going to stop them from what they are doing.

So, what is the solution?  It's simple, but it would be highly unpopular and Americans would never support it.  Even with success, America would be judged by the world as the evil oppressors, not the saviors who stopped the murderous actions of ISIS.  But it's the only one that will work.  And if we were serious about stopping ISIS we wouldn't care what the world thinks. 

That solution is to use any weapons our military needs to in order to wipe ISIS off the face of the earth, including nuclear weapons.

But if we used those weapons, we have to understand that they are not going to cause ISIS to stop if we use them like we did in Japan.  We will have to use enough weaponry to totally eradicate ISIS from the face of the earth.  If any survive, they will go back to their terrorist ways as soon as the dust clears.  These are vermin who have no right to live and must be stopped. And that can only happen by wiping them out.  Nothing else will work because they are not willing to lay down their arms and cease their hostilities like Japan was willing to do.

So, what will America do when our first soldier is captured by ISIS?  Answer:  Very little, and certainly nothing that will make a difference.

Better question:
What should America do when our first soldier is captured by ISIS?  Answer:  Wipe ISIS off the face of the earth.  In fact, we should so that now before they have a chance to harm any more people.  It's that simple.

Tuesday, February 10, 2015

SCOTUS Will Rule In Favor Of Gay Marriage

Here's the Nonsense:  Americans can trust that SCOTUS will rule on gay marriage based on the Constitution.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Americans better get ready for another ruling by SCOTUS that is based on political correctness, not the Constitution (although they'll try to make it sound like their ruling is constitutional).

Many Americans are concerned about the upcoming ruling on gay marriage by the Supreme Court.  There is hope by many that they will either or both uphold the definition of marriage as being only between a man and woman and/or uphold the right of the states to decide for themselves on this issue.  I've got news for them, neither one is going to happen. reported that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concern over how the court is handling the upcoming ruling on gay marriage.  He believes that their actions are sending signals as to what the ruling will be, which undermines our court system.  This is no surprise given the political orientation of SCOTUS anymore.

This is a post that could go into the views of each side from personal, historical, legal, and many other angles.  But I have no intention of rehashing what a zillion other authors have talked about.  I do, however, want to point out what should be obvious.

SCOTUS rarely deals with constitutionality or legality anymore.  What they do is interpret the Constitution in light of current politics.  A perfect example is their ruling on Obamacare a few years ago.  Constitutional scholars clearly laid out the unconstitutionality of Obamacare, but SCOTUS ruled otherwise.  In fact, they twisted and turned to make their ruling try to fit the Constitution.  Don't expect anything else in this situation.

Some will try to make the argument that this is a civil rights issue.  In reality, it is a states rights issue.  But I doubt SCOTUS will see it that way.  Most of the justices are driven by political correctness, which means they view the law in light of "fairness" but have no basis upon which to determine what fairness is.  So, like the progressives (which many of them are), they make a decision what is fair based on their personal opinion. 

The problem with this is that it is a subjective decision.  Without a source of truth to rely on, without a guide to look to that gives an ultimate right and wrong guideline, they have to trust human judgment.  And whether they like it or not, human judgment is not only fallible, it is usually wrong.

So, when they decide on gay marriage they will most likely decide it's not fair that some people can do something others can't.  That's what it is probably going to boil down to.  And you don't change that unless you change the hearts of Americans.  Until Americans turn to God and reject their immoral ways, they will not have a source of truth and ultimate right and wrong to turn to for guidance.

And my guess is that Americans won't do that and, as a result, we will continue down our path to destruction.


The Correct Response To Obama's Prayer Breakfast Speech

Here's the Nonsense:  Americans should be shocked at President Obama's speech at the National Prayer Breakfast.  This is not how we expect him to speak.

Here's the Horse Sense:  No one should be shocked or waste time asking why the president said what he did.  This is who he is.  What we should be upset about is the reaction of those in attendance.

President Obama's Prayer Breakfast speech has drawn response from many.  Most of the responses state some facts and make emotional appeals to Americans to be upset about what he did.  But the fact is that it really doesn't matter.  His actions should surprise no one.  In fact, if you didn't expect him to do something along these lines, then you haven't been paying attention to who he is or what he is doing.  But the real issue isn't what he did, it's what the response should have been.

I've avoided commenting on Obama's Prayer Breakfast speech because of all the wasted time people have spent asking why he'd do such a thing and why he doesn't stand up for Christians and Christianity since the vast majority of Americans profess connection to the Christian faith.  As I've discussed frequently, this man does not love America and has no respect for Christianity.  It's that simple.  Talking about why he did it or why he doesn't stand up for Christianity is just a waste of time.

Dennis Prager, whose talk show everyone should listen to (if you can't listen live, you can listen for free 24/7 at his website,, gives a level of intellectual discussion to topics that is rarely found on shows.  While I don't always agree with him, I do appreciate and respect his analysis about many issues.  The reason I bring Mr. Prager's show up here is that he's written a good analysis of and response to Obama's speech here.  In my mind the best point made in his entire column is that the president had to go back 500 to 1000 years to come up with an example where this kind of evil was done in the name of Christ.  But as good as that is, nothing Prager says should be new to any American.  Unfortunately, though, it will be because Americans for the most part not only don't know or understand history, they are not capable of critical thinking anymore. 

The media and our school systems have successfully dumbed down the majority of our populace to the point of ignorance.  But if you want to understand how it's happened, go to this link and download the FREE ebook that tells the whole story of how it was planned for our school systems to do this to our society.

All that said, the bottom line is that the correct response to the president's speech had to be given by the audience in attendance, not by the rest of us who heard about it after the fact.  And that response should have been that everyone in attendance, regardless of their religious persuasion, should have gotten up from their chairs and walked out. 

Yes, I know that to walk out on the president is considered the ultimate in improper behavior, but that is wrong, too.  He works for the taxpayers.  A president of the United States is to be the ultimate servant of the people.  He is not to be shown special treatment.  He is not special.  He's a hired servant and when a hired servant misbehaves you treat him accordingly.  He does not deserve an audience and those in attendance should have walked out immediately and left him standing there speechless.

The message would be clear.  It would say that his message is unacceptable and won't be listened to.  But instead, we allow him to use his office as a bully pulpit.  It's our fault and it must stop.  No one who is elected to office is any more than a hired servant.  They need to understand that and until and unless they do, America can't correct it's political problems.

Monday, February 2, 2015

Is Scott Walker The Person Who Should Be The GOP Nominee In 2016?

Here's the Nonsense:  Scott Walker is absolutely the man who should be the GOP nominee in 2016.  There's no reason not to support him.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Scott Walker is an interesting candidate, but he has some problems that could, and maybe should, sink his candidacy.  There are some important questions that must be answered before he is qualified to lead America.

Scott Walker has gotten the attention of many in recent weeks.  His appearance in Iowa thrust him forward in the polls and popularity with some feeling he is the best choice as the GOP presidential candidate in 2016.  But can he really gain enough support to win the nomination, let alone the general election?  Many people who claim to be conservative are missing what could be Walker's Achilles heel.

Scott Walker has done a very good job in Wisconsin as governor.  He's won multiple elections even though there have been huge campaigns against him by the left.  He's done an excellent job with Wisconsin's economy.  He hasn't backed down when threatened.  Generally he's been a solid governor with an enviable track record.  And many who support him cite those things as examples for why he should be the GOP candidate.  Some also lean on the idea that only a governor should be considered because they have their track record running something their state as executive experience that makes them the best choice. 

I partially agree with the concept that a governor may be a good choice because of their executive experience.  Although I think that a successful businessman can bring those skills and more to the presidency, too.  However, as important as that executive experience can be, there are other issues to be considered, too.

Walker's great weaknesses that I believe could torpedo his candidacy are core issues to many conservatives.  There are some issues that are bigger priorities than anything else to many conservatives and Walker is, at best, questionable in some of these areas.

The first, and probably the most damaging to his run is his stand on immigration.  On Sunday Walker was on ABC's This Week and danced around a key issue instead of addressing it head-on.  He said, "I think, for sure, we need to secure the border.  We need the [sic] enforce the legal system.  I'm not for amnesty.  I'm not an advocate of the plans that have been pushed in Washington.  And I think, should I become a candidate, because I'm not yet, it's part of the exploratory process.  We're a country of balance.  We're a country of immigrants and laws.  We can't ignore the laws or the people that came in.  Whether it's Mexico or Central America."

Then he was asked if he supported deporting the 11 million illegals who are in the U. S. already and he said, "That's not what I'm advocating."

Cleary he's refusing to answer the question by giving such an answer.  But if we look a little deeper we see that he does agree with amnesty, even though he doesn't call it that.  In 2013 The Hill quoted him as saying that he believed that there should be a pathway to citizenship for illegals. 

Now there are supporters of his that will quickly justify that that is not amnesty, but conservatives have held that it is.  To not force people who've broken the law to be punished for it and, in the case of immigration, be treated just like anyone else who has broken that law, is to bend your position in order to be able to support Walker.  His position is much like that of the Gang of Eight who wanted to push through a similar idea as immigration reform.

For those who don't remember, the Gang of Eight are the following  four establishment Republican and four progressive Democrat Senators:

  • John McCain (R)
  • Jeff Flake (R)
  • Lindsey Graham (R)
  • Marco Rubio (R)
  • Dick Durbin (D)
  • Robert Menendez (D)
  • Chuck Schumer (D)
  • Michael Bennet (D)

To be honest with ourselves, we must accept that Walker is for something that those of us who believe in the rule of law and closed borders do not agree with.  And that will hurt him with those conservatives who are honest with themselves.  That could be enough to cripple his candidacy to the point that he can't win because many conservatives would refuse to vote for him. 

A second issue that will haunt Gov. Walker is that he did not complete his college education.  There are many in our society who believe that college is required to achieve in life, especially if you're going to be a politician.  The left has set a standard that you are unacceptable not only if you don't have a college degree, but also if the degree isn't from a school that they prefer.  In the case of running for the presidency, they seem to demand an Ivy League education.

They will pounce on this fact, but Scott Walker's experience should (but will not) offset that issue.  He has proven his ability through successes in life, especially in politics, that should be enough.  But in their hypocrisy, the media will paint a picture of Walker as a buffoon who couldn't finish his degree. 

They will ignore the fact that some of their icons like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs didn't get their college degrees, yet were astoundingly successful.  And the public will buy into it because they have come to accept the same nonsense that a degree is absolutely essential in life.  In fact, even conservatives will be subject to this fallacy while forgetting that one of their icons, Rush Limbaugh, also dropped out of college.

Rand Paul may get some similar attacks because he never got an undergraduate degree, but that won't last long because he scored so high on his medical school entrance exams that he was accepted without an undergraduate degree and went on to complete medical school and become an ophthalmologist.  But don't doubt that they will try to make his lack of an undergraduate degree an issue, too.

So, regardless of how well Walker does in the primaries, that will be a point that will be hammered by those who oppose him (that includes Democrats and Republicans).

Before I get to one last point, let me say that there are many people who will scream at what I'm saying that we can't afford to deport 11 million people.  They say it would cost less to let them stay and become citizens than it would to deport them. 

Well, first of all, let's be honest that there is a cost to upholding law and order.  But we decide to do it because it makes for a better society when we require people to abide by laws and have penalties if they don't. 

And as for the cost to deport, people seem to think that we have an obligation to fly these people to their home countries and cover all their expenses.  I would disagree.  The cost is a bus ride to the border (plus food for them while getting there and security to make sure they get there).  They come across our border and our only obligation would be to get them to the border and close the gate behind them.  What they do when they're on the other side is their problem, not ours. 

But there is something else, even more important to be said about not just Scott Walker, but all the people who've shown interest in running in 2016 on the GOP ticket. 

America is in severe trouble and, as I've said over and over again, unless we turn from our immoral ways and become a moral nation that fears God again, there is no hope.  Nothing is more important.  Given that fact, it is imperative we elect a president who understands that.  To my knowledge, only 4 people who've expressed interest in running for the GOP nomination in 2016 have called for our nation to turn to God and repent of our immoral ways.  They are (in no particular order):

  • Ted Cruz
  • Mike Huckabee
  • Bobby Jindal
  • Ben Carson
They are all men who fear God and understand what our nation is up against.  While I do have some reservations about a few of Huckabee's positions, and I'm not fully clear on all of Jindal's or Carson's positions, I will say that I would take any of these men if the choice was between them and someone who does not understand the importance of the spiritual state of America. 

Even if a person is weaker in some areas than others, if they honor God then He can give them the ability and advisors to help them lead in a way that honors God and helps return America to the nation it was created to be.

Scott Walker and other candidates may feel the way these 4 men do, but I haven't heard them say it yet.  And that must be a clear criteria as we select our next candidate or we might as well give up on America now.  Without God on our side, failure is inevitable.