► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Harry Reid’

A McCarthy for our time

by Mojambo ( 177 Comments › )
Filed under Cold War, George W. Bush, History, Liberal Fascism, Mitt Romney at April 25th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Make Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi the faces of the Democratic Party and go after them.  By weakening them you  weaken Obama.

by Victor Davis Hanson

We should ask Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) the same question once posed to Senator Joseph McCarthy by U.S. Army head-counsel Robert N. Welch: “Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?”

Reid is back in the news for denigrating the peaceful supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy, a popular critic of the Bureau of Land Management policy, as “domestic terrorists.”

McCarthy in the 1950s became infamous for smearing his opponents with lurid allegations that he could not prove, while questioning their patriotism. Reid has brought back to the Senate that exact same McCarthy style of six decades ago — and trumped it.

During the 2012 presidential campaign, Reid slandered candidate Mitt Romney with the unsubstantiated and later-refuted charge that Romney was a tax cheat. “The word’s out that he [Romney] hasn’t paid any taxes for ten years,” Reid said.

Later, when asked for proof, Reid offered a pathetic rejoinder: “I have had a number of people tell me that.” One wonders how many names were on Reid’s McCarthyite “tell” list — were there, as McCarthy used to bluster, 205 names, or perhaps just 57?

When asked again to document the slur, Reid echoed McCarthy perfectly: “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes.”

When the Koch brothers donated money that was used for political ads — just as liberal political donors George Soros and the Steyer brothers have done — Reid rushed to the Senate floor to question their patriotism: [……] The charge of being “un-American” is also vintage McCarthyite slander.

Reid also has a bad habit of racial bigotry. He once praised fellow senator Barack Obama because he was, in Reid’s words, a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.”

When Reid was worried that he would not get enough Hispanic voters to the polls, he condescendingly lectured the Latino community: “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, okay. Do I need to say more?”


Reid has also brought back McCarthy’s custom of vicious and sometimes profane insults.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Reid announced: “I can’t stand John McCain.” Of then-president George W. Bush, Reid said: “President Bush is a liar.” Reid claimed that fellow Mormon Mitt Romney had “sullied” his religion.

When General David Petraeus brought proof to Congress that the surge in Iraq was beginning to work by late 2007, Reid declared, “No, I don’t believe him, because it’s not happening.”

He elaborated on that charge by labeling Petraeus — at the time the senior ground commander of U.S. forces fighting in Iraq — a veritable liar. Reid alleged that Petraeus “has made a number of statements over the years that have not proven to be factual.”

When an African American and Democratic appointee to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, William Magwood, opposed Reid on the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste-disposal-site controversy, Reid called him a “first-class rat,” a “treacherous, miserable liar,” a “s*** stirrer,” and “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve ever dealt with.”

Like a pre-reform-era politician, Reid entered public service relatively poor and will leave it as a multimillionaire. He has granted lucrative favors to casinos and rich investors who hired his son’s legal firm. While in office, he made considerable profits on private business and real-estate deals. Some of those who donated to his campaigns got favorable government treatment.


So how does Reid’s reckless career continue with the Senate leader avoiding the sort of congressional censure that finally did in McCarthy? Why is there is no progressive muckraker to take on Reid the way that Edward R. Murrow once exposed McCarthy?

For the Left, Reid’s utility as an attack dog (like McCarthy’s utility to Republicans) outweighs the downside of his crude bombast.

His lurid, unsubstantiated charges against Romney were helpful in demonizing Romney as a rich grandee. His untruths about Petraeus helped shore up Democrats’ anti-war credentials during the 2008 campaign. Environmentalists did not object to his character assassination of nuclear-power advocate Magwood.

Reid’s viciousness also serves as a deterrent. Why tangle with the anything-goes Reid when it means endlessly replying to a litany of smears?

Part Tammany Hall–style fixer, part pre–civil rights Democrat, and part demagogic Joe McCarthy, Harry Reid is a throwback to a type of American politics better left forgotten.

Read the rest –  Harry Reid: A McCarthy for our time

Freedom Week: Seeing The Forest Through The Trees

by Flyovercountry ( 175 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party at April 18th, 2014 - 12:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

There has been much said, written, and opined, about the goings on in Nevada over the past week. Legal experts, who strangely enough skipped law school, have pontificated on the right and wrong of a situation that really is hard to fathom in today’s every-thing-is-fine-America. Does the Bundy Family have the right to keep using Federal Land, essentially claiming squatter’s rights, for their cattle to graze upon? Does the Federal Government have the right to confiscate the cattle, who have so graciously and efficiently eliminated the need for a professional lawn and garden service to maintain the land? Here’s my take, those are the small issues in a much broader discussion, and one that quite frankly should scare the snot out of you, if you place any value at all in the concept of America as it was founded.

We’ll start here. The more astute among you may have noticed that the Federal Government owns very little, and by that I mean lest than one tenth of one percent, of the land East of the Mississippi River. West of our national geographic dividing line of course is a different story. More interesting than that wonderful little nugget of information however is the reason why. During the early days of our nation, it never dawned on our leaders that the government would ever hold any lands of consequence. Yes they knew that a standing army would have to be kept some where, and by the time Jefferson was President, they knew that they would need a couple of offices in which to conduct the business at hand for the nation. By and large however, our earliest leaders envisioned a nation where the private sector would be best suited to utilize everything available in the most efficient manner, in order to have every man prosper to the fullest potential possible. The term, 40 acres and a mule, was born in this era, and the concept was that each citizen if he wanted, would be granted land in sufficient quantity, to make of it what he could. The economic theory was that private citizens, given the opportunity to create their own wealth, would bring about the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of ordinary citizens. It was truly the grandest experiment of Adam Smith’s, “Wealth of Nations,” that the world had ever seen. It was his invisible hand given free reign to weave its magic, and that invisible hand is the working definition of American Exceptionalism. It worked, and worked remarkably well.

West of the Mississippi however is a different story. In Nevada for example, our Federal Government owns 78% of the land. This has effectively changed the dynamic between government and private citizen in what can only be regarded as the most fundamental of ways. This has given the Federal Government control over which businesses and what resources will be allowed to flourish in the Western half of our nation. When Barack Obama truthfully declares that fossil fuel production has increased during his Administration, he always fails to mention that this is in spite of his efforts as President, and not because of them. Fossil fuel production has been largely diminished on Federally owned lands, and the entirety of the increase has been due to private land owners participating in a boom previously unforeseen by the politicos now in charge of the top down management of our national economy. This group has the political bent to replace fossil fuel production with solar and wind, and since they control land owned by the government, they have the power to force their will upon us. (By the way, there’s a connection here to the situation in Nevada that we’ll discuss later.) Every acre of land owned by our Federal Government is an acre not being put to productive use by the Private Sector, and one that is used to allow for cronies to be granted privilege not honestly earned. So, when the Bundy’s are called out for squatting on Federal Land, ask yourself why that land is owned by the Federal Government in the first place, and why the tradition of the government getting out of the way of the Private Sector has been eschewed.

The next thing that I’ve noticed over the last few years, since Barack Obama has become President, is that Federal Agencies not at all associated with law enforcement are toting guns. Those of you who know me, know that I am a big Second Amendment advocate, but this is not what our Founding Fathers meant to accomplish with the Second Amendment. Preventing those agencies from running roughshod over the citizens of this nation however, that is in fact the reason why the delegates to that Constitutional Convention demanded that the Second Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights prior to forming the Union that is the United States of America. I do not know how well armed those supporting the Bundy’s were in the open Nevada air, but if they were equipped with land mines and bazookas, that would have suited me just fine. The Bureau of Land Management has armed officers? This should worry any who value the freedoms that all citizens of this nation are born with, as a consequence of being gifted those freedoms by our Creator at the time of our birth. When campaigning, our President said that he envisioned a civilian force equal in training and armament to the military, and he wasn’t quite talking about protecting our Second Amendment, as his actions and rhetoric have shown repeatedly. He was speaking about an armed Bureau of Land Management, an armed Department of Education, an armed Environmental Protection Agency, and so on. These entities are becoming militarized, and will inflict their leftist vision for our nation by force if necessary.

Another of the more frightening things to consider with this mobilization, along with Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the dozen or so other places where our government has taken it upon itself to brandish arms against private citizens, is the fact that our government has decided to brandish arms against private citizens. Somehow, the Mexican Drug Lords who have invaded our Southern Border, without any sort of resistance what so ever, are not considered a threat to the peace and security of our nation. Barack Obama has unilaterally eased the restrictions on Visas offered to Islamists with previously known involvement in terrorist activities, (albeit those with involvement in acts of terror deemed to, “not be that bad,” what ever in the Hell that means,) and still had dreams of bringing their ideology to the United States. Somehow, to our government, these people are not considered to be a threat to national security. From day one of this President’s Administration, the only people considered to be a threat to the national security of the United States of America are those of us who advocate for limited government, free market economics, or private property rights. To that end, the IRS has specifically targeted us, on the political right for increased scrutiny, and as we’ve just learned within the last day and a half, for criminal prosecution, based on our political activities. (Wave bye bye to the First Amendment my fellow inhabitants of the land formerly known as the home of the free. I will await your arrival in one of the splendid reeducation camps, soon to be sprouting up all over the fruited plains.) As far as I know, every single government agency now has armed employees. What’s even more frightening than all of that however, is the fact that our government was able to find enough people of sound mind and body to go along with all of this, and brandish those arms against their fellow citizens.

Another major problem to consider with all of this is in how these federal agencies are constituted to begin with. I know that I’ve written about this before, but it bears much further discussion. Currently, and I have no idea when exactly this began, the laws that create these agencies are written in a purposefully vague manner. The agencies are created to oversee some part of the federal behemoth and given the powers of all three branches of our checks and balances system. They write their own rules, administrate those rules, determine how they will be enforced, and adjudicate their own case load, all with a minimal amount of oversight or judicial review. The case of the EPA forcing farmers to treat spilled milk in the exact manner as an oil spill would still be clogged in our court system had the light of day not been brought to bear to expose the lunacy. The EPA backed off, but only because political pressures lined themselves up to determine that this was not the right time to enforce what they actually do have the legal right to do. Lost in all of the angst over whether the law is being followed is whether or not a law is even valid, or more importantly a good and moral law to begin with. Bad policies lead people making the correct moral decision to act outside of the law. That situation is far worse than most people realize, and we have put ourselves in this great nation in the reprehensible position of prosecuting people for attempting to benefit their fellow man and support their families.

I could have written this essay on any one of a hundred topics, and been able to include all of the same points. This one is somewhat special however. The government’s stated reasoning behind preventing cattle from cutting federal grass for free was that somehow, and this is a stretch by the way, it would be bad for the indigenous population of turtles. As it turns out however, Nevada’s Senior Senator, Harry Reid, has a relative named Rory, who has a friend that wishes to lease that particular strip of land in order to build, (wait for it….,) a solar farm. If you thought cows eating grass was bad for wild life, what do you think a solar farm, which has average daytime recorded temperatures over 800 degrees, would do? As it turns out, these places are literally the killing fields for all things ecological. So stick that in your Green Peace Pipe and smoke it. What we have hear is a case of crony Socialism, at its finest.

I have just one more thought that I’d like to leave you with. This is a level of tyranny that is on a par with why our nation revolted against England in general, and against Mad King George III specifically. Asked at another one of his meet real Americans campaign style photo ops today, President Zero was asked about his spiffy Health Insurance non-affordable destruction of the entire medical profession act. Specifically, the complaint lodged was in regards to the spiraling price tag on premiums for policies, which offer less coverage, and include deductibles so high that they’ll never be met. His answer was, the law has passed, I won’t sign a bill to repeal it, so get over it and move on. That’s the exact amount of respect George III showed for the people living here in the Colonies. We are no longer citizens my friends, we’re subjects now. It hasn’t been said officially, but semantics aren’t all that important anyhow.

Cross Posted from Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Mitt Romney looks right

by Mojambo ( 109 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2012, John Kerry, Politics, Russia at March 9th, 2014 - 12:13 pm

America was the loser in November 2012.

by Howie Carr

“I told you so.”

Those have to be four of the most satisfying words in the English language. And Mitt Romney has earned the right to speak that short sentence, over and over again, whenever he chooses.

Not that he would — it would be “unbecoming,” to use one of Romney’s old-fashioned words that in 2002 had the mandarins of Political Correctness harrumphing about his “sexism,” I believe the charge was that time.

But these days, Mitt looks more and more prescient, and his critics ever more deluded. First of all, Russia has become “our number one geopolitical foe,” as he put it in the 2012 campaign. Back then, Barack Obama derided him, saying “The 1980s are calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

Now, not so much.

As a Republican, Romney understands the double standard in the lapdog media. When Mitt says “tar baby,” he’s a racist. When John Kerry says “tar baby,” nothing to see here folks, move along.

Barack Obama admits eating dogs — crickets in the press. Mitt puts one on the roof of his car in a crate — David Letterman demands his arrest.

Speaking of which, Mitt’s net worth is a reported $230 million, and Letterman’s is $400 million. Yet Letterman spent 2012 joking about how loaded Mitt was, once saying Romney was taking a weekend off “to hike to the top of his money.”


Since then, how many Democrat politicians have enlisted in that same war on women — Alan Grayson, Mel Reynolds, Bob Filner, “Carlos Danger,” Carlos Henriquez, Eliot Spitzer, Robert Menendez. …

Here’s another word that in 2007 got Mitt into hot water with the PC Police — “un-American.” That’s how he described the Democrat bigots who were attacking his Mormon faith. How dare he use such a McCarthyite word, the moonbats fumed.

Why, it’s a code word, a “dog whistle,” a throwback to the bad old days of the House Un-American Activities Committee (chaired by a Democrat named Martin Dies, but again, nothing to see here folks, move along.)


Last week, though, the Democrats were tossing around the word “un-American” with such abandon that you would have thought they were, well, speaking truth to power.

Congressman Elijah Cummings blurted it out at a House hearing, and it’s how Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid described the Koch brothers — “un-American.”

You see, when George Soros or the pinky-ring unions funnel millions to the Democrats, they’re exercising their First Amendment rights, their freedom of speech.

When the Koch brothers do the same thing, they’re un-American. Not only that, Reid said, but they’re also trying to “subvert” democracy.

Hey, Harry, the 1950s are calling to ask for their code words back.

Harry Reid, by the way, is a Mormon. Did you ever hear any late-night comedians joking about his “magic underwear,” or how many wives he has?

Anyway, this week, when some foolhardy D.C. pundits risked their status as Beautiful People by criticizing the sacrosanct Reid, he shot back by quoting Adlai Stevenson:

“If the Republicans will stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about them.”

Brave words from a hack who less than two years ago was falsely accusing Romney of income-tax evasion.

“Let him prove that he has paid taxes,” Reid said on the Senate floor, “because he hasn’t!”

In other words, guilty until proven innocent. Isn’t that … un-American?

The famous senator Henry Clay once said, “I’d rather be right than president.”

Who knows if he meant it? Mitt should probably start thinking about borrowing Clay’s old line, although I’m not sure he believes it either.

Read the rest –  Romney looks right

Harry Reid luanches nasty attack on Ted Cruz

by Phantom Ace ( 6 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Headlines, Progressives, Republican Party at October 18th, 2013 - 8:16 pm

It’s one thing for some on the Right to criticize Ted Cruz for launching this fight on Obamacare/The budget, it’s another matter what John McCain did by verbally going after him and siding with the Democrats. McCain gave the Democrats talking point to go after Cruz. Angry scold and nasty man Harry Reid launches a vile personal attack on Ted Cruz.

Harry Reid is certainly not the first politician to take a shot at Ted Cruz, but his attack might be the most personal.

“Ted Cruz, well, he proved he has a great fundraising operation,” Reid dismissively told the Huffington Post. “But you don’t have to have Harry Reid criticizing him. Republicans criticized him.”

“He is a laughingstock to everybody but him,” Reid continued.

Reid was no less caustic when discussing Cruz’s presidential ambitions, saying, “What has he accomplished other than raising some money for president? And if this man can get the nomination to be the Republican nominee for president, I pity the Republican Party.”

I for the life of me do not understand why Republicans don’t go after Harry Reid and paint him as the face of the Democrats.