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, January 27, 2016

Fox News: The Enemy Of America's Future

Here's the Nonsense:  Fox News is the conservative alternative to the mainstream media.  We can trust that they will give us honest reporting that helps us move America towards a bright future.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Fox News is simply the mainstream media under the guise of being fair and balanced.  Their goals are not what many on the right think they are.

Anyone who has read my work for a period of time knows that I am no fan of Fox News.  Years ago they showed their establishment GOP leanings and I quit watching except on limited occasions.  Then, this year they went too far and I turned them off completely.  Their lack of integrity and journalistic bias has put them in a position where, as I've written before, they are not just as bad as the mainstream media (actually, they are now part of it), but they are actually worse than the CNNs and MSNBCs.  And to turn Fox on is to increase their income because you increase their ratings.  So, they no longer get this viewers time.

What those of us on the right need to understand is that Fox has an agenda to push whatever the establishment GOP want.  Their goal is to have an establishment Republican win the White House and also have the establishment Republicans continue to control both houses of Congress.  The only host on their network that comes close to balance is Sean Hannity, but clearly he's controlled by his paycheck and tows the company line most of the time.  Ever notice how often he praises people like Marco Rubio?  And, in the case of Rubio, he doesn't hold his feet to the fire on his establishment positions like amnesty.

The big issue for voters is immigration and our borders.  Rupert Murdoch and Fox News support amnesty and that influence affects their coverage of everything.  No wonder they are at war with Donald Trump.  You may think it's because of Trump's reaction to Megyn Kelly's lies at the first GOP debate, but what that fight boils down to is attacking Trump because he wants to seal our porous borders and bring immigration under control and that is in opposition to the Fox News goals.

Now, there's finally an investigative reporter who has decided to take Fox to task.  Julia Hahn at Breitbart has written an excellent article showing Fox's pro-amnesty bias.

Regarding Fox News she writes :


She points out that none of the Fox hosts at the first debate only asked Rubio softball questions instead of grilling him on his involvement in the pro-amnesty Gang of Eight legislation.  She then goes on to remind us that "...Bill Sammon - Fox News's vice president of  News and Washington managing editor - is the father of Brooke Sammon, who is Rubio's press secretary."

Hahn also points out that Fox News helped Rubio and the Gang of Eight by showing a quote from a 2013 article by Ryan Lizza in the New Yorker when he interviewed Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham:


Hahn even ices the cake when she reminds us of quotes from Rupert Murdoch's 2014 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:



Hahn's excellent article concludes by pointing out that Fox's extremely limited coverage of the immigration issue and its negative impact on the U. S. "helps clear the way for the enactment of the Murdoch-backed immigration agenda - bringing in the New American Century hoped for by Rupert Murdoch, Marco Rubio, and Barack Obama."

Exposing Fox's bias and agenda should, more than anything, make people realize taht they are not the friend of  America.  In fact, their efforts to help the pro-amnesty movement make them the enemy of our nation's future.  






Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Justice, The First Amendment, And Morality In America

Here's the Nonsense:  No matter how bad things get, we will always be able to trust that our rights under the Constitution will be protected.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Don't think your rights are protected or that there is justice in America today.  We no longer have the protections we once had.


So, you've thought that if things got really bad and you ended up in court that justice would prevail.  Even if you had to go through a series of appeals and ultimately ended up at the Supreme Court, you believe deep down in your heart that you'd prevail.  After all, you think, certainly the Supreme Court will protect your rights and do what's right. Unfortunately, justice does not always prevail, as the Little Sisters of the Poor are finding out in their fight against the Obamacare contraception mandate.  And the Supreme Court has just changed the rules of the game that will now make it almost certain the Little Sisters cannot win.

As the Little Sisters case has worked its way through the court system, most conservatives have believed that they would prevail at the Supreme Court.  But that may not be the case thanks to new action taken by the Supreme Court.  

WND is reporting that "...the high court has 'tilted the playing field' by excluding the First Amendment arguments from its discussion of the mandate that religious employers cover abortion pills in their insurance plans, the brief contends."

So, even though the Constitution acknowledges our God-given rights, the Supreme Court has decided that the Little Sisters cannot use those rights as an argument in this case.  And you thought the Constitution would protect you?   Sorry, but this is yet another case where we've seen First Amendment rights disregarded or trampled upon by our court systems.

There really is no guarantee of justice in our system.  

In another situation that should leave you aghast, Newsmax is reporting that the Harris County Texas (Houston area) District Attorney has brought charges against 2 people involved in undercover journalism.  The case involves the Center for Medical Progress, the organization that released the undercover videos of Planned Parenthood trying to sell baby body parts.  The Grand Jury in Harris County voted to indict 2 individuals involved in the undercover operation.

The article says that David Daleidan, the founder of the Center for Medical Progress, "released a statement saying his group 'uses the same undercover techniques' as investigative journalists and follows all applicable laws."

Newsmax also reported that "David Daleiden, founder of the Center for Medical Progress, was indicted on a felony charge of tampering with a governmental record and a misdemeanor count related to purchasing human organs.  Another activist, Sandra Merritt, was also indicted on a charge of tampering with a governmental record, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison."  It is believed that "tampering with a governmental record" refers to their creation and use of fake IDs that were used during their video.

While it was certainly wrong to break laws, if it's true that laws were broken, the astounding thing in this case is that our society has allowed Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry to exist in the first place.  

We talk about influencing the culture and it can clearly be seen that our influence has been small, at best.  We cannot win this war unless we return to morality in our society.  Pro-choice advocates have created a society where children are a throw-away item instead of a precious life to be loved, nurtured, and protected.  

There have been over 57,000,000 babies aborted since Roe v. Wade.  And every one of those 57 million will be present on judgment day when the abortionists and their supporters have to account to God for their lives.  

With numbers like that, are we really any better than Hitler, Stalin, or Mao?



 

Monday, January 25, 2016

The Questionable Issues Ted Cruz's Followers Won't Face

NOTICE: UPDATED SINCE POSTED

Here's the Horse Sense:  Ted Cruz is the best candidate for the GOP and there's nothing about him that should be questioned.  

Here's the Nonsense:  People have the right to decide on which candidate to support, but they have an obligation to do some research and understand who he/she is before they cast their vote.  Too many people base their opinions on superficial information or by trusting someone they like who supports that candidate.  

Not all, but many followers of Ted Cruz are quite reminiscent of Ron Paul's followers in 2012.  They refuse to support any other candidate if Cruz loses the nomination.  Some would call them purists in that they won't accept anyone else.  They won't even consider questions about Cruz and his candidacy.  Are they wise or showing a lack of discernment by accepting Cruz at face value?

Here are some issues, in no particular order, that anyone considering supporting Cruz should deal with prior to giving him their support:

1.)  Cruz has been presented as a grassroots candidate with the implication that his funding comes from  grassroots donors.  But the fact is that he's got big money donors that he is beholden to, too, just like most other candidates. 

According to a recent Newsmax article these 4 wealthy businessmen are significant benefactors of his campaign:

  • New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer
  • Texas natural gas billionaires Farris and Dan Wilks
  • Private-equity partner Toby Neugebauer

The article says that these four families have poured $36 million into Cruz's campaign.  They claim they want nothing in return for their financial support.  That may be true, but it's hard to believe.  It may be the first time that has happened in politics.  And, if elected, does anyone really think Ted wouldn't jump to answer a phone call from them?  It would be absolute silliness to think that large contributors to campaigns don't have preferred access and receive special consideration when something is on their mind.  Candidates backed by big money are beholden to those contributors and there's no way around it.

Cruz's donors aren't all $5 to $20 dollar grassroots donations.  Here you can learn just who has given significant donations to him.

2.)  According to CBS News, Cruz's super PAC, Keep the Promise I, gave Carly Fiorina's super PAC $500,000.   According to Kellyanne Conway, president of Keep the Promise, the super PAC "made the donation in June to Ms. Fiorina at that time because we thought she had important things to say that weren't being heard. including her poignant and effective criticism of Mrs. Clinton."  

Sounds more like they realized that as a woman, Carly could attack Hillary more effectively so they helped finance those attacks.

3.)  Conservative Treehouse has posted this interesting article and backup information about Mitch McConnell's attorney starting a pro-Cruz super Pac.  There have been questions by many about Cruz possibly having quiet ties to the establishment, could this be proof? (click here to read it)

4.)  Senator Cruz co-sponsored S.306 which categorizes home schools as private schools.  It allows Title 1 federal money to follow students to private schools.  But Federal regulations apply wherever federal money is used, so this would put more restrictions on home schools.  That would be a terrible thing to do to families trying to unburden themselves of federal involvement in their children's education.

5.)  Cruz supports the United Nations Agenda 21 Wildlands Project.  Cruz is using the argument that states want the federal government to return land they have confiscated, but they have to maintain those lands and if they can't they can sell them (which means many of those lands would go to foreign interests for logging and minerals, taking away our resources).  This has caused great concern since it came up in the Iowa campaign recently (click here to read more).

6.)  Huffington Post reported that as recently as 12 months ago Cruz supported allowing Syrian refugees into the U.S. He naively said "We have to continue to be vigilant to make sure those coming are not affiliated with a terrorist, but we can do that."  Yet the FBI and Homeland Security have said that we have no way to vet these people.

7.)  Cruz's Michigan campaign chief is highly questionable given his embracing of Hezbollah (click here to learn more).

The next 3 points are especially important to evangelicals:

8.)  Cruz's claim to being religious has been questioned because it's come out that he gave less than 1% of his income to charity between 2006 - 2010.  For many evangelicals that does not match up with their belief that the Bible teaches they are to give 10% of their income to charity. 

9.)  And Ted's claims to be a devout evangelical Christian are also questionable since evangelicals believe in the biblical admonition not to marry an unbeliever.  Yet Ted's wife, Heidi, is a Seventh Day Adventist.  Adventists do not hold to orthodox Christian doctrine.  Adventist doctrine rejects the orthodox Christian belief in hell and eternal punishment for sins.  Rather, they believe that the souls of unbelievers will simply be annihilated when Jesus returns.  

10.)  Rafael Cruz, Ted's father, teaches dominion theology.  Dominionists believe that they will take over the world for Jesus and everyone will have to convert to Christianity before Jesus returns.  They believe that this will be done by them taking over what they consider to be the seven major areas of society such as government, business, religion, etc.  Rafael says that Ted is anointed as a king to rule.  This is unbiblical teaching, but Ted wants to lead our nation with this kind of viewpoint having been taught to him by his father. (For a better understanding of dominion theology and how it compares to orthodox Christian doctrine see this website.)

Ted Cruz may be a good man.  That's something you have to decide for yourself.  But an honest person needs to be aware of these types of issues to see whether they can live with a candidate like this or not.



Saturday, January 23, 2016

With All The Accusations That Trump's Not A Conservative, Do His Goals For America Work For Conservatives?

Here's the Nonsense:  Trump isn't a conservative and shouldn't be considered as a legitimate candidate.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Trump isn't running as a conservative, he's running as a candidate who will tear down the failed system.  Judgment shouldn't be made without looking at what he proposes for America.

There's a split among conservatives in America about which candidate to support.  And some are saying that those who support Donald Trump are abandoning conservatism because Trump isn't a conservative.  The debate has become a war with non-supporters of Trump getting so exorcised over the issue that many are refusing to vote for Trump in the general election if he wins the nomination.  It's very reminiscent of the Ron Paul supporters during the 2012 election.  Do Trump's goals for America mesh with conservative goals?

Back in July I wrote about Trump's plans for America.  The article was so popular that copyright law was violated as it was stolen a number of times and attributed to authors such as General Chuck Yeager and Peggy Noonan.  I obtained the information I wrote from things he'd written mostly prior to the 2012 election, such as Trump's own book, Time To Get Tough.  Contrary to what some of his detractors are inferring, he didn't come up with the ideas just before announcing he was running for president.  And, as Rush Limbaugh, who personally knows Donald Trump, has said, the ideas Trump is talking about are things he's heard him talk about for years.  So, here is the list for you to see and make your judgment: 

1.)  Trump believes that America should not intervene militarily in other country's problems without being compensated for doing so.  If America is going to risk the lives of our soldiers and incur the expense of going to war, then the nations we help must be willing to pay for our help.  Using the Iraq War as an example, he cites the huge monetary expense to American taxpayers (over $1.5 trillion, and possibly much more depending on what sources are used to determine the cost) in addition to the cost in human life.  He suggests that Iraq should have been required to give us enough of their oil to pay for the expenses we incurred.  He includes in those expenses the medical costs for our military and $5 million for each family that lost a loved one in the war and $2 million for each family of soldiers who received severe injuries.


2.)  Speaking of the military, Trump wants America to have a strong military again.  He believes the single most important function of the federal government is national defense.  He has said he wants to find the General Patton or General MacArthur that could lead our military buildup back to the strength it needs to be.  While he hasn't said it directly that I know of, Trump's attitude about America and about winning tells me he'd most likely be quick to eliminate rules of engagement that handicap our military in battle.  Clearly Trump is a "win at all costs" kind of guy, and I'm sure that would apply to our national defense and security, too.


3.)  Trump wants a strong foreign policy and believes that it must include 7 core principles (which seem to support my comment in the last point):


  • American interests come first.  Always.  No apologies.
  • Maximum firepower and military preparedness.
  • Only go to war to win.
  • Stay loyal to your friends and suspicious of your enemies.
  • Keep the technological sword razor sharp.
  • See the unseen.  Prepare for threats before they materialize.
  • Respect and support our present and past warriors.
4.) Trump believes that terrorists who are captured should be treated as military combatants, not as criminals like the Obama administration treats them. 
 
5.)  Trump makes the point that China's manipulation of their currency has given them unfair advantage in our trade dealings with them.  He says we must tax their imports to offset their currency manipulation, which will cause American companies to be competitive again and drive manufacturing back to America and create jobs here.  Although he sees China as the biggest offender, he believes that America should protect itself from all foreign efforts to take our jobs and manufacturing.  For example, Ford is building a plant in Mexico and Trump suggests that every part or vehicle Ford makes in Mexico be taxed 35% if they want to bring it into the U. S., which would cause companies like Ford to no longer be competitive using their Mexican operations and move manufacturing back to the U. S., once again creating jobs here.


6.)  Trump wants passage of NOPEC legislation (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act - NOPEC - S.394), which would allow the government to sue OPEC for violating antitrust laws.  According to Trump, that would break up the cartel.  He also wants to unleash our energy companies to drill domestically (sound like Sarah Palin's drill baby, drill?) thereby increasing domestic production creating jobs and driving domestic costs of oil and gas down while reducing dependence on foreign oil. 

7.)  Trump believes a secure border is critical for both security and prosperity in America.  He wants to build a wall to stop illegals from entering put controls on immigration. (And he says he'll get Mexico to pay for the wall, which many have scoffed at, but given his business successes I wouldn't put it past him.)  He also wants to enforce our immigration laws and provide no path to citizenship for illegals.

8.)  Trump wants a radical change to the tax system to not only make it better for average Americans, but also to encourage businesses to stay here and foreign businesses to move here.  The resulting influx of money to our nation would do wonders for our economy.  He wants to make America the place to do business.  He also wants to lower the death tax and the taxes on capital gains and dividends.  This would put more than $1.6 trillion back into the economy and help rebuild the 1.5 million jobs we've lost to the current tax system.  He also wants to charge companies who outsource jobs overseas a 20% tax, but for those willing to move jobs back to America they would not be taxed.   And for citizens he has a tax plan that would allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and spark economic growth.  He wants to change the personal income tax to:
  • Up to $30,000 taxed at 1%
  • From $30,000 to $100,000 taxed at 5%
  • From $100,000 to $1,000,000 taxed at 10%
  • $1,000,000 and above taxed at 15%
9.)  Trump wants Obamacare repealed.  He says it's a "job-killing, health care-destroying monstrosity" that "can't be reformed, salvaged, or fixed."  He believes in allowing real competition in the health insurance marketplace to allow competition to drive prices down.  He also believes in tort reform to get rid of defensive medicine and lower costs.


10.)  Trump wants spending reforms in Washington, acknowledging that America spends far more than it receives in revenue.  He has said he believes that if we don't stop increasing the national debt once it hits $24 trillion it will be impossible to save this country. 

11.) Even though he says we need to cut spending, he does not want to harm those on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security.  He believes that the citizens have faithfully paid in to the system to have these services available and that the American government has an obligation to fulfill its end of the bargain and provide those benefits.  Therefore, he wants to build the economy up so that we have the revenue to pay those costs without cutting the benefits to the recipients.  He disagrees with Democrats who think raising taxes is the answer and says that when you do that you stifle the economy.  On the other hand, when you lower taxes and create an environment to help businesses they will grow, hire more workers, and those new workers will be paying taxes that become more tax revenue for the government.

12.) Trump also wants reform of the welfare state saying that America needs "a safety net, not a hammock."  He believes in a welfare to work program that would help reduce the welfare roles and encourage people to get back to work.  And he wants a crackdown on entitlement fraud.

13.) Trump believes climate change is a hoax.


14.) Trump opposes Common Core.  Education must be run locally.  Decisions should be made by parents and local school boards.


15.) Trump is pro-life, although he allows for an exception due to rape, incest, or the life of the mother.


16.) Trump is pro 2nd Amendment rights.       


17.) Trump's view on same-sex marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, but he also believes that this is a states rights issue, not a federal issue.


18.) Trump supports the death penalty.

John Nolte at Breitbart wrote a 2 part article last September that addressed what Trump offers conservatives (you can read both parts of his articles here and here).  In those articles he points out that Trump supporters know that Trump will:


  1. Build the border wall.
  2. Kill Terrorists.
  3. Simplify the tax code and lower middle class taxes.
  4. Can't be bought by special interests.
  5. Is a legitimate outsider.
  6. Is expanding the Base.
  7. Fights ... and wins.

 And in his conclusion he writes:

Nolte makes a good point and when you look further you learn that Trump has wanted to do many things for this country that fit well within conservatism.  Right now there are many people in the Republican Party, especially Cruz supporters, trying to destroy Donald Trump.  They are acting like Ron Paul's supporters in 2012 that refused to vote for anyone when their candidate did not get the nomination. 

That is sad no matter who is doing it to whom because Republicans are notorious for destroying each other in the primaries and then handing the general election to the Democrats.

The old saying that you should vote your heart in the primaries and your head in the general election should be seriously considered by every voter.  Work your heart out to get your candidate nominated during the primaries, but when the nomination has been made if it's not your candidate realize what we're up against that the Democrats is never as bad as the Republican candidate.

I didn't support Romney in 2012 until after the nomination. People said he was as bad as Obama, but they were wrong. America is like a ship that is in the middle of the ocean in a terrible storm and taking on water.  If Romney had become president he may not have headed us to the best port to get out of the storm, but at least he would have tried to head us out of the storm.  Obama not only left us in the storm, he headed us deeper into it and told the crew not to bail out the water that we were taking on. 

That's the difference between any Republican running and whoever will get the Democrat nomination.










Sunday, January 17, 2016

Why I No Longer Believe Ted Cruz Can Win The Presidency - Pt. 2 on Ted Cruz's Candidacy

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz will sweep the general election and be the biggest success since Reagan.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Ted Cruz has way too many things going against him to win against the Democrats, let alone the knowledge and skills to turn America around when it's at the most critical time in our history.


Now if, after learning what I shared in part 1, you insist on being a Cruz ostrich and keep your head in the sand and ignore history, you need to at least consider the other obstacles he faces that would cause him to lose against the Democrats if he could somehow get the nomination.


First, Cruz is not able to draw support from people outside of conservatives.  Sure, he says he's going to get all the evangelicals who aren't registered to vote to support him, but that's a task that, to date, no one has been able to do.  And if evangelicals get wind of what I pointed out in a recent post, he may lose much of their support, too.  


I'm not sure why Ted thinks he has more ability to get those uninvolved evangelicals to be involved than anyone else ever has.  Remember, back in Reagan's day we had Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority drawing voters in at a far more effective rate than you see today.  The nation was far more receptive to moral issues and faith issues.  We are a much more secular society now, 35 years later, than we were then.

And yet even back then they couldn't get a lot of evangelicals to register and vote.  If anyone had been able to get unregistered evangelicals involved, those people would be registered and active in our political process already.  


Cruz is not able to draw anyone other than some people from the conservative base and his inability to draw anyone else in makes it a very limited pool of voters from which he is drawing to try to win against the Democrats.


Second, what really compounds his problems is that a poll taken prior to the last debate shows:

  • Only 47% of voters think Cruz is eligible to hold the office of president.  
  • 27% think he is not eligible.  
  • 26% are not sure if he's eligible.

That means that 53% either think he is not eligible or aren't sure if he's eligible.  That plays against him in trying to get people to vote for him when the majority question whether he can legally be president.


Third, Cruz has positioned himself as a man of the people who is being supported by the grassroots donors, but the facts don't mesh with that image.  According to an article in American Thinker, Ted Cruz is getting funding from the likes of Robert Mercer of the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, executives at Wall Street firms Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Citigroup and, among others, the hedge fund Paulson & Co., founded by billionaire John Paulson.  


So, the idea that he won't be beholden to big money is highly questionable at best and at worst a farce.  No candidate who takes money from these types of people can get away without serving them when they are in office. Cruz could turn out to handle it better than most, but he'd be the first candidate supported by big donors who didn't have to give them political payback for their donations.

Fourth, Cruz has yet to face the challenge to his lack of a experience leading any type of organization.  Just like Obama, he's a one term senator and has never run any type of organization in his life.  That lack of experience will haunt him in the election.  And it should.  

Americans should recognize that knowledge of the Constitution and our founding documents, handling some court cases, and even fighting alone on the Senate floor may be good, but they don't give a person the skills needed to fix the administrative nightmare that has become our government.  Even the Democrats will use his inexperience against him.

And all of this doesn't even include other concerns I've raised in the past or have yet to raise at all.  This is just a shortlist.


You may like Cruz, I know I did.  Just read back about a year and you'll see how positively I wrote about him.  But unlike Cruz, or even most talk show hosts and political pundits, I've run businesses and organizations in my life and made them successful.  I've gone into losing organizations and turned them around.  I can tell you that his lack of experience will be a huge problem in effectively turning this country around.  

In fact, he's probably the most hated man in Washington and it may be admirable that he's willing to take a stand, his lack of ability to get others in the houses of Congress to build a team to take on the issues and win tells us he won't have much success if he were to win the White House.  Both sides, Democrat and Republican, will band together to make him a lame duck president from day one.  Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan will lead them all in stopping him at every turn.

Ted Cruz, like most of the candidates, has no life experience to draw from to run the biggest "organization" in the world, let alone get others to join him in his battles.  


But people who haven't run businesses successfully long term not only don't, but usually can't understand just how hard it is to do.  We've allowed politicians, most of which have been attorneys, to lead our nation and we're now in the worst position in our history.  We've gone from being the biggest creditor nation to the biggest debtor nation in the world.  We are in such bad shape that it is, at best, questionable whether we still have enough time left to turn it around.  We don't need a novice doing on-the-job-training when our nation's in worse shape than it's ever been and our freedom and survival are at stake.

I used to be a Ted Cruz supporter.  I used to believe he was an exception in politics.  But things I've learned and seen have caused me to not just doubt his integrity, but believe he is not much different than any other Washington politician. 

And when I add that to his lack of ANY experience running anything, his terrible judgment on issues like supporting Obamatrade because he trusted Mitch McConnell who, Ted later learned, lied to him (and Ted should have known better than to trust a known liar), his twisting of facts about a competitor, his "mistake" in reporting two huge loans he got for his Senate campaign, and his unwillingness to be open with the public raises too many questions about who he really is.

If we want to save this nation for our children and grandchildren, then we must look to people who know how to fix things.  We've allowed the political class that's mostly made up of attorneys to handle things and the mess they've gotten us into may not be able to be overcome.  The only logical solution is to bring in the kind of people who know how to fix things and make them efficient.  That's not something politicians are known for.

If Ted Cruz is a good man and is just making a typical youthful mistake in judgment by not being open, then once we're convinced that's all it is we can push the new president to appoint him to a job where he'd be useful like Attorney General.  But let's not make the mistake of thinking he has the skills and knowledge to take on the world's most difficult and biggest job.




John Quincy Adams Settles Cruz's Eligibility Once And For All - Pt. 1 on Ted Cruz's Candidacy

Here's the Nonsense:  The eligibility issue is settled and clear.  This is just a distraction.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Only an uninformed or foolish person would think the eligibility issue is settled.  It's not settled, but now it may be able to be put to rest once and for all.

Contrary to what many people are saying, Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is far from settled.  In fact, those who say it is are either being deceptive and trying to get the focus off the issue because they support him and want him as the nominee, or they're just plain stupid.  Nowhere in our founding documents is the term "natural born" defined and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of the term.  But the issue should be able to finally be put to rest thanks to John Quincy Adams, our 6th president.

Attorneys of all stripes are claiming they know what the founders meant by the term "natural born." But the fact is that they don't know.  They can only make a guess based on whatever case law they can find.  Some even twist things and make claims that can't be supported, such as Cruz's claims about who is natural born when, as stated above, there never has been a definition given in the Constitution nor one ruled on by the Supreme Court.  

But making a questionable claim is typical for attorneys to make to imply something they cannot prove but hope their implication will sway the court.

Some will go to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court ruling and say it shows us what the founders meant.

Others will use the Naturalization Act of 1790 and show that the term "citizens" is used when referring to parents of natural born children.  It is claimed that using the plural ("citizens") proves that both parents must be citizens at the child's birth to be considered natural born.

Some will remind us that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was changed in 1795 to remove the term "natural born" and try to say that proves what is in the 1790 law said doesn't matter.

Authors like Ann Coulter have written articles about what she says proves her position on the meaning of natural born. (And I might add that Coulter's piece is interesting because she raises far more legal points than most people who write about this issue do.)  


Articles have appeared everywhere from the LA Times to the Washington Post giving legal opinions about the issue.

However, none of this is law.  None of this determines the issue once and for all.  We will either need a Supreme Court ruling or an amendment to the Constitution to finally settle this issue.

Any effort to try to debate the issue into a definition we desire instead of trying to find out what the founders meant when they used the term "natural born" is an effort to subvert the Constitution.

But I would like to suggest that the issue may be determined quite simply.  Thanks not to attorneys, but to historians, we may be able to settle the meaning the founders intended. Then we simply need to put it into an amendment to the Constitution so it is defined once and for all.

So, to figure this out we first have to admit that the founders knew the answer to this question.  Wouldn't it make sense that our founders knew what they meant by the terms they used?  Of course they knew what they meant when they used the term "natural born" as a requirement for the presidency.  

And given the uniqueness of what America was and what it represented for all mankind throughout the world, wouldn't it make sense that their own children would be raised fully understanding what these things meant so that they could continue the legacy of our nation's founding fathers?  

So, given that, if the children of America's founders faced a situation where this would have been a question they certainly would have known what the Constitution meant when it said a president must be "natural born."

In a very interesting article for Newsmax, Doug Wead tells the story of John Quincy Adams' son, George Washington Adams.  And from it we learn what the Adams' understanding was of being natural born.

We all remember John Adams, our second president and one of the great American founding fathers.  His son, John Quincy Adams, also served in the presidency as our 6th president.  Both men served America well and are looked upon as great leaders of our nation.

What is not known by most people is that John Quincy Adams' son, George Washington Adams, was not eligible to run for the presidency, as his father and grandfather were able to do, because he was not considered to be natural born.  Both his father, John Quincy Adams, and his mother, Louisa Catherine Adams, were American citizens.  His father and grandfather had both been presidents.  But because his mother gave birth to him outside of the country, he was NOT considered to be a natural born citizen.

If he was not natural born, then there's no way Cruz could be considered natural born.  

Unless it is specifically defined, case law and legislation can show us some things from which we must draw conclusions that we think are accurate interpretations.  But example speaks louder than case law or legislation.  That's because example shows us how they applied it in daily life and there's no greater argument than the example lived out in people's lives.

Before you close your mind and try to argue about this, think about what history is showing us here.  John Adams was our 2nd president and a founding father of our nation.  Certainly his son, John Quincy Adams, our 6th president, would have been raised to know what they meant by natural born and whether his son, George Washington Adams, would have been considered natural born.

More than any argument from legal cases, this appears to me to be the best example we could find to determine what the founders meant by "natural born citizen."

There is no argument I can imagine to override the Adams' example in their own lives that would allow Ted Cruz to be eligible when George Washington Adams was not.

In light of this, if he truly loves America and respects the Constitution, Cruz should disqualify himself and drop out of the race.  

And even if we assume Cruz doesn't know about George Washington Adams, his unwillingness to seek the true definition of the term by having the court issue a declaratory judgment and instead, attack those who've raised the question, should cause concern about what he has to hide. Like other politicians we've seen countless times before, he claims to be open and have integrity, but his actions should set off warning signs to voters.

If Ted truly understood leadership and integrity he'd have been proactive on this issue.  When it came up he would have made a public statement saying something like:  "While I believe I am a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president, to put everyone's mind at ease I am going to seek a declaratory judgment from the court to settle this once and for all and put people's minds at ease.  I love America and the Constitution and I am willing to abide by the decision of the court, even if it ultimately means I would have to drop out of the race."  

That's what a leader and person of integrity does.  They are proactive and do what's right regardless of the cost to themselves.  

If he believes he's right, he should have nothing to fear.  If he prevailed with the court it would preclude anyone from bringing the issue up any longer.  But by not getting that from the court, it simply allows his attackers to continue to raise the issue and even litigate it.  And if he's the nominee, it takes credibility away from him during the general election, which is the worst time it could happen.

But when Cruz doesn't do that, he's raising questions about his integrity no matter how this comes out. To double down and try to belittle a competitor (in this case Trump) with Alinsky-like responses designed to put doubt on the questioner, not answer the question, simply reduces his credibility.  

If he has nothing to hide and is so sure, why wouldn't he be willing to seek a court judgment?  That would end the discussion once and for all.  It would eliminate it being dragged through battles in the legal system.  

In fact, just this past week the suits started with one challenging his eligibility being filed at the end of the week. (It's also interesting to note that a suit has also been brought against Rubio regarding his eligibility, too.)  And I suspect there will be more suits before this is over.

If nothing else, the decision to handle this the way Cruz has done shows an immature and foolish decision on his part.  He has nothing to lose by seeking a declaratory judgment.  To ignore it only leads to more problems.  

But then, Ted Cruz has shown immaturity and foolishness in decision making before.  And some of the other reasons we should be concerned about his candidacy will be dealt with in part 2 which has been published right after this post.




Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Cruz's Big Problem Continues To Loom Over His Campaign

For those who either forgot or weren't paying attention, last November I wrote about Ted Cruz's big problem and now it's starting to gain more traction.  

The Washington Post (and many other news outlets) are reporting that Donald Trump raised the issue in an interview. While Trump talked about Ted's birth being in Canada and that a legal challenge would get tied up in court for 2 years, he missed the real point.  The legal challenge will come if Cruz is nominated, the Democrats have promised that they'll do that.  And if it's going to hold up the election, the Supreme Court will surely rush a decision through, just as they did in the Gore v. Bush decision in the 2000 election.  But that decision will still come just shortly before the general election and cause all sorts of problems that people are ignoring.

The issue comes down the the Constitutional requirement that a president must be a natural born citizen. While some attorneys say that Cruz is natural born, the fact is that the term has never been defined.  Our founding fathers did not define it in the founding documents and until the Supreme Court rules on the definition, we really won't know how it will be constitutionally defined.

People who disregard the seriousness of the issue are missing the point.  Many of them point to people like attorney and talk show host Mark Levin, who has said Cruz is a natural born citizen, and therefore eligible.  But their opinion doesn't matter.  What matters is how the Supreme Court will rule and the ramifications of the decision they make.

The Supreme Court has not been consistent in their decisions.  To listen to an attorney who may have a good argument does not mean the court will embrace that argument.  The best way to determine what the court will do is to look at their past actions.  The current Supreme Court has a pattern of behavior that can give us a guide as to what they will probably do if this is brought to them.  What I wrote in November still applies so I'm reposting it here:

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

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.