Want to see why I have grown to hate the left?

Check out the story, which is just rife with hatred towards Conservative Bloggers, Race Baiting and has a rather horrible photo-shop of Michelle Malkin.

Go here.

I mean, even HotAir covered this and dismissed it. Did they bother to mention that? Nope. Which is why I never bothered blogging about it. Most usually, if a story doesn’t pass AllahPundit’s or Ed’s smell test, I usually refrain.

I seem to remember that on March 4, 2010, word came that a liberal satirist blogger, Al Weisel AKA as Jon Swift passed away. I, thinking that no one on my side of political aisle cared, wrote a rather harsh piece.  Well, it turned out that many Bloggers on the Conservative side of the aisle liked the guy and went out of their way to remember the guy. I even dedicated a music video to the damned guy.  Much class was shown that day, and I had hoped that my actions would be the start of the beginning of civility in this Blogosphere. Maybe that was too lofty of a goal.

The point I am trying to make is this; why the hell does someone have to die in the blogosphere or anywhere else for that matter; for anyone to even remotely try and show any respect to that person?

I say all this, because I have flogged time and time again for some of the stuff that I have said on here. I have even lost advertisers because of something I did once on this blog. But, yet, this guy gets a free pass? Unbelievable. 🙄

Remember folks, THIS is your Democratic Party of today. Do you really want to vote for people that promote this sort of vile filth? Think about it.

Don't Worry Stacy, He does not link to me either

Well, He did once…. and some asshole bitched about it; because I am a former lefty, that created my share of controversy when I was on that side of the fence.

It might also be because I happen to highly dislike that two-bit Faux-Conservative Jew that hosts his Blog too. I call him a Jew, not because I am a hater, anti-Semite or anything like that. I call him a Jew, because that is what the hell he is.

Just sayin’

You don’t call yourself a f’ing Conservative and produce videos that make us look like damn buffoons. Plus, they rejected a article by a blogger, that I felt was legit. Because they were afraid that it would upset some investors. Then there was this little incident too. I mean, we white rust belters must stick together.  You don’t screw someone over, that I happen to think is very cool and then expect me not to react to it.

F’ing Period. 😡

Countdown to Reynolds and rest of his asshat cronies attacking me. I got two words for ’em. Bring it. 😡

Randy Haddock Responds to Keith Olbermann

Perhaps a better response to the Keith Olbermann Smear of the National Tea Party Movement. This one is by Randy Haddock:

First, his choice of words. People of color? Who are these colored people he’s referring to? What does that mean? It may be because I’m not a native English speaker, but I find this “people of color” business to be really bizarre. So as a Boricua, am I colored? I guess I’m olive but if I hit the beach on a sunny day I can be golden brown. Is he referring strictly to skin color? Culture? Ethnicity? I mean, I’m not that much darker than Mr. Olbermann himself. Do I fall into his “people of color” category?

Or, as I suspect, are “people of color” just code for those who deviate too much from the skin color which Olbermann seems to deem as the standard? I mean, come on, Olbermann has no color, right? He’s white. That ain’t no color. That’s just how it’s supposed to be, right? So, all I can think of is that he means “black.” Black people are colored, and everyone else is just normal and a-OK. Man, this race and colors stuff is difficult to understand!

And secondly, the question is stupid, the premise terribly moronic and the insinuation totally insulting. The Tea Party protesters aren’t racist. Are there a few kooks with nefarious motivations? Sure, every movement has them. It’s nice how, during the Bush years, the MSM did everything they could to whitewash the fringe elements of the antiwar movement, but I digress. What’s Olbermann’s evidence that Tea Parties are overwhelmingly racist? Apparently, that there are no “people of color” at these rallies. That is so blatantly false as to induce uncontrollable laughter. There are people of all backgrounds at the Tea Parties. But even if an event is dominated by a certain race group, what does that prove? Similar to what Glenn Reynolds said earlier this month, if you look at a group of white folks and the first thought that pops into your head is “racists!” then you have some serious issues.

So I put together this video response to Olbermann’s burning question. Here are his “people of color” he’s been inquiring about.

Very well put.

Others: Instapundit, Pajamas Media, Hot Air, The Corner on National …, NewsBusters.org, Newsalert and alicublog

Oh.Lordy President Obama is now Homey?

Good Lord.

Via ABC:

ABC’s Jonathan Karl and Z. Byron Wolf report from Washington D.C.:

It is one of the biggest annual gatherings of conservatives in Washington.  The yearly CPAC convention hosts everyone from Sen. Scott Brown to Mitt Romney.  Even former Vice-President Dick Cheney made a surprise appearance today.

The crowd was full of frustration towards President Obama and his administration, and the words “Tea Party” seemed to be flying out of every Republican’s mouth.  One big agenda item for the Republicans?  Galvanizing the youth vote.

And one of the people leading the youth charge is Stephen Baldwin.  One of the famous Baldwin brothers, Baldwin hosts a conservative radio show and has enlisted himself in the youth recruitment effort.  Baldwin told our Jonathan Karl that he blames Obama for the state of the country, but also prays for him.

“I am not happy about the way things are.  I pray for President Obama every single day.  But tell you what.  Homey made this bed, now he has got to lay in it,” said Baldwin.

Uh…. Um, I should have this under this heading here. But, I figured it could stand on its own. I mean, Homey? I think you can now guess why I did not attend CPAC. I mean, I am all for the defending of the Constitution, limited Government, and the defense of the Christian Faith. But what I am not for, is going to some Convention; where a bunch of wealthy and some not-so wealthy white people; sit around and bitch about the evil black socialist President. I give them credit, some of them nuance the racism, and do it very well; but most do not, and some do not even nuance it at all. This is one of worst examples of nuanced racism ever. Nothing says I have a problem with the black race better, than a pasty white guy calling a black man,”Homey”,  much less the President of the United States, who just happens to be black.

I will be honest with you, I do not like President Obama’s politics whatsoever. But I do respect the office. This is why you do not see me writing about stupid kooky conspiracy theories on here. I’ve done it in the past and got burned hardcore; after that I said that until the birthers can provide me some solid proof that Obama was not born here, other than the opinions or half-baked claims of some attention-whoring, black-hating, harpy Jew with an attitude; I just will not write about it anymore, period.  Anyhow, Orly Taitz aside; that is why I do not write about the nonsense. Because I respect the man’s office. Some cannot; but I can and do try to. That does not mean he is above criticism, because you know that I do that well. Although here as of late, he is scoring some brownie points with me on the Afghanistan war.

Anyhow, it just irked me, because both of these guys, especially the bug-eyed jack ass in the middle are supposedly Christians —- Evangelical Christians no less.  But yet, they make idiotic statements like this. You know see why I left the Evangelical circles for good. Because of ignorant crap like this. Which is, incidentally, forbidden by the Bible.

I have said this in the past and I will say it again. If the Republican Party thinks that embracing this sort of nuanced racism is going to do anything for them in the coming elections in 2010 and 2012, they had better think again. Because I will warn them; the American people are just much too smart for that and they will suffer in the coming elections. because I will tell you, that I WILL NOT VOTE for a party that embraces this sort of anti-black, nuanced racism. I will vote libertarian; I did it once and I will do it again. It is seriously time to get real folks, and this is not doing that at all.

Stupid Move – Sarah Palin Endorses Rand Paul

In a very stupid move, Sarah Palin has endorsed Rand Paul.

Now why do I say this is a stupid move? It is because last month, I reported here on this blog, and I will point out, I was the ONLY Conservative blog that reported this as well; that Rand Paul’s former Campaign spokesman suddenly resigned, because of racist content on a myspace page, which he claimed was not his. (yeah right… 🙄 )

Further more, I have reported on Ron Paul’s various exploits when it comes to racism, and it appears that the apple does not fall far from the tree. If Sarah Palin lends her voice to this sort of outlandish racism and Antisemitism of the Paleo-Conservative right, she will be, in my opinion discredited beyond what she already is among most of the Washington crowd.

Of course, this comes as no surprise to me, seeing she is speaking at a so-called “Tea Party gathering” in Nashville, Tn. Which is being hosted by person, who has been outed as a outright crook by those who broke away from his “Tea Parry Nation” group, after figuring out, that he was nothing more than an opportunist.

While I believe that Sarah Palin’s star power amongst the Conservative grass roots is something to be admired; endorsing Rand Paul is akin to President Obama doing lunch of Adolf Hitler and should be treated as such by the GOP and anyone else that wants to see the Republican Party come back to power in 2010 and 2012. I do not know who is giving Sarah Palin advice, but I believe they had better think twice about endorsing Rand Paul. Because if that is what this new “Tea Party” movement and/or new Conservative movement is about, I want nothing to do with it. As much as I detest Identity Politics; I also detest true racism, and Antisemitism, of which Ron Paul and also now Rand Paul are associated with — The GOP, Sarah Palin and the Conservative grass roots, would do well to avoid Rand Paul and the utter filth that he and his father represent.

Bottom Line: Someone in Palin’s camp blew it and blew it bad.

Others: Riehl World View, AmSpecBlog, The Other McCain

President Obama sez 'My Blackness will get my agenda through'

Oh, This is just too much here!:

Via the Politico:

Rep. Marion Berry’s parting shot, published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette [no link, subscription only] offers a warning to moderate Democrats and border state moderates — warning of a midterm bloodbath comparable to the 54-seat D-to-R swing in 1994.

But the jaw-dropper is Berry’s claim that President Obama personally dismissed any comparison between Democrats now and under Bill Clinton 16 years ago — by saying his personal popularity would bail everybody out.

The retiring Berry, who doesn’t say when the remarks were made, now scoffs at Obama’s 50-or-below approval rating:

Writes ADG reporter Jane Fullerton:

Berry recounted meetings with White House officials, reminiscent of some during the Clinton days, where he and others urged them not to force Blue Dogs “off into that swamp” of supporting bills that would be unpopular with voters back home.

“I’ve been doing that with this White House, and they just don’t seem to give it any credibility at all,” Berry said. “They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, ‘Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me.’ We’re going to see how much difference that makes now.”

“I began to preach last January that we had already seen this movie and we didn’t want to see it again because we know how it comes out,” said Arkansas’ 1st District congressman, who worked in the Clinton administration before being elected to the House in 1996… “I just began to have flashbacks to 1993 and ’94. No one that was here in ’94, or at the day after the election felt like. It certainly wasn’t a good feeling.

Translation? What President Obama is trying to say here is this; President Obama is going to to continue to push through his agenda and if any of the White Honky Republicans get in his way, he is going to have his  fellow “brothers”  in the Senate and elsewhere grandstand the hell out of the race card, until the Republicans back down — and you just know the Liberal media will do his bidding too.  The problem with that is, it is a dangerous gamble and the American people are just not going to stand for that sort of racial grandstanding for very long. You can only play that race card so many times, before it gets stale and people begin to laugh about it and at it. Meanwhile, Barry is also pissing off his base on the far left, by basically trying to pass a hobbled Healthcare bill, which is basically a pay off to the Healthcare companies.

I look forward to watching this damned train wreck, I really do. This man is stupid enough to believe that because he is black, that he is going to be able to do just what he damn well pleases. I know one thing, if there is a huge change come November 4, 2010. The first damned thing I would do, if I were the Republicans, I would make the Birth Certificate the BIG ISSUE, make that idiot fool produce the Original or Impeach his ass. That will be the only way to really stop this crazy asshole from doing anymore damage to the United States. However, quite sadly, I highly doubt the Republican Party has the guts to do such a thing. It is days like this, that we need a modern day Joseph McCarthy.

Others Covering this Story: Hot Air, Townhall.com, Pajamas Media, Wizbang, Scorecard’s Blog, The Confluence, America’s Right, The Lonely Conservative, Another Black Conservative, Betsy’s Page, JOSHUAPUNDIT, YID With LID, The New Editor, Viking Pundit, Gateway Pundit, Perfunction and JammieWearingFool

America tries to help Haiti, gets accused of occupation

No, I am not kidding.

I have two stories, first this story via the U.K. Telegraph:

Video:

The Story:

The French minister in charge of humanitarian relief called on the UN to “clarify” the American role amid claims the military build up was hampering aid efforts.

Alain Joyandet admitted he had been involved in a scuffle with a US commander in the airport’s control tower over the flight plan for a French evacuation flight.

“This is about helping Haiti, not about occupying Haiti,” Mr Joyandet said.

Geneva-based charity Medecins Sans Frontieres backed his calls saying hundreds of lives were being put at risk as planes carrying vital medical supplies were being turned away by American air traffic controllers.

But US commanders insisted their forces’ focus was on humanitarian work and last night agreed to prioritise aid arrivals to the airport over military flights, after the intervention of the UN.

The diplomatic row came amid heightened frustrations that hundreds of tons of aid was still not getting through. Charities reported violence was also worsening as desperate Haitians took matters into their own hands.

Let me get this straight —- The United States of America’s last two Presidents get together, put political differences aside and begin to raise all sorts of funds for people of Haiti and now we are the bad guys? Unreal. 🙄

And then, there’s this by Paul Goodman:

The humanitarian catastrophe in Haiti is turning out to be a classic illustration of anti-Americanism in seven easy steps.

  1. Calamitous events take place in a chaotic place (think Bosnia, think Somalia, think Iraq in 1991).
  2. The U.N and the U.S intervene.
  3. The civil government proves to be useless or malign, or both.  The U.N isn’t up to the job.  The only effective force in sight is the U.S.  According to today’s Guardian, John O’Shea, the head of Goal, a medical charity, has called on the U.S to take charge of the whole operation.  So has a major U.S aid agency (“which declined to be named for political reasons”).
  4. There are only two possible outcomes.
  5. The U.S takes over.  If this happens, it will be accused of “creating a military occupation under the guise of humanitarian aid” and “occupying” the country outright.  (Apologies, my memory’s failing me.  These criticisms have been aired already.  The first quote’s from President Chavez of Venezuela.  The second’s from Alain Joyandet, France’s “Co-operation Minister”.)
  6. The U.S doesn’t take over.  If this happens, it will be criticised for “not doing enough” – and isolationism.
  7. So either way, the U.S loses.

I’m not a fully signed-up member of the Stars-and-Stripes fan club.  But there are times when I think: who’d be an American?

Sorry, I am just going to say this, and I know that some identity politics type of jackass or some minority serial complainer will bitch about it; fine, screw ’em, I just don’t give a damn anymore. What needs to happen right about now, is this — The United States of America needs to get all those supplies off of those ships and planes and get back on their ships and planes and get the hell out of Haiti now. I mean, we have ponied up for these people and other such people long enough, let them idiots deal with their problems themselves, why the hell should WE have to be the ones to go in and play captain? Not like they are going to appreciate what we do any damn way. If the U.N. does not like our forces being there, LET THE U.N. TAKE OVER THE MISSION AND LEAVE!

Yeah, I know, some liberal asshat is going to call me a racist bigot for saying it. I got two words for you: Screw You. The United States of America has wasted more money on Countries that do not like us, for whatever reason and we are doing it again; and again we are being fingered as the bad guys. Enough is Enough! It is time for the United States to say home and take care of its own problems and stop trying to help everyone who has a Earthquake or other kind of natural disaster.

It just so happens that the United States of America is going through its own sort of disaster, A man-made one, its called our Economy — and instead of us watching what we spend and keeping what we have, which is not much, when you figure that China is buying our debt, we are sending it off to a bunch of idiots, who really do not like us anyhow! No, this is not sarcasm, I am quite serious. What do we get for all this sort of charity? The above nonsense that I just quoted.

Bottom Line: I believe it is high time that the United States of America reevaluated its role abroad and got out of the rescue and charity business for Countries that really do not like us anyhow.

Others: Mudville Gazette, Fausta’s Blog, Neptunus Lex,  and The Jawa Report

Senator Jesse Helms on the MLK Holiday

Congressional Record,  October 3, 1983,  Vol. 129, No. 130, pages S 13452 through S 13461.

Mr. President, in light of the comments by the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), it is important that there be such an examination of the political activities and associations of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., principally from the beginning of his work in the civil rights movement in the mid 1950s until his death in 1968. Throughout this period, but especially toward the beginning and end of his career, King associated with identified members of the Communist Party of the United States (CPUSA), with persons who were former members of or close to the CPUSA, and with CPUSA front organizations. In some important respects King’s civil rights activities and later his opposition to the Vietnam war were strongly influenced by and dependent on these associations.

There is no evidence that King himself was a member of the CPUSA or that he was a rigorous adherent of Marxist ideology or of the Communist Party line. Nevertheless, King was repeatedly warned about his associations with known Communists by friendly elements in the Kennedy Administration and the Department of Justice (DO J) (including strong and explicit warning from President Kennedy himself). King took perfunctory and deceptive measures to separate himself from the Communists against whom he was warned. He continued to have close and secret contacts with at least some of them after being informed and warned of their background, and he violated a commitment to sever his relationships with identified Communists.

Throughout his career King, unlike many other civil rights leaders of his time, associated with the most extreme political elements in the United States. He addressed their organizations, signed their petitions, and invited them into his own organizational activities. Extremist elements played a significant role in promoting and influencing King’s opposition to the Vietnam war-an opposition that was not predicated on what King believed to be the best interests of the United States but on his sympathy for the North Vietnamese Communist regime and on an essentially Marxist and anti-American ideological view of U.S. foreign policy.

King’s patterns of associations and activities described in this report show that, at the least, he had no strong objection to Communism, that he appears to have welcomed collaboration with Communists, and that he and his principal vehicle, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), were subject to influence and manipulation by Communists. The conclusion must be that Martin Luther King, Jr. was either an irresponsible individual, careless of his own reputation and that of the civil rights movement for integrity and loyalty, or that he knowingly cooperated and sympathized with subversive and totalitarian elements under the control of a hostile foreign power.

Biographical Data

Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15, 1929, in Atlanta, Georgia. He was the son of Alberta Williams and Martin Luther King, Sr., a Baptist minister. He was graduated from Morehouse College, Atlanta, in 1948, receiving the degree of B.A. He attended the Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, receiving the degree of B.D. in 1951, and he received the degree of Ph.D. from Boston University in 1955. In 1953 he married Coretta Scott of Alabama, by whom he was the father of four children. On April 4, 1968 King was murdered by a rifle assault in Memphis, Tennessee. On March 10, 1969, James Earl Ray, an escaped convict, pied guilty to the murder of King and was sentenced to 99 years in prison, a term he is now serving.

Operation “Solo” and Stanley D. Levison

In the early 1950s the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) undertook a long-term and highly classified counter-intelligence operation against the CPUSA. The FBI persuaded a former member of the National Committee of the CPUSA and former editor of the Daily Worker, the Party newspaper, to become active again within the Party leadership and to report on Party activities to the FBI. This man’s name was Morris Childs, and his brother, Jack Childs, also a Communist, agreed to act as an informant as well. The FBI operation was known as SOLO, and for nearly 30 years it provided reliable and highly sensitive information about the CPUSA, its activities within the United States, and its relations with the Soviet Union to the highest authorities in the U.S. government. At least three U.S. Presidents were aware of SOLO, and Morris Childs may have briefed President Nixon prior to his trip to Moscow in 1972. In 1980 SOLO was brought to an end. Jack Childs died on August 12, 1980, and the operation was publicly disclosed and thus terminated by historian David J Garrow in a book published the following year.

Among the most important facts learned from SOLO was that the CPUSA was dependent on a direct financial subsidy paid by the Soviet Union. About one million dollars a year in Soviet funds was paid to a member of the CPUSA, usually Jack Childs himself, in New York City. Although this subsidy was illegal, the FBI allowed it to continue for a number of reasons-prosecution would have exposed SOLO and necessarily brought it to an end, and the operation was of continuing value; and the dependence of the Party on Soviet funds meant that it did not seek to increase its membership and importance within the United States.

In 1953 Jack Childs reported to the FBI that an individual named Stanley David Levison (1912-1979), a New York lawyer and businessman, was deeply involved in acquiring and disposing of the funds of the Soviet subsidy to the CPUSA. Levison may have been involved as a financial benefactor to the Party as early as 1945 and may have established legitimate business enterprises in the United States and Latin America in order to launder Soviet funds to the Party. In this connection Levison was said to have worked with Isidore G. Needleman, the representative of the Soviet trading corporation AMTORG.

Childs also reported to the FBI that Levison assisted CPUSA leaders to acquire and manage the Party’s secret funds and that he directed about $50,000 a year into the Party’s treasury. After the death of Party treasurer William Weiner in 1954, Levison’s financial role became increasingly important, and Levison, according to Childs, became “the interim chief administrator of the party’s most secret funds.”2

The FBI maintained close surveillance of Levison, but in mid to late 1955, Levison’s financial role began to decline. The FBI decreased its surveillance, although Levison was believed to have occasional contacts with CPUSA leaders. The Bureau eventually terminated surveillance of Levison, probably sometime in 1957. Some indications that CPUSA leaders were disgruntled with Levison led the FBI to interview him on February 9 and March 4, 1960. It is not clear what Levison told the FBI at these interviews, but he definitely rejected the request of the FBI that he become an informant within the Communist Party.

In the summer of 1956 Bayard Rustin, himself a former member of the Young Communist League, the youth arm of the CPUSA, introduced Levison to Martin Luther King, Jr. in New York City. Levison and King soon became close friends, and Levison provided important financial, organizational, and public relations services for King and the SCLC. The FBI was not aware of their relationship until very late 1961 or early 1962, and it was the discovery of their relationship that led to the protracted and intensive FBI-DOJ surveillance of King for the remainder of his life. The FBI believed that Levison was still a Communist and that King’s relationship with him represented an opportunity for the Communist Party to infiltrate and manipulate King and the civil rights movement.

Of King’s dependence on Levison there can be no doubt. A DOJ Task Force investigating the FBI surveillance of King discussed this dependence in its report of 1977:

The advisor’s [Levison’s] relationship to King and the SCLC is amply evidenced in the files and the task force concludes that he was a most trusted advisor. The files are replete with instances of his counseling King and his organization on matters pertaining to organization, finances, political strategy and speech writing. Some examples follow:

The advisor organized, in King’s name, a fund raising society …. This organization and the SCLC were in large measure financed by concerts arranged by this person …. He also lent counsel to King and the SCLC on the tax consequences of charitable gifts.

On political strategy, he suggested King make a public statement calling for the appointment of a black to the Supreme Court …. This person advised against accepting a movie offer from a movie director and against approaching Attorney General Kennedy on behalf of a labor leader ….In each instance his advice was accepted.

King’s speech before the AFL-CIO National Convention was written by this advisor …. He also prepared King’s May 1962 speech before the United Packing House Workers Convention …. In 1965 he prepared responses to press questions directed to Dr. King from a Los Angeles radio station regarding the Los Angeles racial riots and from the “New York Times” regarding the Vietnam War)

After King’s death, Coretta Scott King described Levison’s role: “Always working in the background, his contribution has been indispensable,” and she wrote of an obituary of King written by Levison and Harry Belafonte, “two of his most devoted and trusted friends,” as “the one which best describes the meaning of my husband’s life and death.TM It may be noted that this obituary began with a description of America as “a nation tenaciously racist …. sick with violence …. [and] corrosive with alienation.” According to Garrow, Levison also assisted King in the writing and publication of Stride Toward Freedom, the administration of contributions to SCLC, and the recruitment of employees of SCLC. King offered to pay Levison for all this help, but Levison consistently refused, writing that “the liberation struggle [i.e., the civil rights movement] is the most positive and rewarding area of work anyone could experience.”

Someone who knows the TRUTH about MLK

That would be Texas Fred.

While he might have been a noble person in what he wanted to accomplish. He was nothing more than a two-bit phony, just like the rest of race hustlers today. Not to mention the civil rights act that he pushed for was declared unconstitutional by great Conservatives like Senator Barry Goldwater.

Harry Reid-Gate Continues

As much as I hate to write about a subject, that I have already written about once, I will again. Because I need to make my personal position clear.

Regarding the media stampede over Harry Reid’s comments; Now this is where I am going to break from the normal Conservative Blog and media talking points. This blog has never been about talking points, ever. Nor will it ever be. I am a clear and free thinker and I am not afraid to go against what I feel to be blatant stupidity.

First off, regarding Trent Lott‘s comments: Those comments were highly racist in nature, they were given at a Birthday Party for a very well known former segregationist. Hell, Even Michelle Malkin was none too pleased with what he said, at the time; although her position on it was a bit different, than what I felt at the time. Second of all, it is being reported that Trent Lott was kicked out of the Senate for his remarks. This totally bogus lie and needs to be corrected. Trent Lott’s leadership position in the Senate was removed for his comments. Trent Lott left the Senate because of changes in the rules for lobbyists in the Congress.

Now for Reid’s comments; Sorry to my fellow Conservatives, but, I do not believe that Harry Reid’s comments are to be considered the moral equivalence of what Trent Lott said. That is because Harry Reid’s comments were factually correct; however, his choice of words were, quite bluntly, stupid. However, because I believe in a equal standard in the Senate and House, I believe the Senator Reid ought to resign his leadership position, because it is the right thing to do. If you going to have a standard, of when leadership within both houses of Congress make stupid mistakes and resign leadership posts, it should be equal for both sides. Partisanship ought not to be a deciding factor in this situation, sadly, I believe that it is a big part of what is happening in this situation.

The Bottom Line: While what Reid said was incredibly stupid. I do not believe that it should be compared to Trent Lott’s statement at all.