Harry Reid: Anarchists have taken over!
September 14th, 2013
We’re diverted totally from what this bill is about. Why? Because the anarchists have taken over. They’ve taken over the House and now they’ve taken over the Senate.
People who don’t believe in government — and that’s what the Tea Party is all about — are winning, and that’s a shame. – Harry Reid on the Senate Floor
After I stopped laughing I decided I had to share this clip with our readers. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid is apparently so upset about not being able to impose Democratic will unopposed that he’s called the handful of Constitutionalist Republicans who have managed to get democratically elected under the Tea Party banner, “anarchists.”
It’s just so comical. He’s talking about Congressional Representatives who were democratically elected to “serve” in government, and he’s calling them, “anarchists.” It seems to be if an anarchist was somehow elected to the Senate they would be a bit more disruptive than the likes of Rand Paul.
Check it out:
Maybe it’s particularly funny to be because I remember the first wave of the Tea Party in 2007. There were some anarchists at those early rallies, but they got fed up with the hijackers long before any of them got elected.
Oh, but it gets better. Check out Fox’s Sean Hannity as he attempts to rescue the Tea Party that he had a part in hijacking from being associated with it’s own anarchist roots.
Hannity opens fire by associating the term “anarchy” with violence and property damage committed by some “anarchists” in the Occupy Movement, and sets up the red herring that if one cannot find similar violence and property damage committed by the Tea Party, then the Tea Party must not be anarchists.
Leslie Marshall fires right back, cutting right to the heart of his bogus reasoning, saying, “Anarchy doesn’t mean violence… the first actual definition is rebelling against authority, and any ruling power.”
That should have been the end of the discussion. Being nonviolent doesn’t automatically mean the Tea Party is not anarchist, and being violent doesn’t automatically mean the Occupy Movement is anarchist. It’s a total non sequitor. But Hannity pressed on saying “Oh, now we’re going to get into a word parsing?”
Yes, Sean. Words actually have definitions, and when you use them incorrectly in an effort to smear your political opponents, guess what, you’ve stooped to Harry Reid’s level. To hear Sean Hannity get all righteous calling Democrats “lying demagogues” is just too delicious for words.
So, when Harry Reid smears the entire Tea Party as anarchists, he’s lying, he’s demagoguing, he’s slandering the whole group because of the actions of a select few. Yet, when Sean Hannity smears the entire Occupy Movement as anarchists, characterizing the whole group because of the actions of a select few, there is absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever that he’s doing the same thing.
Here’s a wild idea… if they’re going to talk about anarchists, why don’t they ask an anarchist? Both sides are using this term “anarchist” as some kind of universal political smear. Constantly accusing the other of being the real anarchists. Did it ever occur to them that there are real anarchists in the world, and they might not appreciate being used as an insult? That maybe indecency of slandering an entire group because of the actions of a select few applies just as well for all anarchists, left or right.
Silver Circle is OUT NOW --> -->on DVD and Blu-Ray --> --> and showing on Video on Demand platforms! Check it out on our watch online page and find out about local theater showings of the film and other special events on our -->event page -->.
