Reid Between the Lines

nullThis Harry Reid vs. Rush Limbaugh flap is chillingly laughable, in a tragi-comedy sense.

Harry “we lost” Reid is, as usual, taking out of context “facts” to try and smear somebody so we might forget for one minute that he is an absolutely despicable political gasbag. If Reid wants to see somebody unpatriotic and demoralizing to the troops, he need look no further than his bathroom mirror, but then again, this is the reason for Reid’s actions.

I won’t go into the particular details of what Limbaugh said and attempt to parse words and contexts, because the reaction of Harry Reid is what deserves scrutiny no matter what it was Limbaugh said. After all, Harry Reid is the man in a position to fund or not fund our troops. Harry Reid is the man in a position to either place fear in the hearts of our enemies, or hope. All too often, it’s the latter.

Rush Limbaugh simply comments on these things, and people listen. This can of course be extremely dangerous—to Harry Reid.

In short, if Rush Limbaugh says or does anything reckless, he harms himself. If Harry Reid says or does anything reckless, he can harm a nation, and I believe he’s doing just that.

When it comes to accusing somebody else of not supporting the troops, Harry Reid is like a thief running out of a department store with a swiped flat screen TV who’s pointing and some kid and accusing him of stealing a pack of gum. This is a shameless distraction on Reid’s part to cover his own pathetic past of providing aid and comfort to the enemy, nothing more.

Can you believe the U.S. Senate and House are taking time to deal with drawing up resolutions denouncing and supporting, respectively, a private citizen with a radio show? Your tax dollars at work. What’s next, guys? A joint resolution ordering NBC to spend more money on sitcom R&D?

No matter what your opinion of all this is, you have to admit that Harry Reid accusing somebody of being unpatriotic and anti US troops is a bit like Britney Spears saying that Ashlee Simpson should be viciously bra-snapped for lip-syncing.

In the broader sense, every American of any political leaning should shudder at the idea of a man who holds a high political office using that position in order to silence the opinion of a private citizen — be it Rush Limbaugh, Air America or anything in between. This is the kind of political tyranny Americans have fought and died to prevent, and it is further evidence that Harry Reid is unfit for office.

Harry Reid is attempting to use his political position to silence the opinion of a private citizen in order to “defend our troops” — troops who are overseas fighting terrorist thugs so they don’t gain power and use that position to silence the opinions of private citizens. If that doesn’t give you an irony-induced belly laugh, nothing will. Harry Reid is a living, breathing example of “with friends like these you don’t need any enemies.”

Rush Limbaugh issued a challenge to Harry Reid to come on his program and have it out. My own challenge to Reid and many other Democrats can be summed up in a sentence: If you would act as if terrorists are half as dangerous to the future of America as Rush Limbaugh, we might actually make some progress in our national security.

If Rush Limbaugh ever gives up “the golden EIB microphone,” it shouldn’t be because an out-of-control politician hell-bent on silencing his detractors issued a totalitarian-esque decree—it should be because Limbaugh sold it, in an act of bipartisan charity, to pay for Mr. Reid’s straight-jacket and court-appointed psychiatrist.

"I am not a cr… Whoa! Kissinger. Dude. Check out my hand!"

Here’s an entertaining interview (in the “old hippies never die, they just keep reminding us why they still shouldn’t be given political power” sense) with Grace Slick, the former Jefferson Airplane singer, in which she talks about the time she tried to slip acid to Richard Nixon:

Q. Okay, tell me about trying to slip Richard Nixon acid at the White House.

A. See, Trish Nixon’s daughter went to Finch College, and it was so small that she invited all of the alumni to a tea at the White House. But my name when I went there was Grace Wing, that doesn’t mean anything right? Now, Grace Slick meant something. So I get an invitation to the White House and I call up Abbie Hoffman and say [Sing-songy] “Guess what I have….I’ve got an invitation to the White House.”

So I put 600 mics of acid under a long fingernail I had for cocaine, and we go and we’re standing in line, and the security guard comes up to me and says, “I’m sorry you can’t go in. You’re a security risk.” And I go, “What?!” And he says, “You’re on the FBI list.”

You have to admit, this would have added some spice to Nixon’s speeches.

“And so, effective at noon today, I will… ride to nirvana on the wings of a rainbow, where Checkers and I will square dance with Lilliputians, bathe in liquid marshmallows and listen to the dormouse read poetry to the white rabbits and smoking caterpillars while Bebe Rebozo turns cartwheels under a big-top made of cheese. Go ask Pat, when she’s ten feet tall. Feed your head, my fellow Americans. Feed your head.”

Read the rest of the interview to find out why Slick thinks that we should run our society like racoons. How having a bunch of people dead by the side of the highway is going to help anything is beyond me.

null

“My knuckles… they’re alive… the big one looks like Liddy’s head in the garden of Eden…”

“I am not a cr… Whoa! Kissinger. Dude. Check out my hand!”

Here’s an entertaining interview (in the “old hippies never die, they just keep reminding us why they still shouldn’t be given political power” sense) with Grace Slick, the former Jefferson Airplane singer, in which she talks about the time she tried to slip acid to Richard Nixon:

Q. Okay, tell me about trying to slip Richard Nixon acid at the White House.

A. See, Trish Nixon’s daughter went to Finch College, and it was so small that she invited all of the alumni to a tea at the White House. But my name when I went there was Grace Wing, that doesn’t mean anything right? Now, Grace Slick meant something. So I get an invitation to the White House and I call up Abbie Hoffman and say [Sing-songy] “Guess what I have….I’ve got an invitation to the White House.”

So I put 600 mics of acid under a long fingernail I had for cocaine, and we go and we’re standing in line, and the security guard comes up to me and says, “I’m sorry you can’t go in. You’re a security risk.” And I go, “What?!” And he says, “You’re on the FBI list.”

You have to admit, this would have added some spice to Nixon’s speeches.

“And so, effective at noon today, I will… ride to nirvana on the wings of a rainbow, where Checkers and I will square dance with Lilliputians, bathe in liquid marshmallows and listen to the dormouse read poetry to the white rabbits and smoking caterpillars while Bebe Rebozo turns cartwheels under a big-top made of cheese. Go ask Pat, when she’s ten feet tall. Feed your head, my fellow Americans. Feed your head.”

Read the rest of the interview to find out why Slick thinks that we should run our society like racoons. How having a bunch of people dead by the side of the highway is going to help anything is beyond me.

null

“My knuckles… they’re alive… the big one looks like Liddy’s head in the garden of Eden…”

Monday's Column: Why We Should Hate "Hate Crimes" Laws

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily revolves around an asinine bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy that expands hate crime laws to include homosexuals, transsexuals, etc.

Why is this an intrusive tool of what is destined to be a totalitarian state disguised as “civil rights legislation”? Read “If Mary Jo Kopechne had been transgender” for the full story.

Update from the email bag:

Plenty of email this morning, mostly from people who see exactly where “hate crime” laws are leading, but here’s a dissenter from across the pond.

Sarah from the UK writes:

Everytime I read something regarding hate crime laws come up I start to groan as you always tend to get the drivel you came out with in the above named “article”.

A hate crime law doesn’t make anyone a “special” victim. The jews in world war 2 who we’re sent to the deaths in the concentration camps were “hate crime” victims, as the only reason they we’re singled out was because they we’re jews, not because they had done something to deserve it, simply because of their religion.

As long Christian Pastors remember that they’re Christians, then what have they got to fear? They can say that being Gay is sinfull if they want, that’s they’re right under your first ammendment. They’re wrong off course, as it’s not being Gay that’s sinful, it’s the act of sex outside of marriage and sex for non-procreation that is considered sinful by the bible, so does that make Gay people more sinful than hetersexual people, or just sinful in different ways, as I don’t think that everytime a heterosexual couple has sex they have a baby nine months later.

Instead of shooting down a hate crimes bill, try adding to it, try making it more inclusive. If you are attacked because of your beliefs, then that’s someone having a difference of opinion with you, ie they know you. If they attack you because you’re the first white person they see, that’s a hate crime, as it’s nothing you’ve done knowingly or not, it’s simply because of your colour. Likewise, if someone attacks the first person coming out of a church, or temple or mosque and they attack them simply because they’re Christian or Jewish or Muslim, then that’s a hate crime too, and if someone is attacked simply for being gay, then that is a hate crime too.

I simply don’t understand what you don’t understand about hate crimes.

Sarah, as expected, didn’t answer the basic question: why should the punishment be more severe for attacking (verbally or physically) a member of one group as opposed to a group not mentioned in the “hate crime” legislation?

Those who can’t see the danger inherent in allowing politicians to pick and choose which groups are deserving of special protection are part of the reason history repeats itself.

Those who can’t see the danger inherent in allowing politicians to pick and choose which groups are deserving of special protection are part of the reason history repeats itself.

Those who c … nevermind, you get the point.

Monday’s Column: Why We Should Hate “Hate Crimes” Laws

Today’s column over at WorldNetDaily revolves around an asinine bill co-sponsored by Ted Kennedy that expands hate crime laws to include homosexuals, transsexuals, etc.

Why is this an intrusive tool of what is destined to be a totalitarian state disguised as “civil rights legislation”? Read “If Mary Jo Kopechne had been transgender” for the full story.

Update from the email bag:

Plenty of email this morning, mostly from people who see exactly where “hate crime” laws are leading, but here’s a dissenter from across the pond.

Sarah from the UK writes:

Everytime I read something regarding hate crime laws come up I start to groan as you always tend to get the drivel you came out with in the above named “article”.

A hate crime law doesn’t make anyone a “special” victim. The jews in world war 2 who we’re sent to the deaths in the concentration camps were “hate crime” victims, as the only reason they we’re singled out was because they we’re jews, not because they had done something to deserve it, simply because of their religion.

As long Christian Pastors remember that they’re Christians, then what have they got to fear? They can say that being Gay is sinfull if they want, that’s they’re right under your first ammendment. They’re wrong off course, as it’s not being Gay that’s sinful, it’s the act of sex outside of marriage and sex for non-procreation that is considered sinful by the bible, so does that make Gay people more sinful than hetersexual people, or just sinful in different ways, as I don’t think that everytime a heterosexual couple has sex they have a baby nine months later.

Instead of shooting down a hate crimes bill, try adding to it, try making it more inclusive. If you are attacked because of your beliefs, then that’s someone having a difference of opinion with you, ie they know you. If they attack you because you’re the first white person they see, that’s a hate crime, as it’s nothing you’ve done knowingly or not, it’s simply because of your colour. Likewise, if someone attacks the first person coming out of a church, or temple or mosque and they attack them simply because they’re Christian or Jewish or Muslim, then that’s a hate crime too, and if someone is attacked simply for being gay, then that is a hate crime too.

I simply don’t understand what you don’t understand about hate crimes.

Sarah, as expected, didn’t answer the basic question: why should the punishment be more severe for attacking (verbally or physically) a member of one group as opposed to a group not mentioned in the “hate crime” legislation?

Those who can’t see the danger inherent in allowing politicians to pick and choose which groups are deserving of special protection are part of the reason history repeats itself.

Those who can’t see the danger inherent in allowing politicians to pick and choose which groups are deserving of special protection are part of the reason history repeats itself.

Those who c … nevermind, you get the point.