Hot-Rod Harry is off his meds again.

The Senior Senator from Nevada had this to say in an interview with HuffPo:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has what he says is an informed explanation for why Mitt Romney refuses to release additional tax returns. According a Bain investor, Reid charged, Romney didn't pay any taxes for 10 years.

I just.. I mean.. how did he…. SAY WHAT???

Those of you who have followed politics and especially the Senate will not have to go back too far to remember Senator Robert Byrd. I'll not go into the KKK membership of his youth, what I want you too remember that at the last throes of his career, every time he got up to speak the other members of his caucus were on tender hooks waiting to spin whatever bovine excrement that was sure to come out of his mouth. Point in fact, anybody remember this one (skip to the 1:10 mark for the money shot)?


 
My point in bringing up Byrd is that he added nothing to the Senate at that point in his life. Likewise, Reid is now clear of the proverbial shark by a good mile and a half. In his interview, he claims that Mitt Romney who has been in the public for more than 20 years and has a ton of money hasn't paid taxes for 10 Years? Really? And, Reid's 'informant' is an investor? What the hell does that mean.


Exit Question: What does Reid do all day? He hasn't passed a budget (required by law by the way) in 4 years. What are the people in Nevada paying this guy for?

Proven: Blacks 4 times more racist than whites!

Recently Virginia State Senator L. Louise Lucas not only suggested but actually insisted that as a matter of indisputable fact Mitt Romney is - wait for it - racist!:

State Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), a campaign surrogate for President Obama in Virginia, said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is appealing to racists who do not want a black man in the White House.

Asked on a Hampton Roads radio show why the former Massachusetts governor had been able to pull even with President Obama in a recent poll, Lucas said the problem was race

"Mitt Romney, he's speaking to ... a segment of the population who does not like to see people other than a white man in the White House or in any other elective position," Lucas said Tuesday. "Let's be real clear about it — Mitt Romney is speaking to a group of people out there who don't like folks like President Barack Obama in any elective or leadership position. We know what's going on here. And some people may be afraid to say it, but I'm not. ... He's speaking to that fringe out there who do not want to see anybody but a white person in a leadership position."

Wow, not mincing words here, for the Honorable L. Louise Lucas to be able to make this claim she must have some pretty good evidence to back it up - Right? Right?

<insert crickets chirping here>

Uh actually no. She simply threw out the claim fresh from her posterior as if it were perfectly obvious that anyone with the audacity to run against his highness - The One - had to be a card carrying member of the KKK.

That being said I tried to 'help a sista out' by doing something that I am sure Ms. Lucas has never once in her life done and that is to try to find something to backup the bile she so casually tosses out. Henceforth I found in yesterday's Rasmussen's daily tracking poll that - gulp - she might be right because Romney has a 20 point lead among whites!!!

Lordy Jesus, Say it ain't so!

Oh but wait a cotton picking minute - in that same poll it appears that Obama (oddly enough a black man) enjoys an 82% lead among blacks!

Hmmmm, so that means one of two things. Either blacks are four times more racist than whites orrrrrr maybe, just maybe, a majority of whites have had enough of the "hope and change" nonsense and are voting in their best interest (regardless of race) and by golly blacks might just be doing the same thing too.

Nah - forget that - it's much easier to just play the race card.

My guess is that Ms. Lucas is as vacuous as most of the elected officials we have at every level of government. Where rhetoric is much more politically valuable than actually knowing what the hell you are talking about because politics are not about solving problems anymore, but rather, getting as much face time as possible to get that next vote.

And you wonder why these guys are going out of business

Really? That's where they want to go?


At least Romney doesn't throw like a girl..

More guns not less would have minimized CO massacre deaths

Today New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg asked the two candidates for president how they were going to address the massacre in Colorado:

"I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, it's just got to stop. And instead of the two people – President Obama and [Gov.] Romney – talking in broad things about they want to make the world a better place, [OK], tell us how."

Here's how - start by making it easier (not harder) for law abiding citizens to obtain and carry weapons AT ALL TIMES. My point is - How many would have died in the Aurora massacre if just 1% of the moviegoers were exercising their second amendment rights and packing heat? As it was, the gunman had absolutely no resistance at all. He had a theater full of sheep.

But the liberals' answer - in typical knee-jerk simpleton reaction - is to 'ban all the guns' and the problem will be solved. Of course, this course of action has been proven wrong over and over and over again. Just ask Mayor Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. DC? Since their enforcement of more stringent gun ownership (effectively making it virtually impossible for citizens to obtain weapons) gun related murder rates have skyrocketed.

The answer is more armed citizens not less but this will never be an option for the liberals. Why? because it puts the citizen in control and not the government and that just can't happen. The liberals would much rather sacrifice a few of the electorate than relinquish one iota of control over our lives. Their goal is nothing less than utter and total gun ban. And as usual they are 180 degrees off (just like their view on raising taxes during a recession).

If Romney really wanted to make this event into something positive he should embrace making it easier for citizens to get weapons not harder. It may not be popular with the MSM but it would certainly draw a surefire difference between his vision of America and his opponents'. 

For more evidence that more guns are better see the post right before this one

Exit question: Which of the two gun related events this week will get the most play from the MSM?

This is why we have the 2nd Amendment

How long would it take the cops to get there? My guess is a lot more time than Mr. Williams' bullet took to introduce itself to Messrs Henderson and Dawkins.