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

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

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

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

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Reaction To Michele Bachmann Retiring From Congress Proves Her Effectiveness

Here's the Nonsense:  Michele Bachmann's announcement that she will not run for reelection has caused a flurry of attacks on her, proving that she was ineffective and a burden for the right.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The attacks on Bachmann since she announced she won't run again prove how effective she has been.  

The left are busy attacking Michele Bachmann for announcing she won't run for reelection to Congress.  They are saying good riddance and making wisecracks trying to say she was ineffective and hurt the right.  I say to them, Really?  If she was so ineffective then why do you waste so much time on her?

It reminds me of a friend of mine years ago who was going through a divorce.  He said his wife was out of control with rage and would go on and on about how she didn't care anymore and that she was indifferent about him.  When he told me this I told him she was lying.  If not intentionally to him, certainly to herself.  And the reason she was lying was because if she was truly indifferent she wouldn't be upset at all.  She simply wouldn't care and have no emotion.  We don't get upset about that which we are indifferent about.

The same is true regarding Michele Bachmann.  If she was ineffective, crazy, unimportant, and all the other things they have claimed that she is, then they would ignore her and report on other things.  It's only because she has been so effective that she is newsworthy and attack-worthy.  It's the exact same thing we see with Sarah Palin.  They attack her because she's effective.  They are scared of these women and if they weren't they wouldn't make any noise about them.

There's an old saying that when you've over the target you get the most flak.  Michele Bachmann has gotten so much flak for that very reason.  She has often been right on target.  The left doesn't know how to deal with it and they can't resist a chance to attack because she gets under their skin so badly.

Michele Bachmann will be sorely missed.  I'm not sure what her real reasons are deep down inside her heart for retiring.  I suspect it's more than she's saying.  Probably only she and her husband will ever know the deepest reasons.  But while she'll be missed, we should be thankful that we have had such a patriot serve our nation. She showed us many things, but maybe the most important thing was that a strong conservative could even be elected in the bluest of places, Minnesota.  

Her service should be an inspiration to us that the right can win and needs to keep on working hard toward that end.  To Rep. Bachmann I am thankful for her service and wish her all the best in the future.

Monday, May 20, 2013

Just As Planned. First Outrage, Then Attack The Right.

Here's the Nonsense The recent scandals that have plagued the Obama administration will finally hold them accountable.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Scandals or not, nothing is going to happen to change the way this administration does business or whether they have any accountability.  They will use these scandals as another opportunity to attack the right.

There's nothing surprising happening with the scandals this administration is facing.  First the scandals were revealed.  They became news to the mainstream media only because they were shocked that this administration had betrayed them (they didn't realize that they've been betraying the mainstream media ever since they got into power).  But, contrary to what many on the right, and even in the middle, have thought, there never would be a chance that they'd hold this administration accountable.  And now we see the administration, with the mainstream media rapidly falling in line behind them, taking the next step in their plan, which is to change the focus of the whole situation.

If you're paying attention at all, you'll see that how this administration responds to things is right out of the Alinsky playbook.  In fact, if you remember, Bill Clinton's presidency used the same playbook, but that's no surprise since Hillary was a close personal friend of Saul Alinsky and wrote her college thesis about how wonderful his ideas were.  That's very similar to Barack Obama who worked for Alinsky's organizations and has been known to point to Alinsky's book Rules for Radicals as being more important to him than any other teaching he ever learned from.

Progressives, which is what these people are, use the same methods over and over again.  When attacked they first circle the wagons, then claim outrage and use it to distance themselves from responsibility in the situation, then they turn on their opposition and attack while demanding apologies and making themselves out to be the victim.  

When Bill Clinton would get into trouble, most often with women claiming that he'd treated them improperly (which included everything from improper advances to accusations of rape) Hillary would spring into action with her "bimbo eruption squad."  They would feign outrage and then turn the tables on the person making the accusation.  By the time they were done Bill was seen as a poor victim of yet another unfair attack.  Today, instead of being known for his lying under oath that got him to be only the second president in history to be impeached, or even being known for his continued unfaithfulness to his wife, he is seen as some kind of icon of the left.  They look up to this serial liar and cheat as some sort of role model.  And worse yet, there is no public outcry, or even much outcry from the right about this behavior not being acceptable.   

So today we see the same thing with this president.  No, not cheating on his wife, I'll give Barack Obama credit that he's never been known as someone who violates his marriage vows.  But we do see the same reaction to problems.  There is outrage and then it turns into an attack.

When the scandals erupted in recent days Obama claimed he knew nothing of it (funny for a guy who was known for his micromanagement of everything in his administration).  Then he did his own version of feigned outrage claiming these things were wrong and he wouldn't stand for them. He even tried to distance himself from government this weekend claiming he wasn't part of it!

Using the Benghazi terrorist attack and the cover-up about it as an example, we can now see how they bring the next step into play.  This administration has sent out their attack dog, this time it's White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, to try to turn the tables.  He is claiming that a whole slew of apologies are due to this "innocent" group of public servants.  He said to ABC's This Week host George Stephanopoulous "I think many of the Republicans have been talking about this, now that they've seen the e-mails, owe Ambassador Rice an apology for the things they've said about her in the wake of the attack."

(Yeah, let's forget about the fact that she was complicit in a lie on 5 different network Sunday programs where she passed along the lie that painted a picture that this was not a terrorist attack and was actually the result of some ridiculous YouTube video - which, by the way, the creator of that video is still imprisoned and no one hears what's going to happen to him).

To Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace he said that it was irrelevant where the president was during the Benghazi attacks. 

(What the president is irrelevant because they can't defend it so they won't even address the question.  The fact that the President is the person ultimately responsible for the response, or lack of response, to the situation in Libya that could have saved American lives.)

And to CBS's Bob Scheiffer he said, "What we do is we want to go out and speak to the problems as they happen.  And what's important here is that when problems happen, the President takes responsibility for them and tries to fix them.  That's what we're talking about in Benghazi.  It's an absolute tragedy what happened.  The question isn't, 'Who edited what talking points?'  That's largely irrelevant."

(Sure, it's irrelevant who edited the talking points, even though those false lies they used as talking points were the edited results of the facts.  They were the lies and misrepresentations that were told to protect this president's re-election campaign.  The entire idea that it's irrelevant is absolute nonsense and just another smokescreen to keep America's eyes off of this president and his actions.)

This is exactly where they want things to go.  They want the spin to turn things against those who are trying to hold them accountable.  And they will succeed.  Not only because this mainstream media is too stupid to see through it, but also because this media is looking for anything they can to vindicate this administration in their minds so that they can get back behind him again (even though they never really left in the first place).  They will return to their blind support and nothing will happen to hold him or his administration accountable.

Let's face it, with the exception of a few brave souls who are willing to forget about political correctness and try to do what's right for America, no one on either side of the aisle will really go after this president.  They don't want to upset their power base and they also don't want to be part of any attack that might actually damage the legacy of America's first black president (or maybe I should say America's first part-black president … that we know of). 

There is no chance that anything will come of these scandals other than more attacks on the right.  The left is already forgetting them and it won't take long before they move back to slobbering their affection all over this president.  Their hatred for the right will once again emerge and take center stage.  That's how it works and the only way that will change is if the citizens of this country do something about it through the ballot box.  

For people who oppose what this administration has done and is doing, the only hope is to make significant changes in the House of Representatives and Senate in the 2014 elections.  No longer will the good ol' boys do.  If more control moves out of the hands of the Democrats and establishment Republicans, then the legislative branch of our government could keep the actions of this administration under control.  It's that simple. 

Monday, May 13, 2013

Surprise! Even The Press Can't Trust This Administration

Here's the Nonsense This administration is the most transparent, honorable administration that America has seen in modern history.  They must have had a good reason for their actions.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Yes, even the press are learning that this administration cannot be trusted.  They will do anything to anyone because they do not have a moral core.  The mainstream media are finding out that their favored government leadership aren't as trustworthy as they thought… but will they believe it?

A breaking AP news story tells us that the government has accessed phone records for many in the press and everyone from the ACLU to the leaders in the press are shocked.  Why should they be?  Did they not understand what they forced on the American people when they made sure this president was elected without any investigation or accountability for his background?

This, along with the stories that have just come out of IRS overreach and Benghazi cover-up are unique in that they are all hitting at a time so close to each other.  But there have been other things that should have caused just as much concern in the past.  Things like Fast and Furious and the signing of the NDAA that takes away citizens constitutional rights are other examples that have gone virtually unnoticed in the past by the media.

In an article on Infowars an interview of Senator Rand Paul with Sean Hannity is quoted:

“The President says he’s going to do something if they’re guilty, well it sounds like there’s already been an investigation and no one’s been fired,” Paul told Fox News’ Sean Hannity. “I’m afraid he’s going to do about as much as he did after Benghazi,” he added, noting that those involved in the botched security operation still work for the State Department.
Accusing Obama of engaging in “faux outrage” over the IRS scandal, Paul said the President was “using the power of his government to investigate his enemies, he’s tapping the phones of the press, and it turns out last year he signed legislation that allows him to detain an American without a trial and send them to Guantanamo Bay.”
“This sounds like a President somewhat drunk on power, not cautious about how he uses power,” added Paul.
This is clear thinking on Sen. Paul's part.  Continued pressure by leaders like him do give hope to our nation, but it won't be without the media joining in on the investigations.  In the same article Rep. Darrell Issa is quoted talking about the violation of the phone records of the press:
“This is obviously disturbing. Coming within a week of revelations that the White House lied to the American people about the Benghazi attacks and the IRS targeted conservative Americans for their political beliefs, Americans should take notice that top Obama Administration officials increasingly see themselves as above the law and emboldened by the belief that they don’t have to answer to anyone."

These stories should be no surprise.  The real story, though, will come as we watch the press and their reaction.  My guess is that they'll go through shock and even disappointment, but we won't see much of a response otherwise.  In fact, even those reactions of shock and disappointment will most likely be guarded.  After all, they cannot abandon their ideology, even though it's kicked them in the teeth.

No, these people won't get it.  Most of them live in denial and will continue to do so.  They would rather follow along blindly, be abused and taken advantage of, and continue to carry the banner for their cause.  They don't understand that had they acted as a free press in a free society should act, they would have been screaming loud and clear long ago about what this government has become.  They would have allowed us to hear the truth because they would have investigated and told the truth.

But they have not done that and they will not do that.  They are too clueless and don't know how to take a stand for what is right.  The kind of journalists who would hold these politicians accountable are long gone throughout most of the mainstream media.  

When America fails the crumbled ruins of our nation will lie at the feet of the mainstream media for having sold out and not taken a stand for what is right.  There will be others standing alongside of them that are also responsible, but the media will be recognized as the firewall that failed.

This story should cause the biggest reaction the media has ever shown for anything.  But unfortunately it will be business as usual.  Maybe there will be a little turbulence in the political lives of those in government leadership, but not much more than that.  If it gets bad enough they will even throw a few people to the wolves, but they will not be held accountable.  They will continue to tear down our nation and the mainstream media will stand idly by. 

The only remaining hope for America is for the citizens to stand up and demand accountability regardless of the reaction of the press.  And that is most likely something that will not happen.


Sunday, May 12, 2013

Benghazi: Cover-up Or Uncovered?

Here’s the Nonsense:  There’s nothing more to the Benghazi story than what we originally learned.  The GOP needs to stop harping on it and move on to more important things.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  The truth isn’t out yet on Benghazi and may never be.  But it highlights problems in our government that should be causing citizens to recognize even bigger issues that must be handled.

First the left says that Fox News was raising questions about Benghazi simply to help Republicans attack President Obama.  But now we are finding out there really was much more to what happened than the Democrats were admitting.  The original reporting that arms transfers to Syrian rebels may have more substance than was let on, but are we really getting to the truth yet?  And are we recognizing the bigger issue of what this means for the press to be complicit in such a cover-up?

What went from a mistake that caused Hillary Clinton at a hearing to try to show outrage that anyone questioning what happened was out of line, is fast becoming news of a cover-up that has the White House and Democrats spinning fast and furiously (pun intended) to deflect the discussion.  The Washington Times reports that on May 12th, on Fox News Sunday:  

The senior Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee [Rep. Adam Smith] says Republican obsession over the White House’s handling of the inquiry into last year’s deadly attack on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, is hurting the investigation.

“The dispute was how soon to leap to the conclusion about specific groups being involved in this,” he said.

Things are fast spinning so out of control for the administration that they are in spin mode and sending their minions like Smith out to try to change the story.  Saying it was about “how soon” to leap to a conclusion was never the case.  The question has been when will the truth come out.  His assertion assumes that the conclusion isn’t necessarily the truth.  Truth is all that ever matters.

With the House of Representatives investigating the matter, and having offered whistleblowers the chance to speak out on the issue, some things are starting to come out.  But the Democrats are trying to keep it as quiet as possible, with their bedmates the mainstream media running cover for them by doing such things as claiming it's just Republican operatives making these claims... at least until now as it appears that that dam is beginning to have a few cracks in it.  Some mainstream outlets are starting to report a little of the story.

Newsmax reports that Gregory Hicks, one of the key whistleblowers to speak at the hearing, is actually not a Republican operative.  In reality, he’s a Democrat whose voting record is quite interesting:  

Benghazi “whistleblower” Gregory Hicks is a registered Democrat who voted for both President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, his attorney said on Saturday.

“He voted for Hillary in the primary and Obama twice,” Victoria Toensing, a former federal prosecutor, told Newsmax TV host Steve Malzberg in an interview on WMAL radio in Washington.

Toensing also disclosed Hicks’ political affiliation to NBC in an interview, but “NBC spiked the story where I told it before the hearings.”

Hicks, a foreign-service officer and ex-deputy chief in Libya, was the No. 2 to Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was among the four Americans who died in the attacks at the post in Benghazi last Sept. 11.

Doesn’t sound too much like some Republican out to harm the President’s approval rating. Sounds more like a concerned American setting aside personal political views to make sure the truth comes out.

For the most part the mainstream has avoided covering it, and it’s probably for more reasons than just the ideological ties that have made them bedfellows with the Democrats, as we can see in this report from Newsbusters:  

I think the media's becoming the story, let's face it. CBS News President David Rhodes and ABC News President Ben Sherwood, both of them have siblings that not only work at the White House, that not only work for President Obama, but they work at the NSC on foreign policy issues directly related to Benghazi. Let's call a spade a spade.
Let's also show you why CNN did not go very far in covering these hearings because the CNN deputy bureau chief, Virginia Moseley, is married to Hillary Clinton’s deputy, Tom Nides. It is time for the media to start asking questions why are they not covering this. It's a family matter for some of them.
So stated political consultant and media commentator Richard Grenell on Saturday's Fox News Watch

Sure, the usual suspects like House Democrat Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who wouldn’t know the truth if she tripped over it, are trying to cover for the administration as shown by this Breitbart report:  
In an interview Nancy Pelosi said, “It becomes an issue that is subterfuge: ‘let’s talk about Benghazi forever so that we don’t have to talk about really what the American people want us to talk about. They want us to talk about jobs, they want to talk about economic security, economic growth, they want to talk about the education of their children, they want to talk about their future.”

The Democrats never want to talk about jobs or economic growth, unless it’s talking about raising taxes and spending more money to push us even further into debt. Topics like jobs and the economy reveal the failure of this administration and are why they were avoided at all costs during the election.  But when things get bad they’ll talk about anything to change the subject that’s causing them problems.

Yet when things get too obvious and the truth is staring them in the face sometimes the mainstream media do start to step up to the plate as they did in this story by ABC News where they uncover the government’s efforts to spin the Benghazi story so it doesn’t look like President Obama has a terrorism problem just two months before the election:

White House emails reviewed by ABC News suggest the edits were made with extensive input from the State Department.  The edits included requests from the State Department that references to the Al Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Sharia be deleted as well references to CIA warnings about terrorist threats in Benghazi in the months preceding the attack.

That would appear to directly contradict what White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said about the talking points in November.

State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya.  These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.”

In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it “could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings, so why would we want to feed that either?  Concerned …”

The paragraph was entirely deleted.

The White House knows that they are in trouble and in trying to control the information they are making big mistakes.  The Daily Caller reported that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to spin it away from them:

So far, White House officials have denied any significant role in rewriting the intelligence reports.
“The only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and non-substantive,” Carney claimed May 7.
“They corrected the description of the building or the facility in Benghazi from ‘consulate’ to ‘diplomatic facility’ and the like,” he said.
But spin is all it is and even some Democrats are starting to have a problem with it all.  Newsbusters reports that Democrat political analyst Kirsten Powers even said, “I have never seen anything like this. Bill Clinton would not have gotten away with this."
Pressure is mounting as it is being called a cover-up more and more.  Politico now reports on Senator John McCain saying:

“I’d call it a cover-up in the extent that there was willful removal of information which was obvious,” the Arizona Republican said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“There are so many questions that are unanswered. We need a select committee,” McCain said. “For the president’s spokesman to say there were only words or technical changes made in those emails is flat out untrue. I like Mr. Carney, but that’s just unacceptable for the president’s spokesman to say that to the American people."

I’m not sure how he can “like Mr. Carney,” but then again, in Washington everything is about appearance and little is about substance.  I don’t like Carney or McCain, but I think McCain is right on this one.  And frankly it would be refreshing if he’d just come out and call Carney a liar.
The good news is that pressure is mounting to get to the truth.  The committee holding the hearings does not have subpoena power.  That takes a select committee and House Speaker John Boehner (the spineless wonder of the GOP) is the one who has the power to create such a committee.  As Fox News reports:

House Speaker John Boehner is facing mounting pressure to create a special or select committee to investigate the Benghazi terror attacks in which four Americans were killed.

The House resolution to form a special committee now has at least 139 co-sponsors who are putting Boehner in the difficult position of leading efforts to get the White House to release emails on Benghazi-gate but not agreeing to the demands of many rank-and-file Republicans.
The resolution is sponsored by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf who suggested to Boehner in a forceful, four-page letter Thursday that the Obama administration perhaps failed to adequately prevent the deaths of the Americans killed and injured in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and that not appointing the committee could make the Republican-led House “complicit in that failure.”

Wolf said that after the ABC News report the number of co-sponsors increased to 144, about 60 percent of the House Republican Caucus.
Republican Sens. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, renewed their call after the Wednesday hearing for a select committee.
Graham, who with McCain had led Senate Republican efforts to get to the bottom of the Benghazi issue, told The Hill that he has urged Boehner to create the committee.
“I've raised it to him, I've talked to him,” he told the newspaper. “It's his decision to make, but we're making a big mistake by not doing a select committee.”

Few of our elected officials have the guts to stand up and call this what it is.  Fortunately, though, it appears that all may not be lost in American politics and there are a few who will do the right thing.  Politico reported that Sen. Rand Paul is once again standing up for the American people and truth:

Clinton is “absolutely responsible,” Paul said. “She was in charge of the State Department. She was asked repeatedly for increased security for Benghazi. Some of the media have been reporting that because she didn’t read them she’s protected – she wasn’t responsible because she didn’t read them? I fault her absolutely for not reading the cables.”

Paul added, “Part of being in charge is triaging what comes to your desk and what doesn’t come to your desk. And to say that Libya wasn’t important enough for her to be reading the cables from the ambassador asking for more security, I think was inexcusable.”

Drilling ahead, he criticized the State Department for its claim that it didn’t have enough money to spend on diplomatic security, and argued that the Benghazi facility should have been under military control in the first place.

“We spent $300,000 on dog kennels [through the federal government]. There is money out there. A good leader finds that money and puts it in,” Paul said.

The mission in Benghazi, he continued “should have been under the military. It should have been done the way Baghdad was … There should have been 100 Marines guarding the ambassador.”

In an interview with WND, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that this story has become so serious that the White House had to try to deflect attention from it.  As a result, they released the story on Friday about the IRS targeting Tea Party and other conservative groups to try to deflect attention away from the Benghazi story.  Bachmann said, “I was in that Benghazi hearing,” she told WND. “I think the Obama administration is desperate to spin Benghazi, and they can’t. I think they saved this story up for a day like today so that conservatives would focus on this admission.”

“At some point they’re gonna have to get to Obama and what he was doing and where he was because he’s the only guy that could issue the stand-down order. He’s the president. He’s the only guy that can order military action or no military action. So he’s not gonna get a pass.”

Rush didn’t say that it would end Obama’s presidency or stop Hillary from a successful run for the office, but he does believe that more of the truth will come to light and that will affect them.  With Obama, it will affect his legacy.  For Hillary, it could make her future plans more difficult.

But as for the truth, will we ever really know it?  This may be one of the many things our government never really lets the entire truth be revealed.  The Blaze reported about Geraldo Rivera’s interview on Fox last week, and Rivera is carrying on with very similar information to what Catherine Herridge and Bret Baier originally reported after the Sept. 11, 2012 attack:  

Geraldo Rivera said Friday that his sources tell him the U.S. was involved in a secret mission in Libya to arm the Syrian rebels, which was the reason for the initial secrecy about the attack in Benghazi.
Rivera said on “Fox & Friends” that Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney may have been briefed by then-CIA Director David Petraeus “to suggest that there was a secret mission going on there, that we can’t go there, we can’t talk about it.”
“I believe, and my sources tell me, they were there to round up those shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, they were going to hand those missiles over to the Turks and the Turks were going to give them to the rebels in Syria,” Rivera said.

Was it an arms deal?  My guess is that that played a lot in the situation, but I don’t know that we’ll ever know for sure.  What I think is really the bigger issue here is about the media in America.
CBS anchor Scott Pelley gave a speech at Quinnipiac University, as reported by The Weekly Standard:

"Our house is on fire," said Pelley.
"These have been a bad few months for journalism," he added. "We're getting the big stories wrong, over and over again."
And Pelley said the republic relies on the quality of the news business. "Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism," said Pelley. "America is strong because its journalism is strong. That's how democracies work. They're only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses. And that is where we come in."
I agree about the importance of journalism in America, but I don’t think Mr. Pelley really even understands his own words.  His network is among the many mainstream outlets that have covered for this administration and the left to a point where honest and real reporting isn’t done much anymore.  Their sellout to ideology has endangered America to a point where we are about to lose our republic.  I don’t think they even see it.  
Pelley realizes there’s something wrong with some of the accuracy of reporting going on today, but doesn’t understand just how far it’s gone off the rails.  No news media should show a bias to one side or the other.  Selling out to an ideology is a guarantee of loss of freedom for the society that they serve.  They are the watchdogs of a free society and only honest, accurate, unbiased reporting will give the information to the citizens so that they can hold their elected leaders accountable.  
The vast majority of Americans still get their news from the broadcast media of ABC, NBC, and CBS along with the traditional print media like newspapers and a few magazines. Sure, the print media may now be read online, but the majority of Americans have not watched cable news or read alternative media sources online.  They are being influenced by what this limited group of people put out there as truth.  That’s why when asked what they think about Benghazi most people either don’t know what it is or think it’s actually some person named “Ben Gazi” and don’t understand it’s a city in Libya where a terrible attack on American sovereign soil occurred and four Americans lost their lives because of the gross incompetence of people we have put in charge of this nation.
America’s in trouble, and our media are very responsible for a good portion of that trouble. But we who do understand must keep pushing for the entire truth to come out and then hold our leadership accountable to do the right thing.  That is the only way there’s hope for America.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Huckabee's Wrong When He Says Obama Will Be Ousted Over Benghazi

Here's the Nonsense:  As a former governor and presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee is an insider who knows what's happening in Washington better than most. His prediction that Obama will lose his job over Benghazi is right on.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Huckabee is dreaming if he thinks this, or practically anything else, can force this president from office.  Obama will not only complete his term, Hillary Clinton will also walk away with little impact on her political career, too.

The Hill is reporting that former governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has made a wild prediction.  According to, Huckabee said, “When a president lies to the American people and is part of a cover-up, he cannot continue to govern.  And as the facts come out, I think we’re going to see something startling. And before it’s over, I don’t think this president will finish his term unless somehow they can delay it in Congress past the next three and a half years.”

While there was a time when that might have been true, it's not today.  America does not have the values it once had.  Huckabee may have a distorted view of the values most Americans now hold.  No longer are Americans concerned when their leaders lie to them.  Their focus is on what the government can do for them.  They see most politicians as dishonest, money-grubbing sleazeballs and don't expect them to be honest, let alone hold them accountable to any standards of morality or ethics.

When a society changes its moral values to believe that the situation determines the ethics, then the decline has gone so far that it's virtually impossible to turn that around.  They now believe that what is wrong for one person might not be for another person, depending on their situation.

Look at how the public responded to Bill Clinton's perjury. There was no outrage among most.  There was no upset that he lied to a court.  There was no accountability.  And that was over a decade ago when values were still stronger than they are today.

The leadership in the GOP certainly doesn't have the strength to stand against this president.  They are too afraid of being called racist (which they're called anyway, but Boehner and friends haven't figured that out).  There is no one to hold this administration accountable.  Sure, there are a few in the House and Senate that may voice their concerns, but it won't stick.  The media will be running cover for the Democrats and it will turn into an attack against the GOP, much the same as everything else has been in the past.

Mike Huckabee is a good man, a moral man, who loves this country.  His values are strong and I think he believes that most Americans hold those same values.  But I think that ship has sailed and the days when the public rise up in anger over deception by a politician are long gone.

This is one prediction where I hope I am wrong.  But I fear that we have already seen the lack of concern Americans have and I believe this incident, too, shall pass.  This president will serve out his term and both he and Hillary Clinton will walk away virtually unscathed.