Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has become a man of great consistency; every time he opens his mouth, something stupid comes out. As an example, he labels the protestors in the recent Bundy ranch debate as “domestic terrorists.” Excerpt:
Senator Harry Reid has made a habit of saying stuff with no basis in fact and then repeating it, as if by sheer repetition the lie will become truth.
Remember his lie that “an anonymous source” told him Mitt Romney paid no income taxes for 10 years? Tax experts and fact checkers called this a load of codswallop. But Reid continued to make the charge on the Senate floor, thus assuring that the lie would have plenty of exposure.
Now comes Reid’s willfully exaggerated and hysterical claim that protestors on the Bundy Ranch were “domestic terrorists” – apparently because some of them were armed. No shots were fired. The only violence occurred when the feds confronted peaceful, apparently unarmed protestors.
Now, it’s inarguable that Cliven Bundy was grazing his cattle on BLM land without paying any grazing fees. Like it or not, he was breaking the law, and was defiant in so doing – but does that merit the mobilization of over 200 armed troops on the part of the Imperial Federal government? What warrants that? What warrants snipers on hilltops? What warrants a veritable army deployed to collect grazing fees in arrears? Is Cliven Bundy such a fearful figure?
Mind you this is a government that called the attack on our Benghazi consulate a “spontaneous protest,” and the mass murder committed by jihadist Major Nidal Hasan “workplace violence.” But a genuine spontaneous protest at the Bundy ranch – some of the protesters were, yes, bearing arms, legally, as they have every right to do, but there were zero deaths, zero injuries, save whatever minor injuries Cliven Bundy’s son suffered from being shoved to the ground and tased.
These people are what Harry Reid – who shall henceforth be known on this pages by his proper and well-deserved title, “that asshole Harry Reid,” calls “domestic terrorists?”
This man bears the same title that was once borne by the likes of Marcus Porcius Cato, Marcus Tullius Cicero, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster. It is a title for which he has repeatedly shown himself to be manifestly undeserving.