Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments


Great as always.

Rewriting history? As throwing the race card is, the rewriting of history to either cover one’s ass or brainwash the masses is still foremost the last refuge of a scoundrel as a nice way of putting it. As you know, I’ve said it more than once, a co-opted media working in concert with a corrupt anti-American ideal administration is a dangerous mix. And we all know CNN is one of the leaders of that pack.

BTW: I know what you mean in your epilogue and we all know I go off on tangents on this subject. But it has to be said over and over. You are so correct. No one should stifle themselves if they feel they see the truth and want to state it! The main thing is that one changes his or her stance if proven wrong. In this case, no worries on that one. LOL!

Excellent, Skook. But one problem. I thought that the liberals and MSM are telling us that Obama has “changed” and no longer canoodles with the Marxists from his past.

If that’s so, then why this?

In November of 1985, the Harvard Law Review published a seminal article of Critical Race Theory, written by Derrick Bell, and edited by a student, Elena Kagan. The same article was cited by Professor Charles Ogletree and by President Obama as support for her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010.

Ok, sarcasm tag off now. The only logical explanation for the left’s insistence on Obama’s “change” from those radical days of yesteryear is to downplay the significance of the point you are stating. That is, that Obama was entrenched in Marxist values from an early age and hasn’t changed his viewpoint one little bit. But, the left MUST downplay it, for if they do not, they are admitting to pulling one over on the American people, concerning who the real Obama is. I’d have more respect for them, not much but definitely more, if they just came out and stated that Obama is, indeed, a student of socialism, or, statism. The way they are playing it now, though, leaves them not only as facilitators to Obama’s statist viewpoints, but also liars as well.

One more point, and this deals with the Constitution and how it is portrayed by the left, in general, and Prof. Bell, in that citation of his above.

Prof. Bell writes, and you highlighted above;

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….

No, Prof. Bell, and the many liberal/progressive “friends” that come here to FA, the framers did nothing of the sort. There is a very good, very logical reason why the framers did not feel the need to engage in identifying specific groups that the Constitution protected the rights of. If they had done so, like, say, advancing specific amendments within the Bill of Rights to women, blacks, etc., the Constitution then would become not a guarantee, or protection, of our natural rights, but rather, a granter of rights to the people, and that the federal government would become the source of those rights. And that is exactly what the framers were attempting to get away from, and what they had just fought a war to get away from. In this, the framers of the Constitution showed their genius, regarding exactly what was included.

Now, think about this for a minute. And think long and hard on it, objectively(I know it’s hard for you liberals, but try anyway). Imagine the Constitution, in it’s original form, without any of the added amendments after the Bill of rights. Imagine the overall race relations today. Now tell me if in reading the Constitution, in its original ratified form, that it wouldn’t apply to women, blacks, asians, homosexuals, or any other group seeking “rights” today.

The fact is that it would. Today, those same original rights guaranteed by the Constitution, and protected from government interference, would apply to blacks and whites equally. To women and men equally. And to any other group the left pits against another group, equally. So no, the founders weren’t wrong in how they wrote the Constitution. They had it right.

The problem is that the left believes the document was, and is, a document giving power to the government to grant people rights, exactly the opposite of what it is meant to be. And no amount of obfuscation, marginalizing the founders, or even outright historical revisionism will change that.

Ever notice how the Left tries to bring up the opinions of their very worst by sitting them side-by-side with some of their less egregious members?
See: Black Women Paving the Way to Greatness in Politics.
They include: Shirley Chisholm, the first black congresswoman and the first black woman who sought to run for president; Carol Moseley Braun, the first black female U.S. senator; former National Security Council adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the first black female to hold both offices; Patricia Roberts Harris, the first black female Cabinet secretary, U.S. ambassador and law school dean; and our current first lady, Michelle Obama.
Seems innocuous.
Terrific ladies all, no matter their leanings.

Then comes the shock:
Angela Davis, a black activist who came to prominence in the 1960s as a leader of the Communist Party U.S.A. and the radical black group the Black Panther Party.
Angela Davis was such a high profile communist in the latter days of the Cold War that she was awarded the so-called “Lenin Peace Prize,” in a Moscow ceremony by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev himself.
Angela Davis who had purchased at least two of the guns used in the deadly attack that took place in the courtroom of Judge Harold Haley, where convict James McClain was facing murder charges in the death of a prison guard.
Angela Davis had bought the shotgun that killed Judge Haley two days earlier and which was then sawed off.
California law considered anyone complicit in commission of a crime a principal.
Marin County Superior Judge Peter Smith charged Ms. Davis with “aggravated kidnapping and first-degree murder” and issued an arrest warrant for her. Instead of surrendering for trial, Ms. Davis went into hiding. She was captured by the FBI almost three months later at a Howard Johnson motel on 10th Avenue in the heart of New York City.
The international communist movement bankrolled her defense and organized a worldwide movement to “Free Angela.”
Angela Davis holds that any black serving a prison sentence in the United States is in reality a “political prisoner.”

So it is greatly ironic that she is honored on a Washington DC courthouse wall in this Black History Month photo display.

As opposed to Fox News’ nightly revisionism?

Skook, I believe that most people already know a bit about CRT… they are just confused at this terminology because they know CRT’s “solutions” by a different name…. “affirmative action”.

UCLA has devoted their community organizing commitment to their CRT studies, and the solutions of “affirmative action”, with a website devoted entirely to those interested in CRT community organizing, and collaborating with UCLA’s School of Public Affairs.

This website has been created to encourage collaboration within the School of Public Affairs as well as to the larger UCLA community and beyond. We would like to take this discussion about race to the community so that we are no longer just talking about race but actually doing something about defeating racism in our world.

This website is also being used as an type of institutional memory so that the generations of CRS scholars can connect and continue the movement.

Also more on the “backstory” of it’s origination in 2006 here.

This UCLA site has provided their own dissertation on What Is Critical Race Theory, which broadens it’s evolution out of the legal scholarly origination, and has leaped beyond individuals as racists themselves. CRT is, according to UCLA, the theory of institutional racism created and perpetuated by white supremacy, and designed to oppress those of color – whether intentional, or culturally inbred.

CRT recognizes that racism is engrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures.

CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color.

CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy. Legal discourse says that the law is neutral and colorblind, however, CRT challenges this legal “truth” by examining liberalism and meritocracy as a vehicle for self-interest, power, and privilege.

CRT also recognizes that liberalism and meritocracy are often stories heard from those with wealth, power, and privilege. These stories paint a false picture of meritocracy; everyone who works hard can attain wealth, power, and privilege while ignoring the systemic inequalities that institutional racism provides.

Intersectionality within CRT points to the multidimensionality of oppressions and recognizes that race alone cannot account for disempowerment. “Intersectionality means the examination of race, sex, class, national origin, and sexual orientation, and how their combination plays out in various settings.”[1] This is an important tenet in pointing out that CRT is critical of the many oppressions facing people of color and does not allow for a one–dimensional approach of the complexities of our world.

Much of this reiterates what you pointed out in your, as usual, classic post above. But if you shave away all the words and sentences too complex in structure for the average person to grasp, CRT is as simple as this.

CRT is both a theory and a movement.

The theory identifies our nation’s capitalist institutions, and our judicial system, as instruments of oppression that are created and operated by those who are white supremacists (aware or unaware) in their intent.

The movement is the personification of affirmative action… the reverse discrimination that is supposed to correct for the institutional racism of America.

If it’s already not overly broad in vagary for those affecting, they are adding additional tiers of influence… gender, financial class, national origin, and sexual orientation.

In other words, it’s a one-stop-shopping philosophy for professional “victims”, looking for government solutions mandating “social and economic justice”. And not so cleverly disguised as curriculum.

As for Obama, I have no doubt that he is a student of, and supporter of, the theory of CRT. Considering his professional past as a community organizer and agitator, combined with those he surrounds himself with today, I have no doubt that he continues to be in support of the CRT theory.

Unfortunately, as POTUS and not dictator of the US, he cannot be as helpful to the CRT movement as I believe he would like to be because there’s the pesky reality of checks and balances. But he’s doing his damnedest to get ‘er done – even if more slowly – under these Constitutional constraints. Kagen and Sotomayor to SCOTUS and the “affirmation action” built into Dodd-Frank for staffing newly created and existing agencies are but two examples.

Obama has been extremely careful about overt favoritism based on race. This would be too easy to detect by a watchful world in the information age. But there is a more modern CRT, which might seem contrary to Bell’s original CRT philosophy – but isn’t. It has been expanded to include gender and class – and not even necessarily that of minorities. This neo-CRT philosophy is perfect for ambitious politicians for exploitation.

And of course Obama – as the most powerful, community-organizer-in-chief – has managed to make the CRT movement acceptable to the average American.

Because so many see themselves as….

* financially assaulted and overworked “middle class”,
* women under attack,
* minorities being prevented from voting because they won’t (or can’t because of illegal presence) get a state photo ID,
* or oppressed in some other ways….

…. CRT is now a club of victims functioning in a welcoming, big tent, offering a bit of something for almost every one.

Education, or should I say indoctrination, lies at the heart of our country’s problems. Unfortunately, a change in WH decor is not likely to reverse the damage done, or stop it compounding in the future. And I find that heartbreaking.

Recall that he who controls the meaning of words controls the outcome of the discussion.

In the context of Critical Race Theory, just what, exactly, is meant by “race”? We have a prominent case of “race” in that BHO told us in his own autobiography that in his youth he struggled with his racial identity and finally chose to be ‘black”. However, he also tells us that his mother was Caucasian and his father was from Kenya. So, according to the dictionary, he is mulatto. In 1988, none other than Bill Clinton was called our “first black president” by Nobel poet Tony Morrison.

If a Caucasian man can be “black”, and a person with a Caucasian mother can decide to be black or something else, then what, exactly is meant by “black”?

When Bill Maher, during a panel discussion on HBO complains that Obama’s policies are “half-assed” “because he’s only half black.” and that “if he was fully black, I’m telling you, he would be a better president.”, and that “there’s a white man in him holding him back”, than what is “black”?

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien writes of a private meeting in 2007 with Jesse Jackson in her book, “The Next Big Story.” During the meeting, Jackson complained to O’Brien, whose mother is a black woman from Cuba, that there weren’t any black anchors on CNN. She wrote, “He looks me in the eye and reaches his fingers over to tap a spot of skin on my right hand. He shakes his head. “You don’t count,” he says.” She closed the section with “[t]he arbiter of blackness had weighed in. I had been measured and found wanting.”

Finally, Dr. Cornel West, whose official web site describes him as “a prominent and provocative democratic intellectual”, was the subject of an article in the May 18, 2011 Washington Post. Reporter Krissah Thompson opened with, “Scholar Cornel West’s scathing critique of President Obama’s liberal bona fides in a series of recent interviews has ignited a furious debate among African American bloggers and commentators.”

References to race, and especially to “black”, in all these contexts, is clearly not about “race”. It is about ideology, socialist ideology. The problem is not how black all these people may be, but how RED.

Well, Skook… if you thought my comment was an additional galloping horse while you were still nursing your shin, I’d say that theBuckWheat’s comment above now makes that a veritable stampede. LOL

Astute observations, theBuckWheat. Many thanks for the valuable additional insight.

Dorothy Brown. See second page where she specificly writes that white supremecy is integrel to CRT

Buckwheat definitely made it a stampede. “…not how black but how red.” Well said.

@ Skook,
“They asked that I tone down my rhetoric and refrain from calling Obama a Marxist; at least until, the public was ready to accept the fact. Never again will I rein in my keyboard for the delicate sensitivities of our readers or other writers. The country is in deep manure and I refuse to drown in it gracefully.”

This is a really significant point you stress here. I believe we live in a society where a majority wants to believe that Marxism and Communism have for the most part been purged from our shores. Glenn Beck was one of the first, and perhaps only, major media personalities who accused Obama and his administration of being Marxists. He was pilloried – he had gone too far. And of course the MSM piled on and accused him of being everything South of a lunatic, fanatic, with messianic tendencies, etc. . . . . Turns out, Beck and all those who saw through to Obama’s roots, get the last laugh, but alas cannot laugh.

Contrarian defences of this President, claiming that Obama is otherwise, pretend that he has ‘helped’ Wall Street – so he can’t be Marxist. To that, I reply, Wall Street controlled him on the financial front because he was too uninformed to know any different. But he sure knew enough to fraudulently infuse billions of taxpayer dollars into his friends’ pockets, such as the boys behind Solyndra, so that in good quid-pro-quo fashion, they could all feed the re-election machine. In hard dollars, this is without comparison, the most corrupt Administration in history, . . . . and its roots are in Chicago, what a surprise.

In one term, Obama will have issued $5 Trillion in new debt, and a debt as a % of GDP exploded into triple digits to 100%. And does he sound concerned with another Trillion Dollar deficit year? Not much.

This Administration has systematically erected a pyre whose framework is composed of antiquated, historical, hateful, racial kindling, which has little foundation in today’s America. The more Obama and his minions throw fuel on this pyre, the more he will be appealing to those independents who voted for him 3 years ago, not because of his abilities, but because he represented a “purging” of guilt. He is overtly appealing to that guilt again. The brighter his conflagration glows, the more it obliterates the seriousness of what he is doing to America.

Very good post. You need to use some smaller words for your liberal readers.

Thank you for staying on top of this. A couple of comments: The fact that one studies a controversial subject , theory, or figure in higher education is not the point. The point is wanting to support or become that thing that is the issue here. Yes, Obama was a student of Bells (as many others were). How many were introducing the man suggesting they support him, etc.? Umm..that would be something different.

One might study Hitler or Stalin as well in a course. Suggesting that you support their views or want to BE Hitler or STalin…would be another thing entirely.

They seem to have permanent disconnect in this regard. She believes that Obama was simply another student who happen to take the prof class at Harvard. I beg to differ. He didn’t just study it in a class….he believed the theory whole heartedly and supported it and the man who created it. That’s very different thing than just “studying it in college” as a theory.

A little OT, but I just want someone to explain to me…what office is Rush Limbaugh running for? And since when does he speak for “Republican Party”? Does Bill Mahr and the shit he says speak for Obama or the Democratic party?? One only has to look at what liberals (including the media) said about Palin in 08 to see what’s good for the goose…is NOT good for the gander.

And what’s up with all the DNC election and campaign contribution fraud lately? Not hardly making a dent in the news. But, for all their “stolen elections”…..they sure don’t have much to say about it.

Thanks for you time, and sorry for going OT.

Great, great OP, Skook. In fact, I would rate it one of your best efforts, that I have read, anyway.

Two thoughts –

First you said:

Reverse Racism is not a cure for racism; especially, racism that exists in the imagination of race pimps who have nothing without racism.

True. As I point out to my teenagers, the opposite of love is not hate, it is the absence of feelings for a person. When they allow hate to serve as the opposite of love, they allow that person to control them. The opposite of racism isn’t reverse racism, it is the absence of racism.

Secondly, let me add, emphasis mine:

The mastermind is served by an enthusiastic intelligentsia or “experts” professionally engaged in developing and spreading utopian fantasies. Although there are more conspicuous exceptions, longtime Harvard professor and political theoretician Harvey Mansfield explained that modern intellectuals have “monumental impatience…with human complexity and imperfection… They believe that politics is a temporary necessity until the rational solution is put in place.” Of course, the rational solutions are not rational at all. While intellectuals are obviously smart, they are not smart enough to have conquered the social sciences and use them to rejigger society. They are posers to knowledge they do not and cannot possess. Meanwhile, intellectuals are immune from the impracticability and consequences of their blueprints for they rarely present themselves for public office. Instead, they seek to influence those who do. They legislate without accountability. Joseph Schumpeter, a prominent economics professor and political scientist, was a harsh critic of intellectuals. he wrote, “Intellectuals rarely enter professional politics and still more rarely conquer responsible office. But they staff political bureaus, write party pamphlets and speeches, act as secretaries and advisers, make the…politician’s…reputation… In doing these things they… impress their mentality on almost everything that is being done.” – Mark Levin, Ameritopia

Thanks Antics, I refer you, your teenagers, and Mr. Levin back to This is the story of an intellectual’s inability to relate to the real world, despite his overwhelming desire to be, “one of the country boys,” when he was away from academia and down home on the farm. It is a sad and pathetic story, for while he had insulated himself with study through the years and surrounded himself with like minded colleagues and students that he could overwhelm with his knowledge of at least one subject, he could not relate or compete in a different arena with a student who had experience with a thousand different trades and jobs.

Thus we have the dilemma, the academic with papers of achievement that are of little practical value and the son of a rancher or farmer who can build or repair almost anything. Which person is more qualified to advise a politician? Which person is better equipped to accomplish things?

This is one of the blatant contradictions within the Obama Administration. He has surrounded himself with ideologues from academia, who have no real world experience or accomplishments. The head of his Energy Department doesn’t even have a car or drive. Is there a disconnect here? Yes, of course, we have a man with a limited grasp of the situation, controlling the energy for hundreds of millions of drivers. Is it no wonder that millions of tradesmen and businessmen who have no option concerning the use of one of the tin cans with wheels, they must drive trucks or large cars to haul their equipment to drive tens of thousands of miles a year, they are expected to absorb the extra energy costs in a business climate that has been compromised since Obama took office. Raising their own prices is suicidal, but they must listen to Obama and Chu talk about how high pump prices are helping us be less dependent of foreign oil. This is the insanity of having academics in charge of real world situations, while they theorize and enjoy professional drivers and government limos, we in the real world face bankruptcy because of their Utopian dreamworld.

They asked that I tone down my rhetoric and refrain from calling Obama a Marxist; at least until, the public was ready to accept the fact. Never again will I rein in my keyboard for the delicate sensitivities of our readers or other writers.

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Skook.


Obama has been extremely careful about overt favoritism based on race.

This is why he appointed Holder. Holder lost me long ago when he engineered the pardons of the FALN and Marc Rich but I went ballistic when he uttered the words “my people.” That was the clearest sign who he was going to represent and it sure as hell isn’t us. Dropping that Black Panther case is evidence of where Holder’s only concerns lie.

Harvard is a cesspool of Marxism.


JG, that #3 rocked the boat and I am going to review it for all its deepest meanings.

I didn’t think that it was that deep, to be honest. I thought it was pure common sense.

If one goes back and reads the Constitution, prior to the added amendments after the Bill of Rights, and applies it to today’s sociological world, there is not ONE single item within it that applies to only one racial group over another, gives preference to men over women, distinguishes between gay and hetero, or otherwise treats one group as unequal as another.

Now, some of the more learned, and/or versed, people on the Constitution may be standing up to say, “what about the commerce clause and it’s mention of the indian tribes?” A very astute observation, however, the founders considered the indian tribes as separate nations within the United States. As such, the United States, as a nation, traded and treatied with those indian tribe nations as if they were simply another country, and not part of the United States. And yes, the consideration of the indian tribes as nations unto themselves opened up another entire can of worms we are still dealing with today. But, my point still stands from above.

Prof. Bell was reading things into the Constitution that were, and are, simply not there. He projected his own hatred and racial bias on the framers of the Constitution. And he was wrong.

Imagine exactly how you would feel about what the Constitution was really about if they had listed, for example, a separate set of “rights” for women specifically. If that had been the case, women and men would have been listed, and treated, as two entirely separate, and different, entities within the Constitution. And therefore, for the Constitution to delineate the two separate lists of “rights”, even if they were exactly the same listed “rights”, the Constitution would have then become a granter of power to the federal government to grant “rights” to the citizens.

Why do I say that? Simply look at what some people believe today. Contraception is now part of a larger women’s “right” that the government extends to women, including being on “equal” or greater footing than religious freedom. Those people believe that the federal government is the granter of their “rights”, rather than the Constitution. And why? Because they have to believe that way in order to gain more “rights” personally, even if it is at the expense of other’s “rights”. And the contraception mandate details this exactly.

So, the framers were correct in how they worded the Constitution, regardless of how a racist demagogue like Prof. Bell portrays it. In this respect, the good professor is a flaming idiot.

JG , yes indeed, the Constitution isa document of common sense; if we were asked to provide a definition of common sense, without a dictionary, we would probably reply that common sense refers to logical solutions that are in plain sight. However, when we have jurors applying artistic license to the document and seeing things that don’t exist or referring back to English Common Law or using a strange comment from a letter to base a new discipline of law, the document and our legal system becomes polluted and weakened.

Yes, Bell was a flaming idiot who capitalized on the color of his hide and White Liberal guilt, but now we have a president who is following the illogic and altering our country and stacking our Supreme Court with these anti-American traitors.

Yes, sometimes the most simple concepts, those that need only common sense to grasp are deep or complex in their far reaching strengths. It is when we apply the “Doublespeak” of the Racist Professor Bell, so aptly described by Orwell, that is the time when our foundation begins to weaken and crack.

Barack Hussein Obama, j’accuse, il y a Robespierre le masque du guillotine. From that period there was the Cult of Reason which performed an atheist mass at Notre Dame and then the Cult of the Supreme Being in 1794 with Robespierre as the Number One. Jean-Paul Marat, before he caught the knife blade from the pretty virgin Charlotte Corday, preached that France would never be purged of its royalist ways unless aristocrat-nobelese blood bled for a hundred years.

Great essay. This might be OT…or not.
One thing I’ve kind of figured out is that a lot of people were/are apathetic towards socialism/communism. They just don’t see it like some of us do. It’s been like this since the fifties and the end of the McCarthy hearings on unAmerican activities. Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ used the public apathy to put socialist leaning entitlement policies in place, like Ike’s department of Health, Education and Welfare or LBJ’s Great Society. JFK appointed 40 members of the Fabian society to positions in his administration.

Let’s shorten this article some. I feel that the same information can be conveyed by stating it this way:

Obama, Derick Bell, vicious racist, Soledad Obrien, cesspool, Elena Kagen, endemic racist, Charles Ogltree, racist mentor, Marxist/Communist, propaganda, Elites, Soviet Union, Party Line.

That about sums up the article. You can pretty much make up the story in any right-wing fashion that you want—just like the article.

I personally believe that there is some degree of truth in any social theory—even conservative ones. For example, the story of the 17 year old black kid that was shot in the chest outside his home in Miami—while going for a walk to buy some skittles and Arizona iced tea—by a white neighbor watch volunteer. This happened in February, and he has yet to be charged, nor an investigation proceeded. Do you think this would be the same scenario if the shooter was a black man (especially with a record of violence, as in this case), and the victim was a white boy?

Search: “seventeen year of boy shot in chest while going to store for skittles” for more details.

If you can’t offer a sensible rebuttal, build a straw man, and ignore the fact that everyone is laughing at your pathetic ranting.

Skooks Listen Marine you know I love reading your stories of the Wild West, the horses and horses asses you’ve interfaced with. Your writings often remind me of Steinbeck and great books like Cannery Row or Travels With Charlie.

Think you’re offbase with your knock on higher education.Studying the great philosophers and philosophies, reading the histories of Greece and Rome, the hero’s and villians of the past. Learning how art.literature and politics intertwined through history.
To say it’s all marxist or leftist just isn’t true . These studies OPEN our greatest treasure–the mind.

Semper Fi

Lib1 is behind the times.
His ”case” is in the hands of the state attorney’s office.
Speaking of the Classics , the UN’s Islamic majority is moving to outlaw Dante from schools all over the earth.
Read The Inferno before they take it away from all our PC libraries.

Thanks Rich, that is a genuine compliment and I am proud of your words. I love the classics and I marvel at how they stand up to the ravages of time. It is not the classics that I take exception with, it is the overbearing pressure of Leftist Professors. Sadly my time in college was almost 50 years ago, but from talking to students and recent graduates, it is obvious the pressures to conform are still there. It is surely easier to conform to the accepted beliefs and express your papers according to the prescribed “line”, but some of us will resist. Not all professors were consumed with the Leftist Line, some of them appreciated a student who could stand up and defend his positions with confidence and others were obviously induced to rethink some positions. It was always a shock to the class to have someone stand up to refute the Leftist position and many of them looked at you as if in disbelief, but I held my own and those overly aggressive guys didn’t even phase me as you can easily imagine, Sadly, not all college students are bold enough to stand up under that kind of pressure.

Fear can take many forms and some instructors were only too willing to take advantage of students who could be intimidated. If our Republicans really represented Conservatives, they could insist on an equal representation in academia, much the same as Blacks want to be equally represented everywhere but professional sports, (A little humor) I do remember some professors who were apolitical: I remember them and their classes as being among the best of my college career.

Winston Churchill “Know your history”, so it is that with the likes of Soledad O’Brian and Bill Maher that publicity through the main line propaganda machine is the latest guillotine. The Obama attacks on established religion means he wants to be the new religion, create the void then fill the void. Obama is planning the large scale slaughter of american soldiers in Afghanistan, such a rage of anger would rally the people around their elected leader giving him perpetual power at the expense of our liberties.

very well display as always,
you see the opponents cannot find any negatives worthy of challenge in your POST,
my how difficult it will be for the next PRESIDENT TO CORRECT THE COMMUNIST MARXIST IDEAS SOLD TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE SO BRAINWASH BY THE OBAMA DOCTRINE TEACHING THAT WHAT IS WRONG MUST BE RIGHT IN THEIR MIND, that’s why we are face with crimes on the campus by young people,


Skookum, there is some hope on college campuses everywhere.

Read this piece by a young lady who respectfully puts the left’s new darling, Ms. Fluke, in her place;

I’ve read a few of the contributions to that site and it’s good to know that not all college students are accepting the “gruel” of lies promulgated by the “intellectuals” at these schools.

He’s not worried, so much as scared, & Not about Women as much as Vagina’s, thats why he married Mooch, the he-she. That’s why all the Transgender crap is getting the fast track.

#37 F. A’s at it’s lowest.

As far as I am concerned It was on as soon a Janet Noclassatano told everybody that the new definition of “Terrorists” was the Law abiding Tea Party Types, & the Soldiers returning from Iraq & Afsh*tastan, you know, the ones clinging to their guns & GOD. This is in Stark contrast to her, & The WHOLE Administrations Assertions that OWS is “Grassroots & organic, & that they are just freedom fighters or whatever their excuse is this hour.
Bill Mahr is a comic, so C*nt & Wh*re & Deriding her CHILDREN are ok But don’t be Rush & call a Whore a Slut, she will get a call from the fraud in chief. ALL to push an agenda, & all, to distract Just like Iran is doing, to Buy TIME. There wasn’t any problem with her getting coverage, as Title X took care of that DECADES ago.
They have to have us in take the high road, so that they can discemenate lies un-abated, un challenged.
We have to call them on this sh*t EVERY TIME! We have to push OUR agenda of FREEDOM, Lower Taxes & Less Regulation. We need to take back STATES RIGHTS & The Rule of LAW. They are happily destroying our country to subvert our Power & usurp the rights of US Citizens to be nothing but slaves.
My 2 Cents!

BTW after the Proghole that took the time out to make a twitter account in Breitbart’s GREIVING Wife’s name out, so he could post the most filthy, VILE stuff about her in her time of mourning shows just how much class these fuckers have for our feelings. I don’t think that SHE has gotten ANY CALLS FROM OBAMA! She made the unforgivable SIN of having loved an American Patriot. FUCK ALL THE PROGS READING THIS, HE will be vetted. We are coming down to your level THIS TIME Just long enough to KICK YOU SQUARE IN THE BALLS!
RIP Andrew, don’t worry brither, I GOT THIS ONE! SO! BRING IT ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael W Perkins
right on the dot.

@Richard Wheeler: Just change your screen name to Mindless Agitator and get it over with.