Advertisements
Home

AMERICA: Designed by Geniuses, but run by IDIOTS! (Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Clintons, etc.)

Leave a comment

Advertisements

Harry Reid on Helping Kids With Cancer: “Why Would We Want To Do That?”

Leave a comment

This is from LifeNews.

These comments are coming from a misleader from a party that swears

everything they do is for the chikdren.

DemocRats want to ban guns,video games,trans fats and so on for the children.

There is a special place in Hell for Dingy Harry Reid.

 

 

With a government shutdown over the issue of Obamacare and its abortion funding occupying most of the political debate, Democratic Senate leader Harry Reid put his foot in his mouth in a big way today.

The House is set to vote today on H.J. Res. 73, the Research for Lifesaving Cures Act, which ensures funding for the National Institutes of Health during the government shutdown over the Obamacare debate, but Reid said Senate Democrats aren’t interested in the House Republican bill.

IN a CNN interview, Reid responded:

CNN: “If you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?”

Sen. Reid: “Why would we want to do that?”

The full transcript appears below:

DANA BASH: You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials. The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds at least the NIH. Given what you’ve said, will you at least pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?

HARRY REID: Listen, Sen. Durbin explained that very well, and he did it here, did it on the floor earlier, as did Sen. Schumer. What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded? It’s obvious what’s going on here. You talk about reckless and irresponsible. Wow. What this is all about is Obamacare. They are obsessed. I don’t know what other word I can use. They’re obsessed with this Obamacare. It’s working now and it will continue to work and people will love it more than they do now by far. So they have no right to pick and choose.

BASH: But if you can help one child who has cancer, why wouldn’t you do it?

REID: Why would we want to do that? I have 1,100 people at Nellis Air Force base that are sitting home. They have a few problems of their own. This is — to have someone of your intelligence to suggest such a thing maybe means you’re irresponsible and reckless –

BASH: I’m just asking a question.

 

MSNBC Has Full Deck of Race Cards

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

PMSNBC sees a racist under every bed and behind every tree.

Now we know why not even the Hubble telescope can’t find

the ratings for PMSNBC.

“Why do they seem so determined to also make it racial?”

So asks Joy-Ann Reid, the managing editor of The Grio, a web magazine owned by NBC News whose mission is to “focus on news and events that have a unique interest and/or pronounced impact within the national African Americans audience.” The “they” in question are conservatives and journalists asking, among other things, why President Obama hasn’t inserted himself into this case the way he did in the Trayvon Martin tragedy.

The irony-impaired Reid was asking that question about a heinous murder in Oklahoma, where, according to police, an Australian student was shot by a black youth with the help of two friends (one of whom was white) “for the fun of it.” Police allege that the bored teens spotted Christopher Lane jogging and decided to follow him and shoot him in the back.

Reid asked the question while guest-hosting a show on MSNBC, a network that has mastered the art of making unracial things racial. Just two days earlier, Reid had insisted that there’s a “neoconfederate thread” running through the gun-rights movement. Whatever that means.

Then there’s MSNBC fixture Chris Matthews, who insists, with considerable regularity, that any criticism of Barack Obama is driven by “white supremacy.” Critics of Obamacare, Matthews claims, believe that “the white race must rule.”

Another MSNBC host, Martin Bashir, recently insisted that outrage over the ongoing scandal at the IRS is really nothing more than coded racism. The IRS is the new “n-word” according to Bashir. “So this afternoon, we welcomed the latest phrase in the lexicon of Republican attacks on this president: the IRS. Three letters that sound so innocent but we know what you mean.”

Lawrence O’Donnell, another MSNBC host, assured viewers during the Republican National Convention last summer that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell‘s joke about Obama playing too much golf was really a deliberate racist dog whistle. “These people,” O’Donnell insisted, “reach for every single possible racial double entendre they can find in every one of these speeches.”

And that of course leaves out Al Sharpton, an MSNBC host who can best be understood as the racial equivalent of an ambulance chaser.

Against this backdrop, Reid asking why anyone would bring race into the discussion is a bit like a pornographer asking, “Why make this about sex?”

But let’s get back to her question. One high-minded response might be that conservatives are bringing race into this discussion because they are simply doing what has been asked of them by Reid and countless others, including the president and the attorney general: They’re trying to have that coveted “national conversation about race.” Of course, the conversation that the conversation-mongers want is entirely one-sided; they only want to talk about why their ideological enemies are racists. Any other discussion is an incomprehensible and unjustifiable tangent distracting us from what they want to hear and say.

But the truth is, that’s not what is going on. To the extent that people are bringing up race it is to turn the tables, rhetorically at least, on people like Reid and her MSNBC colleagues for their relentless — some might say shameless and disgusting — effort to exploit the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Recall that there was no evidence Zimmerman was motivated by racial animus, a fact so inconvenient to NBC News that it unethically edited Zimmerman’s 911 call to make it sound like he was racist. (NBC later apologized and Zimmerman is rightly suing.) This inconvenient truth was also why numerous news outlets insisted on describing Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic” — to bend the facts to fit the preferred narrative.

Australian and British newspapers — which do not care about imposing a monolithic liberal narrative on race — are reporting that Lane’s alleged murderers may have been driven by motives other than boredom. But even if the initial reporting proves accurate and these thugs were just trying to break the monotony of the dog days of summer, the lesson for the MSNBC crowd should be the same.

From Obama down to his cheerleaders in the press, liberals have declared unremitting war on their ideological opponents, cynically polarizing the country along racial — and, when possible, gender — lines. They, not conservatives, have been the ones dragging race into any and every political dispute they can. This disgusting strategy has worked well for them, galvanizing minority voters and tarring the Republican brand. I don’t particularly welcome the fact that conservatives are fighting fire with fire, but you can hardly blame them given how liberals like Reid have been asking for it for so long.

REID BLOCKS SENATE VOTE ON BORDER SECURITY AMENDMENT TO IMMIGRATION BILL

Leave a comment

This is from Breitbarts Big Government.

The fix is in to boost DemocRat voters.

Obama want to relegate the Republican Party to obscurity.

Illegal voters in Kalifornia has relegated the Republican Party

to a small unimportant minority.

 

On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) blocked a vote on the border security amendment to the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill offered by Senate Judiciary Committee ranking member Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

Grassley was pushing for an up-or-down vote by the Senate on his amendment, which would have required the border to be secured for six full months before any legalization of illegal immigrants in America began. Reid objected to Grassley’s motion, effectively implementing a 60-vote threshold that completely blocked any attempt at a fair vote on the amendment.

Grassley protested Reid’s plan, which the Senate Majority Leader laughed off. “I’m somewhat surprised at this request,” Reid said in response. “How many times have we heard the Republican Leader say on this floor and publicly that the new reality in the United States Senate is 60?”

So I just thought I was following the direction of the Republican Leader. I mean, this is what he said. That’s why we’re having 60 votes on virtually everything. And with this bill, with this bill, no one can in any way suggest this bill is not important and these amendments aren’t important. So, I care a great deal about my friend, the ranking member on this committee, but I object.

Grassley responded with fury to Reid’s obstruction. “Well, it’s amazing to me that the majority has touted this immigration bill process as one that is open and regular order, but right out of the box, just on the third day, they want to subject our amendments to a filibuster like a 60-vote threshold.”

“So I have to ask, who is obstructing now?” Grassley said. “There is no reason, particularly in this first week, at the beginning of the process, to be blocking our amendments with a 60-vote margin that’s required when you suppose there is a filibuster.”

Grassley said the Senate should “at least start out” the immigration process with “regular order.”

“Otherwise, it really looks like the fix is in and the bill is rigged to pass basically as it is,” Grassley said. “Bottom line, you should have seen how the 18 members of the Judiciary Committee operated for five or six days over a two-week period of time.”

“Everything was open, everything was transparent,” he explained. “There was a complete cooperation between the majority and the minority, and there is no reason why we can’t do that out here in the United States Senate right now and particularly at the beginning.”

“This is a very provocative act,” Grassley warned.

Grassley was not the only senator who expressed dissatisfaction with the process Reid was using on the Senate floor. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who voted in favor of the bill coming out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said during a floor speech that he is concerned votes on his amendments will be blocked as well.

“I was promised by leaders in the Gang of Eight they would work with me, that they would help me to get these things done,” Hatch said. “I consider those promises to be very important, and yet I’ve had some indication over the last few days that maybe they’re not going to work with me.”

“I don’t think anybody’s acted in better good faith than I have,” Hatch claimed. “As I’ve said, I’d like to support the bill, and make no mistake about it, I don’t want people stiffing me on things I consider to be important without even talking, without even working with me to resolve any problems they may have. And, I’m not the kind of guy who takes that lightly.”

Hatch went on to say he thinks there is “too much partisanship around here anyway.”

“If this is going to be a political exercise, count me out,” Hatch said. “If this is an exercise to really try and resolve the amnesty issues, if it’s an exercise to really really try and resolve these critical issues, I can be counted in.”

“Maybe I don’t mean that much in this debate, but if you look at some of the major sections of this bill, I helped work them out and I’ll help work out this bill not only with colleagues on this side but with colleagues on the other side of Capitol Hill. And I don’t want to be stiffed at this time and I’m not the kind of guy who takes stiffing lightly,” Hatch warned.

 

Assault weapons ban dropped from Senate gun control bill

3 Comments

This is from Fox News Politics.

Attention Gun Owners do not let your guard down.

This action by Dingy Harry is an end run.

Dingy knows he can not muster the DemocRat votes.

But Dianne FrankenFeinstein will offer it as an amendment.

The amendment will be attach to an important bill.

The the DemocRats will say we had to vote for the bill.

 

The leader of the Democrat-controlled Senate on Tuesday dropped a proposed assault weapons ban from the chamber’s gun-control package – dealing a blow to supporters of the ban, though it could still come up for a vote.

The sponsor of the measure, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., revealed that Reid told her the proposed ban would not be in the initial package. Feinstein said she’s “disappointed” with the decision, and is expected to nevertheless offer it as an amendment.

But the move by Reid to cut it from the main bill signals a lack of congressional support for a proposal that would not only revive, but strengthen, the decade-long ban that expired in 2004.

The proposed ban passed was passed last week by the Senate Judiciary Committee, along with three other measures. The others dealt with providing more school safety aid, expanding federal background checks on potential gun buyers and helping authorities prosecute illegal gun traffickers.

Feinstein has led the gun-control charge since President Obama called for federal legislation in the wake of the Newtown and other mass shootings.

The assault weapons ban was the most controversial of the major proposals to restrict guns that have been advanced by Obama and Senate Democrats. Because of that, it had been expected that the assault weapons measure would be left out of the initial package the Senate considers, with Democrats hoping the Senate could in turn amass the strongest possible vote for the overall legislation.

There are 53 Democrats in the Senate, plus two independents who usually vote with them.

Having a separate vote on assault weapons might free moderate Democratic senators facing re-election next year in Republican-leaning states to vote against the assault weapons measure, but then support the remaining overall package of gun curbs.

Gun control supporters consider a strong Senate vote important because the Republican-run House has shown little enthusiasm for most of Obama’s proposals.

Feinstein said Reid told her there would be two additional votes. One would be on her assault weapons ban, which also includes a ban on ammunition magazines that carry more than 10 rounds. The second would just be on prohibiting the high-capacity magazine clips.

Many Democrats think the ban on large-capacity magazines has a better chance of getting 60 votes than the assault weapons ban.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/19/reid-cuts-assault-weapons-ban-from-senate-gun-control-bill-amid-waning-support/#ixzz2O2Flu8vh

 

 

 

INDICTED BUSINESSMAN NAMES HARRY REID AS ALLEGED RECIPIENT OF MASSIVE BRIBE

1 Comment

This is from The Blaze.

This story has never been in the Obama media.

So we need to get this all over the new media.

A Utah businessman is rocking both state and national politics after claiming Utah Attorney General John Swallow helped him broker a deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to make a federal investigation into his company quietly disappear, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

Jeremy Johnson was allegedly told that the price would be $600,000, and claims to have made an initial payment of $250,000 when he was slapped with a federal lawsuit.  Now he says he wants his money back.

The Salt Lake Tribune points out that Johnson has no way of knowing whether the funds actually made it to Reid, even if he did make a massive payment to Reid’s alleged intermediary.

The Salt Lake Tribune continues, explaining how the bribe supposedly came to be in 2010:

At the time, Johnson was largely known in Utah as a wealthy philanthropist who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to ferry supplies into Haiti after the devastating 2010 earthquake.

[…]

Then, with the FTC investigation continuing, Johnson said Swallow suggested Reid could make problems with regulators go away — for a price.

“I said, ‘OK, what do I need to do?’ He’s like, ‘OK, it costs money,’ ” Johnson said, who claimed Swallow was adamant he make a deal.

“I think he told me, ‘Richard Rawle has a connection with Harry Reid,’ ” Johnson said.

He said Swallow at first wanted $2 million to enlist Reid’s help. But [his company] I Works was no longer profitable and he did not have the money, Johnson said, so they eventually agreed on $300,000 upfront and $300,000 later.

Swallow put Johnson in contact with Rawle, whose company has operations in Nevada…

Rawle, who died of cancer last month, had contributed to Reid’s 2010 re-election bid and later bragged to Johnson that the Nevada Democrat helped him delay new federal payday-loan regulations, Johnson said.

On Sept. 29, 2010, Swallow sent an email to Johnson with the subject line “Mtg. with Harry Reid’s contact.”

“Richard [Rawle] is traveling to LV tomorrow and will be able to contact this person, who he has a very good relationship with. He needs a brief narrative of what is going on and what you want to happen. I don’t know the cost, but it probably won’t be cheap.”

On Oct. 7, Johnson emailed Rawle, insisting there was “rock solid proof” the FTC allegations against I Works were false. “We will do whatever it take[s] to get Senator Reid on our side and hopefully you can help make it happen. Let me know.”

Johnson spent 96 days in jail and has released a number of emails and statements seemingly corroborating parts of his story.  However, Swallow insists that Johnson is making “false and defamatory accusations” and that any role he may have played was merely for lobbying purposes.

“There’s nothing wrong with that,” Swallow stated. “As long as I’m not interfering with a government agency as a government official, there’s nothing wrong with me being involved.”

But Johnson told a judge he’s felt guilty about the situation from the start: “The truth is the worst thing I think I’ve done was I paid money knowing it was going to influence Harry Reid…So I’ve felt all along that I’ve committed bribery of some sort there.”

Though the connection to Reid remains unverified, some are remembering how Reid claimed on the Senate floor that Mitt Romney hadn’t paid his taxes for ten years based on far less evidence.

A Las Vegas Review-Journal blog jokes about how Reid might address the situation, if looking in from the outside:

I have a “source” that says that Harry Reid takes bribes all the time. In fact, if you want anything done out of his office, you must come with a suitcase of cash just to get an audience. That’s how he’s gotten so rich on a senator’s salary. He stashes his money in an offshore bank account. And, as a sidebar for Salt Lake church execs, he hasn’t tithed on that bribe money.

Senator Harry Reid’s office has declined to comment.

​Click here to read the entire Salt Lake Tribune article.

 

 

It Begins: Reid Proposes Changing Filibuster Rules

Leave a comment

This is from Town Hall.

It seems Dingy Harry wants to change the rule to silence the minority party.

Dingy Harry come the midterms you could very well be the minority party.

Then you rule change will bite you in your butt.

No one should be the least bit surprised; Reid’s been talking about this for awhile, and even moved unilaterally to alter long-standing Senate rules to shield his members from difficult votes last year (mission accomplished).  Filibuster “reform:” Coming soon to a Senate near you?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday that he will try to push through a change to Senate rules that would limit the GOP’s ability to filibuster bills. Speaking in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which boosted Senate Democrats’ numbers slightly, Mr. Reid said he won’t end filibusters altogether but that the rules need to change so that the minority party cannot use the legislative blocking tool as often. “I think that the rules have been abused and that we’re going to work to change them,” he told reporters. “Were not going to do away with the filibuster but we’re going to make the Senate a more meaningful place.” Republicans, who have 47 of the chamber’s 100 seats in this current Congress, have repeatedly used that strong minority to block parts of President Obama’s agenda on everything from added stimulus spending to his judicial picks.

A filibuster takes 60 senators to overcome it. Leaders of both parties have been reluctant to change the rules because they value it as a tool when they are in the minority. But Mr. Reid said things changed over the last few years when he repeatedly faced off against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, who had said his chief political goal was defeating Mr. Obama. Mr. Reid said that led the GOP to abuse the filibuster.

Reid’s rationale is faulty and hypocritical.  I suspect he knows this, but doesn’t care — after all, his underhanded tactics and dereliction of duty was rewarded at the polls.  The historic uptick in attempted and threatened Republican “filibusters” (or some variant thereof) has correlated directly with Reid’s strong-arm tactics as majority leader.  To an unprecedented degree, Reid has denied the minority the right to even offer amendments to legislation, meaning that Republicans would have no input in the structure or content of these laws.  Reid has employed this maneuver, known as “filling the amendment tree,” more than his six immediate predecessors combined.  The reason he’s done so is to prevent the GOP from advancing amendments that would paint Democrats into difficult political corners, a check on power that Senate minorities from both parties have used for decades.  Republicans essentially argued that if Reid insists on shutting them out of the legislation-crafting process, their only remaining recourse is threatening to block the entire bill, hence their filibuster “abuse.”  The best solution to this problem would be for the Senate leadership to hammer out a compromise that would significantly curb the majority “filling the tree,” in exchange for the minority curtailing their filibuster posturing.  Are our leaders capable of this?  Four final points:

(1) Even if Republicans were itching to “abuse” the filibuster to shut down a Democratic budget, they couldn’t.  Budgets only require a simple majority to pass.  Democrats have held a simple majority in the Senate for six years.  They haven’t even attempted to pass a budget for the last three.  The purpose, again, was to avoid putting their own unpopular ideas on paper, thus liberating them to simply criticize the other side’s solutions.  This cynical ploy was vindicated on election day, sadly.

(2) Democrats cite Republicans’ inexcusable obstruction of President Obama’s judicial appointments as a pressing cause for change.  In fact, the GOP has used the judicial filibuster sparingly (their frustration over this form of filibuster nearly triggered filibuster changes in 2005), adhering to the bipartisan “Gang of 14” compromise, as well as the so-called Thurmond/Leahy rule (under which the opposition blocks judicial appointments in the months leading up to a presidential election).

(3) When some Republicans proposed the “nuclear option” to limit filibusters of judicial appointees by changing the rules during the Bush years, Democrats melted down.  This idea amounted to a mortal threat to the republic, they argued in hysterical floor speeches.  California’s Diane Feinstein gravely warned that the Republican plan would put the Senate on a slippery slope — ultimately leading to tampering with the sacred legislative filibuster…which is precisely what Reid is moving to do now.  Flashback:

(4) Maybe Reid can also work on abolishing the House of Representatives while he’s at it.

 

Harry Reid not releasing his own tax returns

1 Comment

 

This is from The Politico.

Dingy Harry Reid that Mitt Romney needs to release his tax returns.

Well it is time to Dingy Harry Reid to do the same.

Lets use Dingy Harry Reids’s own words from 1974 about taxes.

Reid said “Any man or woman who will not completely candid,

about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”

How about it Dingy will you be completely candid?

LAS VEGAS — Senate Majority Harry Reid again deflected questions Monday about releasing his tax returns, even as he continued to pound the demand for Mitt Romney to make more of his own public.

Instead, Reid pointed to the financial disclosure forms he files as a member of Congress, which provide different information.

“I’m a member of Congress now, I don’t make too much money,” said Reid, whose net worth was estimated at $10 million in 2010. “But it’s all listed every year.”

(Also on POLITICO: Reid’s chief denounces ‘cowards’)

Reid spokesman Adam Jentleson told POLITICO last week that the majority leader will not release his tax returns, writing: “He’s not running for president. … He has of course released more than 30 years of detailed [personal finance disclosures]. There is exponentially more information available to the public about Senator Reid’s financial life than there is about Mitt Romney’s.”

Conservatives have begun accusing Reid of hypocrisy for his attacks on Romney. And the Las Vegas Review-Journal — in a somewhat different context — on Monday resurrected a 1974 statement in which Reid said: “Any man or woman who will not be completely candid about his or her finances does not deserve to be in public office.”

Asked about that statement at a news conference Monday in Nevada, Reid responded: “In 1974 I wasn’t in Congress.

“All you have to do is go look,” he added. “I file every year, every stock trade, every piece of land I buy, all the money I have, it has the value of my homes, it’s got it all there.”

 

Surprise: Obama Campaign Explicitly Approved Reid’s Anti-Romney Lies

1 Comment

 

This is from Town Hall.

I think Karl Rove is spot on with his comments.

What happened to Obama changing  they way things are in politics?

It seems Obama has taken dirty tricks to a new low.

Earlier this morning, Karl Rove appeared on Fox & Friends to discuss Harry Reid‘s reckless accusations against Mitt Romney.  In case you’re just joining this controversy, the Senate Majority Leader has spent the last few days peddling a scurrilous and evidence-free claim that Romney is a serial tax evader.  Rove wondered aloud why our fraudulent post-partisan prince of a president hasn’t denounced Reid:

There’s a pretty straightforward answer to this question.  Obama isn’t lifting a finger to put an end to this slanderous side-show because his campaign specifically gave Reid the green light to launch these baseless attacks.  Politico reports:

The ruthless Senate majority leader sees political gold in his attack on Romney — and he’s got the blessing from President Barack Obama’s campaign for the attack, even if he lacks evidence on Romney’s failure to pay taxes. Reid has calculated that the frenzy created by his charge has accomplished exactly what he sought to do: Turn the focus back onto the GOP nominee’s unreleased tax returns, according to several people close to the leader and the campaign. For Reid, he’s got virtually nothing to lose: His approval ratings back home are still upside-down, and he may not even run for reelection when he’s up for a sixth term in 2016. On top of that, his aides say, Reid genuinely believes his source

As far as Reid and Obama are concerned, the more we’re discussing this foundationless rumor, the less we’re discussing the president’s egregious record of economic failure.  Three quick points:

(1) Even if Reid has  special “source” inside Bain, which I sincerely doubt, said informant would have no access to Romney’s personal tax returns.

(2) A former McCain aide who vetted Romney as a potential Vice Presidential pick in 2008 has reviewed many years of the current presumptive nominee’s tax returns.  He says everything was totally in order, and if anything, Mitt overpaid.

(3) Here’s a quote from a “top Reid confidant,” explaining Democrats‘ thinking on this smear campaign:

“What Republicans don’t get is the more they fire back at Reid, the more he will fight, and in the end, what will the topic be? Romney and his taxes.

How does one effectively combat an opponent with no shame, no decency, and not even a tenuous commitment to the truth?  One option is to take the high road, fight the smears, and continue to push your message.  For the record, this is the road I would personally recommend.  (“Oh, that’s interesting Harry — get back to me when you have some evidence.  Incidentally, have you seen the latest jobs report?”)  Another option is to get down into the Democrats’ mud and fight dirty.  As amusing as the Reid/pedophilia “accusation” saga is — and we still haven’t seen firm proof that the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t fondle little boys — it won’t break through and capture the narrative spotlight.  If Republicans are interested in getting nasty and force-feeding Democrats some of their own repulsive medicine, they would need to make it about Obama.  Here’s what they could do (not an endorsement, just an illustration):  Get a senior and high-profile Republican member of Congress to give an on-the-record “scoop” to a site like, say, Townhall.com.  Let’s use Sen. John McCain as an example; as a former presidential nominee and a media fixture, he’d do the trick.  McCain could say that he’s heard from “a source” inside the Justice Department that President Obama exerted executive privilege in the Fast & Furious scandal because he didn’t want the public to discover that he himself ordered the operation.  McCain might add that he isn’t totally sure if the leak is true, but he still believes it to be accurate — and that it is up to Obama to release every single document pertaining to Fast & Furious to prove that he didn’t directly order it.  After all, the president has been extremely secretive about the program, even as hundreds of its murdered victims’ families demand justice.  Romney wouldn’t have to comment on the allegation, aside from affirming that Americans “deserve answers” about the lethal gun-running operation. (The public agrees).  McCain could keep making the allegation day after day, with Democrats rushing to condemn him.  The truth wouldn’t matter, though; the more they’d fire back at McCain, the more he’d fight, and in the end, what would the topic be?  Barack Obama’s bloody scandal that killed hundreds of innocent people, including a US border agent.   See how this works?

The above scenario is a nearly perfect parallel to what Democrats are doing now, except Obama’s scandal actually exists, and real blood has been spilled.  The only stretch/fabrication would be Obama’s direct involvement in it, rather than just his Attorney General.  There are, of course, a few problems with this scenario: First, the media simply would not abide such tactics from Republicans (even as the cover Reid’s lying buffoonery as a partisan squabble), and second, John McCain is an honorable man.  Democrats are working with two insurmountable advantages here — a press that covers for them, and a surplus of dishonorable actors.

 

Senator Reid Calls Criticism of Nuclear Chief a ‘Witch Hunt

Leave a comment

 

The article below is from Fox News.
After reading the article I know why Dingy Harry has his pants is a wad.
The NRC chief is a former aide to Dingy Harry.
Is this how he got the job?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid defended Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko on Saturday, calling criticism by four other NRC commissioners “a politically motivated witch hunt.”
Reid’s defense of Jaczko, a former Reid aide, went far beyond statements of praise and included a sharp critique of the four NRC commissioners — including two Democrats.
“It is sad to see those who would place the interests of a single industry over the safety of the American people wage a politically-motivated witch hunt against a man with a proven track record of ensuring that nuclear power is produced as safely and responsibly as possible,” Reid’s office said in a statement Saturday.

 

The four NRC commissioners said in a letter to the White House that they have “grave concerns” about Jaczko. They said his bullying style is “causing serious damage” to the commission and creating a “chilled work environment at the NRC.”
The letter was written Oct. 13 but was made public late Friday. It stops short of calling for the chairman to resign, but says Jaczko’s actions could adversely affect the agency’s mission to protect health and safety at the nation’s 104 commercial nuclear reactors.
Among other claims, the letter says Jaczko “intimidated and bullied” senior career staff, ordered staff to withhold information and ignored the will of the panel’s majority. The letter was signed by Democrats William Magwood and George Apostolakis, as well as Republicans Kristine Svinicki and William Ostendorff.
Jaczko, in a detailed response also sent to the White House, said problems at the agency were not his fault but instead stem from “lack of understanding” on the part of the other four commissioners.
Rep. John Shimkus, R-Ill., said Saturday that Jaczko should be fired.
Shimkus, who chairs an Energy and Commerce subcommittee on environment and the economy, said President Barack Obama “has a responsibility to correct deficiencies in the executive branch — and obviously this is a clear deficiency.” Shimkus led a hearing this spring that centered on Jaczko’s leadership style, and complaints that he is autocratic and ignores his fellow commissioners.
“I would have thought that would have given (Jaczko) an opportunity to kind of turn things around. It seems like things got worse, not better,” Shimkus said.
A spokesman for the White House declined to comment Saturday.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., supported Jaczko, saying Saturday that the NRC needs to move away from a “do nothing” culture.
Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, praised Jaczko for a “swift and effective response” to Japan’s nuclear crisis and said the NRC commissioners should support Jaczko “as he translates the lessons of Fukushima into an action plan that will make America’s nuclear plants the safest in the world.”
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., also backed Jaczko. Late Friday, Markey made public a 23-page report accusing the four NRC commissioners of trying to impede U.S. nuclear safety reviews after the Japan crisis.
“Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four commissioners have attempted a coup on the chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America’s nuclear industry,” said Markey, a longtime nuclear critic.
Jaczko was an aide to Markey before joining Reid’s staff.
The dispute comes after an inspector general’s report released in June exposed long-simmering internal strife under Jaczko. In August, Republican senators asked the inspector general to investigate whether Jaczko had authority to declare the Japan nuclear crisis an emergency — which grants him additional powers — since the crisis occurred on foreign soil.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/11/senator-reid-calls-criticism-nuclear-chief-witch-hunt/#ixzz1gEjtiG3a

 

Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: