If you torture the data enough, nature will always confess.
Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.”
– John Adams
More on the Harry Reid front.
Interesting comments from Dana Perino after another one of Harry Reid’s personal attacks.
The more you hear about Harry Reid, the more convinced you are that he is a truly base, degraded, all-round failure of a human being.
I had to do a double-take on this Washington Examiner story.
Harry Reid on conservatives’ mobster-beating theory: ‘They don’t like me as a person’
On CNBC’s “Speakeasy,” host John Harwood asked Reid about theories put forth by conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart News that the injuries Reid sustained at the beginning of this year, including a blow to his right eye, are not, as he has said, the result of an accident involving elastic exercise equipment.
“The last few days, a bunch of people are saying, Reid, he didn’t have an exercise accident, he got beat up by the mob,” Harwood said.
“It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh, he’s the guy that got all this started,” Reid replied. “Why in the world would I come up with a story that I got hurt in my own bathroom with my wife standing there? How could anyone say anything like that? And I think a lot of people, as I read, they kind of don’t like me as a person and I think that’s unfortunate.”
“It shows the credibility of Rush Limbaugh”??? “They don’t like me as a person”???
If anyone else had major media celebrity like Rush Limbaugh openly commenting on how they had been injured in a recent “accident,” I would at least feel a pang of remorse for them. However, Harry Reid is the epitome of all that is wrong and inappropriate in politics today. Reid has lowered the bar in political discourse more than any currently-living politician or media figure.
In fact, he just recently gloated over the fact that his lies about Mitt Romney’s tax situation – from the floor of the Senate – had likely played a key role in keeping Romney from winning the Presidency.
As the video clearly shows, Reid actually sat in that CNN interview with Dana Bash and smirked as he justified his lies and personal attacks on Romney as well as his misrepresentations about the Koch brothers. His lies achieved the desired political end of helping keep Democrats in power, so … it’s all good.
“Well, they can call it whatever they like. Romney didn’t win, did he?”
The hypocrisy and self absorption are almost dripping off of the page. I am actually amazed that Reid can keep a straight face when he whines that people are questioning him on his “athletic accident” story and complaining about the fact that people don’t like him as a person. The man has spent the past several decades making himself completely untrustworthy, and completely unlikeable as an elected official or as a person. He has gotten away with shady business deals and allegations of corruption that would sewer any other politician’s career, escaped any serious political ramifications of referring to the President as being “light-skinned” with “no negro dialect,” he has repeatedly used the power of his office as the head of the Senate to shower his political adversaries with any and every sort of unwarranted personal attack and with an endless stream of lies and misrepresentation. He has lowered the level of conversation in the Senate to less than that of a grade school recess yard.
So how could anyone – especially Reid himself – be surprised that a lot of people “don’t like him as a person”? Apart from his mother, I’d be surprised if anyone really likes him as a person.
Bernard Goldberg’s latest article closes with a frightening thought. Short version is that it does not matter how calculating, untrustworthy, dishonest, entitled, manipulative, overbearing, etc., etc., etc. Hillary Clinton may be. The reality is that many of the larger states, like California, Illinois, and New York, will vote for a rock or a puddle of slime mold if it has a “D” beside it on the ballot.
But that’s moot at this point. So Hillary won’t be a pushover. Quite the contrary. That’s partly because of the Democrats’ best friend in presidential elections — the Electoral College.
Democrats almost always win California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Maine, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Washington D.C. That gets them pretty close to victory right off the bat.
So the GOP candidate doesn’t start out with a strong hand. And if ideologically pure conservatives sit home as they have when John McCain and Mitt Romney ran, if they refuse to vote because the candidate Republican primary voters picked isn’t “conservative enough,” then it won’t just be hard for a Republican to win. It will pretty much be impossible.
So regardless of how little Hillary might have accomplished. Regardless of the fact that she is only where she is because she married (and clung) to Bill Clinton. Regardless of the fact that she has been a Washington insider for the past 30+ years. Regardless of the fact that the only thing she really appears to have going for her is the symbolism of being the first woman President, there is a very real possibility that block voting mentalities in certain states could still make her the next President.
After listening to the President’s National Prayer Breakfast speech where he lamely tried to find any way possible that he could point a finger of blame at Christianity instead of keeping his attention focused firmly on the islamist terrorists that make up Daesh (aka ISIS), I was struck by the notion that I had seen someone attempt to pull an equally lame stunt as a means of trying to remain relevant.
It took me a few minutes, but then I remembered back in 1977 a once promising TV show was running out of ideas and struggled to find a way to keep viewers interested. To keep the story moving along, the writers had one of the key characters accept a challenge from the “California Kid.” As a result, Aurthur Herbert threw on his leather jacket, strapped on the skis, and little Opie Cunningham fired up the ski boat. Little did they know they would ensure the end of their hit show soon after while also creating one of the Interwebz most enduring memes.
So I took a few minutes and whipped up a commemorative graphic for the President’s big speech.
By reaching back over 900 years into history to find something (anything!!!) with which he could tar the Christian faith (and conveniently ignoring the fact that the Crusades were undertaken as a defensive reaction against 400+ years of Muslim aggression across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe), our President latched on to that same tenuous grip on relevancy that the Fonz had as he entered the water and jumped the shark.
Thank you, Mr. President for confirming to one and all your complete lack of connection with the real world.
To steal a quote from your 2008 debate with Mitt Romney, “the 11th Century is now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”
You don’t have to agree with what Charlie Hebdo published – I certainly didn’t – to stand up and LOUDLY shout that they protected everyone’s free speech rights against brutal, totalitarian Islamic terrorism and deserve to be remembered for their bravery.
The funny thing – if you can take anything funny or good from terrorism and murder – is that these islamist butchers and their supporters have made the murdered staff of Charlie Hebdo into martyrs for the cause of freedom and have greatly increased the world’s interest in their work.
Sad to see so many in the media rushing to apologize for Charlie Hebdo and demanding that we censor ourselves and ‘live on our knees’ in submission to radical islamist terror.
Lest we forget – “I’d rather die on my feet than live on my knees.” –Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier (1967 – 2015), publisher, Charlie Hebdo.
This video speaks for itself and it speaks volumes about the mindset of people who attend and work at UC Berkeley.
The AEI post about relative tax burdens borne by Americans is (to say the very least) an eye-opener. Using CBO data, this post shows that the top quintile not only pays it’s “fair” share of federal taxes. People in the top quintile essentially pay the full share of American taxes.
Once federal taxes and transfers are taken into account, the top two quintiles bear the full burden of all federal taxes. That means that the bottom 60% of American earners receive more from the federal government than they pay in.
A final update note to the article also notes that the U.S. has the “most progressive tax system among all OECD countries.” So the notion that America is some wild west, laissez-faire, wilderness where the poor and indigent are left to care for themselves is shown to be a complete and total farce … a prevarication … an oversimplification … an equivocation … a flat out lie. The supposedly more progressive European nations make their poor pay a higher level of taxes and take less in taxes from the uber wealthy than does the American system.
The graph speaks volumes to the massive load of bravo sierra we have been fed by progressive thinkers for years on the issue of relative tax burdens. When we hear from politicians like President Obama saying that the “rich” don’t pay their “fair share,” more of us now have the information to stand up and say that they are not only paying their fair share, they are paying almost everyone else’s share as well.
The unbridled arrogance of Obamacare architect, Jonathan Gruber, clearly knows no bounds.
If you dare to express concerns about the “Affordable Care Act,” you are nothing more than a small, noisy child in Gruber’s mind. His words indicate a seething contempt for you and your perceived inability to comprehend the nuanced import of the legislation, or to express an intelligent argument against it.
It doesn’t matter what your abilities, education, experience, or background might be. Even “a former senior policy adviser in the White House” can be quickly dismissed as an “adolescent” by this towering intellect, who has been made wealthy by the very tax dollars to which you juveniles so desperately (and ignorantly) cling.
You won’t hear these arguments from the mainstream media, so you should listen to President Obama as he becomes his own best critic on the issue of whether or not he should unilaterally move to grant amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S.
“I am not a dictator, I’m the President.”
The fundamental article of my political creed is that despotism, or unlimited sovereignty, or absolute power, is the same in a majority of a popular assembly, an aristocratic council, an oligarchical junto, and a single emperor.
– John Adams, Letter to Thomas Jefferson [November 13, 1815]
It’s worth reading this amusing Spectator blog post that looks at the decline of “pop-science” author/speaker/professor Richard Dawkins in the eyes of the politically-correct left. Now that they recognize his anger, vitriol, and invective have not been saved solely for the Christian church, he’s suddenly become a ‘bigot.’
Pass the popcorn bowl people, this one should be good for a laugh.
As I said at the time, that article — in the Washington Post, no less — ‘conjures up the image of a nasty old man who’s losing his marbles. It’s not very nice about the Pope, either.’ But Dawkins has not become any crazier in the intervening four years; he’s simply widened his attack on blind faith, as he sees it, to include Muslims and feminists.
In the process, he’s exposed a rich vein of hypocrisy in the Left — and, more significantly, an intellectual rift between hard-line and multiculturalist atheists. That rift is growing fast: non-believers, having exhausted their anti-Christian rhetoric, are turning on each other with the ferocity of religious zealots. Enjoy.