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.

 


How Obama And Hillary Hate Women

Hillary Clinton SC How Obama and Hillary Hate Women

While liberals are up in arms about Rush Limbaugh and his comment (for which he immediately apologized) about an admittedly “loose woman” and her need to have us all pay for her sexcapades, our “formerly” Muslim President, Barack Obama, bypassed Congress to give the Palestinian Authority, those paragons of virtue and women’s rights, $192 million.

The President’s Muslim friends in Egypt, the ones Obama was in such a hurry to support in their drive for “democracy,” are still receiving over two billion American taxpayer dollars. They have received this amount of money each year since 1979, and subsequently, as their Muslim Brotherhood leaders have recently threatened us, this “aid” must be continued. They also have made it illegal for woman to get an education or work.

They can’t even escape their tormentors in death, as the filthy Islamists claim the right to continue to have sex with them for 6 hours after they are dead.

I find it interesting that the Communists in the Progressive Caucus in Congress that Republican Representative Alan West spoke of recently will fight tooth and nail to keep a country from getting any aid from America if their unions are not receiving the same treatment as our corrupt union thugs in America. But they will throw money at any country doing it’s best to destroy woman’s rights, as well as women themselves.

Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has fully supported the so called “Arab Spring.” She should be ashamed of herself, but we know the Clintons have no shame.

She should have resigned rather than ever speak to a leader of one of these Muslim misogynistic countries. She should be denouncing them at every interview, doing everything she can to bring an end to American support.

We hear from these Communists in the Progressive Caucus in Congress that there is a Republican “war on woman!”

The truth is that the Commander-in-Chief of the “Worldwide War on Woman,” is President Barack Hussein Obama and his Muslim compatriots throughout the world.  Still worse is that the American taxpayer funds his venal actions against innocent women.

Hillary Clinton is his battlefield general.

The Progressive Caucus in Congress serves as Obama’s field troops, and Debbie Wasserman Schultz is his “Tokyo Rose.”

ForgeryGate: Why Was This Anti-Obama Eligibility Youtube Channel Terminated?

The PPSIMMONS YouTube channel had over 20 Million video views at time of the termination and approximately 20,000 Subscribers! This is suspicious, indeed.

MSNBC Panel Promotes New Obama Campaign Slogan

Obama’s cheerleaders in the liberal media are at it again. If NBC is short for the National Barack Channel, I guess MSNBC is short for the Mega Strong National Barack Channel.

In Defense Of Arizona’s Immigration Law

The Obama administration’s challenge to the Arizona immigration statute SB1070 is not about its popularity, or whether the statute is wise or unwise policy. Legislatures are permitted to enact laws thought unpopular or unwise by others. And as Chief Justice Roberts observed, and the administration’s lawyer agreed, the challenge is also not in any way about civil rights or racial profiling.

The challenge to SB1070 before the Supreme Court is over the narrow question of whether that statute enacted by the Arizona legislature conflicts with federal immigration statutes enacted by the United States Congress. Since Wednesday’s oral argument at the Supreme Court, supporters of the Arizona statute are increasingly hopeful that the high court will uphold most if not all of SB1070, and its opponents correspondingly resigned to that result.

SB1070 requires state and local law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone legally stopped if there is also “reasonable suspicion” of unlawful status, and authorizes arrest without warrant upon “probable cause” to believe that a public offense has been committed that makes a non-citizen removable. Those provisions are entirely consistent with provisions in the federal immigration law protecting the ability of state and local officers to communicate with Federal immigration officers to ascertain someone’s immigration status, and which mandate that the Federal government “shall respond” to an inquiry from state or local government seeking to verify or ascertain immigration status of any individual for any lawful purpose.

SB1070 criminalizes unlawful presence of non-citizens without legal documentation. But federal immigration law already criminalizes failure by non-citizens to register with the federal government and “at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession” documentary evidence of such registration. So no conflict with federal law there.

Federal law punishes employers for hiring persons not lawfully in the U.S. Arizona’s statute prohibits a person not lawfully in the U.S. from seeking work and makes it a crime. Is that a conflict, or an acceptance by Arizona of the invitation from Congress “to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws”? If the high court wants to “balance” its decision on SB1070, this part of SB1070 is the most likely to be found in conflict with federal law, though that conflict is certainly debatable and unclear.

At the root of the national debate over immigration is the unwillingness of elected officials of both parties, including President Obama, to decide whether the U.S. should have open borders with no numerical limit on immigration, or whether we should enforce an annual numerical limit on immigration to the U.S. as enacted by Congress. It’s a simple question, no limits or limits?

They don’t want to repeal the numerical limit and declare the borders open because that would be unpopular. But they also don’t want to enforce the numerical limit enacted by Congress because that would require actually removing people from the U.S. who have entered in violation of the legal limit, and that could cost them votes and political support, too.

So we end up with the current illogical policy of advocating a legal limit but refusing to actually enforce that limit against anyone who hasn’t been convicted of a serious crime and who isn’t a national security threat. Arizona, with 370 miles of international border with Mexico, has been left in the lurch by that incoherent policy.

Arizona is believed to have an illegal population of 400,000 out of 6.4 million total residents, which has triggered an on-going financial crisis over the increased costs for public education, emergency health care, and law enforcement and incarceration. Janet Napolitano, now Homeland Security Secretary in the Obama administration, was Arizona’s governor back in 2005 when she declared an immigration emergency in the state and complained that, “The federal government has failed to secure our border, and the health and safety of all Arizonans is threatened daily by violent gangs, coyotes and other dangerous criminals.”

Whether you think SB1070 is good policy or not, everyone should understand why the Arizona legislature enacted it, why it continues to be supported in Arizona and other states affected by illegal immigration, and why the Supreme Court is likely to uphold it.

Jan Ting is a Professor of Law at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law and a former Assistant Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum and Parole, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice. Jan can be reached at janting@temple.edu.

Anti-Bullying Advocate Advocates Bullying Christians With His Actions

Dan Savage SC Anti Bullying Advocate Advocates Bullying Christians With His Actions

“The mind of a bigot,” wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., “is like the pupil of the eye; the more light you pour upon it, the more it will contract.” In other words, bigots tend to shrink in size and weight the closer they get to the truth. This appears to be the case with one such bigot who happens to be the founder of the “It Gets Better” project — an organization endorsed by the Obama administration created to provide encouragement to bullied lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender teens.

The organization’s founder, Dan Savage, seems to have become the very thing he fights against. Recently speaking about bullying before a group of teenage journalists, Savage went on an anti-Bible rant and said “We can learn to ignore the bulls—t in the Bible about gay people,” and then called the teens that walked out of the lecture in protest, “pansy-as-es.”

This case is not isolated. While on the Bill Maher’s “Real Time” television show awhile back, Savage said he “sometimes thinks about fuc-ing the sh-t out of” former GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum. It is one thing to disagree with someone’s religious beliefs and quite another to suggest punishing them for those beliefs by committing a homosexual rape crime.

Savage’s contempt extends beyond the Bible and Christianity to the Republican Party. It obviously makes little difference to Savage that the GOP has rejected two Evangelical Christians and currently leans in favor of a Mormon to be their presidential nominee. Savage continued, during the same teen journalist conference, with an over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek comment, “We don’t know where the GOP is going these days” — referring to the ancient practice of stoning to death sexually active unmarried women.

Much like what the Westboro Baptist extremist group does, Savage cherry picks scriptures and provides twisted, if any, context. Bullies like Savage are cowards and pick on those whom they feel they have power over. Christians are easy targets because they normally do not retaliate, unlike some in the Muslim world who still practice stoning.

Bible believers do not stone people because of the example set by Jesus. Jesus addressed the practice of stoning the time he approached a group of religious zealots that had surrounded an adulterous woman. The Bible tells us Jesus knelt down and scribbled in the sand. My guess is he was listing the names of her sexual partners, which may have included those standing in the circle. Jesus told them the only ones qualified to throw stones were those without sin. Jesus shined the light of truth and, with stones in hand, the bullies fled the scene in shame. As was the custom at the time, Jesus was within his rights to pick up a stone, but instead offered grace and mercy. Context is everything.

I don’t have to politicize this issue because the gay conservative group GOProud has done it for me by demanding Savage renounce his bigotry. According to the website, examiner.com, GOProud executive director Jimmy LaSalvia went on the record saying, “Dan Savage’s outrageous anti-Christian tirade hurts, not helps, the fight for gay rights in this country.”

The Obama administration should renounce their support for this organization that seems more like a front to vent hatred than a vehicle to advance understanding. As I write, two videos recorded by President Obama and Vice President Biden in support of “It Gets Better” still remain on the White House website and can be viewed online at http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/it-gets-better. It is good the administration speaks out against bullying, but should do so free of ties to one using his organization as a bully pulpit to assert personal prejudice.

Susan Stamper Brown is an opinion page columnist, motivational speaker and military advocate who writes about politics, the military, the economy and culture. Email Susan at writestamper@gmail.com or her website at susanstamperbrown.com.

Photo credit: Better Than Bacon (Creative Commons)

“Pelosi Is Either Confused Or Lying”

CIA interrogator Jose Rodriquez told Sean Hannity tonight that Nancy Pelosi is “either confused or she’s lying.” Rodriguez met with then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Congressional leaders in 2004 to discuss the harsh interrogation techniques. Rodriquez claims Pelosi was told that the techniques were used with high level detainees. Pelosi later told reporters the CIA was lying.

Why The US Should Stop Its Involvement In Afghanistan

Men of Afghanistan SC 300x201 Why the US Should Stop Its Involvement in Afghanistan

Afghanistan and the U.S. recently signed a strategic partnership which will insure that the U.S. provides military and financial support to Afghanistan for at least ten more years. This is on top of a war that has already become America’s longest. The final bill for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan will total at least 3.7 trillion dollars. This massive spending has come at a time when the U.S. government can ill afford it due to its poor financial condition. Should the United States continue to pour money into a country where so many of its people hate the U.S.? Should this money be headed to Afghanistan, or could it be more suitably employed at home? The answer is clear; the U.S. does not have an obligation to this country and should address pressing domestic problems instead of sending it down a money pit.

The U.S. is indeed hated by many in Afghanistan. US-Afghan relations since the beginning of the year have been strained by a video of U.S. Marines urinating on the corpses of presumed Taliban fighters, by Quran burnings at a US base which led to protests, and an alleged killing spree by a US soldier in an Afghan village. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has condemned photographs of US soldiers posing with the mangled bodies of Afghan insurgents, calling them “inhuman.”

Afghanistan’s neighbor Pakistan has likewise experienced significant anti-Americanism. An Afghan Army colonel stated that hatred is growing rapidly and that the Americans are rude, arrogant bullies who use foul language. An Army report in 2011 was based on interviews of hundreds of Afghan and U.S. soldiers. The Afghans saw the United States soldiers as conducting illicit night raids, lacking respect for the country, coming across as indifferent and arrogant, and constantly cursing. Also, as one of our hopes in invading Afghanistan was to liberate women from the oppression of the Taliban, Afghans see American soldiers as mistreating women. Afghan police and army forces, on the other hand, are responsible for the deaths of nearly one out of five NATO soldiers killed in the last year. Clearly, Afghans are troubled by American involvement, and a continuation of such involvement is not needed.

Opposition to American involvement in Afghanistan is by no means confined to those in Afghanistan. Nearly two-thirds of Americans polled in 2011 said that the war in Afghanistan was “not worth fighting.” Even some US politicians, Republican and Democrat, have come out against continued heavy involvement in Afghanistan. Such opposition among both Americans and Afghans to the war in Afghanistan points to a situation that is messed up despite our intervention and that Afghanistan needs no more “help” from the United States.

What exactly are the opportunity costs of our involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan? They are enormous. Pause and think a moment about how much good could have been accomplished with 3.7 trillion dollars. Think of what it would have meant to our national debt if we had instead decided to pay some of it down using that money. Instead, we are left with a destabilized Iraq and an Afghanistan where the Taliban has not been fully dealt with and where there is significant hatred on the part of the Afghans toward their supposed benefactors.

Whatever caution America should have had about getting involved in a land war in Asia should only have been doubled when it was in Afghanistan of all places, which could not even be conquered by tremendous Soviet military might in the 1980s. America has done its part in Afghanistan, more than it had a responsibility to do. Now it is time for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan to end, with our soldiers safe and our money being used at home.

McCain Slams Obama On Osama Victory Lap

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) slammed President Obama last night on his Osama Bin Laden victory lap. ”I’ve had the great honor of serveing in the company of heroes and you know one thing about heroes? They don’t brag.” Ouch.

In Zimmerman’s Case, A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words

Our friends at WND have produced a short, straight-to-the-point video explaining why the Zimmerman case is falling apart. Unfortunately, this case also threatens our Second Amendment rights.

Legislators Ignore Constitutionality Of The Laws They Enact

 

On April 25th the Tennessee State Senate voted unanimously to allow federal and state law enforcement officials full access to the medical records of the citizens of Tennessee. According to SB 2407, “…state and federal law enforcement personnel authorized to have access under 53-10-306 shall be permitted to have real time electronic access to the database…” The statute continues by stating that access is permitted “without the necessity of obtaining a search warrant.” It is a law which is scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2012 as “the public welfare [requires] it.”

Outraged Tennessee residents who wrote and emailed their state senators about the Constitutionality of the law received the following replies from 2 of the lawmakers:

1.) “Legislation is only unconstitutional when the high court deems it so,” and

2.) “Then I’m sure it will be struck down in court.”

As Liberty Legal Foundation head counsel Van Irion so rightly puts it, “Both of these statements reflect a shocking disregard for the Constitution, for the Senators’ Oaths of Office and for the rights of their constituents.”

From Roe v Wade in which legal authority was granted via the convenient manufacture of a Constitutional “right to privacy,” to the 70 year old Wickard v Filburn ruling which held that the congressional power to regulate commerce extended to forbidding a farmer growing wheat for his own family, legislators have enjoyed a nearly limitless increase of their already substantial power thanks to the deference of the Supreme Court and the judiciary nationwide. After all, courts assume written statute will be Constitutional for it is the job of legislators to consider not only the effect but the Constitutionality of their work.

Some legislators are undoubtedly ignorant as to this Constitutional requirement of their position. Others—it often seems a majority—are happy to deliberately exceed the proper and legal limits of their Constitutionally granted power in the pursuit of ever greater authority over the lives and activities of the American public.

“Every member of all three branches of government has an obligation to follow the Constitution,” writes Irion. Were it not the case, “…there would be no need for them to take an oath to uphold [it].” 

But over the years, too many lawmakers have begun to exercise authority based on the notion that they can literally get away with anything, enact any law they wish regardless of its Constitutionality.

As a case in point, New York Senator Chuck Schumer is already working on a measure to “get around” an expected Supreme Court ruling upholding the Arizona immigration law argued before the Court this week.  Rather than abide by the decision of the nation’s highest court, Schumer’s only interest is in subverting it, revealing his contempt both for the authority of the court and for his own responsibility to the Constitution. (4)

To legislators of Schumer’s ilk the problem is not their fundamental assault on the rights of the American public, but rather making certain their choice of legislative language will pass muster with the Justices. If the semantics are right, the law must be acceptable!

Whether it be a result of deliberation or ignorance, the abuse of legislative power exhibited by lawmakers must be ended. By whatever means are necessary, the American public must be willing to get it done.