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.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

America In 2025 If SCOTUS Rules To Change The Definition Of Marriage

Here's the Nonsense:  The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage won't make any difference in everyday American's lives.  Nothing will change, it will just allow things to be fair for those who are gay and want to be married.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage could be a defining moment for America's future.  Should SCOTUS decide to rule based on political correctness instead of ruling constitutionally that this is an issue to be determined by the states, the result will restrict freedoms for American citizens beyond what most people can imagine.

There's a lot of talk about what will happen in America if the Supreme Court's upcoming decision on gay marriage ends up being a change in the definition of marriage to something other than between a man and a woman.  But is there a way to "see the future" of America should SCOTUS make such a decision?  While we can't be exactly certain what will happen, I think we have the answer sitting right next to us but we're not paying enough attention to realize it.

First, let's borrow a time machine and travel a decade into the future to 2025 to see what the results of such a ruling could bring:

In 2025 there can no longer be debate about same-sex marriage because since the SCOTUS ruling, those debates have become illegal.  In fact, you can't say or write anything that questions or disagrees with same-sex marriage.  If you do, you are subject to disciplinary action including penalty, loss of employment, even prosecution.

And in 2025 parenting has been redefined as a result of the ruling.  No longer are "natural" or "biological" terms that can be used for a parent.  The only acceptable term is now "legal parent."  Children are only seen as having legal parents under federal law.

In 2025 it is now discriminatory to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman, or that children should know and be raised by their biological married parents.  If you say or write something that another person finds offensive, a simple complaint filed with the government can require a hearing investigating you for hate speech.  With it the government has the right to enter your private property and remove all items related to their investigation of hate speech.  You'll be burdened with the tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend yourself in addition to any other penalties such as fines and sensitivity training the government decides are appropriate.  Even if you're found innocent you must bear the cost of your own legal fees with no recourse to recover them.  (By the way, the person making the complaint has all their legal fees paid for by the government.)

In 2025 your beliefs, values, and political opinions must conform to the government's or you may lose your job, business, professional licenses, possibly even your children.  

2025 brings the government authority to enter your home to supervise you as a parent and to judge your suitability as such.  If what you teach your children is disagreeable to the government, they can take action to remove them from your home.

In 2025 it's not just parents under scrutiny.  Teachers will not be allowed to make comments about such issues in social media, participate in public discourse, or vote according to their conscience on their own time.  They have the potential of being disciplined or even losing tenure, required to take sensitivity training, or even lose their jobs.

By 2025 gender neutral language will be legally mandated.  It will be considered discriminatory to assume a person is male or female or heterosexual.  Non-gender-specific language will be used in media, government, workplaces, and schools.  Students will be subject to a special curriculum to teach them how to use proper gender-neutral language.

Today the Constitution grants you freedom of:

  • conscience
  • religion
  • press and media
  • thought, belief, opinion, and expression
  • peaceful assembly
  • association  

In 2025 those freedoms will exist no more.  Business owners will not be allowed to let their conscience influence business practices if those practices do not align with the government's sexual orientation and gender identity non-discrimination laws.  The government will dictate how citizens may express themselves. 

2025 will see restriction on your freedom to assemble and speak freely about male to female marriage, family, and sexuality.  Faith communities will have to become politically correct to avoid fines and loss of charitable status.  Even the media will risk losing their licenses and be fined or disciplined for airing anything the government feels is discriminatory.
  
2025 will see centralized government power and the end of the First Amendment.

Sound far fetched, extreme, even ridiculous?  What if there were an example of where this very thing had happened a decade ago and what I've written is exactly where they are at today?

Guess what.  It did happen 10 years ago in Canada and everything I've shared with you is what has happened in Canada over the past decade as outlined by Dawn Stafanowicz in her article "A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights."  

Don't think it can happen in America?  It happened right next door to us in Canada and it's about to happen here.  We're already seeing things happen pushing us away from having First Amendment freedoms.  People who reject homosexual relationships as "abnormal" are seen by the politically correct as not just out of touch, but wrong.

Just this past Friday the Washington Post reported about research being done on sexual orientation in America.  After one study they said that, "most heterosexual people selected the heterosexual or straight option, but for those that didn’t, the most common response was to write in ‘Normal.'"  Researchers concluded "respondents may not have known they were straight."  There was no consideration that some people, due to deeply held religious beliefs or for other reasons, believe deep in their hearts that anything other than being heterosexual is abnormal and they may have been using the survey response as a way to voice their viewpoint.  But they are considered abnormal by the politically correct because they don't view the world in a politically correct way.

This is a foundation stone in the left's efforts to take away freedoms and control Americans lives by changing our country from the republic which it was founded as to the communist oligarchy they have been working towards for the past century.  

And if you hadn't noticed, they're very near accomplishing their goals.



Monday, May 25, 2015

If You Don’t Think The Democrat Progressives & Communists Are The Same, Here’s More Proof

Here's the Nonsense:  Democrats just call themselves progressives because the term "liberal" has become a negative and "progressive" sounds better.  After all, who wouldn't want progress?

Here's the Horse Sense:  Progressive is not just a new label for liberals.  They are nothing more than communists in their ideology.  They have taken over the Democrat Party which controls America.  If you didn't believe it when I said it in the past, here's even more proof.

Aaron Klein at WND reported that earlier this month NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio introduced a “Progressive Agenda” that is being called the liberal “Contract with America.”  They want this to become the basis for the Democrat Party’s main economic policies.  

Klein compares the Progressive Agenda with the positions of the Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA.  It’s absolutely scary how they all run parallel with each other, which is more proof that the Progressives who control the Democrat Party are nothing more than Communists, even if they don’t claim that label.  

I'm going to do something a little different and show 5 of the points that Klein shows in his comparison, but I believe the progressive and communist positions are nonsense so I'm also going to counter each one with the Horse Sense to show the problem with their positions:

1.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense: “Raise the federal minimum wage, so that it reaches $15/hour, while indexing it to inflation.”

Communist Party USA (CPUSA) Nonsense: Calls for “struggles for peace, equality for the racially and nationally oppressed, equality for women job creation programs, increased minimum wage. … Even with ultra-right control of the Federal government, peoples legislative victories, such as increasing the minimum wage, can be won on an issue-by-issue basis locally, statewide, and even nationally.”

Here's the Horse Sense:  Raising the minimum wage does not fix the problem. Businesses that have to increase wages will be forced to increase prices, cut back service, and even lay people off to offset the cost.  Businesses are not the super-wealthy organizations the Democrats and uninformed in America think they are.  If their costs go up they have to compensate by layoffs, increased prices, and other actions so that they can stay in business. 

2.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  “Reform the National Labor Relations Act, to enhance workers’ right to organize and rebuild the middle class.”

CPUSA Nonsense: “One of the most crucial ways of increasing the strength and unity of the working class as a whole is organizing the unorganized.  Working-class unity depends on uniting all the diverse sectors of the multiracial, multinational working class in the U.S.…. Speeding up the organization of unorganized workers is one of the most important challenges to labor and all progressive forces.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Unions have done terrible damage to American business.  Unions no longer help workers.  They have been set up to enrich and empower the union leadership.  The workers are forced to pay dues to support terrible union management that strong-arm businesses into contracts that ultimately raise prices, lower quality, and hurt the workers and customers alike.  (If you want to see more about unions, here are some things for you to look into:

  • Click here to learn about Hostess, the makers of Twinkies, Ding Dongs, and other treats.  Hostess was destroyed by unions but when forced out of business they were able to be resurrected without the union shackles that had destroyed them and have rebuilt to become a much more successful company.    
  • Click here to read my friend Dave Bego's blog to really understand what the unions are doing to America - pick up his books, too, and learn about his fight with unions in business.)

3.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense: “Pass comprehensive immigration reform to grow the economy and protect against exploitation of low-wage workers.”

CPUSA Nonsense:  Declares the “struggle for immigrant rights is a key component of the struggle for working class unity in our country today.”

Here's the Horse Sense:  Immigration reform, or what is known to most Americans as amnesty for criminal immigrant invaders, will do nothing but damage to America's security, economy, and future.  Adding workers to the economy just takes away jobs from Americans, where we already have too many unemployed.*  Open borders is a gateway to terrorists and other enemies of America to enter our country.  And it doesn't "protect against exploitation of low-wage workers" because the more low-wage workers we have fighting for the few jobs that are available, the more exploited they will become.
* The government doesn't report real unemployment numbers.  Those are phony to make citizens think things are better than they really are.  The real calculations show unemployment currently approaching 25% as you can learn at shadowstats.com).

4.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  Pass national paid sick leave.  Pass national paid family leave.

CPUSA Nonsense:  In October 2014, hails that “women are fighting back to defend their jobs and their families against candidates who want to destroy women’s reproductive rights, health care, family leave and paid sick days.  Women’s voices and votes can make the difference in this election in the U.S. Senate and House, for Governors and State Legislatures, and in the movement going forward for full equality.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Every country that's tried this around the world has encountered severe economic distress in the long term.  Businesses work best when left alone to compete in the marketplace. This means that if they need workers and need to increase benefits to entice more people to work for them, they either will increase benefits or go out of business.  On the same count, workers are free to choose to work for employers who offer them more benefits.  And, if they don't like what employers offer, they are also free to start their own business and see if they can make a better living than by working for someone else.

5.)  Progressive Agenda Nonsense:  “Earned Income Tax Credit.” “Implement the ‘Buffett Rule’ so millionaires pay their fair share.”

CPUSA Nonsense: “No taxes for workers and low and middle income people; progressive taxation of the wealthy and private corporations.”

Here's the Horse Sense: Fair share?  Are they kidding?  According to a CNN report, 90% of the American taxpayers pay only 30% of the taxes.  The top 10% in earnings pay 70% of the taxes in America.  How much is fair?  And who defines what fairness really is?  If we allow people to keep more of what they earn, they spend it and help the economy, which creates jobs.  When taxes are lower, the high income earners and businesses spend more money, which creates a demand for products and services, which then causes businesses to hire more people to provide for those demands.  The most prosperous times in American history were when taxes were low and businesses expanded and grew.  Right now taxes on business are the highest in the industrialized world and, as a result, companies have moved their factories offshore causing a loss of jobs for American workers and a reduction in tax revenue for the government.  Contrary to what the Democrats think, you don't grow an economy by crippling business.

As I've repeated in the past like a broken record, the Progressives control the Democrat Party and their ideology is taking us down the path of communism.  To deny it is to not pay attention.  When de Blasio released this Progressive Agenda, the NY Post reported that President Obama said he was ripping off his progressive agenda.  This is not just one liberal politician who happens to be touting these ideas.  The president, who is the head of the Democrat Party, stated that it's HIS OWN AGENDA!

And if you think the problem is just Obama, you've really not been paying attention.  Obama is just the figurehead for what the progressives want in America.  If another Democrat is elected in 2016, we have the same problem.

Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren and Martin O'Malley are the favorites for the Democrat nomination in 2016.  They are all progressives and will carry on leading with the same ideology as Obama.  Hillary, who is dramatically in the lead for not just the 2016 Democrat nomination, but to win the presidency in the general election, shouldn't be ignored, regardless of any scandals.  Her life has been nothing but scandals and it's never stopped her or even slowed her down.  The Washington Times is reporting that she just hired a criminal immigrant invader (illegal immigrant) as her campaign Outreach Director. That may very well take enough focus off of her current scandals to allow her campaign to move forward.    

Huffington Post took a look at the Progressive Agenda and reported their analysis of how Hillary stacks up on the points of the Agenda.  She's in line almost perfectly right down the list.  If she becomes president she will carry on the same agenda that de Blasio is promoting and Obama claims was his agenda in the first place.

The communist threat to America is alive and well.  The end of the Cold War and fall of the Soviet Union did not kill, nor even diminish the communist's push to take over the world.  The prize that would clinch the deal worldwide would be for America to fall to it... and we're getting very close to it.  Once America falls, there will be no place to run, no other nation in which you can go and hide.  America's fate determines the fate of the entire free world.  When that happens our children and grandchildren will never know the life of freedom each of us has come to expect.  Freedom as our founders created America to give its citizens will be long gone and, at best, many generations away from returning to our land.








Saturday, May 23, 2015

An Irresponsible Little Boy Trying To Be Our Leader

Here's the Nonsense:  Americans pick good people to be their leaders.  Sure, every now and then we get someone who isn't that good, but overall we do get people well qualified to be our leaders.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Americans have no clue how much trouble our nation is in or how to pick the right people to fix our problems and lead our nation.  

America is in crisis.  We are so far in debt that there really is no light at the end of the tunnel.  Given that problem, it's imperative that we need to rid ourselves of leaders who don't understand how to handle money.  And right now we have someone who is trying to be our leader that has not only been totally irresponsible with money, he's shown significant character failure in other areas of his life that make his leadership qualifications poor, if not nonexistent.  That's not the kind of person we can expect will fix our economy, let alone save our nation from collapse.

Experts disagree on the exact amount, but what we can be sure of is that our $18.2 trillion dollar national debt isn't all the money we owe.  With varying reasons as to why the numbers differ, we do know that our additional unfunded liabilities are $100-$200 trillion more on top of our national debt.  And those unfunded liabilities may not be called national debt, but they are exactly that.  Just because someone doesn't want to call something by it's proper name doesn't mean that's not what it is (this should remind you that we have this game of calling things different names because the charlatans we have running our government are mostly attorneys, who are experts at mincing and twisting words and their definitions.

State and local governments have their share of debt, too.  Estimates are that those total about $38 trillion more.  So, if we add that $38 trillion to the $18 trillion national debt the government admits and then add $200 trillion for unfunded liabilities, we could be in debt as high as $256 trillion.  If you sold everything in the country, everything everyone owned including all privately owned land and everything the government owned and all the government owned land, we'd only have about $100 trillion.  Did you get that?  We owe 2.5 times what we're worth!  In any honest person's book that's the description of someone who's bankrupt.

But those big numbers are hard to fathom.  Let's make it a little easier.  We hear million, billion, and trillion and don't really recognize the difference.  Let's compare it to time.  1 million seconds ago was just over 11.5 days ago.  1 billion seconds ago was the middle of 1984.  1 trillion seconds ago was about 29,694 BC.  That's how much larger a trillion is than a billion.

Before we talk about how this ties in with the irresponsible little boy trying to be our leader, let me make the point just a little clearer.

If we could pay more than it takes to run the government each day, we could pay down the debt.  We don't have that extra money.  In fact, with our government's spending, we're going further into debt each minute.  But assuming we curtailed much of our spending and could pay $1 billion per day towards our debt, it would take us over 701 years to pay off the $256 trillion.

Now that we've seen how desperate our situation is, wouldn't you agree that people who would handle the nation's money so poorly to get us into this predicament certainly should not be entrusted with more responsibility?  Quite the contrary, they should, at a minimum, be pulled back and watched closely.  Better yet, they should be removed from office and replaced with people who are trustworthy.  

You don't give more responsibility to people who've not proven they can handle lesser responsibilities.  Yet this is exactly what we see with one of the top polling presidential candidates for 2016.  He's proven not just once, but over and over again that he can't handle his own finances, so why would we trust him with our nation's highest office?  I wrote about him here and pointed out his problems with mishandling of campaign monies that got him in trouble with election officials in the past.  I also pointed out his lies about his background and other irresponsible things in his past.  

But if that wasn't enough, now another report comes out, this time in the Washington Post, and they are reporting that once again Marco Rubio is mishandling his money.  Yet this immature little boy (and given how he's handled things, that's the most appropriate description I can come up with for him) thinks he's qualified be our president.  

People think he's good looking and like his enthusiasm.  They relate to his financial problems and his excuse that his refrigerator broke so he had to spend $3000 on a new one and then fix the air conditioner in one of his houses and has a $40,000 tuition bill for his kids schooling to pay.  They think there's nothing wrong with him taking over $68,000 from his retirement funds to pay for these things, even though that's one of the worst financial decisions a person can make.  (Yes, it's legal for him to borrow from his retirement funds.  It just shows very poor financial judgment.)  It would have been cheaper to borrow the money than pay the fines and taxes he'll pay for doing what he did.  It's financially very irresponsible.  But people relate because he's living irresponsibly and most Americans are, too.  And that's the kind of man we want handling our nation's finances and other major decisions?

No one needs a $3000 refrigerator.  He could spend far less and get one that would do the job.  

His kids don't need to be in private school, but he seems to feel he has to live the life of the elite to be part of the upper crust of society.  

I can understand wanting the air conditioner in one of his homes fixed with summer coming, although then there's the question of why he needs more than one home.  (I realize that he has one in Washington, DC and one in Florida, but many elected politicians rent an apartment, even sharing expenses with other politicians to save money.  Some even live in their offices.  He doesn't have to own a second home in Washington and if he can't afford it, then he should not spend the money.  That's just what the government does, it spends money every day that it doesn't have.  I guess he didn't learn his lesson in Florida when he bought a second home in Tallahassee with another politician for them to live in while the legislature was in session, but they couldn't/didn't pay the mortgage and it went into foreclosure.)

But people relate to his financial condition because most Americans live irresponsibly when it comes to their finances, too.  Accepting his failures in financial responsibility eases a person's conscience about their own failures.  But you'd think people would be honest enough with themselves to admit their own failures and not want someone as irresponsible running the country.

Frankly, while he hasn't made a fortune in his career, his household income for many years has been a 6 figure income.  He could easily have chosen to live a less lavish lifestyle and saved some money and avoided debt (He needs to take one of Dave Ramsey's financial classes and learn how to handle money.).  

Rubio is a man who cannot handle his finances properly.  Remember how huge our nation's debt is?  Do you really want someone like this handling our economic policy when he can't even handle his own?

He cannot tell the truth even about his own parents story of coming to America.  (Just what we need, another liar leading the country!)

He cannot handle his campaign finances well enough to stay out of trouble with election officials, and cannot tell the truth about his "change of mind" on amnesty for illegals (remember, after telling Sean Hannity that he'd changed from his position with the Gang of Eight, he went to Univision and told them that he still believed in it, but had realized that it had to be passed in pieces because the American people wouldn't support it as one bill).

Is this the kind of man you think can save America? 

People are willing to throw their support behind him without thinking twice about who he really is and whether he's worthy of the most important job in the entire world.

This is a young man who has not proven himself to be honest or able to handle money, let alone worthy of the presidency. 

Add to that the support he's getting from many in the establishment GOP and caution signs should be flashing in our minds.  (When you see a major establishment GOP donor like Larry Ellison host a fundraiser for someone, you should take note who he is supporting because it's a sign that something's wrong with the candidate and conservatives better take notice.)

Americans should also be paying attention to the left's actions to influence who the Republican candidate is.  In past elections they've been very effective at getting the GOP to run the candidate that is easiest for them to beat. 

Just remember back to 2012 when the Democrats and the mainstream media went on and on about how Mitt Romney would be the toughest candidate to beat.  And the GOP fell for it and nominated Romney, who the Democrats beat handily.  Romney, as I warned at the time, was a very weak candidate and the one the Democrats wanted.  Their cries of "he's the toughest to beat" were simply reverse psychology to get the GOP to nominate an easy-to-beat candidate.  The fact that the GOP couldn't see through their actions should have astounded any thinking person.

Now we're headed to 2016 and the Democrats are being their predictable selves.  They know Rubio would be easy to beat and so they are starting with this piece in their loyal leftist newspaper, the New York Times, claiming that the Democrats are scared to death of Rubio running against Hillary Clinton, the presumed Democrat nominee.

Wake up people!  This is a repeat of what we've seen in the past.  Jeb Bush is having trouble getting his campaign off the ground and I assure you that the establishment GOP who lead the Republican Party are looking for an alternative in case they need one.  I have no doubt they are considering the possibility of Rubio as the nominee.  He's Hispanic, which they believe would endear them to the criminal immigrant invaders who are receiving amnesty from Obama.  He proved he's one of them when he joined the Gang of Eight and the likes of Sen. John McCain.  The left recognizes this as an opportunity to make a play to get Rubio nominated so they once again have another easy-to-beat candidate.  We're beginning to see the same old game played and Republicans are fools if they fall for it.  

Marco Rubio's popularity is just another example of how lousy Americans are at choosing leaders.  They use all the wrong reasons to decide someone's qualified to be a candidate.  That's the reason we ended up with Barack Obama and, in fact, haven't had a conservative get the nomination since 1984.  American voters need to pay attention and quit falling for the likes of most candidates we see throw their hat in the ring.






Saturday, May 16, 2015

It's Not The Liberties Listed In The Bill Of Rights That Make Us Free

Here's the Nonsense:  Without the Bill of Rights we wouldn't have the freedoms we enjoy in America.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Many, if not most, nations have a Bill of Rights, but they don't have freedom like America does.  That's not what gives us our freedoms.  But with the path our nation is on we need to change in order to protect the freedoms we do have.

On Friday, May 8th, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia spoke to the Federalist Society in New Jersey and made what many would feel is a radical argument.  The Daily Signal is reporting that Scalia said the structure of our government under the Constitution is what gives us our freedoms, not the liberties defined in the Bill of Rights.  It's pretty radical to most people to think that the list of rights such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by jury of one's peers, etc., as expressed in the Bill of Rights, is not what gives us our freedoms.  

Scalia said, "The genius of the American constitutional system is the dispersal of power.  Once power is centralized in one person, or one part [of government], a Bill of Rights is just words on paper."  James Madison said that the power that the people give to government is secured by dividing it between the federal and state governments (2 separate governments in his view).  Then he went on to point out that each of those governments were divided into branches (i.e.; executive, legislative, and judicial).  This gives double protection of the people's rights.  He felt that the design of the American system would cause the governments (state and federal) to control each other, which would be a check and balance system to protect the rights of the people. 

Scalia then raised concern over the breakdown of this power structure that happened with the passage of the 17th Amendment to the Constitution in 1913 when election of the U. S. Senate was given to the people through voting instead of the original design where they senators were chosen by the state legislatures.  

This design was to create balance where the House of Representatives was elected by the people, but the Senate was chosen by the state legislatures so that the Senate would not disregard or overpower the state's authority.  With the change in 1913, the federal government has since seized power from the states and weakened the power of the citizens over their own government.  

Scalia gave good examples of how this worked to give the states power over federal action.  He said, "When you have a bill that says states will not receive federal highway funds unless they raise the drinking age to 21, that bill would not pass.  The states that had lower drinking ages would tell their senators, 'You vote for that and you are out of there.'"

Scalia makes an excellent argument.  The 17th Amendment has so weakened us in the past century that the states no longer have the power they once had.  Now you may say, "But we've still got 3 branches in the federal government to act as a check and balance against each other."  Unfortunately that isn't working any more.  Our legislative branch not only won't hold the executive branch or the judicial branch accountable, they act like they worship them.  The judiciary is now seen as the final authority on everything and they legislate from the bench.  And the executive branch is treated as above the law with no one holding them accountable for their illegal actions.

The fact that we are at a place where the president demands and takes actions that are illegal and nobody does anything should send a chill of fear down the back of every citizen.  The only action the legislative branch takes is to file lawsuits against the executive branch when the Constitution gives them not only the authority, but the responsibility to hold them accountable.  First, the House is to use the power of the purse to defund expenditures that are unconstitutional.  Second, they are to impeach an out of control president and the Senate is to then have a trial and convict when the law has been broken.  But that doesn't happen.  And it's not new.

In 1999 when the Senate refused to find Bill Clinton guilty when the evidence was clear and overwhelming that he'd committed perjury, both political parties proved that they were more worried about protecting another politician than they were about upholding the law (and that's when I left the Republican Party).

Scalia is right, but unfortunately we are far, far past the point of fixing this easily.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would be a start, but with a nation full of citizens who refuse to do their civic duty and be involved in their government, the chances of saving this nation are slim at best.  Ann Graham Lotz (Billy Graham's daughter) has called for Americans to take our situation seriously and turn to God to save our nation.  We should all take what she says to heart.






Monday, May 11, 2015

How About A Candidate That...

Here's the Nonsense:  We need a solid, experienced politician to defeat the establishment Republicans in the primaries and the Democrats in the general election of 2016.  Only a politician can reach Americans.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The biggest negative any candidate has is their political experience.  Even if they've done a good job (rare to find), the general, uninformed public are tired of and turned off by politics and politicians.  We need a unique kind of candidate if we're serious about winning in 2016.


If we want to win in 2016 we need a candidate who will inspire the majority of voters.  And whether we like it or not, the majority of voters are not aware of what is going on in our government.  They are not those of us who are involved and well informed about what's happening in America.  They are driven by self-interest and how easy their lives are.  The economy and jobs drives their decisions, not what is happening in the news.  In fact, most of them never watch or read the news.  If you showed a picture of the politicians running for 2016, I'm sure that the majority would not be able to name most of them.  We must have a candidate who not only can get their attention, but has qualities that can overpower both the Democrats and the establishment Republicans.

I've already written a few posts about some of the candidates for 2016.  Recently I even wrote one post that showed how odds makers show Jeb Bush in a dramatic lead for the Republican nomination and, even worse, are putting odds on Hillary Clinton winning in the general election.  Even with Jeb's huge lead among Republicans, they are showing Hillary with overwhelming odds over him and all other Republicans to win the general election. Interestingly NOT ONE radio host that had me on their shows to discuss it understood that it was ODDS MAKERS (bookies to put it in other terms), NOT POLLS that were saying that.  These are the people who take bets on who's going to win.  But the hosts were so focused on the idea of polls and the fact that they can be easily skewed that they ignored what I wrote and said (and the link I provided to support it).  

The fact is that regardless of what radio hosts or anyone else thinks, 2016 is not looking as bright as many think.  It's a long, tough battle to get the GOP nomination... and then there's the general election.  And the Republican candidates who are moving to the top of the polls are not necessarily ones who have much of a chance of winning.  Remember, the establishment GOP has vowed on more than one occasion to destroy the conservative movement and they would rather have a Democrat win than a conservative.  It would take a unique and formidable candidate to win over all of that.


What if there was someone out there who would run that really could take on the Democrats and win in spite of the attacks by the establishment GOP, election fraud, and media being against them?

What if there was a candidate that:
  • Could draw crowds and media at an event away from other candidates, even ones who have skyrocketed in the polls
  • Could get the press corps to clamor for his attention
  • Had no trouble raising all the money he needs for his campaign without becoming indebted to any group or individual (no political paybacks after the election)
  • Said what he thinks and didn't care what anyone including the media, the politicians, and the lobbyists think
  • Wouldn't be afraid of standing up to any world leader
  • Wouldn't back down in standing up for America and her allies
  • Had more experience successfully negotiating agreements than all other candidates combined
  • Understands the economy and how it impacts businesses, jobs, and citizens more than any other candidate
  • Would stand up for American business at home and around the world to create an economic recovery and juggernaut that would shake the world
  • Is not a Washington insider, but is more in tune with the American people than politicians are
  • Believes that countries like China and Mexico have had too many American companies move their manufacturing there and would do things such as use taxes to bring it back to America
  • Believes it's time to stand up for women's rights in other countries like the Middle East
  • Sees the disaster that the Iran nuclear deal is and would change it and other bad deals America has entered into
  • Would build a wall and shut down the open border we have to create security for our nation
  • Is a known name to more American households than anyone else in the race
Who is this candidate?  It's Donald Trump.

Some will scoff or even laugh at the idea.  But if you really want to win the 2016 election, there is no other candidate that has a record that can compare to his.  The establishment is going to force someone like Jeb Bush on us as the nominee (and if they can't get enough momentum for Jeb, they'll turn to a secondary establishment choice like Marco Rubio and try to sell him as a conservative).

The American people have proved they won't step up like they did in 1980 and force a candidate on the establishment like they did when they forced them to accept Ronald Reagan.  The vast majority of Americans are uninvolved and don't even know what's happening in our government.  And that's why the Democrats have such success controlling them.  When someone is not aware, they can be easily manipulated.

The American people won't get involved, they will continue to want to be entertained.  They ask only one question when making a decision:  "What in it for me?"  These days that boils down to the economy and jobs.  Whoever can show that they can make the economy better and create jobs will have an edge in 2016. 

That's the very reason why Trump is known to more Americans than any other Republican running. He's known for huge business and personal success.  He is an example of the American dream and proud of it.  People want to have lives like his.  He has more experience fixing things and being successful than all of the other candidates combined.  He is outspoken and tells it like he sees it.  That is quintessentially American.  And that will speak to the uniformed voters more than any message any other candidate is presenting.

He may be outrageous at times, but of the candidates running (or people showing interest in running), no one has the ability to reach the average, everyday uninvolved Americans than Trump does.  

If we want to win, we need to seriously consider who can best reach the mass of America.  

Trump could very well be that guy.