




Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Ted Cruz: The End Of His Short-Lived Political Career

Here's the Nonsense:  Ted Cruz may have made a mistake at the RNC Convention, but it's no big deal.  Next election he'll be the Republican nominee for president.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Ted Cruz's suicide note (as Charles Krauthammer called it) at the RNC Convention exposed his true colors.  Voters saw it and of those still supporting him most abandoned him at that point.  But now it's gotten even worse for Ted.

Republicans and conservatives were watching when Ted Cruz gave up his political future in return for a few minutes of bitter vindictiveness.  The small number of followers that he still has hold fast to hope for his political future.  But it's time they wake up to the fact that Ted destroyed his future with his speech at the RNC Convention and his actions following it last week.  And if there was any doubt about it, not just pundits and politicians are saying it, but now the ultimate death blow to Ted's future has been laid on Ted's doorstep by Robert and Rebekah Mercer, Ted's biggest billionaire financial backers.

The New York Times is reporting that billionaire Robert Mercer and his daughter, Rebekah, have just given nothing less than a verbal slap in the face to Ted Cruz for what he did at the RNC Convention.   The NY Times called it an "extraordinary public rebuke" from these two former donors to Cruz for not endorsing Donald Trump.

The Times article says:

So, here we have Ted's biggest supporters castigating him for what he did and saying that his actions are "revealing." They now see that Ted's bitterness over losing the primaries override not just his promise to support the Republican nominee and his responsibility to do what's best for America regardless of personal cost, but his bitterness also overrides his ability to keep his word.  And if a man's word is worthless, then he has nothing.

Ted claims to be a Christian and yet does not live by the very values he's supposed to live by.  Jews and Christians know that a core Judeo-Christian value is keeping your promises. In the book of Numbers (chapter 3, verse 20) it says, "If a man vows a vow to the Lord, or swears an oath to bind himself by a pledge, he shall not break his word.  He shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth."

But Senator Cruz has shown himself to be just another politician, which is exactly what he said in his campaign that he wasn't.  He campaigned on keeping his word.  The Mercers believed him and now see that he isn't what he claimed to be.

Remember that Robert Mercer purchased Cambridge Analytics to help Ted Cruz's campaign do voter analysis and win more votes, much like Obama had done in 2008 and 2012.  Mercer also purchased Breitbart News to sway conservative voters to follow Cruz.  And, if that wasn't enough, he put over $10 million into Cruz's Super PACs. That's a huge investment in a candidate to only have that same candidate fail in his patriotism when it counts most.

To lose the support of the Mercers is the ultimate death knell for Ted's political future.  Good luck Ted getting any future support from the likes of Robert and Rebekah Mercer.

We know voters are upset with Ted.  There is a lot of talk from Texans that they'd never vote for such a two-faced politician again and that when his term is up as senator they won't support him again. That sends a big message to other high level donors.

And what does this message send about those who've supported the Never Trump movement?  People like Erick Erickson, Jonah Goldberg, Rich Lowry, Mark Levin, Steve Deace, and the Salem Radio and Media organization (that includes Red State, Human Events, Hot Air, even their radio stations) could all ultimately end up being in trouble.

This could also put pressure on Republican politicians who have fought against Trump to get behind him.  The size of the impact of the Mercers doing this is bigger than most people even realize.

The Mercers have joined the likes of billionaires such as Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn who also recognize that Hillary must be stopped.  They see Trump as the horse to put their money on in this race.  They understand that if Hillary is elected that there most likely won't be another race as we know it in the future.  So, they've thrown support behind Trump knowing that the future won't be bright if the Republican nominee doesn't win.

As for Ted Cruz.  Ted's support among voters has collapsed since the RNC Convention.  Gateway Pundit is reporting poll results showing the collapse:

We shouldn't be surprised at what Ted did at the convention or how he defended it.  Cruz was dishonest over and over again in his campaign but no one wanted to hold him accountable. When he continually tried to tell voters that Trump's positions on issues were the same today as they were decades ago (when Trump had over and over again written and spoken about changing his positions over time), no one said, "Hey Ted, that's not accurate.  People have the right to learn and grow and change and Trump has done just that."  Instead they allowed Ted to continue being dishonest in his portrayal of his competitor.

The list goes on and on but the bottom line is that he wasn't held accountable by his supporters.  The crowning example was when he said, after his RNC convention speech, that he wouldn't endorse someone who'd attacked his wife.  Yet the truth was that Ted's Super PAC had attacked Trump's wife first and Trump simply responded.  When questioned about the actions of his Super PAC Ted hid behind the law that says a candidate can't have interaction with their Super PACs.  

But he didn't need to.  In the past other candidates have faced situations where their Super PACs have done questionable things and the candidate issues a public statement rejecting their actions and it results in the Super PAC stopping what they're doing.  But Ted wouldn't do that.  He would say nothing against what his Super PAC had done.  

A public statement denouncing what they'd done is all it would have taken to keep Trump from responding. But when Ted refused to speak out against what his Super PAC had done, Trump responded.  And somehow Ted spun that into an attack on his wife, Heidi, instead of what it really was;  a response to an attack on Trump's wife, Melania.

I have refrained from writing a series of posts taking apart Ted's claims to conservatism and successes he claims while serving the people.  His political run was over so I dropped it. But now that he's done irreparable damage to his political future, it's important for us to recognize that he's put his bitterness first and left the best interest of America in the dust.  He's shown his narcissism and lack of integrity.  And the Mercers have shown that they now recognize it and have moved on to help fight for America's future.

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

Does Trump Have A Plan To Remove Obama Appointees From Government?

Here's the Nonsense:  Once Obama is out of office, it'll be clear sailing for the Trump administration to move the government in the right direction.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Obama leaving office won't stop his influence. His appointees can remain and cause havoc for a new administration.  Trump better plan to deal with it.

The end of President Obama's term does not necessarily mean the end of his influence on our government.  He could change their positions from that of appointees to that of civil service employees.  By doing that he embeds them in our government with all the job protections that civil service employees enjoy.  It's been said by many that removing a federal employee is almost impossible.  So, will removing those employees pose a problem for a President Trump or does he have a plan to eliminate that problem?  

Reuters is reporting that Donald Trump may have a plan to remove obstacles that would keep him from removing federal employees who were appointees of Barack Obama.  Trump, it is said, would like to be able to purge those employees by seeking help from Congress to pass legislation that would make it easier to fire federal workers.

Gov. Chris Christie, who is head of Trump's transition team, said in a special meeting on Tuesday with donors at the Republican Convention that they were making a list of federal employees to be removed if Trump wins the election.  

Trump's transition advisers fear that Obama may convert appointees to civil servants.  According to the article, Christie said, "This would allow officials to keep their jobs in a new, possibly Republican, administration."  Christie went on to say, "It's called burrowing. (click here for examples of Bush and Clinton using burrowing in their administrations) You take them from the political appointee side into the civil service side, in order to try to set up... roadblocks for your successor.... One of the things I have suggested to Donald is that we have to immediately ask the Republican Congress to change the civil service laws.  Because if they do, it will make it a lot easier to fire those people."

This is clear, forward thinking.  Trump and his team know that they face an uphill battle and are trying to be ready to remove obstacles in their path.  This is about cleaning up government and is a clear sign that that's what Trump wants to do.

And, in addition to getting rid of political appointees of Obamas, a change in the laws would most likely make it easier to cut down the size of government by eliminating many unneeded positions.  This is how a businessman thinks.  It's about efficiency, which is something that politicians know nothing about.

One other note you might find interesting.  Christie used the term "we" when referring to the administration of Donald Trump.  Could this mean that even though he wasn't chosen as Trump's running mate that Trump has already promised another position to Christie?  I think so.  And I wouldn't be surprised if it was as Attorney General.

Monday, July 18, 2016

What Will The Removal Of Roger Ailes Mean For Fox News?

Here's the Nonsense:  It would be a shock for Fox News to let Roger Ailes go.  The network has been the only conservative place to get news and unbiased information.

Here's the Horse Sense:  It's just a matter of time before Ailes is gone from Fox.  They've moved continually to the left over the years and when their leftist owners finally get rid of Ailes you can expect them to go even more mainstream.

NY Magazine is reporting that Fox has decided to get rid of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.  Regardless of why and how they would get rid of him, an action such as this would have a huge impact on the news channel.  The real question is whether Fox would continue on its move leftward or would new blood bring it back to center-right.  That is what would determine the future of Fox more than anything, including the presence of Roger Ailes.

At 76 years old, Roger Ailes time as head of Fox News is limited no matter what happens.  Whether it be by choosing to retire, his passing, or the network firing him (or forcing him to resign) doesn't matter.  Nothing lasts forever and when you're 76 years old your days are numbered by, if nothing else, your remaining lifespan.

The recent lawsuit for sexual harassment brought by former Fox employee Gretchen Carlson against Ailes was the catalyst for the current situation.  Rupert Murdoch and his sons are said to be in agreement that it's time for Ailes to go.  And, given that Ailes' saving grace has been Rupert, this could be the situation to give enough ammunition to his sons to get rid of a man they have never had a great relationship with.  

Murdoch's sons are leftists, preferring Hillary Clinton over a republican president.  And Rupert Murdoch himself is part of the establishment.  At the beginning the primaries he said that he believed the best thing would be either a Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton presidency over the other candidates.  

The Murdoch's leanings, along with those of Fox's second largest shareholder, Saudi Prince Alawleed bin Tlal, are not conservative at all.  In fact, the Saudi prince, as Diana West wrote in an article for Townhall, is quite proud of his power to control news at Fox.  West writes:

"As noted in The (U.K.) Guardian, Alwaleed told an audience in Dubai that it took just one phone call to Rupert Murdoch -- 'speaking not as a shareholder but as a viewer,' Alwaleed said -- to get the Fox News crawl reporting 'Muslim riots' in France changed to 'civil riots.'"

Fox has continually moved left over the years.  Even a study in 2011 at UCLA showed that while Fox was further to the right than other broadcast networks, they were still center-left.  The old Fox News that people fell in love with back in the 1990's when it first started is not conservative and certainly not fair and balanced.  

While it was never truly conservative, it leaned more to the right in days gone by that it does now.  That's why huge numbers of conservative viewers don't watch their propaganda any longer.  

Fox has remained the top cable news network, but still has only a tiny share of Americans watching their channel.  (On its best nights even The O'Reilly Factor, their top rated show, only gets between 3 and 4 million viewers.  In a nation of 318 million people that's only 1.26% of the population.  

I've said all this to make the point that Fox ownership is clearly not conservative.  They are aligned with the Uni-party Democrats and GOPe in America.  Their behavior, especially in this election cycle, has been anything but friendly to the right.  The small bones they've thrown to the right have kept some thinking that Fox is still a good network, but the fact is that very little of Fox is fair and balanced.  

It's always been a matter of when Ailes goes as to when Fox would move even further left.  With this opportunity the Murdochs have a chance to make this now instead of later.  The question they are wrestling with now is timing.  Some say it could be this week, others say wait until after the Republican convention.  The bottom line is that Ailes may survive this attempt to get rid of him, but my guess is that he won't be with the network very much longer.  

So, as I've said for some time.  The worst thing you can do is watch Fox or go to their website.  All it does is increase their ratings, which means they make more money.  It encourages what they do.  

Some think that they have to keep an eye on Fox, even referring to it as the enemy (which isn't totally inaccurate), so they know what they're doing.  My view is that that's a justification.  The best thing those who still watch it can do is turn it off.  There are far better ways to learn what's going on than to watch a biased network that's determined to change the way you think.

Tuesday, July 12, 2016

Bush Bails Out Obama & Dallas Police Massacre Plays Into Globalist Plans

Here's the Nonsense:  The racial tensions in America are running high.  This has nothing to do with politics.  We just need to settle everyone down and work toward unity.

Here's the Horse Sense:  George W. Bush is standing up to protect President Obama from too much negative feedback about the race relations in America.  Racial tensions are now being used to keep the nation under the control of the globalists in this election.  

Will President Obama create more racial tension in America by going to Dallas to speak at the memorial service for the fallen police officers?  There's been talk of police officers at the memorial planning to go so far as to turn their backs on him.  Or does he have a wall of protection that will keep something like that from happening?

A growing chorus across the nation is claiming that the attacks on the police are a result of President Obama's continued denunciation of police across America.  They believe that he has undermined them by fanning the flames of radical anti-cop sentiments of the Black Lives Matter group that are demanding everything from only black police officers should be allowed to deal with black citizens to the takeover of 5 states making them a black nation within a nation (those states are South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana)... and, of course, along with forming their own nation they want America to pay them reparations, too.

The division in America is as large as it's ever been.  Obama is pushing hard as his term nears its end.  He wants to accomplish many things, locked in so that no future president can change them, before he leaves office.  And most Americans find the kind of things he's trying to do as not only distasteful, but outright non-American.  The growing sentiment among citizens is that they've had enough and would prefer to have him out of office as soon as possible.

So, with that sentiment towards the president added to the growing racial tensions in America, can he really expect a friendly reception in Dallas?

Yes, I think so.  

I think so because Obama has a "shield" that's going to show up to change the mood at that memorial service.  That shield is George W. Bush.  Bush has agreed to speak at the memorial, too, and that will deflect any negative feelings towards Obama because George W. Bush is still highly admired in Dallas.  He lives there.  His presidential library is at SMU.  And he's made it a point to NOT speak out against Obama's presidency (which in my opinion is nothing but cowardice, but some call it being a gentleman).  If you never noticed it before, this brings George W. Bush out of the closet for Obama.

Bush's speech at the memorial, let alone just having his presence there, will change the focus of any attitude of resentment towards Obama and how his actions have been perceived as inflammatory against police.  And, Bush's presence may temper some of the comments that Obama would otherwise make (i.e.; guns being the cause of the massacre, gun control is the answer, etc.), but you can be sure it won't completely stop Obama from making those points on some level.

But don't be fooled.  As much as many Americans think highly of George W. Bush, he's just another member of the globalist Uni-party that the GOPe leadership along with the Democrat leadership all belong to.  Their plans for America are the cause of the problems that plague our nation. Whether it's Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, both George W. and George H. W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, or any of the others, they are all part of the Uni-party with the same goals of taking down America and making us part of a global order controlled by an international government.

So, when Barack Obama is put in a position to go to Dallas to the police memorial service, the Uni-party steps in and gets George W. Bush to go, too, to soften the mood.  The Uni-party are the professional political class that support each other regardless of ideology.  Their globalist goals are much bigger than ideology.  That's why George W. Bush has never spoken out about the things that Obama has done.  It's all part of the plan to control both parties so that no matter who the voters elect, the ultimate goals are still being pursued.  The voters just think they've made change.

And that's also why Donald Trump is attacked so hard by all of them.  He stands outside the globalist elite and is a threat to their goal of melding America into the one-world government.  And now, by having successfully made race such a huge factor in America these days, they've successfully taken the focus off of Hillary's crimes and being let off by the FBI and DOJ in spite of the fact most Americans believing she should be prosecuted.  They've worked hard to try to get people to believe Trump is a racist and they want this election to be focused on race hoping voters buy the false idea that Trump is racist.  They believe that is how to keep him from being elected.  The plan is to get another globalist Uni-party president in office so they can continue taking America down the path to destruction.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

The Best Response To The Police Shootings

Many have written or talked about what happened in Dallas this past week.  The terrible tragedy as police officers were shot in Dallas followed by more officers shot in other states, too, has brought a rude awakening to Americans that there is a terrible sickness in our society.  And as good as some comments and articles are that have been put out, I don't think I've seen anything nearly as good as Sarah Palin's post on her Facebook account.  It's worth taking the time to read what she has to say.

Here's the link to the article on her Facebook page.  Or, if you're like me and don't use Facebook, I've taken screenshots of the article and put it below for you to read here:

Monday, July 4, 2016

The Foolishness Of Hillary's Plans For Her First 100 Days If Elected

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary's plans for her first 100 days as president look like they could really make some positive changes in Washington.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Hillary's plans are nothing new and should be a warning to voters that electing her is a huge mistake.  Her administration would be more of the same but at higher speed to destroy America.

We've talked about the Clintons for decades.  Experience with Bill's presidency showed us how much damage he could do, but most of it was thwarted by the strong Republican House of Representatives that reimplemented many Reagan policies and dragged Bill Clinton along with them.  

Clinton has taken credit for the successes of the 90s that can all be tracked back to reimplementation of Reagan's policies (and the Republicans have mostly allowed him to do it because the current GOP is controlled by Reagan haters). Once we saw Hillary become a senator followed by Secretary of State, we saw that she hadn't learned a thing and was sticking to her old progressive Alinsky ways.  

With this she wants to bring her phony feminism (her feminism makes women weaker) and her political correctness into full power if she's elected president.  We all know that would be a disaster for many reasons.  The Supreme Court nominations alone would be enough to push America into the thousand years of darkness that Reagan warned about.

And now we can look a little further by seeing what's been listed as her top issues to complete during the first 100 days she'd be in office.  The New York Times is reporting what Hillary's plans are and they're some of the most foolish ideas of this campaign season.  The article is lengthy, but there's a little chart of bullet points that says enough.  Here's a screenshot of it:

Let's take a look at these.  First, she will appoint women to half her cabinet posts.  Now there will be plenty of reaction to that, but it's clearly the typical left wing attempt to win female votes because of it.  It's no different than people claiming that Hillary should be president because she's a woman.  It's absolute nonsense.

The fact is that people who lead our nation, including their cabinet members, should be the best people for the job and gender, race, religion, or anything else should not be a criteria.  No thinking person would disagree with the fact that there are talented people of all kinds.  When you own a business and want to succeed, you hire the best person for the job, not the person who fits some politically correct requirement, which is all this is.  Just because you're a specific gender does not mean you are qualified to hold a position.  I've seen it in business where people were hired because of some politically correct reason.  Better people were passed on for the job because they did not meet the proper politically correct qualification.  Why would we want someone who's going to put political correctness over hiring the best person for the job?  It would be stupid for the American people to elect someone who would do this.

Second, she wants to revive immigration reform with a path to citizenship.  The majority of Americans have made it clear they want our borders and immigration brought under control.  This, once again, is pandering for votes.  Hillary hopes to win the votes of people who have family and friends they'd like to see be given citizenship for their law breaking.  What she really wants is the votes of the illegal immigrants who are in America.  The Democrats have announced that their platform includes no longer requiring learning English to become a citizen.  The fact that someone broke the law means nothing to them (probably because abiding by the law is not something Democrats are known for).  But going beyond that, this even affects legal immigrants.  The Democrats don't care about the destruction of our culture.  They don't care that requiring assimilation is important so that America maintains its strength and individuality among nations.  No, all the Democrats, with Hillary in the lead, want is to have the power in this country regardless of the consequences to the nation.

Third, she wants to push a $275 billion infrastructure/jobs plan.  She wants to increase the budget by $1.4 trillion and increase taxes by $1.2 trillion, too.  We already know that when the Democrats spend money for infrastructure to "create jobs" that it never works.  Can anyone name the jobs created by the TARP bailout?  All this stuff boils down to is a way to reward people who supported them. Whether it's unions or politicians that did favors for them that get money to spend on their constituents, it's the same old money-grubbing politics.  

And notice that her increased spending is more than her tax increases?  We're already spending more money than we bring in.  Our nation is technically bankrupt with more debt than any nation in history and yet over 40 cents of every dollar Congress spends is additional debt that we cannot sustain.

This is a good example of the difference between a businessman who knows how to run things efficiently and a politician who only knows how to spend.  Trump talks about cutting waste, creating more efficient systems, and getting our national budget to be efficient.  As a businessman he knows you can't spend your way to prosperity.  He also knows that we are a hair's breadth from financial collapse if something isn't done soon.  Hillary just wants to spend.  

Fourth, she wants to seek common ground with the GOP over drinks.  She doesn't play golf, so she wants to go back to the way politicians in the past have done things where sit around after hours drinking and talking.  While that may sound nice to some (Personally I never like the thought of alcohol being anywhere near important decisions, but that's not even my point here.)  Our problems are not a matter of just changing the way things are discussed and negotiated.  They are a matter knowing how to negotiate and our politicians have proven that they don't know how.  What we need is someone who has American's best interest as their priority, not just making a deal with a buddy in politics.  Hillary is trying to get people to believe that "getting along" (sounds like Obama, doesn't it?) is what we need.  Any successful businessman knows that they don't have to get along with someone to do business with them. This isn't about being liked.  It's about successful negotiation.  And it appears that the only successful negotiation Hillary's ever been good at is getting people to pay her and her foundation big bucks in return for political access and favors.

When the article says that Hillary wants to break up the gridlock in Washington I am sure that all she means by that is that she wants total control and no one to challenge her.  With the Senate and House Republicans we have in office now (of which most will be reelected, so there will be no change in Republican leadership in Congress) she should have smooth sailing just like Obama has had.  After all, the Republicans have done nothing but rubber stamp virtually everything he's wanted to do.  

Fifth, if the GOP blocks her she'll use executive actions.  So, if she can't the parties to work together, then she'll resort to executive actions.  In other words, more Executive Orders just like Obama has used to skirt Congress and the law.  This is the mindset of tyrannical leaders.  And with Hillary we'd just be exchanging one for the other.  The only difference is that Obama has already laid the groundwork so that Hillary would not be starting from scratch.  She could go further and do it faster in destroying our nation and that should be what concerns voters.