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


“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775


"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Deflects, Lies, And Videotape

Here’s the Nonsense:  President Obama is doing his best to get to the bottom of what happened in Benghazi.  It won’t affect his reelection.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  President Obama, his administration and his campaign have done everything they can to deflect attention from the Benghazi attacks, lie about it, and cover it up to keep it out of the public eye so that he can get reelected.  But even if he’s reelected that won’t be the end of it.
Deflects, lies, and videotape are the very issues that could not only stop Obama’s reelection, they could bring down his presidency even if he is reelected.  These three things could be the Achilles heel of his presidency.  Even if he is reelected, if the American people ever understand what has been happening it will be a scandal so large that it will drive Obama from the presidency much the same way that Nixon was forced out by Watergate. 

Continually we have seen this administration sidestep facts, twist truths, and manipulate information on Benghazi.  Americans deserve the truth but even Congress is being denied access to information.  This brazen cover up is another example of how this administration flaunts their actions while feigning ignorance in the situation. 
After Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were killed in Benghazi we were told that it was because of a YouTube film insulting Muslims that someone had made.  Later we learned that not only did the White House know that that wasn’t the cause, they knew it within just over two hours. 

But that wasn’t enough, now we learn from Retired Army Lt. Col. Tony Shafer that his sources informed him that President Obama watched the Benghazi attacks in real-time on video from the White House, then followed it up for weeks blaming the YouTube video instead of admitting that they knew it was a preplanned terror attack.
If that wasn’t enough, the drone that was flying over the attack had taken video of the events and the White House has classified it so that Senators who want to see it cannot get to it.  This administration wants to keep quiet what happened at least until after the election because they don’t want it to hurt Obama’s reelection chances. 

However, even if they can hold it off for now, if it comes out after the election it could force Obama out of office much like Nixon was forced out of office not too long after his reelection.  The American people won’t put up with deflecting the truth and lying to cover things up when American lives have been lost. 
We have learned that Secretary of State Clinton asked for more security for the consulate in Benghazi but Obama turned it down.  It was the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on America, this consulate is located in an area of the world where radical Islamists are known to be, and the president did not take preemptive action to protect American lives at a time when it would obviously be more dangerous.  Yet the president ignored those dangers and allowed our people to be attacked with no real defenses.
Now if all this isn't enough, Frank Gaffney writes at Townhall.com that Catherine Herridge and Bret Baier of Fox News, Aaron Klein at WND.com, and Claire Lopez at RadicalIslam.org through their investigative reporting along with information developed by congressional investigators have uncovered these disturbing details:

"It now appears that Amb. Stevens was there - on a particularly risky day, with no security to speak of and despite now-copiously-documented concerns about his own safety and that of his subordinates - for another priority mission:  sending arms recovered from the former regime's stocks to the 'opposition' in Syria."   

We’ve also been told that while the attack was underway it was not possible to get help to them from outside the area.  It’s even been said that Obama has ultimately claimed that he gave an order for help to be sent but no one followed through with the order. 
Tyrone Woods, one of the former Navy SEALs that went against orders to help fellow Americans who were under attack, was using a laser designator to direct an aircraft (it would have been a C130 or even a drone that was armed) where to strike.  But the administration’s story is that no help could get there.  Whether the drone was armed or there was a C130 to follow that guidance and attack, one of those aircraft had to be on site for him to have used the laser designator in the first place.    

But Woods and the others died because no one helped them.  Someone had to have ordered the aircraft not to attack or the attack would have gone ahead to try to save American lives.  No one is admitting that that was the situation, let alone admitting who gave the order not to attack. 
While we haven't seen proof for the story, there are rumors that when the calls for help came in General Carter Ham, head of AFRICOM, made a move to help and thegatewaypundit.com reported that this is what they learned from Tiger Droppings had happened:

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.

General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.

The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham’s place as the head of Africom.

So here we have a change in generals that sure appears to be to cover up what happened (although as I type this I am listening to the news and now the White House is claiming that General Ham was planning on a career change anyway - I guess that change happening within one minute of his saying he was sending help to Benghazi is just a coincidence). 
This should send a shiver down the spine of every American.  America does not leave its people helpless.  We go to any lengths we must have to in order to protect and save Americans.  This president did not do that. 
Whether Barack Obama directly made these decisions or they were made by someone working for him, they are indefensible.  The mainstream media may, in an effort to get him reelected, try to cover this up until after the election. But each day more information is coming out and it all will eventually come out.  When it does Americans will not accept these kinds of actions by their Commander-In-Chief.  If President Obama is reelected it may be a second term that is cut short by the truth as he is forced out of office.  This is a travesty and America cannot stand for it.



Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Busted On Benghazi – The White House Caught In Their Lies

Here’s the Nonsense:  The White House has given us clear and accurate information on the 9/11 attack in Benghazi from day one.  We can trust them to share with the American people an accurate and timely account of the details.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  The White House is living up to their false claim of transparency and the Benghazi 9/11 attack is their latest cover up.  The American people need to demand the truth and recognize that this is an example of how untrustworthy President Obama really is.

In a breaking story about the Benghazi attacks, Breitbart reports that the White House was informed the Benghazi attack was a result of terrorism just over 2 hours after the attack.  This destroys the continuing claim by Obama, Biden, and the entire administration that terrorism, as the source of the attack, was unknown for some time.  Once again, we hear lies from this president and his staff.  Amazing since he promised to have the most transparent administration in history (and in no way has he fulfilled that promise) and also because he’s now on the campaign trail claiming that this election comes down to trust.  He’s just proven again that he cannot be trusted.
According to Breitbart:

The new revelations come in the form of an email sent by the State Department Operations Center to the White House, the Pentagon, the FBI and unspecified elements of the intelligence community. The email was sent at 6:07 p.m. EDT, which was 12:07 a.m. Benghazi time. The attack in Benghazi had started just over two hours earlier, at 3:50 p.m. Washington time.
Over and over again the administration tried to tie the attack to a YouTube video that was claimed to have insulted Muslims.  For example, just looking at September 14th, three days after the attack, the White House press secretary brought up the video over a dozen times.  The media asked him if he was tying the video to the attack in Benghazi and he said:  “We have no evidence at this time to suggest otherwise, that there was a pre-planned or ulterior instigation behind the unrest.”  The shameless arrogance of this White House to not only keep the truth from the American people, but to try to falsely blame someone else for the disaster is unconscionable.

As Breitbart so effectively asked as they closed their article: “Is it only a coincidence that the White House’s favored explaination is by far the less politically explosive of the two?”
When Americans are voting in two weeks they need to remember just how untrustworthy this president has proven himself to be.

Monday, October 22, 2012

3rd Debate: Obama Maintains Average Performance While Romney Achieves Goal


Here’s the Nonsense:  President Obama took a commanding lead with his performance in this last presidential debate of the campaign.  This should bring him an astounding bounce in the polls and push Romney to the side as Obama races for the finish.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  President Obama showed up tonight and that's about it.  With another average performance like he had in the 2nd debate he will see no real change in his position in the race.  Mitt Romney, on the other hand, played a careful game tonight that resulted in maintaining his lead and continuing his edge as he heads for election day.

The 3rd presidential debate was tonight.  With high anticipation by many, the results varied depending on who will report them.  But the fact is that the debate and its results were very simple.  Obama put in another average performance, just like he did in debate #2 (he was so bad in debate #1 that I won’t even bring it up again).  Romney, on the other hand, accomplished what was most likely the underlying goal of his campaign:  to maintain his lead by not taking chances thereby giving him the edge as they race to the finish line in this election.

President Obama, as I’ve said before, is a mediocre debater at best.  All the great promotion of his intellect, oratory skills, and debate prowess have proven themselves 3 times this campaign season to be nothing more than myth.  At best he puts forth an average performance.  His entire debate performance, when he’s doing well, is nothing more than repeated campaign talking points, a few supposedly bright retorts, and his typical personal attacks on his opponent laced with dishonesty and inaccuracy.  After 4 years of this guy in the presidency this should be no surprise to anyone.

Mitt Romney is an entirely different situation. With a clear victory in the first debate Romney was thrust into the lead in the campaign (if you can believe the polls that he wasn’t in the lead already).  This created a surge in the polls for Romney as the campaign moved into its final weeks. 

Romney followed the first debate with a solid performance in the second debate.  Since Obama’s performance was mediocre in that debate it allowed for no negative impact on Romney and no improvement for Obama (except in the minds of his supporters who blindly follow him).  The campaigns moved forward as Romney’s surge ahead continued.

Tonight was Obama’s last chance to have a debate opportunity that would throw Romney a curve and thrust Obama back into the lead.  Of course Obama’s performance didn’t allow for that.  It simply allowed for him to maintain the status quo.  In the meantime, tonight Romney must have decided to do what most sports teams do when the end of the competition is nearing.  It is common for a team that has a lead to not take chances at times like that.  They play it cautious and just put in a solid performance so they don’t lose their lead.  Their goal is to simply maintain the lead, not to do anything outstanding.  And that appears to be exactly what Romney did.

Sure, Romney showed himself as presidential.  In fact, he was far more presidential than Obama.  We got to see Obama’s ridiculous stares at Romney while he was speaking (I think he was trying to intimidate Romney and I can tell you that a man with Romney’s business experience doesn’t scare easily.).  And we got to hear him twist facts and distort truths while making no points except the old, worn out campaign talking points he’s been repeating over and over again throughout his campaign.  To me the worst one is probably when he keeps saying that Romney doesn’t have a plan when Obama himself doesn’t have one.  He’s still stuck on his old tax and spend agenda.  And yet the whole time Romney has laid out a plan but the Obama campaign and the media conveniently seem to ignore it.

Romney must be given credit for moving the discussion to domestic policy on issues like the economy even though the debate was supposed to be about foreign policy.  Of course that was easy because he was right that a strong military and strong foreign policy cannot happen without a strong economy.  It was a fair move on Romney’s part, but I’m sure Obama didn’t see it coming.

Romney’s focus on the economy and jobs is his strongest point.  Obama can’t hold a candle to Romney’s experience or success in that area.  And the media, much like Obama, still haven’t learned how to balance a checkbook let alone understand even basic economics.

Some people who report or comment on tonight’s debate will talk about unimportant things or report them in error.  They won’t even bother to mention that this is another debate where the Democrat got more time to speak than the Republican (Obama got 4 minutes 18 seconds more time tonight than Romney).  All 3 of the presidential debates and also the vice presidential debate gave more time to the Democrat than the Republican.  But with solid Obama-supporting moderators what could you expect?

Romney showed his willingness and experience in working towards bipartisan successes, something Obama has not even showed a desire to achieve.  Romney’s support of military strength and views on the Middle East gave him a clear advantage tonight. Add to that his understanding of the real abuse of Israel by the Obama Administration made a very clear impression that he understands both he importance of our relationship with Israel and the relationship we need to have with our allies all over the world.  When he pressed Obama on his apology tour and showed that he did not agree with some of President Bush’s actions, as Obama has accused him of, it solidified for voters that Romney is both his own man and has specific ideas of how foreign policy needs to be handled.  He has no plans to return to policies of the past and made that clear.  

Among his other strong points tonight was his clear understanding of foreign trade using the example of opportunities we are missing in Latin America and trying to win with China by getting back into a position of strength instead of Obama’s method of respect through weakness.  Romney clearly was more presidential and could easily give the American voters confidence in his ability to step into the office of the presidency with the ability to move America back to strength and world respect.

No, anyone who thinks tonight was a win for Obama clearly wasn’t paying attention.  Obama gained nothing and is still behind.  Romney maintained his lead by being cautious.  While that probably isn’t what a lot of us would have liked him to do, it was the safe play. With so much at stake in this election we should be glad he played it safe and maintained his lead. 

Personally I would have loved to have seen another replay of the first debate, but Romney did his homework for tonight and the result was a win by not getting fancy or flashy.  This may be the way he played things in business.  It may be one of the reasons he has been so successful in his life.  He’s headed for the finish line with only two weeks to go.  He’s got his eye on the prize and now we all have to work hard to help get him there while maintaining his lead.  This is not the time to relax.

  





Sunday, October 21, 2012

Obama’s Foreign Policy Gets America’s Enemies To Endorse Him


Here’s the Nonsense:  While domestically President Obama has had a rough 4 years and may not have accomplished as much as he wanted because of the mess he inherited, we can be proud of his performance in the area of foreign policy.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  There is no area in which the president has improved things for America, and foreign policy is no exception.  It’s time for change in Washington before we no longer will be able to make a change.

Say what you will, but President Obama’s foreign policy has done no good for America around the world.  Something is terribly wrong when those who support the president’s reelection bid include world leaders whose greatest desire is to, at the least, see America diminished in world influence and at the worst, would like to see the America of history as the world’s greatest beacon of freedom destroyed.  Yet that’s what has happened in the almost 4 years of Obama’s presidency.  Russia’s Putin, Cuba’s Castro, and Venezuela’s Chavez have endorsed Obama’s reelection.  Even China has made it clear they can work better with Obama (translated that means that they can get more of what they want, which will not be good for America).  As American citizens and voters we must ask ourselves why we would vote for a second term for a man who has gotten America’s enemies to endorse his reelection.

On Monday night, Oct. 22nd Obama and Romney will face off for their third and final debate of the presidential campaign.  Obama thinks foreign policy is one of his strong points, but getting America’s foes to support you doesn’t make you a great leader or foreign policy success.  Rather, it shows your weakness.  Obama thinks that successful foreign policy is to get others to like you.  Well Mr. President, your lack of understanding the simple fact that respect is more important than friendship should be enough to make voters run away from you screaming.  Friendship without respect is not friendship, it’s opening yourself to manipulation.  Friendship comes out of respect, not vice versa.  And no, the death of Osama bin Laden is not the great claim that you make it out to be.  You simply approved the order to complete a job that the military had been working on since long before you arrived.

This debate is important, but no matter how Obama or Romney do in the debate, Obama’s record should be more than enough for voters to avoid the mistake of granting him a second term.  This nation cannot afford 4 more years of this president whether it be in regards to economics, national security, or in any other area.  By no measure has he made things better for America.  It’s time for change in Washington.



Tuesday, October 16, 2012

What Really Happened At Tonight’s Presidential Debate


Here’s the Nonsense:  The debate tonight showed that both candidates were focused on wooing voters by presenting their plans to help America.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  Tonight’s debate showed the vast difference between what each candidate is offering to America.  Romney presented clear plans to turn America around while Obama showed he has no plan and no answers for the failures of his first term in office.

Most reporting about tonight’s Presidential Debate in New York tells little of what happened.  Conclusions are essentially split along party lines with the left (that means the Democrats and the mainstream media) trying very hard to find a win for President Obama, in spite of a lackluster performance.  Sure, he did better than in the last debate, but it was nothing to get excited about.  It was a typical Obama performance of rhetoric, lies, and avoiding his own record while attacking Romney using Alinsky tactics to try to weaken Romney’s credibility in the eyes of voters. 

So, I’d be careful trusting much of what is being reported in the media.  Instead, let’s look at some facts about the debate that should help voters understand what happened tonight.

We must recognize that moderator Candy Crowley from CNN clearly showed bias in favor of President Obama.  She chose questions more apt to be problematic for Romney and favor Obama.   This meant that Romney was in for a tough battle from the word go. 

As is so common in most debates, the candidate on the right has to debate an opponent while fighting the bias and efforts of moderators who are out to make sure the candidate on the left, in this case Obama, gets as good a showing as possible.  Add to that the fact that Ms. Crowley allowed 9% more time for Obama to speak and it puts Romney at a disadvantage in an uphill battle.

While Romney was continually short-changed by Crowley, he did his best to combat the lies told by Obama.  For example, when Obama tried to paint the picture that his administration has been energy industry friendly, Romney pointed out that the Obama administration has proven to be unfriendly to the industry.  He questioned the president asking how many licenses had been cut for the energy industry.  Obama danced around the question and wouldn’t answer while Romney repeatedly raised it.  Crowley made no effort to get Obama to answer.  Rather, she changed the subject and moved on so that Obama was, once again, given a pass by the media.

Fortunately the public doesn’t seem to be buying the media’s spin.  As reported on realclearpolitics.com:

A Frank Luntz focus group made up mostly of former Obama voters say they now support Mitt Romney. 

"Forceful, compassionate, presidential," one participant said.
"Confident and realistic," said another.
"Presidential," another told Luntz.
"Enthusiastic," another reacted.
"Our next president," one man said.
"Dynamo, winner," said one more.

That was about as significant as it was in the last debate in Denver.  It’s impressive how often we’ve seen former Obama voters move away from him and embrace Romney’s candidacy once they get to see the real Romney instead of only hearing the image of Romney put forth by Obama's campaign.

In a piece on freedomslighthouse.net that was titled “Reviewing The Presidential Debate Mitt Romney Consistently Strong And More Presidential Than A More Animated President Obama” these tweets followed from significant sources:

ABC’s Michael Falcone: “Gov. Bobby Jindal [Louisiana] on Obama’s performance tonight: ‘I almost feel bad for him.’”

Jeb Bush (former FL governor):  “Watching focus group with neutral voters and Romney won the group.”

Fox columnist Phil Kerpen (responding to Obama’s claim that he called the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack):  “Using the word ‘terror’ does not mean you called Benghazi a terror attack.  In fact, you refused to do so for weeks and blamed a video.”

And Katie Pavlich, the News Editor at Townhall.com wrote:

As I reported earlier, the topic of Operation Fast and Furious came up at tonight's presidential debate in New York. During Mitt Romney's remarks on the deadly subject, President Obama sat in the background where he smirked and at one point, laughed.

Clearly she could see, like this picture shows, that President Obama even tried the Joe Biden method of dealing with his opponent by using facial expressions to mock and make fun of him.


(picture from Drudge Report 10-16-12)

In another post, Pavlich quoted former Governor of New Hampshire John Sununu’s powerful observation:

"I think the President was successful at showing how rude he was. I think the President has really made two or three dishonest statements that will come back to bite him. The dishonest statements on the permits for oil, the permits for shale gas and that silly right at the end where he tried to make the public think he condemned the acts in Libya as terrorism when he went to the Rose Garden and he was two weeks later talking about video six times at the U.N. I think the President got caught lying and was dishonest tonight and I think it's going to hurt him in the campaign."

CBS News did a quick poll after the debate and clearly the reaction was very split on the question of who won: Obama 37%, Romney 30%, Tie 33% (4 pt. margin of error).  Essentially this boils down to a tie.  But interestingly CBS also asked who won on the economy and Romney received 65% and Obama 34%.  It has been said through the entire campaign that this election rides on the economy and with those results it’s clear who voters think is the man who can handle that job. 

Probably the best conclusion we can have regarding tonight’s debate was stated by Democrat strategist Joe Trippi when he said “I don't think it's going to change the dynamics of the race."

What tonight tells us is that while Obama did better tonight than in the last debate, Romney’s gains in the first debate were not affected by this debate and if Obama is going to bounce back it will take more than a performance like he gave tonight.