Harry Reid Denounces Bundy Ranch Defenders as “Terrorists”
George Orwell probably never would have written 1984 if he had realized that what he called oligarchical collectivists and we call Democrats would use it as an instruction manual. It might seem tyranny is intuitive to any brute, but the subtleties of coercing thought by subverting language are too sophisticated for even the most pointy-headed moonbats to come up with on their own — not that there is anything terribly refined about the ham-fisted “up is down” rhetoric excreted by Harry Reid.
Federal attempts to drive Cliven Bundy out of business and off his land — evidently so that Reid’s son can work with the ChiComs to make illicit profits with a “green energy” boondoggle — have failed for now. Federal agents had to slink off with their tails between their legs after settling for the sort of vandalism that usually precedes burning a house down in Westerns when the bad guys want someone off their own land. A frustrated Reid has resorted to denouncing the patriots who defended the Bundys from naked tyranny with a show of force as terrorists:
“Those people who hold themselves out to be patriots are not. They’re nothing more than domestic terrorists,” Reid said during an appearance at a Las Vegas Review-Journal “Hashtags & Headlines” event at the Paris. “… I repeat: what went on up there was domestic terrorism.”
In stark contrast stand the righteous upholders of law and order, who repeatedly tasered Bundy’s son, threw his sister to the ground, shot his bulls, chased cattle with helicopters, tore up his fences, pointed sniper rifles at American citizens, trampled a sacred turtle burrow, et cetera.
Yet again Reid proves himself to be completely out of step with his constituents, whom he denounces rather than even pretending to represent. It doesn’t matter. As a Founding Father of oligarchical collectivism said, “The people who count the votes decide everything.” Guess who counts the votes in Nevada?
Update your Newspeak dictionaries. The word terrorist has now been redefined to mean “anyone who frustrates our rulers.” This is an improvement, because back when it meant “someone who has committed an act of terror,” the term was offensive to our government’s Muslim allies.
On tips from Mr. Mentalo and Jester. Cross-posted at Moonbattery.
FacebookTwitterEmail Jason Mattera, known for his gutsy reporting, may need to hire a bodyguard of his own. Apparently, Harry Reid
FacebookTwitterEmail Central American government leaders may have facilitated a state-sponsored invasion, but can it really be called an invasion if