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


Sunday, August 23, 2015

Hillary: Prison, Presidency, or Private Life?

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Hillary Clinton's email scandal is the end of her campaign and the end of her life as a free person.  There's no doubt she's going to prison for this one.

Here's the Horse Sense:  No matter where you stand on the seriousness of Hillary's email scandal, there is virtually no chance she's going to prison for this one.  She's more likely to end up as president or just return to private life.

There's all this talk about Hillary's email scandal.  And so many people think she's going to prison over it.  Others are sure it's much ado about nothing.  Frankly, with both Bill and Hillary Clinton's history of scandal this should surprise no one.  But where is Hillary headed?

This scandal has been beaten to death by conservative media with no sign of them letting up on their hopeful thinking anytime soon.

The real issue boils down to a simple question:  Will this result in prison, the presidency, or private life for Hillary?

We certainly can't know exactly what will happen.  But we can use some horse sense to get a good idea of where it's headed.

Barack Obama wants his legacy to continue into the next presidency.  He believes he's the greatest president America has ever had and that his presidency marks a milestone of change for America.  Unfortunately he is right, but that change is not a good thing.  Whoever takes office in 2017, he wants them to win by running as a 3rd term of his presidency.  

Even though he and Hillary have the same goals for America, they are mortal enemies.  Hillary will certainly only want to build her own legacy and give little, if any credit to Obama. As a result, you can be sure that Obama does not want her as the candidate for the 2016 election.

My guess is that a lot of the information coming out about Hillary's problems is being put out there by the Obama administration.  They are probably trying to undermine her campaign and get her to drop out.

Remember, in 2007 when Hillary was running for the presidency against Obama she was fighting hard.  Then, all of a sudden, she met with Obama's people and overnight she threw in the towel and put her support behind Obama.  

Don't think for a moment that she wanted to quit.  She was most likely forced out of that race.  It's been rumored for years that threats of some kind were used to get her to drop out.  If so, it's very possible she's feeling similar pressure to force her out of this one, too.  

Let's face it, something like a threat of the Justice Department prosecuting her could be enough to get her to quit the race.

The Clintons are the poster children for politicians who nothing sticks to.  They are notorious for getting away with anything and everything.  But the Obamas and Clintons have a mutual hatred for each other.  This is a power struggle like none seen in the Democrat Party in generations, maybe ever.

Don't think for a moment that Bill Clinton running into Barack Obama on the golf course when they were each on vacation was a coincidence.  Do you really think the Secret Service didn't know that each one of them would be on that course at that time on that day?  More than likely it was a way for them to talk without it looking "official" and causing too many questions about what was discussed.  It's quite possible they were trying to negotiate some kind of deal.

If it looks like she can't get away from prosecution, then Hillary will have to find a way to gracefully get out of her campaign.  I doubt she'd ever admit fault about anything.  More than likely, if she can't shake this scandal, she and Bill will come up with some kind of health reason or other excuse that "forces" her to quit.  Don't be surprised if suddenly she releases an announcement saying something like, "Even though I want to serve the country, my health is going to keep me from continuing my run for the presidency."

Hillary's best bet to avoid a very embarrassing prosecution may very well be to claim she has some health problem and quietly retire to private life.  Whether she can shake this scandal or not remains to be seen.  We're a long way from the election and people, especially the mainstream media and Democrat voters, have short memories about Democrat candidates' misdeeds.  Don't forget that there is never any genuine concern shown about morals or integrity when it comes to Democrats.

The one thing we can be fairly sure of is that if Hillary gets out of the race, she's not going to admit she did anything wrong or that the scandal has forced her out.




Tuesday, August 18, 2015

GOP Candidates Likely To Get To The Primary Finals, And Why Most Can't Beat The GOP Establishment

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

Here's the Nonsense:  The GOP primary race will shake out quickly and only those candidates who have political experience will be left to compete for the nomination.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The primary process takes its toll and candidates fall out as the process moves along.  But most of those with the best chance of lasting until the final stretch still can't beat the GOPe (GOP establishment).

We're 15 months out from the presidential election and already there's talk of some of the candidates who participated in either of the two recent Fox-hosted debates getting out of the race.  So, who really is looking like they have a chance to go the distance and be a final contender for the nomination?  And can they beat the GOPe (GOP establishment)?

You may have thought that there were 17 Republicans who've thrown their hat into the ring for the 2016 presidential race.  Actually, there are 38 who've done it so far, and a 39th pending (click here to see the list).  For this post I'm going to limit my discussion to candidates within the group of 17 who participated in either of the Fox-hosted debates earlier this month.  To refresh your memory, here's the list of those 17 in no particular order:



  1. Rick Perry
  2. Rick Santorum
  3. Jeb Bush
  4. Bobby Jindal
  5. Scott Walker
  6. Lindsey Graham
  7. Donald Trump
  8. Carly Fiorina
  9. Rand Paul
  10. George Pataki
  11. Ted Cruz
  12. Chris Christie
  13. Mike Huckabee
  14. Jim Gilmore
  15. Ben Carson
  16. John Kasich
  17. Marco Rubio

Some of these candidates, like George Pataki, Lindsey Graham, and Jim Gilmore stand little chance of getting anywhere and will most likely be out of the campaign before it gets too far into the primaries (if not before).  They either don't have messages that are interesting to the base or don't have the campaign machine to get them the attention needed to stay in the race long term.  I'm guessing that some, if not all of them, are running more to have "former presidential candidate" on their resume than for any other reason.

Rick Perry and Rick Santorum haven't been able to get any traction and don't seem to be able to get the attention of the voters.  Perry's stumble in 2012 appears to be following him and he's had a hard time raising much money and now is not paying many on his staff.  Santorum was the underdog who surprised everyone in 2012 by going the distance he did.  But this year it appears that people are looking for fresh faces in the campaign and he's just not getting attention.  He has some good things to say, but it just doesn't appear that he can reignite the support he needs.  Chances are very high that these two will both be out of the race before we get too far along.  In fact, Perry looks like he may be the first who is going to drop out.

Bobby Jindal hasn't gotten much attention yet, either.  While many say he won't last until the end of the year, his message is very solid and he's done a great job in Louisiana as governor.  If he can get a chance to break out like Carly Fiorina did in the last debate, there's a chance he could get traction so I'm not ready to throw in the towel on his chances this early in the game.  If he can get that break out chance, he has the ability to be a formidable candidate.

Chris Christie will probably fall out of the race somewhere during the primaries, but some are saying he's already done.  I think the GOPe wants him as a possible backup if Jeb can't catch on so I think they'll try to keep him in for some time to see if he can get past the slow start.  John Kasich is the same way.  He's seen by the GOPe as an alternative if they need it.  I suspect that Kasich will be in the race for some time.

Rand Paul had what was thought to be an advantage of inheriting his father's followers.  But it hasn't happened.  He's dropped the ball in many ways.  With 2 of his political allies are under indictment, that's hurting his reputation. But more than that, Rand really isn't a good communicator and he doesn't come across as a candidate people want to believe in.  His father came across as an angry old grandpa, but he could get away with it because of his age.  (Age has the advantage of allowing you to get away with some things that younger looking people just can't get away with.)  In some ways, that was one of the things that endeared his followers to him.

Rand Paul's campaign is in enough trouble that his father, Ron Paul, is reported by Examiner.com to no longer be sitting on the sidelines.  He has written a letter to his followers saying "Rand is the ONLY one in the race who is standing up for your Liberty, across the board." The article goes on to say that Ron Paul also wrote:

"'Even where Rand and I do have minor differences of opinion, I would take Rand's position over any of his opponents' in both parties every time,' he continued. He then took aim at the press. 'I know the media likes to play this little game where they pit us, or certain views, against each other,' Ron said. 'Don't fall for it. They're trying to manufacture storylines at liberty's expense. You've spent years seeing how the media treated me. They aren't my friends and they aren't yours.'"

Clearly Ron recognizes Rand's difficulties in his campaign and is trying to breathe new life into it.  But with all of Rand's missteps I would imagine he'll fall out of the race somewhere early in the primaries.  Some pundits are predicting before the Iowa caucuses early next year, but I think he may hold on a little longer than that.  It's interesting to consider the rumor that Rand has been very angry that he's losing the Tea Party to Donald Trump.  If that truly is his attitude, then he's making a terrible mistake in assuming that the Tea Party or any group of voters are an entitlement for him.  When his campaign does implode it will be interesting to see which candidate his followers move their support to.

Marco Rubio is a GOPe candidate (although he pretends to bea conservative much like some other candidates). He is extremely young to be considered for the biggest job in the world and has shown his immaturity often in decisions he's made.  But he is beloved by the GOPe and is in the race for a number of reasons.  Like Christie and Kasich, the GOPe wants him as a possible alternative if Jeb fails, or as potential VP choice should Jeb do okay.  They believe that he will bring in the Hispanic vote simply because he's Hispanic.  But more important than any of that, he is considered by the GOPe as one who will split the votes for conservative candidates and give Jeb the best chance at winning the important state of Florida.  My guess is that he'll be in the race until the final stretch.

Scott Walker is another candidate that I believe has a lot of people fooled.  I believe he's GOPe and that he is also seen as a candidate that can help split the conservative vote so that Jeb can win important states like Florida.  A huge number of conservatives like him simply because of how he handled the unions in Wisconsin, but they don't look any deeper to see the problems.

Bloomberg is reporting about the struggles Walker has encountered in his Iowa campaign.  They write that Walker:

"... hopes to 'at least to be first, second or third' in all four of the early states, which also include New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada."

That is the common belief among Republican strategists, but the fact is that the first few states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and even South Carolina don't consistently reflect the outcome of the primaries.  The critical state is Florida and if a candidate can win that, they are well on their way to taking the nomination.  The GOPe see Walker like a few other candidates such as Rubio.  They see them as spoilers to get conservatives to buy into their campaign pitch and end up splitting the votes of conservatives so the establishment candidate of choice can win the nomination.  

The NY Times published a piece a little while ago about how the GOPe understood that he had moved to the right on issues to try to win the primaries, but they know that if he were to win the nomination he'd move to the left (or center as they like to call it) to run in the general election.

Then there's Mike Huckabee.  Many think he doesn't stand a chance. But if you listen to him speak, like he did at the debate, he is a gifted and talented speaker with a strong message.  I think he has a good chance of going quite a distance.  

His recent book, God, Guns, Grits and Gravy, that came out around the time he announced his campaign is an important work because it points out the breakdown of the morals and values in our nation.  It appears his big issue is taking America back to the values upon which our nation was founded.  This is an extremely important topic and essential if America is to survive long term.  A few other candidates embrace what he's saying, but he appears to be the most vocal and I think it will find an audience especially among those who are religious (not just evangelicals, but generally religious, moral people) that will allow him to stay in the race for some time.  

The evangelicals he can draw in that are not traditionally involved in the voting process (there are between 20 and 30 million evangelicals who are not registered to vote) are a positive addition for most candidates in the GOP field as their involvement, even if Huckabee isn't ultimately the nominee, can give the GOP additional voters to offset the Democrats appeal to illegals, dead people, and those who vote multiple times in elections that most likely are the reason they have won some elections in recent years.

Carly Fiorina is the dark horse candidate.  She's an amazing speaker and handles interviews very impressively.  You don't hear her stutter or stammer or pause, she just answers questions and has solutions, which really isn't surprising given her business background.  That's what businesspeople do, come up with solutions, which is not what politicians do.  She, as a woman, offers a unique advantage in fighting against the Democrats who keep screaming about minorities and women needing to be elected to the presidency (even though all of their candidates for 2016 are white, old, and only one is female and may not last with all her legal problems).  Some are starting to attack Carly now that she's getting attention.  My suspicion is that she'll be one who stays in quite a while and most likely be under serious consideration for a cabinet post in the administration if a Republican wins the general election.

Ted Cruz is clearly the most talented debater among the candidates of either party.  He's got a brilliant mind and is a pretty solid conservative.  His mistake of voting for TPP lost him the support of many people, especially when he said that he did it because he believed Mitch McConnell on an issue (which turned out to be a lie).  Many people think it was an immature mistake to have trusted a known liar like McConnell.  They have raised concern over whether he'd make that kind of mistake again because America can't afford such mistakes when our nation's future is in the balance.  The other problem he has, which some won't like me saying, is his voice.  He is very nasal when he speaks and that could hurt him.  America is a very superficial country and people base voting decisions on the most foolish things.

I remember in the 2012 election watching a Fox contributor on Sean Hannity's show say she'd chosen her candidate based on the sports team they liked.  And those people are supposed to be "experts" but clearly that showed how foolish she was.  But that's America and I don't put much stock in the American people doing their homework before making a voting decision.

On the other hand, in addition to the 3 Washington outsiders who are getting stronger and stronger (Trump, Carson, and Fiorina), Cruz's support is growing.  I believe this is because more than any other politician-candidate in the race, he's spoken out against Washington insiders.  As a result, the voters are seeing him in a better light than other politicians and this could play well for him.  Regardless of his shortcomings, while I doubt his ability to beat the GOPe, I do think he'll be a final contender in the primaries.

Ben Carson is an amazing man.  He has strong values and stands up for what he believes.  While many felt he couldn't get far because of his soft spoken demeanor, he's already proving them wrong.  Some even attack him because he doesn't immediately throw out an answer to a question, but stops to think.  I think that shows a lot of wisdom to think before he speaks.  I think he will be in the race until the final stretch and has a good chance at the nomination if he can overcome the GOPe.  His followers are very loyal and that base appears to be growing even though he doesn't have much of a campaign support team set up.  They are not the same, but the loyalty of his followers remind me of the loyalty Ron Paul supporters had for him.

Donald Trump is an enigma.  He is different than anyone in the race and the press and pundits don't understand him let alone know what to do with him.  I'm a businessperson and marketing expert and I think he is very understandable.  I think he's in it for the long term, but I don't think his chances of running 3rd party are as great as people say.  I think he wants to support the party even if he doesn't get the nomination, but he wants the nominee to be someone who can win and not the typical GOPe candidate.  I think he uses the threat of a 3rd party run as a way to put pressure on the Republicans to make sure there's a good candidate.  

His newly released Immigration Plan is getting rave reviews and striking right where the core of American voters want this country to go on immigration.  This is the first of his policy papers, but more are to come.  Don't be surprised like the pundits, establishment GOP and media are, at the depth of Trump's plans.  As I wrote about back on July 4, Trump has a plan for America and it's very well thought out.

Jeb Bush is obviously the candidate of choice for the GOPe.  And I believe that there's a very good chance that he will get the nomination unless a real upset takes place like it did in 1980 for Ronald Reagan.  

Jeb's campaign has struggled to catch on with voters.  WND.com is reporting that Jeb is about to receive a huge endorsement that his campaign is hoping will boost his campaign.  According to WND:

"Twelve Medal of Honor recipients are coming forward to give their public stamp-of-approval to Jeb Bush for president - a significant endorsement, given the dozen represent 15 percent of all those still living who share that highest of military recognition."

While this endorsement certainly may help him, it really depends on whether the voters can distinguish between someone doing something great or heroic in their life and that same person's ability to pick which politicians to support. 

I've heard that Jeb has been very angry that he's not leading in the polls and can't understand why he is losing to Trump.  It is said that he believes that he's entitled to the nomination and no one should get in his way.  That entitlement mentality, just like with Rand Paul, could be his biggest enemy.  But other than some major upset that is too early to predict, I suspect that the plan by the GOPe is for Jeb to have the nomination.

Now, all that said, here's why I don't believe that most conservatives stand a chance against the GOPe choice, which at this point is Jeb Bush.

It's said that Jeb has lined up $1.5 billion in pledges for his campaign.  The Democrats have said they've lined up between $2 and $2.5 billion for Hillary's (or whoever their candidate turns out to be) campaign.  That means that the general election will take over a billion dollars to win against them.  Stepping back to the primaries, which a candidate has to win before the general election, a Republican candidate will need to invest at least a few hundred million, if not more, to beat the GOPe's candidate (right now that's Jeb).

Only the big money donors can give candidates this kind of money.  And the big money donors (also referred to as Wall Street) have made it clear they want a president who will do their bidding just as Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush did for them.  They have no interest in donating to conservative candidates because they won't serve them well.

That means that if the primaries are to be won over the GOPe and the general election over the Democrats, then either it will take a candidate like Trump who can write a check for the money needed or it will take an uprising of the grassroots with donations to pay for it.  That would be an exception for our narcissistic nation to actually dig that deep into their individual pockets.  But that is what you need to promote and pay for as voters if you want a conservative as your next president.




Wednesday, August 12, 2015

No, The Lack Of Increase In National Debt Is Not Good News

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

Here's the Nonsense:  Our government officials and elected leaders are working hard to bring spending under control and we can see it by the fact that the national debt hasn't increased for the past 5 months.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Our debt is increasing more than ever and the only reason we can't see it is the game they play with the numbers.  The fact is that both parties are doing nothing to stop the spiraling debt that is destroying the future for our nation.

So, you might have heard that the national debt has been frozen at $18,112,975,000,0000 for the past 150 days.  Contrary to what some might want to think, this does not mean that our government has stopped wasting money.  No, once again they're just finding new ways to spin the numbers so they can get what they want without being subject to legal restrictions.  

CNS News is reporting that our national debt has been frozen for the past 150 days to avoid the statutory restriction that requires congressional approval if it passes the limit set by Congress, which is just $25 million higher than where the debt stands right now.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has sent letters to Congress, starting back on March 13, telling them that the Treasury would use "extraordinary measures" to maintain the debt at its current level for an extended period of time.  Subsequently he has sent additional letters affirming what Treasury is doing.  

Lew has blamed their doing this on the fact that Congress hasn't increased the debt limit.  Now let's not for one second think that Congress is doing their job by holding the line on debt.  The Republicans always wait until it's a last minute crisis and then cave and raise the limit.  They will do so again the next time they have to.  I will bet on it.  They don't care that they are selling us down the river with debt levels that we are almost guaranteed to be unable to repay.  

When we look a little deeper we find out how Treasury is doing this.  The CNS article says:

The Treasury has also posted Frequently Asked Question sheets that explain the actions the Treasury takes during a “debt issuance suspension period” and their statutory basis.

The Congressional Research Service has also explained it.  “Under current law, if the Secretary of the Treasury determines that the issuance of obligations of the United States may not be made without exceeding the debt limit, a ‘debt issuance suspension period’ may be determined,” the Congressional Research Service said in a report published on March 27. “This determination gives the Treasury the authority to suspend investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund, Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund, and the Government Securities Investment Fund (G-Fund) of the Federal Thrift Savings Plan.


“In addition,” said CRS, “this gives Treasury the authority to prematurely redeem securities held by the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Trust Fund and Postal Service Retiree Health Benefit Fund.”


So, essentially they're stealing from retirement and disability funds by not paying into them as they should be.  They're mortgaging those funds to continue down their current spending path.

Do you notice how there is no effort being made by Treasury or any part of this administration to reduce or even control spending?  And what's worse is that YOUR members of Congress aren't doing anything either.  We elected them to stop Obama's destruction of our nation and they do NOTHING.

This is a perfect example of why Americans should be scared for our future.  Washington is so busy playing games with the numbers that I suspect that none of the numbers we hear from the government are real.  It's all a shell game and us taxpayers are the suckers for letting them get away with it.

It's time for change in Washington.  That means BIG CHANGE by replacing the vast majority of people in both parties in the House and Senate,  In addition, we must elect a president who will stand up for America and fight to make our nation stable and strong again.






Tuesday, August 11, 2015

The Debate That Shouldn't Die

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

Here's the Nonsense:  The disagreements between Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly and Fox News are much ado about nothing.  Nothing big happened and it's time to move on.


Here's the Horse Sense:  What happened in this situation is huge and to ignore it is to show either ignorance or hypocrisy, maybe even both.


If you think the disagreements about Donald Trump, Megyn Kelly and Fox News are over, then you're sadly mistaken.  Even if they quiet down in the media, the fact that the public isn't holding people accountable reflects on the broken moral compass of our nation.  Hypocrisy reigns supreme, even in the conservative movement.


I realize that to most people this will fall on deaf ears.  Most people, even conservatives, feign moral principles.  But when push comes to shove, they make excuses and don't take a stand.  And when we don't stand for moral principles, we are guaranteed ultimate failure because conservatism is built on a moral foundation that cannot be separated from what the conservative movement is about.


Many people are still feeling that either:


A.)  Donald Trump was wrong in his dealings with Megyn Kelly at Fox;  or, 


B.)  Even though they may not like what Megyn Kelly did (or more likely don't know about her misrepresentation of the truth, but think it was just an inappropriate question), they are willing to look the other way and move on without holding anyone accountable.  


There is a sense of fear on the part of many that they cannot abandon Fox News because it's their main, if not sole, source of news.  But if Fox and Kelly are allowed to get away with what she did, then we can never trust anything from them again.  For if someone will be dishonest about one thing, there is no reason you can trust them in anything else.  A dishonest person is not just dishonest in one area.  It will inevitably overflow to other areas of their life.


This is not about Fox News being conservative.  They've proven many times that they are not.  And their ideology is not the point.  The point is ethics.  Whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, we need to hold journalists and their organizations to a high ethical standard.  And I don't see anyone doing that with Fox.


Let's go back to what happened between Kelly and Trump to understand exactly what I'm talking about.  (I presented this in my previous post but was fortunate to receive a copy of an email sent to the Sam Malone Show in Houston.  The email author's name is Pamela and she provided more complete information about what happened on Trump's Apprentice show than I'd gotten through Mark Levin's radio show for my last post.  I've never seen the show so Pamela's added information is very helpful.)


When Kelly asked Trump about his saying that a contestant on his Apprentice TV show getting on her knees would be a pretty sight, it was worded to imply that a sexual meaning was behind the comment.  However, that was a gross misrepresentation of what happened.  


On his show people are divided into teams and given situations where they are to create a business and make it successful.  In this situation the contestant was on her knees begging people to buy the product.  Trump wasn't there, he never is when they are running the businesses they create.  He meets with them in a room to go over a video of what they did and discuss it.  In this case he was with them in a room and was told about the contestant getting on her knees to beg people to buy.  That's when he said that would be a pretty sight.  He went on to inform the contestants that it was an inappropriate way to sell the product.  There was nothing sexual involved or implied.  But Megyn Kelly decided to take an episode from season 6 (out of 14 seasons) and twist what happened to make it sound like it was salacious.


The point here is that Fox News and Megyn Kelly had to know full well what was in that Apprentice episode and yet they still decided to use it in way that misrepresented what happened.  It was so many years ago that no normal person would immediately remember the situation.  It put Trump on the spot in front of a national audience and all of his competitors.  No matter how he responded or what happened, Kelly had to assume that it would look bad for him and she'd be seen as having scored a victory against the number one candidate in the polls.


If you don't believe that that's how she felt, you might change your mind when you learn what the LA Times reported about her rehearsal for the debate:


"Indeed, when Kelly rehearsed a question for another candidate — delivered in the staccato style that adds to her reputation as a tenacious interrogator — a producer at the table said, 'He’ll go berserk.' That’s a compliment for Kelly, who smiled."


Sure sounds like the attitude of someone who is driven by ego and power.  Contrary to what Ms. Kelly may think, the debate wasn't about her, it was about the candidates and the issues.  They are for the benefit of the voters, not for moderators to score victories with gotcha questions.

But clearly the Fox hosts wanted it to be about them and proceeded to take 31.7% of the time for their own talking.  And Kelly's smile during the rehearsal at the idea of making a candidate go berserk says a lot more about her desire to be the center of attention than about doing the job of a moderator.

But as bad as this is, what's really upsetting is that there are conservatives who are letting Fox off the hook and continuing to watch and support the network.  They are nothing short of hypocrites if they will give Fox ratings by watching without Fox apologizing for the deception put forth by Ms. Kelly at the debate.

This is not a minor issue.  Turning on your TV to watch Fox without them having apologized does nothing but help their ratings and send the message that they don't have to own up to what was done.  

Americans should be outraged at Fox's misrepresentation of facts in an attempt to damage or even destroy a candidate (and that would apply to ANY candidate).  What happened is simply Fox trying to control which candidates will be in the race.  But few Americans will stop long enough to even think about the implications of that.  

Unfortunately most Americans, even conservatives, don't think deeply enough about these issues.  And because few will be outraged, even fewer will stop to think about the hypocrisy of letting a journalist get away with such a deceptive act and continuing to watch the network without holding them responsible for their distortion of the facts.  

The Sheryl Atkisson's of journalism who have the integrity to stand up and leave a good job at a major network are few and far between.  She left a very good career at CBS and has since exposed the ethical problems she encountered there.  

Sad to say that I'll bet no one at Fox News has the integrity to walk out over what Megyn Kelly did.  Fox News not only owes an apology to viewers, they also should be taking severe disciplinary measures against Kelly and anyone else who knew what was going on.  My view is that this is an offense worthy of dismissal, not just some form of reprimand.  But I have no doubt they will opt on the side of protecting her as they see her as getting them ratings.  And by not taking action to correct this, they are proving their own lack of integrity.


We have seen no effort on the part of management to apologize or to correct her.  The only small effort we've seen is a story from Breitbart that Roger Ailes, head of Fox News, has called Donald Trump and asked him to come back on their network.

Megyn Kelly has not apologized, but rather we find, as Western Journalism reports, that she is calling her actions "good journalism." Pamela, the listener to Sam Malone's show in Houston that I mentioned earlier, was right when she said in her email that this is no different than NBC editing George Zimmerman's cell phone call to the police about the Trayvon Martin shooting.  And it is no different than Dan Rather creating a false story about George W. Bush.  And no different than the mainstream media reporting the "Hands up, don't shoot" story that wasn't true.  Megyn Kelly and Fox News have shown that they have no better ethics than their mainstream competitors, whose ethics conservatives continually complain about.

We cannot expect a network to be solidly conservative unless it's owned by conservatives.  Rupert Murdoch is no conservative.  At best he's an establishment Republican.  His sons, who are starting to take over the operations of his businesses are supporters of Democrats like Hillary Clinton.  The second largest stock holder in News Corp. is an Arab prince who has his own influence over what Fox News does.  (For those who aren't aware, News Corp. is the parent company of Fox News.)

It should have been a clear sign that something was wrong when CNN and MSNBC sided with Megyn Kelly and then Hillary Clinton did, too.  Those people are the poster children for deceit and Ms. Kelly appears to have just joined their ranks... although given what happened at the debate, it makes you wonder if she's been a party to anything else like this in the past.


But even with those facts, it doesn't matter that Fox News is not conservative.  What matters is that Fox, through Megyn Kelly, acted unethically and owe Americans an apology and efforts be made to see to it that it doesn't happen again.


This is a debate that shouldn't die because ethics must always be at the forefront for conservatives.  We cannot allow unethical actions to be supported or we are undermining the very values upon which America was founded.

Will Fox apologize and make sure it won't happen again?  Probably not.  They are driven by money and money comes from ratings.  Since most conservatives aren't willing to give up this particular network, Fox will continue to do well.  Conservatives who will watch them will continue to be hypocrites by supporting them.  And those same conservatives will have to ask themselves whether what they're hearing on Fox is accurate, or just another manipulated set of facts.






Sunday, August 9, 2015

Fox vs. Trump: Most People Are Missing The Point That Matters Most

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

Here's the Nonsense:  It doesn't matter what happened at the debate.  Donald Trump was wrong to attack Megyn Kelly and it was wrong for Megyn Kelly to ask Trump the kinds of questions she asked him.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The questions asked at the debate and the things said since have nothing to do with the real issue in this situation.  The real issue is about the rights of American voters and clearly Fox News, the GOP, and even the other candidates are not interested in those rights.

The fiasco that has taken place during and after the Republican debate has people talking about everything except the most important point.  Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly and Fox News and the other candidates is superficial nonsense that, as usual, the media and American people are focusing on.  They have once again chosen to be sidetracked by the insignificant and ignore an issue of voter's rights.

While people are screaming about the questions Kelly and other Fox moderators posed to Trump and others are screaming about what Trump has said, the real issue is that there was a clear attempt to take out a candidate that some people don't like thereby taking away the ability of the voters to decide who they want as their candidate.  Americans have a right to decide who they want in elected office.  No one has the right to take that away.  But that's exactly what we've seen happen in the past few days.

As conservatives we're all supposed to be responsible for ourselves.  A woman is supposed to be perfectly capable of standing up for herself.  And man is supposed to be able to say what he thinks, regardless of how popular, polished, or poignant it is.  More than anything, we're supposed to be able to make up our own minds and not be bullied into submission by someone who thinks they know better than we do what's best for us.  The progressive left are the ones who believe that they need to control our lives because they don't think we're capable of knowing as well as they do what's best for us.

The GOP establishment (GOPe) has had it in for Trump from the beginning.  They and their big donors are doing everything they can to stop him.  He represents Main Street and they represent Wall Street.  Wall Street is the big banks, investment firms, and big businesses that want an establishment Republican or Democrat as president because it furthers their agenda.  Trump is nothing like that.  He's a man who makes his money by building, selling, and running things.  He's a Main Street businessman just like the small businesspeople across this nation who've made America great.  Trump's operation is just a lot larger than those of most businesspeople.  And the big money donors for both the GOPe and Democrats hate Main Street.

WND is reporting that on his Friday program, the day after the Republican debate, Rush Limbaugh said that the big money GOP donors had put out an order to Fox to take out Trump.  It was clear that was their goal from the start.

When the debate started the first thing the Fox News moderators did was pose a question to the candidates.  They asked them if they'd commit to supporting whoever the party nominee was and if they'd agree to not run as a 3rd party candidate.  Everyone agreed except Donald Trump, who had the guts to say no.  Trump wasn't about to be pushed into a place where he couldn't negotiate.  He was fully aware that the GOP establishment wanted him out of the race.  He knew his strongest negotiating tactic would be the threat of a 3rd party run.  He has expressed in the past and even tried to express that night that he wasn't going to support someone he didn't believe was a good candidate.

Let's look at this for a minute.  Unlike everyone else on that stage and the GOPe who run the party, Trump recognizes that not everyone on that stage can beat the Democrats.  He also recognizes that not everyone will do good things for America.  So he refuses to accept anything less than someone who can win and do what is needed.

Many have criticized him for this, but the fact is that he didn't run in 2012 because he decided to play it the GOPe leadership's way and support Romney.  The disastrous result is history.  Trump's a self-made man who, when push comes to shove, most likely believes that when all else fails and you want something done right you have to do it yourself.  I have suspected all along that his entry into the 2016 race was because he hasn't seen anyone who he believes can fix America, he's only seen the same old political nonsense that somehow passes for solutions.

Trump knew going into the debate that Fox was out to get him.  He expressed to some who were close to him that he was nervous about that, not about dealing with the other candidates.  And he was right.  My guess is that with his connections someone probably quietly informed him what was happening so he wouldn't be blindsided.

Let's remember who Fox News is and how they operate.  Back in 1996 when they started they came up with the theme "fair and balanced."  They were a hit and took the cable news industry by storm.  They gave the American voters a place to hear more of the news.  No more panels of all Democrats and maybe one Republican (and that Republican would almost always be an establishment Republican, not a true conservative).

Soon, because they weren't as far left as the mainstream networks like CBS, NBC, ABC, and CNN, they were called a conservative network, even though they really weren't.  As recently as 2011 UCLA did a study of the news networks and found Fox News to be to the left of center.  They just weren't as far left as the others.

As Fox News grew they were able to accomplish primetime viewership of about 1% of the American population on good nights.  Sometimes, during special events, they achieved slightly higher numbers, but they have never been able to reach a significant number of American households.

But some conservative voters wanted to watch TV for news instead of looking for deeper and more complete coverage of the news by reading it (or even listening to it via some of the few solid radio shows that covered the issues in depth).  For these people Fox News was everything.  Their spouses can often be heard groaning that the only thing that's ever on the TV in their homes is Fox News.

To build viewership Fox chose to appeal to the prurient interests of male viewers by going out of their way to hire attractive females for their shows.  Fox host Brian Kilmeade has said Fox hires its talent by going to the Victoria's Secret catalog.

While Bill O'Reilly (who Rush Limbaugh refers to as Ted Baxter, after the character on the old Mary Tyler Moore Show - and is fairly accurate in his labeling) spouts moderate viewpoints and discusses stories that are usually well after they are breaking news, he does sit in the catbird seat of the primetime schedule.  This has won him the ratings records for Fox.  That is, until recently when Fox decided they could put one of their female up and coming broadcasters in a show that would not only have a little bite, but would use Fox's effective appeal to American males' carnal interests.  This created Megyn Kelly's show which has done quite well, even eclipsing O'Reilly at times.  It's been said that she's the future of Fox News.

Now let me pause here and respond to those of you who may criticize my mentioning Fox's appeal to men's carnality to attract viewers.  No once can deny Fox has done this or that they have changed network news personnel's appearance dramatically by having the women dress less professionally to grab more attention.

None of this should be a surprise since our nation has abandoned morality and is more focused on their carnal desires than wholesomeness.  As I addressed back in 2011 in my book, No Tomorrows, that's the single largest reason our nation is not just morally bankrupt, but also why we are in so much trouble as a nation.

So, given how far from any sense of wholesomeness that America finds itself, we should not be surprised when we see things erupt at the recent Republican debate and afterwards that look a lot like a WWE Smackdown.  Not only are things down to a level that never would happen in a respectful and moral society, but they are so low they'd embarrass Jesus' disciples to the point of blushing if they were alive to see it.  

Kelly attacked (and attacked is the correct word) Trump during the debate asking him a question about a situation from a season 6 episode of his Apprentice show.  Season 6 goes back quite a few years since the show has been on for over a decade.  But Fox researchers clearly dug deep to find things to use against Trump.  

Kelly threw at him a comment he'd made about a woman getting on her knees would be a pretty sight.  The inference was that it was a sexual reference.  But radio host Mark Levin looked into it and found the truth, which makes Fox look just as sleazy as any tabloid trying to create a story out of nothing.

Levin, who has not endorsed Trump and I'll be surprised if he does, was disgusted by what happened at the debate.  He said on his radio show that he'd found the original Apprentice segment.  In it there is discussion that this woman wanted something so bad she'd beg for it on her knees.  Trump's response was that that would be a pretty sight.  The age-old idea of someone getting on their knees to beg has nothing to do with sex and, frankly, only a debased mind would automatically think that the comment meant that.  But then, we are a nation that is morally bankrupt so it shouldn't surprise us when that's the first place people's minds go.

It's important to note that when Fox found it they had to have found the entire segment from the show, just as Mark Levin did.  And they knew exactly what was meant when Trump originally said it, but they decided to twist it and use it against him with implications that made him look bad.  That's not just tacky, that's deceitful and unethical.  They're lucky Trump hasn't sued them over it (then again, he may be thinking that very thing).

After the debate Trump made some negative statements about how he was treated and that even though he'd always been nice to Kelly, she had treated him badly.  I think he was absolutely right in his assessment.  But people stated to get defensive that poor little Megyn was being attacked by this big, bad man.

Later Trump was interviewed and in talking about what happened he made a statement saying of Kelly that it was like blood was coming out of her eyes and blood was coming out of her wherever.  Immediately the debased minds of America jumped into action and assumed he was referring to her menstrual cycle.  In response to an inquiry about it Trump said he was not referring to anything sexual, but was referring to blood coming out of her nose and ears.  In fact, he even said that it was sick for someone to think what people were saying he meant.

Trump is right, that kind of thinking is sick.  I have to say that when I first heard it, before I heard anything more than just what Trump's words were, my first reaction about "blood from wherever" was that he either fumbled for words or meant something like blood coming out of her ears or nose or mouth.  

But the disgusting minds of many Americans immediately assumed it was a sexual reference.  There was no thinking about what God tells us our thoughts should focus on.  In Philippians 4:8 it says, "Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable - if anything is excellent and praiseworthy - think about such things."  God tells us our thoughts are to be pure, not focused on debased thoughts.

But instead of pure thoughts people immediately jumped to negative conclusions.  So much so that Erick Erickson of Redstate.com disinvited Trump from speaking Saturday at an event in Atlanta.  Erickson said he didn't want his wife or daughter to hear from a man who blamed things on hormones, so he disinvited Trump.  It's ironic for a few reasons:

1.)  Erickson has had to apologize in the past for names he's called people.

2.)  Erickson immediately goes down in the gutter with his thoughts instead of trying to understand what was really meant.  What about the idea that someone is innocent until proven guilty?  But Erickson didn't give Trump a chance to explain, his debased mind just assumed the worst.

3.)  This is by far the most important point.  Erickson decided that just like the progressives who control Washington right now, he's going to decide what's best for people.

As I said earlier, according to Rush Limbaugh the big donors to the GOPe put out the order to Fox to take down Trump and they tried.  The GOPe is trying to decide who voters should be allowed to choose between as candidates.  And Erick Erickson did the same thing by disinviting Trump to his event.

Examiner.com reported that after the debate Fox host and moderator "Bret Baier was joined by Charles Krauthammer, Kirsten Powers, and Jonah Goldberg, who were all very critical of the billionaire real estate mogul.  Krauthammer questions Trump's previous reputation as a 'tough guy,' wondering how he would be able to handle world leaders if he was so easily offended by a few debate questions.  Chiming in was Powers, who stated, 'If he can't answer these kinds of questions, he shouldn't be running for president.'  Going even further was Goldberg who accused Trump of 'blackmail(ing) the Republican Party not to be mean to him.'"  

Like so many in the media, they entirely miss the point.  They even miss the highly unethical things their employer, Fox News, did.  But what would you expect?  It is the rare person with the integrity to stand up against the one who holds their paycheck and speak out against them.

Many of the other candidates are also missing the point and slamming Trump for what he's said.  They should be standing up against the attack on Trump, not because they necessarily agree with him, but because he has the right to say it and the voters have a right to decide if he's who they want as their president.  But their desire to get tough competition out of the race overrides their sense of right and wrong.  

This says volumes about those candidates who've criticized Trump instead of standing up for him.  America's founders were willing to die for a person's right to say what they thought, even if they didn't agree with them.  That concept has been totally forgotten by both the media and the candidates who've attacked Trump.  They put their best interest over the rights of the American people to decide for themselves.

The American voters have the right to decide who will be president and no one has the right to take that away from them.  Getting outraged that a man would say the things Trump said to Kelly or that Kelly would dare ask the questions she posed to Trump not only isn't the point, but it flies in the very face of conservative principles.

We believe women are equal and can stand up for themselves.  While we certainly understand that, by nature, women and children are generally smaller and not as strong as men so men should protect them, that doesn't apply to intellectual combat.  

Megyn Kelly is an adult and can take care of herself.  She has no right to use unethical tactics and present facts in a way that is dishonest when posing a question to a candidate.

Donald Trump is also an adult and if he says something offensive then voters have the right to decide whether or not they want to support his candidacy.

Let's make one point extremely clear.  There is definitely a difference in Kelly's and Trump's actions, no matter what interpretation you take for Trump's words.  

Mark Levin has shown that Kelly participated in a planned, deceptive attack on Trump.  It was unethical at the very least.  

Trump, on the other hand, responded and used words that some interpret to be inappropriate.

Inappropriate does not equate to unethical.

But all that said, the entire point is that this isn't about Donald Trump or Megyn Kelly or even Fox News.  Yes, many people are angry and have cancelled cable subscriptions that carry Fox.  Others have decided not to follow Trump.  But this isn't about that.  It's about people trying to take out a candidate and not let the voters decide.  It's that simple.  The rest is superficial and debating it is a fool's errand.

It's not up to the media, Fox News, or anyone else to choose who we should consider for political office.  By doing what they've done they are no better than the mainstream media who align themselves with the progressives and try to force their candidate down our throats.



Wednesday, August 5, 2015

More Deception In The Iran Nuclear Negotiations

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

Here's the Nonsense:  People on the right are way too hard on the Obama administration officials.  Every now and then they make a mistake, but they would never do something that could hurt America.  Their Iran nuclear deal is certainly designed to be good for American and the world.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The officials in this administration continually use deception so that the American people don't know what's going on.  Here's more proof of deception used to keep information from the American people in the Iran nuclear negotiations.

​I know we'd like to think that the evil, deceptive deeds of this administration are limited to a few cases.  But we've seen so many over the years that when a new one comes out it's no longer a surprise to those who watch Washington closely.  The latest example is from Secretary of State John "Lurch" Kerry.  Something very simple should have been disclosed and caused him to step aside in the Iran nuclear negotiations, but instead was hidden from America.  This is another reason why the Iran deal has turned out so badly for America and the world.

In a recent article on Allen West's website, it is reported that when Secretary Kerry's daughter, Vanessa Bradford Kerry, married her husband, Brian Vala Nahed (his given first name is Behrooz, but he goes by "Brian"), back in 2009, it was oddly left out of the wedding announcement the place of Brian's birth.  His Iranian ancestry and the fact he has family in Iran is rarely mentioned either.  

In fact, Frontpagemag.com reported last March that Kerry didn't disclose it at his confirmation hearings, but later revealed the information.  And of course the politically correct senators we have in Washington wouldn't embarrass him with questions about his son-in-law either (Remember how angry they got when Hillary Clinton's assistant, Huma Abedin, was doubted because of her families ties to the Muslim Brotherhood?).  In Washington it's more important to be politically correct than to take your oath of office seriously.

But the story gets worse from there.  Kerry's chief counterpart in the Iranian nuclear negotiations was Mohammad Javad Zarif who is the father of Brian Vala Nahed's best man at his wedding.  So, Kerry was negotiating with a close family friend.

As the article points out, shouldn't Kerry have recused himself from the negotiations?  I'm sure he'd argue that the fact his son-in-law has a close relationship with these people gives him an advantage of a "friendly" environment for negotiations.  But the fact is Iran is an enemy of the United States (maybe Obama doesn't believe it, but the Iranians have stated clearly that America is their enemy and will continue to be even after this nuclear deal).  We don't need people with warm and fuzzy feelings about them doing our negotiations.  We need hard-nosed negotiators whose entire goal is to protect and benefit the United States.  "Lurch" Kerry certainly is not the man for that job.

Every time you turn around the officials in this administration are deceiving the American people.  They believe they know what's best for us because in their eyes, the American people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves.  The result is a constant flow of deception from them to the American people.

As Secretary of State, John Kerry should have been thinking only in terms of what's best for America, but like the rest of this administration, he doesn't seem to care one bit about America.  And this is typical of the progressive mindset of today. Either they foolishly believe in the type of appeasement that Neville Chamberlain tried with Hitler, or they really hate America and want to see our nation fail.  Regardless of which it is, they don't belong in any position of power in America's government.




Sunday, August 2, 2015

2016 Doesn't Mean Obama's Power Over America Will End

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

Here's the Nonsense:  With the election in 2016, we'll finally be done with Obama's power over our nation.   

Here's the Horse Sense:  2016 not only won't be the end of Obama's power over our nation, his power will continue but there will be even less ability to control him.

If you think President Obama is done influencing, even controlling, our government after 2016, then you've got another think coming.  He may be leaving office after 2016, but he's planning on big influence after that date.  He's not going away.  The only difference will be that as a private citizen he'll be even harder to stop than as president (not that the Republicans tried to stop him during his presidency anyway).  He's setting himself up for huge influence and control after he leaves the Oval Office, and few people even realize it.

The Washington Post is reporting that out of Obama's campaigns came an organization called Organizing for Action (OFA).  While an organization of this type should wind down as a president nears the end of his term, OFA is continuing full steam ahead.  They are still raising money and working towards furthering Obama's agenda, which does not stop when he leaves office.  His plan is to influence, if not to control, the Democrat Party for years, maybe even decades to come.

OFA is set up with a huge email list of donors that it works to get support for Obama's progressive agenda.  By doing this he is able to control the party and push things to go his way.  OFA has been involved with enrolling people in Obamacare, setting and running political rallies, promoting LGBT issues, immigration issues, and climate change policies.  And they've done this through use of Obama's email list that was essential for his campaign victories.  

The WAPO article tells us that while these were usually the tasks of the national political committees, "in 2002, the emergence of national committees as national political machines was short-circuited."  It goes on to say:
 
"Although Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is best remembered for striking down some campaign finance restrictions, perhaps as important are the portions of 2002’s Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) that the Supreme Court let stand. While fundraising restrictions on Political Action Committees and other forms of “independent” groups were eliminated, the BCRA’s new regulations on contributions to party committees were upheld. The most significant remaining regulation was the so-called soft money ban, which proscribed the national party organizations from raising unregulated funds."
It then goes on to explain what it means:
"Prior to the BCRA’s passage, campaign finance law distinguished between money raised for the purposes of “electioneering” on behalf of candidates for office (what was then called “hard money”) and dollars earmarked for all other purposes (referred to as “soft money”). Individual donors were –as now – restricted in the amount of hard money they could donate, but there was no cap on soft money donations before 2002. Since then, however, no distinction has been enforced between hard money and soft; all donations to political parties have been subject to the same limits."
These days the parties focus most of their funds on contributions to candidates that are in highly competitive elections (i.e.; the GOP pours money into elections where establishment Republican candidates are being challenged by conservatives so that the conservatives will be defeated).  And this is where Obama has been so smart.  Using OFA, they can accept unlimited contributions and then promote policies that don't fall under the regulation of campaign finance laws.  
OFA also holds workshops to train their followers to be community organizers and workers to work for Democrat candidates.  More than 10,000 were trained to work in the 2014 midterm elections and many of those are already joining 2016 presidential campaigns.  OFA even recently sent out an email saying they were securing the "future of the Progressive movement."  And if you've done even the smallest amount of homework you understand that the Progressive movement is based on Marxist ideology that is pushing America towards communism.
While the article says that "former President Obama may well keep OFA intact after he leaves office. With its state of the art digital platform, 30 million e-mail addresses, 3 million donors and 2 million active participants, OFA 4.0 could continue to be a useful ally to progressive politicians and causes."  I think it's foolish to think he will do anything less than keep OFA going.  Why else would he still be raising money and training people through OFA?  It would make no sense to continue building an organization if he plans to shut it down. 

This is the danger of the Progressive movement, not just President Obama.  Yes, he's their figurehead leader, but only a figurehead (although he's an expert at progressive tactics and is most likely a key architect in this process).  However, he clearly does not make the final decisions.  Someone or some group behind the scenes undoubtedly gives him his directions.  Some even say it's Valerie Jarrett, who certainly has huge influence over him.  However, I suspect that she's a key player, but not the total power "behind the throne" and we shouldn't think that if Obama and/or Jarrett were gone that this wouldn't continue.


The progressives have spent a century building to where they are at today.  Whether they use Obama or someone else, they are deeply embedded into our system.  And they include many Republicans at the top of the GOP.  After all, when was the last time people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell really fought for what the voters elected them to fight for?  As I've said for many years, the progressive plan has been to so infiltrate and influence both parties that they have the same goals.  Then, when the voters get fed up with one party and throw them out, the other party who steps in will continue on the same path to the same goals. 

And doesn't that look exactly like what's been happening?

Don't let the label of "Republican" fool you.  Obviously it means very little anymore.  While the Republican Party platform is much different than the Democrat Party platform, most Republican politicians don't embrace it.  That's why David Bratt was able to unseat Eric Cantor in his Virginia congressional race by simply going to voters, showing the Republican Party platform and saying he was running on that and Cantor couldn't counter him because he didn't stand with the platform.  Just because someone calls themselves a Republican doesn't mean they live up to the platform of the party.  And sadly, today most Republican politicians don't.

The task at hand for American voters is simple; the progressives in both parties and must be stopped if America is to survive.  If you don't stop them, they will not stop until you don't exist.