Harry Reid is thrilled that we only lost a net 36,000 jobs in the latest report (via HotAir).

I’m sure those 36,000 people are equally thrilled with the effectiveness of the $787 dollars Congress tossed down the drain last year.

In addition, these numbers are probably being propped up by the once-a-decade, temporary census hiring.  While a necessary project, it’s no credit to the state of the economy.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Thanks to Heritage:

Comments  Print This Post

---

Harry Reid is taking a lot of heat for the recently revealed statement he made regarding Barack Obama during the presidential campaign.  The new book, Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime, revealed that Reid thought Obama’s electoral chances were improved by the fact that he was light-skinned and had no “negro dialect” unless he wanted one.

Is this statement racist?  It is certainly about race, but I reject the identity politics tactic of taking anything racial and making it racist when it serves partisan purposes to paint it as such.  The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the context of Reid’s statement that suggests racial prejudice.

He used the word “negro.”  This is an old fashioned word, for sure, but it was never one associated with racial venom the way other words have historically been.  Moreover, it is still used by many national black organizations, such as the National Council of Negro Women or the National Association of Negro Business and Professional Women’s Club.  Simply saying “negro” is not racist.

Beyond the word choice, the content of his statement reflects his opinion of the rest of America’s views on race, not his own.  And there is likely a grain of truth to the idea that a lighter-skinned candidate who sounds more or less white would face less racial resistance than other black candidates.  But even if it’s wrong and reflects an unfairly pessimistic view of American racial tolerance, that doesn’t make the statement itself racist.

It is interesting to note that Reid acknowledged Obama’s tendency to pander to black audiences by putting on a phony accent, where he drops his g’s and mimics the cadence of MLK.  But beyond that, I find the statement wholly uninteresting.

It is fair for conservatives to point out that a conservative would undoubtedly be tarred as racist for making such a statement, but we can’t confuse pointing out hypocrisy with engaging in it.  To brand Reid’s statement as racist in the process of pointing out liberal hypocrisy is to undermine the very position we have rightfully staked out in the past: talking about race does not make someone a racist.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Feeling the effects of H1N1? Impressed by the government’s ability to handle a range of issues, from natural disasters to maintaining basic infrastructure?  If you answered yes to these questions, then boy has Harry Reid got a deal for you!

So now we know what to do about the flu.  Hooray! But do we know what to do about Harry Reid?

Hmm, it looks like maybe we do.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Exposed:

Comments  Print This Post

---

When it came to campaigning against George W. Bush, unfunded mandates were despicable.  Now they’re just a convenient way to hide the costs of annexing health care:

The more we inspect Max Baucus’s health-care bill, the worse it looks. Today’s howler: One reason it allegedly “pays for itself” over 10 years is because it would break all 50 state budgets by permanently expanding Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for the poor.

Democrats want to use Medicaid to cover everyone up to at least 133% of the federal poverty level, or about $30,000 for a family of four. Starting in 2014, Mr. Baucus plans to spend $287 billion through 2019—or about one-third of ObamaCare’s total spending—to add some 11 million new people to the Medicaid rolls.

Not every state is hit equally, though. Some states have politically connected crooks to insulate them from the burdens they place on everyone else.

Comments  Print This Post

---

In a slight twist to the “never let a crisis go to waste” motto on constant exhibit at the White House, prominent leftists have approached the recent string of high profile shootings with a resolve to not let the tragedies go to waste.  The agenda? Hate crimes and gun control.

Hate Crimes

Explicitly citing the recent shootings as evidence, Attorney General Eric Holder called for new hate crimes laws as a way to stop “violence masquerading as political activism.”  Although each incident involved the commission of acts which are already considered crimes, Holder says Congress needs to pass new legislation “to protect the rights ensured under our Constitution.”  Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has said that he is committed to getting to hate crimes legislation before the August recess.

A particular pernicious aspect of the current hate-crimes push is the willingness of proponents to submit the accused to multiple trials, if necessary.  Although the Constitutions prohibition against double-jeopardy has never applied cross-jurisdictions between states and the federal government, it has nevertheless long been seen as desirable to avoid the prospect of federal prosecutions following state acquittals for the same crime.  Now, the ability to try acquitted individuals again using federal hate crimes laws is seen by liberal advocacy groups as a virtue.

It’s even being attempted to tie opponents of open immigration into the issue of hate crimes.  Meanwhile, ceaseless race-baiter Jesse Jackson takes the well worn low road and blames the attacks on everything from conservative talk radio to “our obsession with guns.”

Gun Control

Perpetually displeased with the reality of living under the Second Amendment and its protections for individual gun rights, the left is forever looking for ways to undermine and destroy our deep historical and cultural beliefs in self-protection and personal freedom.  Gun grabbers have a history of hijacking high profile tragedies in hopes of harnessing the emotions of the moment to enact far-reaching bans without any need for consideration of the merits.  The most recent spat of shootings are no different.

The Washington Post’s Marie Cocco dramatically writes that we are “enduring a spring of slaughter.”  And the cause of our present horror is that “we have decided to let just about anyone have a gun.” Cocco also offers the usual gun control lie, claiming that, “among the guns Poplawski reportedly used in his attack was an AK-47, a so-called “assault weapon” whose manufacture was banned in the 1990s, but is no longer.” Lying about the AWB has always been common place among its proponents.  As reality would have it, Ak-47s were not simply banned by the bill, and many variants were legal to purchase, as the bill comically dealt more with what combination of cosmetic features a gun had rather than its functionality.

The various shootings over the last few weeks are deplorable. but so are the left’s efforts to stretch the facts in order to advance a radical agenda.  Whether it be lying about the contents of past legislation and its impact, or pretending that a lunatic, jew-hating, 9/11 truther is “right-wing,” the left has demonstrated that they have no intention of getting tripped up over facts while pushing for greater government control.

Comments  Print This Post

---

Blindly supporting a nominee without, by one’s own admission, a clue:

I understand that during her career, she’s written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven’t read a single one of them, and if I’m fortunate before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them. But — I’m not familiar with that opinion, but there will be plenty of time for people who are concerned about the Second Amendment — and there are lots of people on the Judiciary Committee who are concerned about it — they’ll have lots of time to offer her questions and she’ll proceed to answer them. But I don’t know anything about that.

Sounds like business as usual for Harry Reid.

Comments  Print This Post

---

It’s out in the open, for anyone who cares to see it. Treason, in the highest positions of our government. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) says that the war in Iraq is lost. Which of course is far from true. Unlike his fellow democrats who are content with boycotting General Petraeus’ reporting on war progress, Reid is at least willing to hear him out. And by hear him out, I mean ignore everything he says. But why? Why not listen to what he reports and then judge it on the merits. Answer: he and his party are invested in defeat. In his own words: “We’re going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war.” But only if we lose. If we win, there’s no political spoils to be had by the party which has been crying defeat since the start. Therefore winning is off the table. They’re selling out the soldiers and surrendering to Al Qaeda and Iran all for the sake of senate seats.

Whatever the eventual outcome in Iraq, I hope we can look back on this as hubris. A monumental political miscalculation for which the democrats suffered dearly. I hope there is enough sense left in the American electorate to punish these opportunists severely. So severly as to eradicate the dangerous and treasonous tendency to put political ascendancy above country. And to exorcize it from the entrenched political culture for generations. If not, if we as a people tolerate this, I see little hope for the republic.

Comments  Print This Post

---

It’s the best news the President of Iran has heard since Israel surrendered to the U.N. – the liberal Dhimmicrats are running interferance for his fascist advance.

“The president does not have the authority to launch military action in Iran without first seeking congressional authorization,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told the National Press Club.

Wrong, Senator I flunked Gub’ment. The Commander-in-Chief tells the armed forces when and where to go, not the senate. A fact for which I am very thankful. And a lot of good your approval would do him anyway. Even if you vote to authorize military action, a few months later you’d be back demanding our unconditional surrender.

Last week, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden, D-Del., challenged the president’s ability to make such a move. In a letter to Bush, Biden asked the president to explain whether the administration believes it could attack Iran or Syria “without the authorization of Congress, which does not now exist.”

They’re asking the wrong question. Since Iran is already attacking our forces, the real question should be “what is the president’s ability to retaliate?”

Comments  Print This Post

---

Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.