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.

 


Should Christians Support The War On Drugs?

DEA Should Christians Support The War On Drugs?

 

Televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition Pat Robertson, with whom I have major theological, philosophical, and political differences, recently said something that even I must acknowledge was important, truthful, and courageous.

 

Speaking about the criminal justice system on his “700 Club” television program, Robertson remarked that it was a “shocking statistic” that the United States has “the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on the face of the Earth.” Then he said something few “law and order” conservatives – and especially Christian conservatives – would dare to say: “More and more prisons, more and more crime. It’s just shocking, especially this business about drug offenses. It’s time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can’t do it anymore…You don’t lock ‘em up for booze unless they kill somebody on the highway.”

 

This is not the first time that Robertson has come out for the legalization of marijuana. Back in 2010, he raised the same points:

 

We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences.

 

I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

 

Not everyone at the Christian Broadcasting Network, however, shared Robertson’s views. A spokesman claimed that Robertson “did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana.” He was merely “advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals.”

 

Pat Robertson is exactly correct on the subject of marijuana possession. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he favors the legalization of other drugs or even the fully legalized cultivation, sale, and distribution of marijuana, but it does raise the important question of whether Christians should support the war on drugs.

 

Although I am a theological and cultural conservative, and neither advocate nor condone the use of mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances, I believe that Christians shouldn’t support the government’s war on drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, obesity, dietary fat, cholesterol, cancer, and tobacco.

 

Not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else do so whether they are legal or illegal, I would rather see people use drugs than the government wage war on them for doing so.

 

As a believer in moral absolutes, I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, but I also consider the government’s war on drugs to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral.

 

As an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament, I regard drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should avoid even as they avoid supporting the government’s war on drugs.

 

As a Christian, I oppose root and branch every facet of the government’s war on drugs just as much as I oppose the use of drugs themselves.

 

Yes, I know I am being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. So let me make myself perfectly clear: drugs are bad. Smoking crack is evil. Getting high on marijuana cigarettes or brownies is a vice. Snorting cocaine is destructive. Shooting up with heroin is sinful. Swallowing ecstasy is immoral. Injecting yourself with crystal meth is dangerous. But none of these things means that there should be a law against doing any of them. And it is a myth that those who favor marijuana legalization or drug decriminalization just want to get high without being hassled by the police. Pat Robertson certainly doesn’t. And I certainly don’t either.

There are many reasons why Christians should not support the war on drugs.

Read more at LewRockwell.com



 

Rick Santorum Says Something Surprising About A Fellow Candidate

A self-declared independent voter (but seemingly geared toward Ron Paul) attended a Rick Santorum event and asked what the reasoning was for Santorum choosing to vote for big government programs like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and five debt ceiling increases (which allowed government to borrow and spend more money).

The GAYstapo Wants To Have Christians Arrested

Will Young SC 300x300 The GAYstapo Wants To Have Christians Arrested

A recent article in the UK’s Christian Institute quoted pop star Will Young, a member of the new Gaystapo, as he referred to clergymen who referenced homosexual unions, which they are trying to get everyone to say they are “gay marriage” (which this writer will not do), as “abhorrent”. Mr. Young didn’t stop there though. He continued expressing the desire to have those who see the new Gaystapo and their unions as abhorrent as those who should be prosecuted for hate crimes. He certainly wouldn’t like what I call it: sodomy, homosexualality, debauchery, unnatural, depraved, perverse, evil, disgusting, wretched and a host of other terms to describe the Gaystapo perverts.

Somehow Mr. Young thinks it’s ok to call people with convictions other than his own criminals and hatemongers that should be in jail, but when they disagree with his position he cries “foul” like a little child kicking and screaming that they are intolerant. See the utter intolerance of the tolerance movement?

These statements appeared live on BBC1′s Question Time.

I like to identify people like Mr. Young as the new Gaystapo, or among the militant sodomites who are showing themselves for who they truly are. They are those who claim to love and be tolerant, yet they are the very epitome of hate and intolerance. They want to silence anyone who would call their perverse behavior….well, perverse!

They would just a soon see Bible believing Christians in prison and if they had their way executed. They only speak of love in terms of sex. While there probably are some homosexuals who do care for their partners, it is then betrayed by the fact that they engage them romantically and sexually, thus showing a hatred of them.

Read More at FrontPorchPolitics.com By Tim Brown.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Is 10 Times Worse Than Watergate

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an interview with Mark Gillar of the Tea Party Power Hour radio show, says that the Birth Certificate Fraud that is being perpetrated is “10 times worse than Watergate.” Sheriff Joe continues, calling it the “Worst media blackout in history.”

Sheriff Joe recently unveiled the results of an investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate released online last year and stated that after investigation the document is likely forged. If you would like to watch the entire press conference, click here.

The Mainstream Media Blackout Of The Arpaio News Conference

531 l1 1024x682 The Mainstream Media Blackout of the Arpaio News Conference

We are living in strange times.

The Russian news service Pravda has written an extremely detailed article not only about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s revelation of the forgery of Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service document, but has picked up on the long-time charge of Obama’s obvious usurping of the presidency by ignoring the natural born clause of the U.S. Constitution. What is strange about this? Only that the article decries—almost mocks—the total mainstream media blackout.

The mainstream media couldn’t simply pretend that Arpaio’s news conference didn’t occur, stuffing it down an Orwellian memory hole, so they came up with another Obamabot explanation: that Arpaio is simply paying back the DOJ and Obama for their various criminal investigations of his department. This has been repeated ad nauseam before and after the press conference as if Arpaio has already been charged and convicted of these various “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Strangely, minutes after Arpaio’s conference, these various “charges” were repeated by a single Associated Press writer, Jacques Billeaud, and parroted verbatim within hours by literally hundreds of news organizations. Billeaud’s basis for the dismissal of Arpaio forgery charges: “Some critics suggest Arpaio’s aim is to divert attention from his own legal troubles while raising his political profile as he seeks a sixth term this year. The sheriff vehemently denies such strategies are in play.”  Like the Body Snatchers movie, this blurb was used in hundreds if not thousands of news organizations and websites, and repeated not as opinion, which it is, but substantiated fact. Add to the news organizations that simply rewrote the article under someone else’s name and changed a few words, and this number would be in the tens of thousands. It makes the old Soviet Politburo in terms of speed and efficiency look like child’s play.

The “legal troubles” Billeaud refers to is Obama’s rogue DOJ alleging that Arpaio routinely uses racial profiling to make arrests, among other things. The evidence for this? When Arpaio, in customary fashion said, in effect, show me the money, DOJ, as they always do when someone stands up to their Brown Shirt tactics, retreated, babbling incoherently. As if a DOJ that is so corrupt dozens of lawmakers are calling for Holder’s resignation, if not impeachment, whose filthy hands are all over the Fast and Furious debacle, whereby hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered, and at least two U.S. citizens, and in which Holder has been mired in subverting justice at least back to the 1990s, versus a Sheriff that has had an exemplary career in the DEA, working all over the world, previously heading the DEA in Arizona, and now has been crowned with the title “America’s toughest Sheriff” for taking on the Obama machine— he is somehow less credible than what many have called the Department of “Injustice?” I don’t think so.

Back to the Pravda article: the article, written by Dianna Cotter, discusses the Obama forgery and natural born citizen issue in such a detailed matter, coming in a close second to Jerome’s Corsi’s Where’s the Birth Certificate? even going into the Obamabots in 2008 scrubbing law citation databases’ reference to the one definition of natural born citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875. Cotter is incredulous that America is standing by with what she calls a usurpation of the presidency.

She is not the only one who is incredulous.

The millions of us who slowly discovered beginning in 2008 of how truly radical Obama is; how he had surrounded himself as far back as at least the mid-80s with socialists, communists, anarchists, and now, with Media Matters working as a Soviet-style Politiburo for Obama, and Center for American Progress basically writing policy, he has added openly anti-Semitic organizations.

With those of us before Obama was even sworn in screaming from the highest mountain tops, the mainstream media in 2008 and to this day surrounded and still surround Obama in his glass house, protecting him from all stones. In the past week, of course, it has not been as subtle. With the beginning of the Breitbart revamped “Bigs” carrying on the work of Andrew Breitbart,  on March 4, the first vetting of Obama began with the curious tale of “Barack’s Love Song to Alinsky.” With this article and the subsequent accompanying articles and videos, the spigot was turned on, where it was detailed that one Senator “Baracka” Obama in 1998 had taken part in a panel after a play whose subject was the hagiography of one Saul Alinsky, hero of the Left. In one instance of an obvious mainstream media circling of the wagons, CNN, in interviewing Brietbart.com’s Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollack about the first video tape of Obama’s ties to radical professor Derrick Bell, Soledad O’Brien, seeing the gorilla in the room, literally had a meltdown on live TV trying to prove that Derrick Bell was not a radical jew-hating racist, and oddly tried to prove that it was Joel Pollack, not Bell, who was the racist. O’Brien, in trying to prove Bell was not a radical, spoke generally and blandly about Bell and his theories, it later being determined that a Wikipedia article on Bell’s theories was being whispered in her ear by her producers. Further, it was later learned that O’Brien was not only a Bell apologist, but had been a long-time fan of his.

So what do we do now? The forged birth certificate and Selective Service document is only the beginning of America’s troubles. Obama’s healthcare law has foisted on America an unconstitutional mandate for all Americans to buy a certain product—health insurance—to which if the federal government can force Americans to buy one product, why not another product? Electric cars? Michelle Obama’s menu of what to eat? And if they can tell us what to buy, then why not what not to buy? Fast food causes obesity, causes health problems and thus increases the price of health insurance, so why not shut down fast food restaurants by forbidding Americans to buy hamburgers and French fries? There is no end to Obama’s power grab (we won’t even go into the attack on Religion with his HHS mandate and “accommodation”).

Obama has routinely usurped the power of Congress by his bland “If Congress won’t act, I will” routine, by executive order fiat, appointing a shadow government via White House czars, and now, apparently, he doesn’t even need Congress to go to war, with Defense Secretary Panetta’s March 7 statement that the UN and NATO trump the U.S. Congress. If Obama has usurped the Presidency with false documents and a shadow government; has routinely usurped Congress on matters of policy and war, what is to stop him from usurping the power of the Supreme Court? If the Supreme Court later this year decides that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional, what is to stop Obama stating, “If the Supreme Court won’t act, I will.” If he tramples on two branches of government, why not a third? Why not the entire basis for the tripartite form of U.S. government—the Constitution? We could easily envision the same statement: “If the U.S. Constitution will not permit me to act, I will!”

We are living in strange times. A Russian puppet government with widespread voter fraud electing Putin has a news service that produces a scathing attack on the U.S. media for suppressing information about an obvious usurper; and a U.S. democracy that has a free press and acts as a Soviet Politburo. Not even George Orwell could have envisioned such a thing as this.

Terrorist Bill Ayers Calls Andrew Breitbart A “Grinning Bomb Thrower Of Radical Right”

Terrorist Bill Ayers discussing a dinner party he hosted for Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, calls Breitbart a “Grinning Bomb Thrower Of Radical Right.” The outrageousness of this statement is only heightened by the fact that Bill Ayers, a mentor of Barack Obama, actually did throw bombs.

The Breitbart Army Has Risen

breitbart The Breitbart Army Has Risen

Image Courtesy Of Breitbart.com

Back when rumors about President Obama being a Muslim raised their head momentarily in the mainstream media, Obama blamed the 24/7 news cycle and all the “noise” that is disseminated via the media.

Translation: America is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that his Indonesian grammar school records said he was a Muslim. That he had travelled to a Muslim country—Pakistan—while in between terms of Occidental and Columbia University (more than likely with an Indonesian passport) and happened to omit this until August of 2008 as part of his life narrative. Or that he said he was a Muslim, and if Obama operative George Stephanopoulos hadn’t been on hand to correct his “mistake,” it would have gone on the official record. Or that as soon as he ascended to the presidency he went on an American apology tour to Muslim countries. Of course the answer to why America believes Obama is a Muslim is that, America has, like anything else, looked at the facts, and has come to a decision. That this “noise” exists whereby rational people can’t make reasonable decisions could be translated into: America consists of extremely stupid, extremely gullible people, who will believe whatever they hear. This comes as no surprise to those who believe Mr. Obama is, along with being a Muslim, a socialist.

One of the premises of the brand of socialism that Obama subscribes to—incremental socialism—is that stupid people need to be helped by elites. Other premises: 1. That people are oppressed by the rich. 2. That they are too stupid to realize they are being oppressed. 3. That even if most of the masses did realize they were being oppressed, they are too stupid to do anything about it. 4. An enlightened group of intellectuals, politicians, and union officials will have to, through spoon feeding a series of reforms in government form the basis for an eventual socialist utopia after an economic collapse (more on this in a moment).

Of course these elites must have a general. Enter Barack Hussein Obama, presented to the American people as a moderate, as a savant in all things political, economic, and theological. Behind the curtain is Obama the radical, who has surrounded himself, since at least the mid-1980s with socialists and communists; has surrounded himself with individuals, like Peter Dreier and Frances Fox Piven, not to mention people in ACORN, that subscribe to a “break the bank” theory, whereby socialism/communism is ushered in not by revolution, but by a huge entitlement  (and now bailout/Green loan) society, with the “progressive” policies in place, that collapses the economic system.  And when those entitlements and bailouts are cut off, the beneficiaries are cut off, and the elites, bureaucrats and unions step in to appease the rioting mob, and create a system of perfect economic equality.

This is what is happening in Greece and this is what Obama and his cronies want to happen in the United States. America has tipped over the $16 trillion debt cliff with endless Stimulus,“Green” loans, bailouts and entitlement expansion, and is now calling for more of the same. The Stimulus is nothing more than money laundering, whereby “Stimulus” money and bailouts, given to the states and GM, goes back into the coffers of the unions, which then come back to Obama in the form of Democrat donation. We also now know the Green loans have been shown to have gone primarily to 2008 Obama bundlers.

But a strange thing happened.  For those of us who live on Twitter, and for those of us who saw the Obama HHS mandate against the Catholic Church explode on Twitter over a four day period, growing from America’s mild irritation of Obama’s mandate, to an absolute rage and calls for civil disobedience—we, living on the lifeblood of Twitter, again went on another roller coaster ride. On the evening of March 4, a Sunday, while what Andrew Breitbart called the citizen journalists were doing the job the mainstream media wouldn’t do, we were quietly minding are own business, tweeting things, writing things, using the hashtag #IamAndrewBreitbart to honor Andrew as our fallen general, when a single tweet appeared. Something about the “Bigs” (a reference to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, Big Journalism, etc. Then, within seconds, there were more tweets. Many more. I clicked one of the links, which brought me to a strange incarnation of “the Bigs”—Breitbart.com—which was a complete revamped version of Breitbart’s websites all in one place, but more importantly, an announcement was made that the vetting of Barack Hussein Obama had begun.  With an article entitled, “The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song to Alinsky,” and the accompanying articles, the spigot was turned on, where it was detailed that one Senator “Baracka” Obama in 1998 had taken part in a panel after a play whose subject was the hagiography of one Saul Alinsky, hero of the Left. This slow dripping of the spigot which has been partially turned on began the vetting process of “Baraka” Obama, the vetting that Andrew Breitbart prophesied of at the CPAC Conference:

“I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him. We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”

In two hours’ time, Twitter and the Internet were saturated with “Barack’s Love Song” (it has been been tweeted 150,000 times as of March 12), and, in true Andrew Breitbart fashion, as he had done with the ACORN video tapes, accompanying articles from March 4 to the present have been slowly spoon fed out (to keep the Left off balance and to anticipate their myopic, predictable strategy), so that the Internet is literally on fire with the topic, not to mention the other thousands of citizen journalists (I include myself) doing the work the mainstream media refuses to do.

Like a wounded animal the Left has reacted with their characteristic strategy: change the subject, demonize, and use a double standard. Change the subject didn’t work because the Breitbart army, when confronted with blandly calling Obama’s radical connections simply moderates, in one case the Breitbart team went on CNN, where Obama lapdog Soledad O’Brien almost had a cardiac arrest trying to take the stones away from those who wanted to break Obama’s glass house, and at one point in this strange interview, O’Brien had her producer stream into her ear a Wikipedia article about the “moderate” critical theory of the Obama radical in question, Derrick Bell.

What the citizen journalists of the world have learned in a very short period of time—a kind of crash course in battle—is that continually being on defense does not work with the Left. I like to make the analogy of Abraham Lincoln searching for a general during the Civil War. Lincoln went through a handful of generals that would attack the Confederate Army, win a battle, then retreat to wait for more reinforcements, supplies, etc. Attacking relentlessly, which Lincoln believed would be the only way to end the war, was repeatedly ignored by the series generals he went through, who thought Lincoln naive in military strategy. Lincoln finally found a general in U.S. Grant that agreed with his strategy, and the war fairly quickly came to an end, albeit, as both Lincoln and Grant knew, it required a great loss of life.

Today, I think, we are in the same battle. Not of guns and cannons but ideas and words. The Left believes a huge welfare state and centralized planning is the answer to the world’s ills. That  the “outdated” Constitution should be put on the shelf, or in the least modified. That borders and countries are impediments to freedom and economic stability. That are group of elitist bureaucrats can better make decisions than the mindless masses.

That “free speech” should no longer mean the free expression of ideas, but that those statements labeled homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-women, or the ridiculously general “hate speech” should be stamped out, crushed, silenced. Of course “hate speech” is the code for the Obama Brown Shirts’ identification of something that doesn’t tow the party line. Whereby we have what Breitbart called “totalitarian freaks,” in which their definition of free speech is: We shout, you listen. You speak, we shout you down or muzzle you.

Of course enter the double standard.

This is exemplified in the recent Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke debacle, where Big Mouth Obama said Rush Limbaugh’s remarks have “no place in the public discourse,” and like a good papa protecting his brood, invoked the virgin ears of his daughters. Except Rush Limbaugh’s comments were mild compared to potty mouth Bill Maher’s comments against Sarah Palin. To add flame to the fire, Maher gave Obama’s PAC a cool one million dollars, of which Obama skillfully avoided making mention of.

Before March 4, and I think the death of Andrew Breitbart, most of us conservatives would have bent over and taken this like a man, blandly citing double standards, hypocrisy, etc. When calls for Rush Limbaugh to apologize occurred, which he did, and this not placating the Left (we knew it wouldn’t, as they have been trying to get him and his 15 million listeners off the airwaves for years), and when Obama’s Brown Shirts began to call for the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s license, then the Citizen Journalists, along with a little help from Fox News, like the Breitbart Army, went into attack mode. We knew Fluke was simply a poster girl for the Left to change the subject of Obama’s attack on religious freedom to the false narrative of the Republican “attack on women.” We knew that Leftists had said things ten times worse than Limbaugh not only against Sarah Palin, but Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, just to name a few. From bloggers, to “progressive” radio hosts, to MSNBC, to “comedians” like Maher. Except this time the Orwellian memory holes weren’t available for the Left to hide their abject hypocrisy, for with that amazing thing made possible by ones and zeros—the Internet—we had it “all on tape,” so to speak. That we found out the Sandra Fluke TV series was being orchestrated by the White House and its propaganda machine Media Matters, and Fluke being personally handled by former Obama mouthpiece and lover of all things Mao Tse Tung Anita Dunn was simply icing on the cake.

But the Left, this wounded animal, dripping blood, after, as Breitbart said, planning for years to put a radical in the White House, will not give up so easily. The socialist front ThinkProgress.org began the recent attack on Limbaugh with a “petition” for an apology to Sandra Fluke, but from a cursory search of their site, they want nothing more than a silencing of dissent—specifically dissent against Obama, of which Limbaugh is relentless. They are engaged in the same tactic utilized to silence Glenn Beck on Fox News: relentlessly go after the sponsors.

Phase Two of the Silence Rush campaign has been taken up by former Vietcong Cheerleader and US soldier backstabber “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, calling for the FCC to pull Limbaugh’s license. Translation: We want Rush (and by extension everyone else) to have free speech, just as long as it is not contrary to our totalitarian views, and as long as it’s not done in public.

But now the difference is we, the Citizen Journalists, the Tea Partiers, and conservatives in general, that have been called everything from racists to domestic terrorists for simply stating our opinions, following Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh’s lead, are now going on offense. As Andrew Breitbart said at CPAC:

“I bought a dog whistle. I bought a dog whistle factory, and I’m giving you dog whistles, and we’re gonna listen to every word that comes out of your mouth and we’re gonna hold you to the same standard that you hold us which is an impossible one and you’re gonna have a hell of a time in 2012 because America’s finally awakened to your Saul Alinsky bullshit tactics and we’re coming to get you.”

Here is just one example our dog whistle strategy, and many, many more will follow:

Obama, ThinkProgress, Democrat party, you decry the evil of Limbaugh? What about Bill Maher? What about the $1M that Big Mouth Obama took from Maher? We, like you, will be relentless. We will follow the lead of our general, Andrew Breitbart, and attack and attack and attack. But unlike you, our attacks will be based in truth, not lies; not deceptions; not double standards.

Here is a video compilation showing the absolute vileness of Maher and Big Mouth Obama’s hypocrisy in phoning Sandra Fluke and, like a psychopath, using his daughters to advance his radical ideology:

“I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about; even ones I may not agree with them on…And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

Shame on you, Obama. If you will put your own daughters on the altar of your radical ideology, what will you do to the American people?

As our hero Andrew Breitbart said, This is WAR. And like the Civil War, the side of right, the side of truth will win, because the Truth always wins.

CNN Plays Two Full Minutes Of Obama Propaganda Film For Free

CNN aired two uninterrupted minutes of a 17 minute Obama campaign propaganda film to be released in the future. According to my math, that’s an astounding %11.7 of the entire film played on a supposedly “objective” news source.

But that’s not surprising from a network that spins poll results for Obama, blames Obama’s debt downgrade on the Tea Party and Sarah Palin, and fired every single one of their Jewish journalists in Israel, leaving only Muslims in their Middle East News Center.

I’m sure CNN hopes to be paid back in the future for their generosity.

H/T Media Research Center

Elena Kagan Edited Derrick Bell Article Calling Constitution “The Problem”

Barack Obama Elena Kagan SC 300x190 Elena Kagan Edited Derrick Bell Article Calling Constitution The Problem

H/T Breitbart

Joel B. Pollak at Breitbart.com tells us:

In November 1985, the Harvard Law Review published an article by Derrick Bell that was a “classic” in the development of Critical Race Theory. The article was edited by then-student Elena Kagan, and was cited by Prof. Charles Ogletree in support of her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2010. The article makes clear that Critical Race Theory sees the U.S. Constitution as a form of “original sin”–a view later embraced by Obama as a state legislator, and reflected in his actions and appointments. The following is an excerpt from the non-fiction portion of the article; much of what follows is a fictional story that Bell intended as a parable of racial “fantasy.” (99 Harv. L. Rev. 4)

From the article:

At the nation’s beginning, the framers saw more clearly than is perhaps possible in our more enlightened and infinitely more complex time the essential need to accept what has become the American contradiction. The framers made a conscious, though unspoken, sacrifice of the rights of some in the belief that this forfeiture was necessary to secure the rights of others in a society embracing, as its fundamental principle, the equality of all. And thus the framers, while speaking through the Constitution in an unequivocal voice, at once promised freedom for whites and condemned blacks to slavery….

The Constitution has survived for two centuries and, despite earnest efforts by committed people, the contradiction remains, shielded and nurtured through the years by myth. This contradiction is the root reason for the inability of black people to gain legitimacy — that is, why they are unable to be taken seriously when they are serious and why they retain a subordinate status as a group that even impressive proofs of individual competence cannot overcome. Contradiction, shrouded by myth, remains a significant factor in blacks’ failure to obtain meaningful relief against historic racial injustice.

The myths that today and throughout history have nurtured the original constitutional contradiction and thus guided racial policy are manifold, operating like dreams below the level of language and conscious thought. Much of what is called the law of civil rights — an inexact euphemism for racial law — has a mythological or fairy-tale quality that is based, like the early fairy tales, less on visions of gaiety and light than on an ever-present threat of disaster. We are as likely to deny as to concede these myths, and we may well deny some and admit others. They are not single stories or strands. Rather, they operate in a rich texture that constantly changes, concealing content while elaborating their misleading meanings.

When recognized, these myths often take the form of the missing link between the desire for some goal of racial justice and its realization. Black civil rights lawyers propound the myth that this case or that court may provide the long-sought solution to racial division. They fantasize and strategize about hazy future events that may bring us a long-envisioned racial equality. White people cling to the belief that racial justice may be realized without any loss of their privileged position. Even at this late date, some find new comfort in the old saw that “these things” — meaning an end to racial discrimination — “take time.” The psychological motivations behind the myths perpetrated by people of both races can be sufficiently complex to engender book-length explanations by psychiatrists. Racial stereotypes are also part of this suffocating web of myth that forms the rationale of inaction, but it is not necessary to catalogue here the myriad stereotypes about black people that have served since the days of slavery to ease the consciences of the thoughtful and buoy the egos of the ignorant.

The contemporary myths that confuse and inhibit current efforts to achieve racial justice have informed all of our racial history. Myth alone, not history, supports the statements of those who claim that the slavery contradiction was finally resolved by a bloody civil war. The Emancipation Proclamation was intended to serve the interests of the Union, not the blacks, a fact that Lincoln himself admitted. The Civil War amendments, while more vague in language and ambiguous in intent, actually furthered the goals of northern industry and politics far better and longer than they served to protect even the most basic rights of the freedmen. The meager promises of physical protection contained in the civil rights statutes adopted in the post-Civil War period were never effectively honored. Hardly a decade later, the political compromise settling the disputed Hayes-Tilden election once again left the freedmen to the reality of life with their former masters. Finally, the much-discussed “40 acres and a mule,” hardly extravagant reparations for an enslaved people who literally built the nation, never got beyond the discussion stage.

The reason that the Civil War amendments failed to produce equality for blacks remains an all-too-familiar barrier today: effective remedies for harm attributable to discrimination in society in general will not be granted to blacks if that relief involves a significant cost to whites. Even in northern states, abolitionists’ efforts following the Revolutionary War were stymied by this unspoken principle. Today, affirmative action remedies as well as mandatory school desegregation plans founder as whites balk at bearing the cost of racial equality.

Throughout this history of unkept promises and myth-making about the possibility and proximity of racial equality, racial policy via fantasy has not been the exclusive province of “the perpetrator perspective.” Black victims of racial oppression also subscribe to myths about racial issues. The modern civil rights movement and its ringing imperative, “We Shall Overcome,” must be seen as part of the American racial fantasy. This is not a condemnation. Much of what advocates call the “struggle” to throw off the fetters of subordinate status is simply an age-old effort to uncover the reality beneath the racial illusions that whites and blacks hold both about themselves and about each other.Clutching for ideological straws is understandable, but, unfortunately, the result is as predictable as that of the framers’ fantasy…

Left-Wing Radio Host Calls South “Crackerland”

LEE PAPA: Who’s saying she’s hurting Obama because of the GOP’s stance on women’s issues now. You can’t turn back the clock, and that’s what they want to do. They don’t want to conserve what exists, they want to actually turn it back.

STEPHANIE MILLER: So what happens in Crackerland this week, as we like to say? We have, what, Alabama and Mississippi coming up tomorrow.

PAPA: I think Santorum and Gingrich split the yahoos in Alabama and Romney just flat out wins Mississippi.

Read More at freebeacon.com H/T