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, July 29, 2013

Anthony Weiner Deserves Support

Here's the Nonsense:  Those on the left are correct in wanting Anthony Weiner out of the New York Mayoral Race.  Weiner and his wife, Huma, bear no resemblance in their situation to Bill and Hillary Clinton and it's wrong to make the comparison because Bill never did anything this bad and Hillary never had to "stand by her man" as Huma has chosen to do.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, only resemble Bill and Hillary Clinton in a minor way.  The Clintons are far worse.  And while Weiner is disgusting, if Bill and Hillary were supported by the left then, Weiner and his wife deserve support from them now.

Anthony Weiner may be a disgusting dirtbag, a slimebag, a scumbucket, and nothing short of an awful human being, but I really think he should be supported by the left.  He and his wife, Huma, have tried to tak e the position that in spite of his terrible behavior, she forgives him, trusts him, and they are moving forward.  They are only asking that America allow them to do so.  They've even had their situation equated with that of Bill and Hillary Clinton (the left's best excuse for a president and smartest woman in the world).  But people aren't seeing it the same at all.

CBS' Bob Scheiffer has expressed utter disgust at Anthony Weiner's behavior.  He didn't seem to feel that way back when Bill Clinton was president and setting records for scandals.  Dee Dee Myers, Clinton's first presidential press secretary, was on CBS' Face the Nation and said it wasn't a story (Weiner's sex scandal) that the Clinton's were happy to see at the front of the news.  

President Obama's former senior advisor David Axelrod has even expressed a desire for the story to go away.  It seems that many Democrats just wish Anthony Weiner would go away.  But is that really fair?  Where were these people when Bill Clinton was rocking our world with scandal after scandal?  And Weiner's scandals are about texting disgusting messages and pictures to women.  So far, at least, there's been no claim that he's actually followed through with this stuff by acting these things out in person with women.  

So his wife decides for reasons as yet unknown to take a stand publicly and support her husband and back his continuation in his mayoral campaign.  The claims that she's just following in Hillary's footsteps, you'd think, would be seen as her following a role model (I know, I know, quit laughing.  It makes no sense, but to people on the left Hillary is a role model of some sort.). Huma says she's just trying to make her marriage work.  And the reaction that Anthony and Huma are getting to all this is not the support you'd expect (Except from New York voters who, in their usual stupidity that doesn't consider character an important trait in an elected official, are still supporting this clown.).  

Even Bill and Hillary themselves are rejecting their behavior.  The New York Post is reporting that a source has told them that “The Clintons are pissed off that Weiner’s campaign is saying that Huma is just like Hillary,’’ said the source. “How dare they compare Huma with Hillary? Hillary was the first lady. Hillary was a senator. She was secretary of state.”  The source goes on to say, “Hillary didn’t know Huma would do this whole stand-by-your-man routine, and that’s one of the reasons the Clintons are distancing themselves from all this nonsense.’’

Yeah, that makes a whole lot of sense.  The indignation of the Clinton's, America's premier presidential scandal couple of the 20th century is laughable.  People have said that Hillary stood by Bill, but the fact is that the first time a spouse cheats, if the other spouse gives them another chance and moves forward, that's standing by them.  But when it's repetitious behavior, then the spouse who "stands by them" is enabling them, unless they hold the wayward spouse accountable and demand change.  Hillary never did that.  She enabled Bill.  The rumors were that she even worked to cover up his scandals to keep them from damaging his political career.  Frankly, it seems to be a sick relationship.  It's their business, but their lack of character has shown for decades and any American who doesn't see that their relationship is, at best, very unhealthy has forsaken their common sense (Although most would say that it's quite apparent that theirs is simply a marriage of mutual convenience that allows each of them to get what they want).  For a recap of how Hillary handled Bill's fidelity issues just click here to read an article from Britain's Daily Mail that came out back in 2008 when Hillary first tried to win the presidency.

No, if the left will support Bill and Hillary, then they should support Anthony and Huma.  Anything less is nothing short of hypocrisy.  But, then again, hypocrisy is the middle name of people on the left.  

Just to refresh your memory of some of the scandals during the Clinton years in the White House, here's a list of some of them.  And I've included more than just some of Bill's sex scandals because bad character in one part of a person's life will inevitably show up in other areas.  I think it's important to remember that Bill's failures have been about far more than just fidelity in his marriage.   Here's a list to refresh your memory:

  • Whitewater banking and real estate scandals
  • Cattle futures where Hillary invested $1000 and mysteriously got a $100,000 return
  • Gennifer Flowers who claimed a 12 year affair with Bill that he denied but later admitted the affair
  • 900+ FBI Files mysteriously or mistakenly (depending on which story they're telling) showed up in the White House
  • Paula Jones claimed Bill had propositioned her and exposed himself to her 
  • White House Lincoln Bedroom where donors of $150,000 could spend the night
  • Lippo Group of Indonesia and Chinese donations of $452,000 funneled to DNC
  • China donations were attempted to be donated to the DNC by Charlie Trie who fled to China when faced with indictment
  • Monica Lewinsky had an affair with Bill which he denied but was later proven he lied
  • Kathleen Willey accused Bill of sexual advances including fondling
  • Military technology given to China that allowed them major technological satellite and nuclear advances  
  • Wag the Dog where Bill used the military to distract from the impeachment proceedings
  • Juanita Broaddrick accused Bill of raping her

And those are just some of the scandals courtesy of Bill and Hillary.

So if you're disgusted with Anthony Weiner, I will join you in your feelings.  But to the left, I would say that if you aren't disgusted with Bill and Hillary Clinton, then you don't see just how corrupt and pitiful your values really are.  For New Yorkers to put their trust in Anthony Weiner or Huma Abedin is as foolish as it was for Americans to put trust in Bill Clinton when he was elected president or in Hillary Clinton when she runs for president again.  Only fools trust people who clearly have no character.  Unfortunately there are a whole lot of people in elected office who have no character and America needs to get them out of office, too.  If you want America to succeed, then you have to have the right kind of people in leadership.

Thursday, July 25, 2013

How Much Freedom For How Much Safety?

Here's the Nonsense:  The world is a dangerous place today.  With terrorists and other dangers to our safety, it's important we understand that the government's control of our liberties is necessary so that we'll be safe.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The battle between liberty and safety goes back to our nation's founding.  A clear understanding of the friction between those two makes the answer crystal clear.

In his usual clear-cut, right to the point style, Judge Andrew Napolitano has written an excellent article that should give pause to Americans.  In it he raises the point that Edward Snowden's revelations charge our government with violating our freedoms and, thereby, the Constitution.  Then he states that the counter-charge of the government is that safety is more important than freedom, which means that Snowden was guilty of impacting the ability of the government to keep us safe by exposing their secrets.  And this is Napolitano's main point:  that the government wants Edward Snowden punished for interfering with their ability to keep Americans safe.

Raises an interesting debate, doesn't it?  

Leaving it right there would cause all who don't do any deeper thinking to assume that the government is right and, therefore, Snowden should be punished.  But Napolitano doesn't leave it there. He raises some serious points for thought.

Setting aside bringing Benjamin Franklin's famous viewpoint that "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." should be brought into the discussion, Napolitano points out that most people have heard that we should give up some freedom to assure our safety.  The assumption by the government, he points out, is that freedom and safety are equal.  Accepting this assumption also brings with it the assumption that the government is the one who should balance one against the other and decide which one should prevail.  But, as he points out, this would mean that the government has the moral, legal, and constitutional power to make this decision.

When you think of it that way it starts to look a little different.  So many of us turn to the founders of this great nation when these issues come up, throw out some quotes from them only to be countered by the left who say things like, "Well, that was over 2 centuries ago and the world was an entirely different place then."  Inevitably this ends in a stalemate between the two sides because, frankly, both are right.  The world IS a different place, but the founders views are timeless.  So what do we do about these things?

Napolitano gives a very good answer.  He points out that the problem with the idea that government should make these decisions is that it ignores the core value upon which our nation was founded.  He writes, "That value is simply that individuals — created in the image and likeness of God and thus possessed of the freedoms that He enjoys and has shared with us — are the creators of the government. A sovereign is the source of his own powers. The government is not sovereign. All the freedom that individuals possess, we have received as a gift from God, who is the only true sovereign. All of the powers the government possesses it has received from us, from our personal repositories of freedom."

In other words, freedom is a gift given to every human from God and God alone.  No government has the authority to determine peoples' right to freedom, even the smallest of freedoms.  Any power the government has is given to them by the citizens.  Therefore, it is not their decision, it is the decision of the citizens.

He goes on to say, "All persons are by nature free, and to preserve those freedoms, they have consented to a government. That was the government they gave us — not power permitting liberty, but liberty permitting power — and the instrument of that permission was the Constitution.
The Constitution was created by free men to define and limit the government so it can defend but not threaten our freedoms. Since only free persons can consent to a government, the government cannot lawfully exist without those consents. Here is where the modern-day tyrants and big-government apologists have succeeded in confusing well-meaning people. They have elevated safety — which is a goal of government — to the level of freedom — which created the government. This common and pedestrian argument makes the creature — safety — equal its creator — freedom…. It means that when politicians say that liberty and safety need to be balanced against each other, they are philosophically, historically and constitutionally wrong. Liberty is the default position. Liberty is the essence of our natural state. Liberty cannot possibly be equal to a good we have instructed the government to obtain."

Napolitano is right when he says that the government will always make choices in favor of its power.  It does not forego power without a fight.  But we have the authority to take it away because power is granted by the citizens.  That's what the ballot box is for.  That's where we make change.  That's where we fight for what is right.  

I cannot write a conclusion better than the Napolitano's.  He wrote, "The reasons we have consented to limited government are to preserve the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom to be different and the freedom to be left alone. None of these freedoms can exist if we are subservient to the government in the name of safety or anything else."

Sunday, July 21, 2013

If You Thought The NSA Spying Was Bad, You Ain't Seen Nothin' Yet

Here's the Nonsense:  When Americans learned that their communications were no longer safe and that the NSA was storing everything we do in their secret computers, Americans realized there was no more privacy and are taking action about it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Some Americans got upset when they learned of the NSA's spying on Americans, but most just brushed it off as no big deal since they figured they were doing nothing wrong so they had nothing to hide.  If the NSA's actions weren't enough to get you up off the couch to take action, what's happening now is far worse and every American citizen should be outraged and screaming about it.

When it was revealed that no communications were safe any longer, whether they were cell phone calls, landline calls, emails, etc., most Americans saw it as an invasion of privacy, but simply chose to accept it.  They felt that since they were doing nothing wrong that it was no big deal.  And, many also thought that there was nothing that could be done to stop it so they decided not to bother worrying about it.  That was a big mistake because now we learn that far more dangerous things are happening and they're under the guise of Obamacare, not the NSA.

If keeping a copy of every communication we have in our lives didn't make us think we're living in George Orwell's 1984, now we learn that the Obama Administration is going far deeper into our privacy through the Obamacare legislation than the NSA appears to have even considered.   

American Thinker is reporting that Obama has ordered more efforts against HIV/AIDS under the umbrella of Obamacare.  They write, "The new order follows recommendations this year from the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force that all 15 to 65 year olds be screened for HIV infection, something that will be covered under Obama's signature heath reform, the Affordable Care Act."

Now while the title of the American Thinker article refers to Obama ordering mandatory testing, the author admits at the end of the article that he is probably guilty of exaggeration by saying that the order doesn't specifically make a blood draw mandatory, but he does point out that HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been given the job of coming up with the details.  And we all know how she's handled other issues.  Her record of respecting human rights is terrible (look at her support of the abortionist Dr. Tiller).  It is not inconceivable that mandatory blood draws would become part of our lives.  

So, you say, why is this such a big deal?  After all, conquering terrible diseases like HIV/AIDS would be wonderful.  I agree, it would be wonderful to eradicate another terrible disease.  However, given not just this administration's, but this government's invasion into citizens' rights, do we really want to give them blood from every citizen from 15 to 65 years of age?  If they have everyone's blood sample, it means they have everyone's DNA.  As commenter ursa5000 on this American Thinker piece suggests: 

"There are two REAL reasons for AIDS test, both that have nothing to do with AIDS.

"One is to construct a comprehensive National DNA Database for all persons living in the US. Welcome to the Brave New World, comrade.
"Second, the Government wants [to] measure the 'ends' of your chromosomes, which is a scarily accurate predictor of life expectancy. Why, so as to inform the Obamacare IPAB Board of the real cost / benefit of your medical treatment. In other words, they will RATION your medical care based on the odds of your living 'x' number years after treatment. If you’re going to die anyway, why spend any money on your treatment."
And, as the infomercials say, Wait, there's more! is reporting that Obamacare has another HUGE cause for concern.  It's the Federal Data Services Hub.  This will provide access to federal, state, and 3rd party data sources of your personal information that makes what the NSA is gathering look minor.  Here's what they report will include:
"The massive, centralized database it will include comprehensive personal information such as income and financial data, family size, citizenship and immigration status, incarceration status, social security numbers, and private health information. It will compile dossiers based on information obtained from the IRS, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense, the Veterans Administration, the Office of Personnel Management, the Social Security Administration, state Medicaid databases, and for some reason the Peace Corps. The Data Hub will provide web-based, one-stop shopping for prying into people’s personal affairs."
They discuss the fact that this data would be in danger of hackers, but EVEN WORSE, it "will be used on a daily basis by so-called Navigators, which according to the GAO are 'community and consumer-focused nonprofit groups, to which exchanges award grants to provide fair and impartial public education' and 'refer consumers as appropriate for further assistance.' Thousands of such people will have unfettered access to the Data Hub, but there are only sketchy guidelines on how they will be hired, trained and monitored. Given the slap-dash, incoherent way Obamacare is being implemented the prospect for quality control is low. And the Obama administration’s track record of sweetheart deals, no-bid, sole-source contracting and other means of rewarding people with insider access means the Data Hub will be firmly in the hands of trusted White House loyalists."
I suspect that those with access will be people like SEIU members and other groups who have proven their loyalty to the administration and often been used for other tasks as needed by the left.  What they could do with all this information on people is far more dangerous than anything we've seen so far.  For an even better description of the type of people who will hold these positions, take a look here at what John Fund wrote about it for National Review.
If you didn't think your government was out of control, then you should.  You should be asking why worthless Republicans like John Boehner, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and their ilk aren't doing their jobs protecting Americans from this kind of thing.  It's time to rise up and replace the worthless people in the Senate and House with leaders who will protect the rights and interests of American citizens.  The legislative branch of our government has the power to keep an out of control administration in check.  But they can't and won't if we don't have the right kind of people elected to those offices.
Welcome to 1984.  It's your decision whether we stay here or move to a different time.

Monday, July 15, 2013

Simple Questions We Should Ask About Trayvon Martin And George Zimmerman

Here's the Nonsense:  The Zimmerman trial verdict is an outrage.  It's perfectly understandable that some people would be protesting and having a violent response to it.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The verdict isn't the issue.  There should be other questions being asked and we shouldn't be laying blame on any one group for anything in this mess.

With all the outpouring of reaction to the Zimmerman verdict, no one seems to be asking some simple, and obvious, questions.  There is a split between people with some saying that Zimmerman should have been found guilty and other people who thought justice was done.  Sadly, this is an issue that will never be settled.  After all, there is little logic being employed by anyone.

Let's face it.  There's not going to be agreement on this verdict because there are not enough people on both sides of the issue that are willing to have a rational discussion.  Non-blacks will NEVER understand what it's like to be black in America.  And it appears that many (not all, but many) blacks seem to want to abandon a rational discussion of what happened and what the trial was about.  To them this is all about their preconceived views that this was about the killing of a black young man.  They are not willing to consider that sometimes things happen with tragic outcomes without a bad motive being involved.  

We should be asking why this happened and why it didn't have a different outcome.

Here's the real question that comes to mind:  Why did Trayvon Martin act the way the evidence shows that he did?  (I ask it that way because nobody really knows what happened that night except Martin and Zimmerman so we can only make conclusions based on the evidence we have.)  What I'm referring to are a couple of things.  First, the supporters of Martin are saying that he was confronted by a man with a gun (meaning Zimmerman).  Yet there was no evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin with a gun.  Rather, the evidence shows that there was a period of approximately 4 minutes of silence before Zimmerman was attacked by Martin.  At that time Martin was just a short distance from his father's house (which is said to have been less than the length of a football field away).  A young man in fair physical condition could easily travel that distance in less than 4 minutes.  So the question is, why didn't he run to his father's house if he felt threatened?  Why did he choose to attack Zimmerman instead of running for help?

Now let me say here that many have asked why Martin didn't call the police if he felt he was in danger.  I fully accept that that may not be a normal response for a young black man.  I do think it's reasonable that many blacks do not trust the police and so calling them for help would not necessarily be a normal response.  However, seeking help from someone else is worthy of consideration.

The next question seems to me to be why Martin, if he felt threatened, wasn't screaming and running away as fast as he could?  He could have pounded on the door of any home he was near.  He could have run to his father's house.  He could have evaded a confrontation by doing what we teach our children to do when they are threatened by a stranger.  For decades now we've been teaching children that if they are threatened in any way by a stranger that they should scream as loud as they can and run as fast as they can to get away.  Sure, Martin was no longer a little child, but if he was raised like most children being taught to run and make a lot of noise if they are in danger, then even though he was older now should not have stopped what he would have been taught when he was young from coming to his mind.

And let's face it, if he did scream and run and maybe even pound on someone's door, the fact is that that would have changed the entire situation.  Zimmerman would have seen that he felt threatened and it would have caused a situation where the facts of who each of them were could have come out and the tragedy that occurred would not have happened.  But instead, we don't see that.  What we see is behavior that added to Zimmerman's suspicion of who this guy was.  In fact, it not only added to it, it escalated it as he was attacked by Martin and found himself lying on the ground having Martin beat his head against the concrete and breaking his nose.  

Evidence shows that Martin's knees were wet and Zimmerman's back was wet.  That is clear evidence that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was underneath.  Zimmerman's injuries show he was under attack and the lack of injuries on Martin show that Zimmerman was losing the fight.  It would be very reasonable for Zimmerman to feel threatened and in fear for his life.

Was Martin wrong?  No.  But it's possible that a 17 year old young man may make a bad decision and that exacerbated the situation.  Many a 17 year old kid often thinks they are more invincible than they really are.  And it's quite possible that Martin thought he could attack Zimmerman and win in the situation.  Sadly, in this case many things happened that caused a final outcome that we should all be sad and grieve over.

There is an assumption by some that the death of Trayvon Martin was about race.  Some people are using this to try to divide the country. But there was no evidence of race having anything to do with this tragedy.  Even the FBI, which is part of the Justice Department and its unbalanced racial viewpoints (ask J. Christian Adams if that is an overstatement), concluded that racism had nothing to do with this case.  They found no evidence of Zimmerman having anti-black viewpoints.  

Only the NBC-edited 911 tape showed Zimmerman as having racial motives.  When the entire tape was heard, it was apparent that it was not in the mind of Zimmerman at that point.  The only exception to that is that Zimmerman was aware that there had been crimes in the neighborhood committed by young black males in the past.  So, whether we like it or not, that would put Trayvon Martin in a group that would be considered suspect because of his race.  Not because Martin personally did anything wrong, but because others of the same race had done things wrong.  But the full recording of the 911 call shows that Zimmerman didn't even suggest race was a factor.  He only mentioned Martin's race when the 911 operator asked what race he was.  

But the left is trying to use this as an opportunity.  They don't really care about Trayvon Martin.  They see an opportunity and don't want to pass the chance up to use it for their purposes.  Remember when former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel said you should never let a crisis go to waste?  This is exactly what these people are trying to do.  They are trying to paint the picture that black people are routinely killed by white people.  Yet the real facts are that the vast majority of blacks who are killed by violence are killed by people of their own race.  But we hear little of those crimes because it doesn't fit into their narrative.  If they really cared about black deaths they'd be screaming about the violence happening even when it's black on black crime.

This is a time the nation should be coming together in sorrow for this tragedy.  Martin's death is just that.  But it doesn't mean that Zimmerman did something wrong.  There are circumstances where things happen and the outcome is bad no matter what anyone's motive was.  

The left will not let this lie.  Zimmerman will spend his life always looking over his shoulder.  If he doesn't go to prison for civil rights violations that the DOJ are looking at charging him with, he will be in danger of sick people taking things into their own hands and doing him harm.  His only hope of a semi-normal life is if he disappears and moves to some remote place, changes his name and probably also his appearance, and tries to live quietly for the rest of his life.  Otherwise his chances of a safe, let alone normal, life are extremely slim.

Rapper Lupe Fiasco, known as a person of left wing viewpoints, is one of the few on the left who truly understands what happened and how we should look at it.  Breitbart reported that Fiasco tweeted:  

Rub your face in it! Swallow down that hard pill! Black blood spills in the streets of America nightly at the hands other blacks

Yeah gimme that anger...once again that rage...that misguided angst when you true enemy is your own complacency and cowardice.

Curse kick scream yell tweet unfollow. Don't matter to me if y'all don't start valuing yourselves N*****S will be in the same boat tomorrow

Nobody knows what really happened except trayvon and Zimmerman. The justice system relies on reasonable doubt not our emotions.

Yes, the justice system does rely on reasonable doubt, not emotions.  That's some common sense thinking that many in America could learn from.  

UPDATE:  A very good video was done by Bill Whittle on PJ Media that summarizes this case quite well.  You can view it here.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Citizens Now Required To Spy On Each Other

Here's the Nonsense:  In today's dangerous world we should be willing to give up freedoms to increase our security.

Here's the Horse Sense:  This is another warning sign to Americans.  We better pay attention or freedom will only be a thing of history.

According to a new report by McClatchy, the president has ordered federal workers to spy on each other.  But that's not the big issue.  The big issue is when this will lead to all citizens being required to spy on each other.

McClatchy has reported that federal workers are now essentially spies in an effort by the president to try to prevent another security breach.  The concerns it raises even caused this morning's headline on Drudge to bullet point these points about the order:

- Watch lifestyles, attitudes and behaviors...
- Odd working hours, unexplained travel...
- Monitor co-workers stress, divorce, and financial problems...
- Track online activities...
- Those failing to report face penalties, criminal charges... 

This is nothing short of astounding.  Certainly anyone, federal employee or otherwise, should always be on the alert for situations that might signal that someone might do something that could harm our nation's security.  But that is a far cry from what this is about and where we're headed.

The president has ordered that unproven and questionable techniques be used to determine who might harm America.  It seems that in situations of such seriousness that the last thing we would want to do is employ techniques that are unproven.  But that doesn't stop this administration.  (I guess we shouldn't be surprised.  They use failed and phony methods and data to support their claims of things like global warming so why should we be surprised if they use bad science to justify anything else?)

The real issue here is where this is leading.  This is just a step away from what we have heard happens in countries with totalitarian regimes.  The old Soviet bloc countries did things like this with all of their citizens. With this kind of order it is only a simple step away from requiring all citizens to report on their friends, family, and neighbors or face criminal charges. 

It's one thing to ask Americans to be alert and report suspicious behavior.  That's not an uncommon thing in countries that have experienced terror attacks.  The citizens become the first line of defense by being on the lookout for activity that may put the society at risk.  But watching for things like abandoned packages, knapsacks, suitcases, briefcases, etc. is far from watching for divorce, financial problems, and other such things. 

You may look at something like this and just sigh in disgust or ignore it, but it's another warning sign of where our nation is headed.  We should be the line of first defense for our nation, but there's a line between that and and where this could be headed. 

But will Americans do anything about it?  My guess is probably not.  My guess is that most people will disregard it and we will inch one more step away from freedom.  In recent years Americans have shown that they won't do anything until it's too late.

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Al Jazeera's Bias Shows Who U. S. Media Have Aligned With

Here's the Nonsense:  Al Jazeera is a major news network that happens to be Arabic in its ownership.  They offer honest journalism that gives their viewers a true reporting of the news.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Al Jazeera is a biased news network that, like U. S. mainstream media, is trying to impact public opinion with biased reporting.  They, however, do it from a perspective that is not only sold out to progressive leftist ideology, it is supportive of the worst ideologies and people in the world.

In recent months we've seen the Arabic news network Al Jazeera become more "respected" by the U. S. mainstream media.  From supporting Al Gore's sale of his Current TV Network to Al Jazeera to embracing the choice of Soledad O'Brien and other "journalists" to go to work for them, there has been no scrutiny from America's mainstream media regarding who they really are.  But truth stands the test of time and it is now being shown through events in Egypt that Al Jazeera is just another hack network reporting biased stories that favor one side.  In this case, that side is that of the Muslim Brotherhood, who we already have heard have ties to terrorist groups and radical Islamic extremists.

The Blaze reports that Lebanon's Daily Star states that "the public has taken to calling the news network derogatorily, 'Al Jazeera Ikhwan,' which means 'Al Jazeera Brotherhood.'  And they go on to say that "today the channel is notorious for being the mouthpiece of the Brotherhood party."

Even other journalists have now rejected the credibility of the Al Jazeera network. Once again, the Blaze reports, "Twenty-two of the network’s Cairo staff resigned on Monday. According to Gulf News, anchor Karem Mahmoud of Al Jazeera’s Mubasher Misr channel announced that the resignations were motivated by what he called 'biased coverage' of the events leading up to the ouster of the Muslim Brotherhood-aligned former President Morsi. The news anchor revealed that Al Jazeera management would instruct each staff member to favor the Muslim Brotherhood in their broadcasts. According to Gulf News, Mahmoud said that 'there are instructions to us to telecast certain news.'”

Yet Al Gore can sell his network to them with no scrutiny on the part of American media.  And mainstream media journalists like Soledad O'Brien, a clear mouthpiece for the leftists in power, blindly joins the network as if it were just another job with another network.  Yes, I know I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt about her choices, but it would be hard to believe that she really knows what the network she's signed on with really represents.  I honestly believe that mainstream media journalists in America are so blinded by their ideology that they cannot see evil when it is sitting right in front of them.  The are naive at least, and foolish at worst.

There should be headlines about what kind of network Al Jazeera has proven to be, but I'll bet that you'll hear little or nothing about this in American media.  Even the so-called conservative media like Fox, which really anymore is center-left at best in their reporting, is not likely to say much about this.  The fact that, as NPR reported, "The second-largest holder of voting stock in News Corp. is Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king" may have some impact on that.

Be careful when you read, watch, and listen to news to get a variety of opinions and sources because few are trustworthy.  Even the ones you may think are trustworthy aren't as much so as you may wish they were.

Monday, July 8, 2013

Egypt Is Not Benghazi

Here's the Nonsense:  Once again the Secretary of State and the President were not in their offices or ready-room when a crisis arose, meaning the upheaval in Egypt this weekend.  They should be held accountable to prove that they are always doing something other than the business of our country.

Here's the Horse Sense:  The crisis in Egypt was not the same as Benghazi, Libya.  The right better choose its battles carefully or it will lose them all.

Many people have been asking where Secretary of State Kerry and President Obama were when the Egyptian crisis was unfolding over the weekend.  And there has been virtual glee expressed from some on the right that John Kerry's story has changed because, apparently, the State Department didn't want to admit he was on his yacht.  Add to that, we have also learned that President Obama was on the golf course.  Some on the right think this is some big scandal.  Personally I don't agree.

Sure, it would be nice if our government officials were always in their offices ready for any incident that may occur anywhere around the globe.  But the fact is that that's unreasonable.  Certainly President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have a lot of explaining to do regarding the attack on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya and they should be held accountable for it.  But Egypt going through what boils down to a coup to overthrow their government is nothing the president or secretary of state had any control over or could do anything about.  Challenging their whereabouts when it's not an incident that directly involves American territory or Americans themselves is pointless.  

This situation is far different than Benghazi and shouldn't be compared as such.  Benghazi was an attack on U. S. sovereign territory (that's what an embassy is) and on American lives, of which we lost four that day.  Egypt was an overthrow of a government that was headed for dictatorship (if it wasn't essentially a dictatorship in infancy already) and that the people of Egypt rejected.  It did not involve American territory or lives and, therefore, I don't think requires that the president and/or secretary of state be sitting in the ready-room or their offices waiting to see what happens.  They have no say in the matter short of the U. S. sending in military support for one side or the other.

On this one I think it doesn't really matter where they were.  The fact is that the story about Kerry was a lie and then the truth came out as to where he was.  That should be of bigger concern to Americans.  The fact that this administration's first reply to an inquiry is to lie should tell us all we need to know about them.  They should have been able to simply say that Kerry had the day off and was notified as soon as possible.  Same goes for the president.  But to try to make this a big deal lessens the credibility of the scrutiny that is being shown regarding legitimate crises like Benghazi and what happened there.

People on the right better learn how to pick their battles.  They have a big enough fight trying to deal with the incompetent losers that are establishment Republicans who keep destroying their chances at success without making it worse by choosing the wrong things to take a stand about.  Choosing the right battles to fight will increase their credibility and winning ratio.  That's what matters if they want to win the war to save America.

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

Will Voters Be Fooled A Third Time?

Here's the Nonsense:  Great news that the Obama Administration has delayed the implementation of major parts of Obamacare until 2015.  Obviously that means the anti-Obamacare forces are winning.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Don't fool yourselves.  This delay is a classic stalling tactic to get Americans to focus on other things while the Democrats try to hold the Senate and take the House back in the 2014 elections.

We all watched as information about Benghazi was covered up, denied, and stalled until after the 2012 election to keep it from derailing Obama's reelection campaign.  Now, we're seeing the same type of action by this administration to try to control the outcomes of the 2014 mid-term elections. 

The administration is beginning to realize how damaging the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) is and is watching it get worse and worse and the true facts are starting to come out about this legislation.  They realize that it could derail any chance they have at not only taking total control again of the House of Representatives, but also could cause a loss of control of the Senate, too.  As a result, they are hoping to pull the wool over the American public's eyes once again by delaying information until after an election.  Will the voters be fooled a third time?

Yesterday the Obama Administration announced that they would delay employer requirements for Obamacare until 2015, instead of maintaining the requirement of implementation by 2014.  This delays the American public from finding how out bad it will be until after the election so that the Democrats have a chance to not only maintain their control of the Senate, but give them a chance to take back the House.

The American voters fell for Obama's phony lines, his lies, in two elections.  The result was that the chance of digging out of the mess we're in was made virtually impossible with the results of the last election.

Will voters fall for it again?  That's the big question. Sadly the chances are great that they will.  Mankind is not known for learning from their mistakes.

One of my mentors always used to say to me that a smart man learns from his mistakes but a wise man learns from the mistakes of others.  We don't tend to learn from our own mistakes very often, especially in political situations.  And we never learn from the mistakes of others.  If we fall for their lies and coverups again, you can write the epitaph for America as we have known it.

Will you help people wake up and learn from past mistakes or will you ensure America's destruction by helping the left write our epitaph?  It's in your hands.  Every single person can make a difference and it starts with talking to friends, neighbors, co-workers, and people we meet.  It's time to start talking and take back America!

Monday, July 1, 2013

What Price Are You Wiling To Pay?

Here's the Nonsense:  There are problems in our country, but they'll work themselves out and we'll be fine.  

Here's the Horse Sense:  Americans have abandoned moral values in their lives and still think that America can be saved.  It will take change in our lives to get our country to turn around.

Ever think you'd be forced to support something you don't believe in?  I'm talking about abandoning core values that are closely held beliefs for you and being forced to support something you disagree with.  Whether you like it or not, it's coming.  And it's coming in the not too distant future.

With the Supreme Court's ruling last week we are seeing a rush to push for gay marriage in all states.  It will happen.  You can say it won't, but short of supernatural intervention it will happen.  It will happen because Americans don't value their claimed values. 

Don't believe me?  Just look at how many people claim to be members of major religions in the U. S.  A huge majority of Americans claim to be religious.  But very few actually embrace and try to live what their religion teaches.  Frankly that makes them really be something other than what they claim.  For if you claim to be something but don't live according to the doctrine of that belief, then you're not really what you claim to be.

I dealt with this in my book, No Tomorrows, where I talked about people who weren't really what they claimed to be.  An example I used then was Nancy Pelosi.  She claims to be a devout Catholic, but yet she embraces beliefs that are contrary to Catholic doctrine.  If she truly is a Catholic, then she must embrace their doctrinal beliefs.  Religion is not like some club where you may be a member but disagree with an item or two in their rules.  Religion requires you to believe every doctrine they teach and then work to live that in your own life.  Religion can't be updated for the times because religion believes that it is teaching revelation from God and God is not someone whose rules we can change.  He sets the rules.  No one has the authority to change them.  

Our society doesn't agree with that.  Our society thinks that humans can change God's rules.  That's as arrogant as it gets folks.  If you think you can change God's rules, then I pity you when the day comes you meet Him face to face.  I promise you that you won't win the argument.

This isn't about which religion teaches what is right.  After all, the fact is that only one can be right and I'm not getting into that argument here at this time.  This is about the fact that when a person is committed to the beliefs of their religion, then they sincerely, with all their heart, believe that it is revealed teaching from God Himself.  They do not believe that they have the authority to change God's rules.  

I say all this to make a point about where we're headed in our country.  I think that we're seeing an intolerance in our society for people who are religious.  Political correctness will be the required religion.  Like a recent article told us about the Deptarment of Justice, you won't be allowed to disagree.  There will be a high price for disagreement.  Personally I believe that that price will be so high that most people will fold and abandon their values in hopes of buying mercy and survival.

We've seen it building in our government.  This administration has increased the pressure on being politically correct.  For the second inauguration they were going to have Pastor Louis Giglio of Atlanta give the benediction.  But then they found out that he actually had preached a sermon saying that homosexuality was a sin.  That caused them to disinvite him from giving the inaugural prayer.  

During the infamous McCarthy hearings, witnesses were asked, "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?"  I think it is quite possible that we will see a day when people will be asked "Are you now or have you ever been one who believes that homosexuality is not morally acceptable?"  Or it might be about another value, not necessarily about or limited to homosexuality.  People might be asked something like, "Are you now or have you been a member of ______ religion and do you believe in their teaching that ________ is sin?"

I suspect it is very possible we will see that and see it in the not too distant future unless something is done to stop the direction in which our nation is headed.

The only hope for America is to return to the values upon which we were founded.  Judeo-Christian values are the cornerstone upon which the laws of our nation are built.  But abandonment of those values undermines the very laws upon which our nation was built.  

People say they believe in those values but all the while they are living with someone out of wedlock, or lying on their taxes just to save a few bucks (after all, they justify, the government takes too much anyway), or they lie about things to avoid hurting the feelings of others, or they encourage their daughter or girlfriend to get an abortion so that that unplanned pregnancy doesn't "ruin" their future, or they do any of a multitude of things that are wrong.  They justify their actions instead of facing their moral failures and change the way they live.  

Unless and until Americans are willing to embrace a return to morality, nothing we do will stop the decline of our nation.  The price we must pay to save the future for our children and grandchildren is a willingness to live righteous lives.  That's got to be where it starts or there will be no future.  Are you willing to live that kind of life?