You are here: Home / Floyd Reports

Floyd Reports

floydreportslogo2 Floyd ReportsWelcome to the new home of FloydReports.com. Enter for conservative commentary, conservative videos, and conservative news from veteran political expert Floyd Brown,  President of the Western Center for Journalism. If you are a subscriber of FloydReports.com, you will still get the same great content to your inbox, just at a new home. The blog’s move to WesternJournalism.com will allow it to have greater reach and a more powerful server. Please take a look around, and if you have any comments, please use our contact page to reach us.

 

Obama: We’re Giving In To The Taliban

May 2, 2012 by 12 Comments

Obama announced yesterday that his administration is “pursuing a negotiated peace with the Taliban” in Afghanistan. Two hours later, they bombed the US Embassy. How’s that working out for you, Mr. President?

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: , ,

The Modern Leftist Progressive Politician And His Propensity For Arrogance

May 2, 2012 by 4 Comments

Obama Presidential Seal Podium Speech SC 780x1024 The Modern Leftist Progressive Politician and His Propensity for Arrogance

As a nation, we are faced with a moral dilemma of our collective conscious, which we have never seen before as our politicians continue to serve up ever more unsavory bits of tyranny in bite size pieces for the sake of security.  In the not-too-distant past, all American children were given an identity of belonging to a moral society comprised of individuals that were shaped by their own desires unencumbered by societal rank or privilege other than what one’s own wealth or aspiration could acquire for themselves or their family.  We accomplished this through public education and pride of purpose as demonstrated to each of us in a practical manner in our own families as we conducted the mundane duties of life on a daily basis.

This simple belief has been corrupted by the purveyors of liberal and progressive thought, particularly the wholesale abrogation of the concept of “American Exceptionalism” which had been our guiding “moral imperative” prior to the modern era.  The modern era started after WWII, and with it began the process of the diluting our national character which allowed the encroachment of other philosophies into our national identity as a free and able people.  As a nation, we have always corrected ourselves when we strayed too far from our founding principles.

The abolition of slavery and civil rights legislation speaks volumes to this self correcting course programmed into our government and identity based upon our founding principles, as enumerated in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence and practiced by our citizens.

Prior to this gradual change in philosophy, we described ourselves with the concept of a “Melting Pot”,  symbolized by the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum (“Out of Many–One”.)  We believe so wholeheartedly in this principle that we print this motto on our currency; it gives credence and support to our identity as a free and able people.  We are now faced with a re-definition of our identity as a deliberate and cruel hoax perpetrated by the progressive liberal left described as a “rainbow coalition” as they fully embrace the separatism of multiculturalism.

This definition is accepted at face value without question by many in our society as a modern symbol of this corrupt reinterpretation and ultimate rejection of the melting pot concept.  Rainbows are nothing more than light that has been broken down into their individual wavelengths separated by the various colors of the visible light spectrum.  These colors never mix with distinct boundaries; rainbows are anything but harmonious and represent separatism on a physical level for visible light.  This is in direct contradiction to our founding societal concept of “out of many–one” and only further divides us as a distinct and exceptional people since the “melting pot” is homogenous, and rainbows as symbols are the very definition of separatism and exclusion.  This interferes with the absorption of émigrés into our national identity and the homogenizing force that the melting pot creates.  We are simply an American collective identity or “Brand” of a free and able people that believe in self-rule and rule of law.

We have now set the stage for the introduction of the Demopath, described below:

Demopaths are people who use democratic language and invoke human rights only when it serves their interests, and not when it calls for self-criticism or self-restraint. Demopaths demand stringent levels of human “rights” but do not apply these basic standards for the “other” to their own behavior. The most lethal demopaths use democratic rights to destroy democracy.

Demopaths are a product of democratic governments; if one were to draw a corollary to their existence in modern times, it would be Adolph Hitler as an extremely capable practitioner.  If I were to choose one all-encompassing entity or group in our nation that typifies this definition, it would be the progressive left that has infiltrated the current Democratic Party membership; they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

This also explains the left’s fascination with multiculturalism as just another way to keep the people in this nation divided and more easily controlled.  The Roman Empire’s axiom of “Divide and Conquer” exemplified by the conquests of Julius Caesar is never more true than as practiced by today’s Democrats as they collect and separate their constituents by sex, race, income, creed, religion, and sexual preference.  Another concept we need to bring forth and explore is Moral Egocentrism courtesy of Wikipedia which is described below:

An egocentric person cannot fully empathize, i.e. “put himself in other peoples’ shoes”. Egocentrics believe everyone should see what they see or that what they see, in some way, exceeds what most other people can see, i.e. “how I see the world now is how the world is”. To them, any different perception than their own is either considered false or non existent.

This is a predicate definition before we move on to our next concept and attempts to understand and quantify the enigma of the prevalent liberal progressive thought that pervades Washington and the nation these days.  Their beliefs primarily encompass the concept of “fairness” that they see as lacking in the governance of our society and unjust regardless of how the world or our free market capitalist system actually operates and the unequal outcomes it produces.  Also look at the arrogance and vitriol exhibited towards their opponents.  Everyone is not a winner, so the system is labeled as unfair!  While we are at it, we need to define the concept of Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism, another component that is needed to understand the current state of dissonance of the progressive left and is shown below:

The projection of good faith and fair-mindedness onto others, the assumption that “other” shares the same human values, that everyone prefers positive sum interactions. In a slightly more redemptive mode, LCE holds that all people are good, and if only we treat them right, they will respond well. This is a form of empathy that projects onto rather than detects what the “other” feels.

Using this as a working definition explains how most liberals are able to continue in their mistaken belief that if we appease and enter into a dialog with entities that wish our destruction, they will change their perspective(s) towards us.  This certainly takes us farther down the road to explain the progressive liberal’s thought process and conversely the beliefs and actions of Obama and his administration’ss constant petting and preening of Islam, Palestinians in Gaza, Iran, China, and North Korea.  It is their belief that they can be assuaged if we only try and believe enough to the detriment of our Allies like Israel and Great Britain, who are pushed to the side.

This will be perceived as weakness and a corruption of our moral center and will only harden and embolden their posture and stance towards us. It also will be used to justify whatever action they may take against us now or in the future, more so for Muslim nations.

This leads to confusion on the part of their opponents (and most Americans as well), as they have a difficult time reconciling their behavior that is contradictory to their speech about what they profess to actually believe.

This phenomenon is exemplified by Obama calling for a cessation of inflammatory rhetoric after Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting last year.  The reality of countless deaths due to the illegal acts of the ATF and the DOJ in Fast & Furious is of no consequence to him or his administration.  These deaths simply do not matter, are another manifestation of Demopathy, and are simply chocked up to collateral damage by their practitioner(s).  This has the effect of creating a vacuum in the “moral imperative” for just thought, deed, and action in this nation (as well as the world in general.)

Whether Obama and his supporters realize this or not, the developing nations and people of this world look to America for guidance. However, this does not mean that we need to directly support them with monetary contributions. When America as a nation no longer outwardly supports our founding principles, this leads to instability in the world whether our politicians like it or not. Regardless of whether they even understand or want this role, it has been cast for us by our founders.

Obama is a Demopath in the truest sense of the word with his continued unbridled spending without end. He lacks fiscal responsibility, given the precipitous drop in collection of tax revenues in this economic “Depression”; this is self defeating as well as destabilizing.  It is also prima facie evidence for this behavior since it leads to our own destruction, bringing us ever closer to absolute tyranny and dictatorship.  Obama also manifests traits of moral egocentrism with his intolerance of other viewpoints, which are dismissed out of hand since they do not fit his view of the world for himself or our nation.  However, for me, it is his recent declaration that he can order the summary execution of Citizens without Due Process of law that is the clincher.  Never before has any President ever declared that they had the right to order and summarily execute any citizen, secret panels, and whatever legal artifice he proposes and employed!

It is simply an abrogation of our 4th and 5th Amendment rights to due process of law and it is rotting the very foundation of our moral imperative and national identity.  Obama’s brazen disregard for our founding documents and principles only bolsters his propensity to allow and condone lawlessness as our nation’s chief executive.  If we were to also factor in Justiagate, election fraud in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Fast & Furious, and the sequestering of all documents that provide Obama’s bona fides, we have the complete picture of a modern “Progressive Demopath.“  The rule of law only applies to the other guy, not to him as a true practitioner of demopathy!

While it may never be proven that Obama was responsible for these high crimes and misdemeanors, he certainly has been the benefactor of their outcomes and should in all good conscious resign if he has even an infinitesimal amount or an iota of integrity.  I will not hold my breath for that day and hour to arrive.

These actions by our liberal progressive friends are simply due to errors of perception and critical and cognitive thinking.  They are also heavily influenced by emotional connotations and arguments which are gamed to distort the facts and push the progressive left’s faulty agenda. This agenda lacks any moral premise consistent with our collective moral imperative or national identity as defined in our founding principles.

As a Nation of free and able people, it is imperative that we collectively decide to reject the progressive liberal’s redefinition of our identity and restore the concept of “E Pluribus Unum” once again.  This will allow us to willingly take our rightful place to stand as a truly noble nation, a beacon for liberty, freedom, and justice for the world to emulate and quite frankly envy!

 

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , ,

“Gay Rights” Activist Rants About Homosexuality And The Pope

May 2, 2012 by 7 Comments

Editor’s Note: Please be advised that the contents in this story and in the associated video are graphic in nature.

Dan Savage has come under major fire over the past two weeks following an inappropriate speech he gave to high school journalism students. But a separate story that has gone somewhat underreported occurred in the days following that controversy, during an address Savage gave at Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois, on Sunday.

During his speech, Savage and a conservative activist apparently got into a debate — one that caused the activist to be kicked out. Additionally, the controversial founder of the “It Gets Better” campaign made some comments about the Pope that some may find generally unappealing.

Savage was apparently invited by the college to address students about his “It Gets Better” campaign. An announcement on the Elmhurst web site promoted the free and public event. While the college is saying that that the talk went off without a hitch, Peter LaBarbera, the founder of the group Americans for Truth About Homosexuality (an organization that works to expose the so-called “radical homosexual agenda”) has a very different view.

LaBarbera has called the discussion crude and inappropriate. On the flip side, Elmhurst spokeswoman Desiree Chen says that it was a success that included ”a great mix of people of all ages.” According to the college, 1,200 people showed up to the event.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. LaBarbera also claims he was unfairly removed from the event after questioning Savage and his past tactics. Here‘s what CNS News’ Lauren Thompson reported earlier this week:

Read More at The Blaze. By Billy Hallowell.

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, News From The Web, Videos

The Threat A “Living Constitution” Poses To America

May 2, 2012 by 8 Comments
Constitution Living Document SC The Threat A Living Constitution Poses to America

How can we have rule of law when judges can amend our founding document at their whim?

The term “living constitution” doesn’t poll well. That’s what Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) president and founder Doug Kendall told participants in a teleforum sponsored by the American Association of University Women. Kendall, a self-described progressive, was explaining why other progressives need to replace the “living constitutional method” with something new. That something new, Kendall believes, is the “whole constitutional method.”

For decades, liberals (now progressives) have been advancing the living constitution approach to constitutional interpretation. The term dates back to Professor Howard McBain’s 1927 book The Living Constitution. Constitutional scholar David Strauss published a book with the same title just two years ago. Apparently Strauss had not seen the polling data, or maybe it is only in the last few months that the term “living constitution” fell out of favor.

In a nutshell, the idea of the “living constitution” is that a constitution drafted in 1787 cannot possibly serve the needs of a twenty-first-century society. So it is incumbent on the courts to adapt the Constitution to modern conditions and changed values. Textualists and originalists object that this approach defeats the liberty-protecting, power-restraining purposes of the Constitution. How can we have the rule of law, they ask rhetorically, if judges are free to effectively amend the Constitution.

The living constitution theory has had friends in high places. Supreme Court Justice David Souter was a quiet but committed practitioner of the living constitution theory while on the Court. In a rare public appearance at Harvard’s 2010 commencement ceremony, Souter argued that the approach has been key to many important rulings of the Supreme Court, like Brown v. Board of Education. The leading advocate for living constitution theory on the current court is Justice Stephen Breyer, though in his recently published book Making Democracy Work, he calls it “pragmatism.” Perhaps Breyer got wind of the discouraging poll results.

According to Kendall, the “whole constitution method” can replace the living constitution method in interpreting the Constitution, and even more effectively advance the progressive agenda. What is the “whole constitution” method, you ask?

First, it helps to know a little bit about Doug Kendall and his CAC. Kendall first founded the Community Rights Counsel (CRC), a public interest law firm. In addition to defending environmental and land-use regulations against takings claims, the CRC was a persistent and staunch opponent of free market-oriented judicial training programs. Kendall objected that the programs were funded by corporations and others with interests in the outcome of federal cases and that they were held at “luxurious” resorts. He feared that the federal judges were being indoctrinated.

Kendall failed to get a Congressional ban on such programs, but his public, though inaccurate, claims of bias in program content and influence by funders did manage to intimidate a majority of federal judges from attending. Given his distaste for the free market, it was not surprising that it never occurred to Kendall to offer competing judicial training programs of his own.

The CRC morphed into the CAC in 2008. According to the CAC website, it is “dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution’s text and history.” While the CAC is Kendall’s baby, he cannot implement its progressive mission on his own. He has a staff of eight and his Board includes such notables as Yale University law professor Akhil Reed Amar and former District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Patricia Wald. Former Acting Solicitor General, now Duke University law professor, Walter Dellinger and Yale law professor Jack Balkin serve as advisors to CAC.

The whole constitution theory to which these folks have subscribed seeks to co-opt ground heretofore occupied by the living constitution theory’s principal antagonists, the aforementioned originalists and textualists. These are the folks, like Justice Antonin Scalia, who insist that courts should interpret the text of the Constitution as it would have been reasonably understood by those who wrote it. But clearly Kendall does not aim for his whole constitution theory to put him in bed with Justice Scalia.

So how does whole constitution theory marry text and history to a progressive judicial interpretation of the Constitution? By the simple expedient of asserting that the amendments to the Constitution authorize the vast expansion of federal power that has occurred, with Supreme Court approval, since the New Deal.

In his comments to the teleforum, Kendall described the “arc of our Constitution’s progress” paved by the 27 amendments. “The Tea Party,” he said, “wants to keep this secret.” But wait, how did the Tea Party get into this? And how in the world would they keep the 27 amendments a secret? Every one of them has a copy of the Constitution in their pocket or handbag and might reasonably assume that progressives do as well. So what’s the secret?

The secret is that somewhere in the 27 amendments is an authorization for a vast and powerful federal government that the framers of the original Constitution could not have imagined. According to the CAC website, “[s]ubsequent amendments expanded the power of the federal government, shifting power away from the states.” Now that really is a secret. Most students of the Constitution will be surprised to learn that the amendments are the source of federal authority for the New Deal and all that has come since.

The first nine amendments actually limit power by guaranteeing individual liberties against federal intrusion. The Tenth Amendment is an explicit reminder that federal powers are only those enumerated in the Constitution and the Eleventh limits federal court jurisdiction. Five amendments deal with election or succession of the president, four with the right to vote, two with booze, two with the election of senators and congressional pay, and one with slavery.

That leaves only two that actually expand federal power. The Sixteenth amendment authorizes the income tax, but does nothing to expand the purposes for which taxes may be levied. The Fourteenth amendment authorizes Congress to enforce the amendment’s provisions, an important expansion of federal power to protect constitutional liberties against state government infringements, but nothing else that alters the balance of powers between the national and state governments.

That’s all there is in the amendments. A few of them do trace an arc of progress on individual liberty, but they add nothing else to the enumerated powers of Congress.

In fact, the amendments do include a few secrets, as does the original Constitution, but they are not ones that Kendall and his allies want to reveal.

Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, used to give a talk during his early tenure on the Court titled “The MTV Constitution.” Kozinski illustrated his talk with an electronic board on which provisions of the Constitution were spelled out in varying sized letters, some amplified with bright lights. Among the provisions in large, illuminated type were the commerce clause, the free speech clause, and the Sixth Amendment protections for those accused of crime. Among those barely legible were the provision in Article I, Section 10 forbidding states from impairing the obligation of contracts, the Fifth Amendment’s provision prohibiting the taking of private property without just compensation, and provisions of Article IV, Section 2, and the Fourteenth amendment guaranteeing to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. His point was that the Supreme Court had, without constitutional justification, given particular significance to those amplified in bright lights, while largely ignoring those barely legible in his display.

A whole constitution approach would require judges to put every provision in the same size type with equal illumination, but clearly that is not what Kendall and his fellow progressives seek. After all, as head of the CRC, he devoted most of his energies to assuring that the protections of economic liberty remained well-kept secrets.

Thus, the whole constitution theory neither reveals previously unnoticed sources of federal power nor is it really concerned with the whole constitution. When it comes to the scope and extent of federal power, either Article I provides for it, or it does not. The “arc of our Constitution’s progress” in terms of the expansion of federal power still rests wholly on the living constitution theory on which liberal legal theorists, and too often the courts, have relied to justify significant departures from the text and original meaning of the Constitution. You can’t find it in the text, not even of the whole constitution.

But progressives will not be deterred, nor will they allow consistency or logic to stand in the way of their vision for the Constitution. Modeling itself on, of all people, Grover Norquist, the CAC asks fellow progressives to take The Whole Constitution Pledge which states the following: “Building on the achievements of the Founding generation, successive generations of Americans have created ‘a more perfect union’ through constitutional Amendments.” It then expresses opposition to further amendments. Maybe the 33,000 plus signatories were just confused.

Living constitution theory, even in the sheep’s clothing of whole constitution theory, runs contrary to the rule of law and constitutional government. For a constitution to serve its purpose as a constituting and constraining document for government, its meaning cannot be adjusted, day by day, by those whose offices it has established and whose acts it is meant to constrain. Like every other law, a constitution must bind the government official, whether judge, legislator, or administrator, to its pre-determined meaning. That is the essence of the rule of law and of constitutional government.

James Huffman is the Erskine Wood Sr. Professor of Law at Lewis and Clark Law School in Oregon. He served as dean of the law school from 1993 to 2006. Huffman serves on the boards of the National Crime Victims Law Institute, the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment, the Classroom Law Project, and the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. He is a member and former chair of the Executive Committee of the Environment and Property Rights Practice Group of the Federalist Society. His research interests include natural resource, property, environmental, and constitutional law.

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

Filed Under: Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , ,

Occupy Protester Throws Brick Off Roof, Hits One Of His Own

May 2, 2012 by 11 Comments

I really feel sorry for these idiots. They have absolutely no idea what they are doing, and they pose a danger to the well-being of this country. The police need to keep a tight leash on these trouble-makers before another person gets hurt.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Ron Paul Winning State Delegate Majorities/Massive Rallies (Feb-Apr 2012)

May 2, 2012 by 1 Comment

After watching this video, it is pretty easy to see why Ron Paul’s supporters have not given up on him, even though he has not won a state. It’s one thing to have voters, but it certainly is another thing to have activists and the passionate following that Dr. Paul has.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Social Security Vs. Private Retirement

May 2, 2012 by 3 Comments

Is Social Security a good retirement plan? Economics professor Antony Davies shows that Americans stand to earn significantly less and assume more risk with Social Security than other investment options.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Blind Chinese Activist Leaves US Embassy

May 2, 2012 by Leave a Comment

A blind Chinese activist left the US embassy and went into a Beijing hospital after China gave officials promises about his safety. But a friend of Chen Guangcheng says he was pressured, and agreed to stay in China to protect his family.

Filed Under: Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With:

Did Obama Borrow His New Campaign Slogan From The Nazis?

May 1, 2012 by 14 Comments

As Fox News once said, we report, you decide. Let us know what you think.

To see Obama’s new slogan, watch this campaign video titled, “Forward.“

Filed Under: Featured Stories, Floyd Reports, Videos Tagged With: ,

Boehner Protects Eric Holder From Contempt Of Congress Citation…Again

May 1, 2012 by 54 Comments
Eric Holder 13 SC Boehner protects Eric Holder from Contempt of Congress citation…Again

Three months ago, conservatives were jubilant over reports that Congressman Darrell Issa would offer a Contempt of Congress complaint against Eric Holder. After all, the Attorney General had openly refused to honor House Oversight Committee subpoenas for an estimated 80,000 documents vital to the Committee’s investigation of the role played by members of the Obama Regime in Operation Fast and Furious.

Holder spent nearly a year lying to Congressional committees and making clear he had no intention of honoring legal subpoenas. His Assistant Attorney General Ron Weich had written a February 4th, 2011 letter to Congress claiming that the criminal walking of more than 2000 firearms across the Mexican border had never happened. It was that letter which would have the distinction of being the first ever Department of Justice communication to Congress which had to be withdrawn by its sender, due to certain “inaccuracies.”

Yet deadlines set by Issa and Senator Charles Grassley for the production of subpoenaed documents have systematically been ignored by this corrupt Attorney General with no substantial response by congressional Republicans.

Last week, CBS reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who has reported ferociously on Regime Fast and Furious felonies and misdemeanors since its inception, wrote of another contempt citation being prepared by Darrell Issa. Attkisson discovered a 48 page draft had been provided House Speaker John Boehner, undoubtedly complete with Holder’s every lie, diversion and refusal to comply with House subpoenas.

Were Republican leaders to issue the go-ahead to Darrell Issa and actively persuade any recalcitrant (that is, weak-kneed) GOP members of the House to cooperate, the passage of a contempt citation could provide the American people a long-awaited view of Eric Holder being frog-marched to the well of the House, under arrest by the Sergeant at Arms. And reports of the Obama Regime’s assault on the 2ndAmendment rights of the American people would finally shatter the full-fledged, 18 month Fast and Furious media blockade.

But here is the latest word from a Republican spokesman:  “While there are very legitimate arguments to be made in favor of such an action, no decision has been made to move forward with one by the Speaker or by House Republican leaders.”

Three months ago, it was reported that John Boehner would sell out to Eric Holder and the Democrat Party by making an under the table deal with the Attorney General for the Fast and Furious generated scalps of a few DOJ underlings. Of course, Barack Obama and Eric Holder would in return be exonerated. Unfortunately, if a nationwide account of this contemplated betrayal worked to stop Speaker Boehner in his tracks, it certainly didn’t seem to provide incentive for a more courageous tack.

In 1821, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress must have the power to issue citations of contempt in order to “…not [be] exposed to every indignity and interruption that rudeness, caprice, or even conspiracy may mediate against it.”

Yet although proof of his decades of criminal wrongdoing abounds, Republican leaders are frightened to death at the thought of holding Eric Holder to account. And he is in return piling successive rounds of indignity upon the House of Representatives via the deadly Obama Regime conspiracy of Operation Fast and Furious.

Photo Credit: European Parliament (Creative Commons)

If you would like to add your name to the growing numbers calling for Eric Holder’s Impeachment, use this link: Impeach Eric Holder.

Filed Under: Coachisright, Commentary, Featured Stories, Floyd Reports Tagged With: , , , , , ,