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, March 10, 2014

Is Everyone Missing The Real Story About Lois Lerner’s IRS Testimony?

Here’s the Nonsense:  Lois Lerner's botched assertion of Fifth Amendment rights cancelled out her right to claim the Fifth again before the same committee.  Since she didn’t testify before the congressional committee this past week, but claimed the Fifth Amendment again, she should be held in contempt.

Here’s the Horse Sense:  While Lerner probably should be held in contempt, there’s a bigger issue overshadowing this that no one is talking about and might very well spell doom for America’s future.

This past week a great deal of talk emerged again about Lois Lerner testifying before a Congressional committee regarding her involvement in the IRS scandal.  The focus of everyone seems to be on the fact that she claimed the Fifth Amendment again and not on something else, much more subtle, but far more important.  And missing that point is yet another reason why we are doomed because we too often focus on symptoms and not the cause of problems when dealing with the problems in our government.

Most people are focusing on the fact that when Lerner was recalled to testify she invoked the Fifth Amendment again (even though her botched appearance the first time before the committee nullified her right to claim the Fifth) and that may be grounds to be cited for contempt.  But that’s not the point.   As quoted by the Daily Caller, Bill Taylor, Lois Lerner’s attorney, said in a letter to Committee Chairman Darrel Issa, “I advised the staff that calling Ms. Lerner knowing that she will assert her rights was not only improper but dangerous. Ms. Lerner has been the subject of numerous threats on her life and safety, and on the life and safety of her family. I left with the staff recent evidence of those threats.”  

So while everyone is focused on possible contempt charges and frustration at her lack of testimony, which most likely will result in the entire scandal eventually dying with no one being held accountable, the most important point has been brought out and is being ignored.  That point is that her attorney has told Issa that Lerner and her family’s lives have been threatened.  That’s the biggest claim anyone could make.

Someone is trying to silence Lerner and they are doing it through threats against her and her family.  That might sound like just some fanatics making threats, but we’ve heard it before in other situations.  Remember how people were threatened about bringing out the truth of the Benghazi scandal (read here to learn more)?  

The progressive left is tied too closely to Chicago mob-style politics.  After all, Saul Alinsky, a key role model for them, boasted of his close friendship with Frank Nitti, Al Capone’s number two man.  Alinsky admired how the mob worked and took pride in using their methods.  And, as I pointed out in my book, No Tomorrows, Alinsky was a personal mentor to Hillary Clinton and Obama was not only trained by an Alinsky organization, he was so effective at Alinsky principles and tactics that he was used to teach them to others.

Whether you want to accept it or not, such articles as you’ll read here and here should tell you quite a bit about Alinsky and what drives Obama and the left’s politics.  They use mob tactics like intimidation to shut people up.  And, like I said, it’s not just Obama.  It’s been seen with the Clintons, too, as you can read here.  You can also read here about the possible intimidation of the Clintons by the Obama campaign during the 2008 campaign.  

Even lesser known sites have made lists of questionable deaths around Obama.  While some people may say such sites are questionable, the sheer number of examples they give have to make a person at least stop and examine them to determine if there's any accuracy to what they say.  (Don't forget, the National Enquirer, not exactly known for the most credible reporting, was the first to report the Monica Lewinsky affair with Bill Clinton and the Jon Edwards affair with Rielle Hunter.  Sometimes truth is revealed through unlikely sources.)  

These claims aren't all from the past, either.  As recently as February 2014 Examiner.com put out an article with a video about Obama’s past that raises serious questions.

What do we make of all of this in light of the Lerner situation?  I think a key issue that is not being investigated are the threats that have been made against Lois Lerner.  The first reaction Congress should have had to such a claim was to prove or disprove it.  If it is true, then not only should the perpetrators be brought to justice, but if the persons involved were tied in any way to the administration, then it should break every scandal wide open with Congress demanding and forcing the issues.  But instead of even investigating such claims, they focus on other issues.  

There are exceptions in Washington.  It was reported recently that Congressman Trey Gowdy posed an important question to Simon Lazarus, senior counsel to the Constitutional Accountability Center who was giving testimony to a panel called "The President's Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws."  Gowdy asked, "If the president can fail to enforce immigration laws, can the president likewise fail to enforce election laws?"

After Mr. Lazarus said that he thought the president wouldn't fail to enforce election laws, Rep. Gowdy asked him why not and then said of the president, "Well, he's not applying the ACA, and he's not applying immigration laws, and he's not applying marijuana laws, and he's not applying mandatory minimums. What's the difference with election laws?"  Gowdy sees the problems with a more analytical eye than most in Washington.  But he's one of a very small number in that corrupt city who are trying to take a stand for what's right.  The chances of those like Gowdy succeeding are very small.

The lack of ability to see the big picture and find answers regarding what is really happening shows a lack of critical thinking.  Sadly not just those in Washington, but most Americans are incapable of seeing past the immediate and obvious issues at hand and that is a major reason why we may never see things change in Washington…except to get even worse.