Solyndra Scandal Spreads…..Layoffs Politically Timed?

Chu: Investigation Of Solyndra Layoffs Being Politically Timed

Click for realclearpolitics  video:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/08/chu_investigation_of_solyndra_layoffs_being_politically_timed.html

FOR THE BORN 1939-1970 CROWD IN MEMORIAM

HOW TIME DO CHANGE!

 

I was born in 1934.   Married folks had children in those days.   City neighborhoods were safe.

 

 

 

 

Born 1930 – 1979
 
You definitely need to read the statement by Jay. Oh so true.

Those of You Born  
1930 – 1979

At the end of this Email is a quote of the month by Jay Leno.  TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED THE  
1930′s, 40′s, 50′s, 60′s and 70′s!

 

First, we survived being born to mothers  
Who smoked and/or drank while they were
Pregnant. 

 

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing,
Tuna from a can and didn’t get tested for diabetes. 

 

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-base paints. 

 

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles,
Locks on doors or cabinets and when we rode
Our bikes, we had baseball caps  not helmets on our heads. 

 

As infants & children,
We would ride in cars with no car seats,
No booster seats, no seat belts, no air bags, bald tires and sometimes no brakes. 

 

Riding in the back of a pick-up truck on a warm  day
Was always a special treat. 

 

We drank water
From the garden hose and not from a bottle. 

 

We shared one soft drink with four friends,  
From one bottle and no one actually died from this.

 

We ate cupcakes, white bread, real butter and bacon..
We drank Kool-Aid made with real white sugar.
And, we weren’t overweight.
WHY? 

 

Because we were
Always outside playing…that’s why! 

 

We would leave home in the morning and play all day,
As long as we were back when the
Streetlights came on. 

 

No one was able
To reach us all day. And, we were O.K. 

 

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps
And then ride them down the hill, only to find out
We forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes  
a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

 

We did not have Playstations, Nintendo’s and X-boxes.  
There were no video games, no 150 channels on cable,  
No video movies or DVD’s, no surround-sound or CD’s,
No cell phones,   No personal computers, no Internet and no chat rooms. 

 

WE HAD FRIENDS
And we went outside and found them! 

 

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth  
And there were no lawsuits from these accidents. 

 

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt,
And the worms did not live in us
Forever. 

 

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,
Made up games with sticks and tennis balls and,
Although we were told it would happen,
We did not put out  very many eyes. 

 

We rode bikes or walked to a friend’s house and
Knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just
Walked in and talked to them. 

 

Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team.
Those who didn’t had to learn to deal
With disappointment.  
Imagine that!! 

 

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law
Was unheard of.
They actually sided with the law! 

 

These generations have produced some of the best
Risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever. 

 

The past 50 years
Have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.  
We  had freedom, failure, success and responsibility,
and we learned how to deal with it all. 

 

 The quote of the
month is by Jay Leno:  
“With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control,  
mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms
tearing up the country from one end to another,  
and with  the threat of swine flu
and terrorist attacks.  
Are we sure this is a good time
to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?’ 

 Note:   My Mother did not drink outside of wine, probably Mogen David, or beer  at parties,  and  a beer or two during the hot summers……no air conditioning then except at the movie houses.    She hated blue cheese…..and so blue cheese never entered the house.   Since she discharged the food in the house, we all ate food which Mother approved of and didn’t cost much.    Casseroles and cabbage flourished.

 

Danish rolls were always required at morning breakfast with a table spoon of butter added.       Wheaties or Kellogg’s Corn Flakes covered by cream or whole milk  in summer and oatmeal similarly decorated  in winter  usually accompanied the Danish;  pancakes or French Toast with Aunt Jemima syrup  on Sundays, before I was sent off to Church.

 

All fryings had to include Crisco or bacon grease.   

 

 Dad died at 86, Mother at 90.   (Dad had smoked  2-3 packs of Lucky Strike (unfiltered) cigarettes per day  from age 17 to 52 and finally quit cold turkey.

 

Bruce Taber sent the above review of those born between 1939-1970.

Freedom to be Employed without Organized Union Tyranny Possible in MN

Please Attend Monday’s Hearing on the Employee Freedom Amendment

The Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Senate File 1705, the Employee Freedom constitutional amendment on Monday, March 12. The hearing will be held in room 15 in the Capitol building at 8:00 am.

Senator Dave Thompson, chief author of the Employee Freedom constitutional amendment, gave the following statement on the progression of the bill, “All Minnesotans should have the freedom to choose whether or not to be represented by a union or pay union dues. This is a fundamental liberty issue. Public input and participation is an important part of this process. I am excited to move this bill, which would give the people an opportunity to decide this issue themselves on November 6.”

Polls show that over 70% of Minnesota voters support this amendment.  However, big unions are trying to kill the bill and deny you the right to vote on this important issue in November.

Please plan to attend Monday’s hearing to show support for this legislation.  Try to show-up at least 15 minutes prior to start of the hearing.  Find the organizer distributing the “Employee Freedom” buttons and wear one in the hearing..  

Notice sent by Mark Waldeland

A Columbine H.S. Victim’s Father Speaks before the House Judiciary Committee

On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful.     The following article was sent by Bruce Taber:

 

The following is a portion of the transcript:

“Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women.  We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence.  The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain.  Their blood cries out for answers.

“The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field.  The villain was not the club he used.. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain’s heart.

“In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA.  I am not a hunter.  I do not even own a gun.  I am not here to represent or defend the NRA – because I don’t believe that they are responsible for my daughter’s death.  Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended.  If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel’s murder I would be their strongest opponent.

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy — it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies!  Much of the blame lies here in this room.  Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves.  I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. 

> Your laws ignore our deepest needs,
> Your words are empty air.
> You’ve stripped away our heritage,
> You’ve outlawed simple prayer.
> Now gunshots fill our classrooms,
> And precious children die 
> You seek for answers everywhere,
> And ask the question “Why?”
> You regulate restrictive laws,
> Through legislative creed..
> And yet you fail to understand,
> That God is what we need!

“Men and women are three-part beings.  We all consist of body, mind, and spirit.  When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc.  Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation’s history.  Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries.  This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation?  We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence.  And when something as terrible as Columbine’s tragedy occurs — politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA.  They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties… We do not need more restrictive laws.  Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors.  No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre.  The real villain lies within our own hearts.”

“As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school.  I defy any law or politician to deny him that right!  I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools.  Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain.  Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him.  To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA — I give to you a sincere challenge…Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone!”

”My daughter’s death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen again.”     

Darrell Scott

 

 

 

Obama’s Black Racism Days with Hateman, Derrick Bell at Harvard

Derrick Bell: The Jeremiah Wright Of Harvard

 Editorial    at   Investor’s Business Daily:

“Presidential Vetting: Obama’s days at Harvard have been shrouded in secrecy. But a new video lifts a corner of the veil, revealing his creepy embrace of the “Jeremiah Wright of academia.”

It turns out his favorite law professor was the late Derrick Bell, a black radical who taught classes trashing the Constitution as racist.

He liked Bell so much he led a law school “strike” in support of him in 1991, when the professor went on unpaid leave to protest the lack of affirmative-action hiring on campus.

A video clip posted by Breitbart.com captures Obama praising Bell for “speaking the truth” and hugging him.

Not long before this show of affection, Bell had been called into the university president’s office to explain why he had sent him a letter filled with violent fantasies — including their own death from a bomb planted in his office by white racists. Bell explained that such extremism is what it would take to get the administration to agree to grant more affirmative-action programs.

Harvard’s honcho wasn’t amused. Bell groused he just didn’t get it. But who would? Apparently his star pupil. And that’s what’s so unsettling.

Bell’s nutty ideas — including that America is a “racist nation” carrying out a “quasi-genocide in the inner cities” — were well known to Obama. Bell came highly recommended by Obama’s America-hating preacher Rev. Wright. He and Bell were pals. In fact, Obama just traded Wright’s pews for Bell’s desks.

At the pro-Bell rally, Obama took to the mike as if he were his spokesman. He commended Bell’s “excellence in scholarship,” adding that he “changed the standards of what legal writing is about.”

His legal writings included this gem published in the Connecticut Law Review around the time Obama was defending him: “The whole (classical) liberal worldview of private rights and public sovereignty mediated by the rule of law needed to be exploded.”

Obama lapped it up. This was not some misguided youth flirting with radicalism. He was 30, and Harvard Law Review editor.

Bell’s tirades against racism were really against classism. In 2007 he intimated to a Southern Illinois University professor that he saw “value in Marxist and other writings.” Like Marx, he argued that capitalism creates a racially polarizing battle over property, and that the cure was wealth redistribution. To that end, Bell proposed an “equality” tax on business profits.

In 2002, he told C-SPAN that America is racist because it’s “built on property.” He complained that our free market “increasingly puts some people at the top of the economic scale and most of the rest of us at the bottom.”

So here we have yet another anti-capital class warrior as role model for Obama.

Over his entire adult life, through his academic, legal and political careers, the president has lived in a theoretical bubble divorced from reality. His mind and psyche have been marinated in radical academic notions and conspiracy theories that insist upon hatred for capitalism and the American way of life.

Is it any wonder his agenda is so anti-American?

“Perhaps as president,” Bell hoped in 2008, “Obama can take on the tough issue of the intentional harms our policies have done both here and abroad.”

The student certainly has not disappointed his old professor.”

Comment:   No wonder Mr. Obama refuses to make public his curriculum of studes and grades received  during his extensive posh years at universities,

Paraprosdokians? I used to be indecisive. Now I’m not so sure.

PARAPROSDOKIANS  (Winston Churchill loved them) are figures of speech in which the latter part  of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected; frequently humorous. 1. Where there’s a will, I want to be in it. 2. The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it’s still on my list. 3. Since light travels faster than sound, some people appear bright until you hear them speak. 4. If I agreed with you, we’d both be wrong. 5. We never really grow up, we only learn how to act in public. 6. War does not determine who is right – only who is left.. 7. Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad. 8. They begin the evening news with ‘Good Evening,’ then proceed to tell you why it isn’t. 9. To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism. To steal from many is research. 10. Buses stop in bus stations. Trains stop in train stations. On my desk is a work station. 11. I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks. 12. In filling out an application, where it says, ‘In case of emergency, notify:’ I put ‘DOCTOR.’ 13. I didn’t say it was your fault, I said I was blaming you. 14. Women will never be equal to men until they can walk down the street with a bald head and a beer gut, and still think they are sexy. 15. Behind every successful man is his woman. Behind the fall of a successful man is usually another woman. 16. A clear conscience is the sign of a fuzzy memory. 17. You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice. 18. Money can’t buy happiness, but it sure makes misery easier to live with. 19. There’s a fine line between cuddling and holding someone down so they can’t get away. 20. I used to be indecisive. Now I’m not so sure. 21. You’re never too old to learn something stupid. 22. To be sure of hitting the target, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target. 23. Nostalgia isn’t what it used to be. 24. Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine. 25. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.  26. Where there’s a will, there are relatives.               Garden friend, Ron Kvass sent the above list to me.

 

 

Solar Storm Sights

By Alan Boyle

So far, the disruption caused by this week’s solar storm seems to be minimal, but skywatchers are maximizing the opportunity to see auroral fireworks — and tonight just might be prime time for the show. Or maybe not.

For several days now, the sun has been sending out bursts of electrically charged particles, known as coronal mass ejections or CMEs. The most spectacular flare-up came late Tuesday, when two X-class solar flares blazed up from a particularly active sunspot region. The waves of particles associated with those flares began sweeping over Earth’s magnetic field today.

Read more and view   scenes:

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/08/10613371-solar-storm-lights-up-northern-skies

Ethicists Claim if Abortion of a Fetus is Legal, so should Termination of a Newborn

Ethicists Argue in Favor of ‘After-Birth Abortions‘

as Newborns ’Are Not Persons’

 

(article sent by Lisa Rich, source unknown)

 

Two ethicists working with Australian universities argue in the latest online edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics that if abortion of a fetus is allowable, so to should be the termination of a newborn.

 

Alberto Giubilini with Monash University in Melbourne and Francesca Minerva at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne write that in “circumstances occur[ing] after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.”

 

The two are quick to note that they prefer the term “after-birth abortion“ as opposed to ”infanticide.” Why? Because it “[emphasizes] that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.” The authors also do not agree with the term euthanasia for this practice as the best interest of the person who would be killed is not necessarily the primary reason his or her life is being terminated. In other words, it may be in the parents’ best interest to terminate the life, not the newborns.The circumstances, the authors state, where after-birth abortion should be considered acceptable include instances where the newborn would be putting the well-being of the family at risk, even if it had the potential for an “acceptable” life. The authors cite Downs Syndrome as an example, stating that while the quality of life of individuals with Downs is often reported as happy, “such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care.”

 

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

 

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

 

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

 

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

 

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

 

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

 

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

This means a newborn whose family (or society) that could be socially, economically or psychologically burdened or damaged by the newborn should have the ability to seek out an after-birth abortion. They state that after-birth abortions are not preferable over early-term abortions of fetuses but should circumstances change with the family or the fetus in the womb, then they advocate that this option should be made available.

 

The authors go on to state that the moral status of a newborn is equivalent to a fetus in that it cannot be considered a person in the “morally relevant sense.” On this point, the authors write:

Both a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a ‘person’ in the sense of ‘subject of a moral right to life’. We take ‘person’ to mean an individual who is capable of attributing to her own existence some (at least) basic value such that being deprived of this existence represents a loss to her.

[...]

 

Merely being human is not in itself a reason for ascribing someone a right to life. Indeed, many humans are not considered subjects of a right to life: spare embryos where research on embryo stem cells is permitted, fetuses where abortion is permitted, criminals where capital punishment is legal.

Giubilini and Minerva believe that being able to understand the value of a different situation, which often depends on mental development, determines personhood. For example, being able to tell the difference between an undesirable situation and a desirable one. They note that fetuses and newborns are “potential persons.” The authors do acknowledge that a mother, who they cite as an example of a true person, can attribute “subjective” moral rights to the fetus or newborn, but they state this is only a projected moral status.

 

The authors counter the argument that these “potential persons” have the right to reach that potential by stating it is “over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.”

 

And what about adoption? Giubilini and Minerva write that, as for the mother putting the child up for adoption, her emotional state should be considered as a trumping right. For instance, if she were to “suffer psychological distress” from giving up her child to someone else — they state that natural mothers can dream their child will return to them — then after-birth abortion should be considered an allowable alternative.

 

The authors do not tackle the issue of what age an infant would be considered a person.

 

The National Catholic Register thinks that these authors are right — once you accept their ideas on personhood. The Register states that the argument made by the ethicists is almost pro-life in that it “highlights the absurdity of the pro-abortion argument”:

The second we allow ourselves to become the arbiters of who is human and who isn’t, this is the calamitous yet inevitable end. Once you say all human life is not sacred, the rest is just drawing random lines in the sand.

First Things, a publication of the The Institute on Religion and Public Life, notes that while this article doesn’t mean the law could — or would — allow after-birth abortions in future medical procedures, arguments such as “the right to dehydrate the persistently unconscious” began in much the same way in bioethics journals.

Rush Doing Just Fine following Obama Cabal with Fluke, Pelosi, and Media Matters

Report: Company who dropped ads

 from Limbaugh’s show asks to be reinstated

 by Allahpundit   at   HotAir:

 

Request denied.

A Limbaugh spokesman said that California mattress company Sleep Train asked to restart a “voiced endorsement” from Limbaugh that it had publicly cut off last week. The company said at the time that it “does not condone such negative comments toward any person.”…

Sleep Train’s departure from the program had been billed by some observers as particularly significant because the mattress retailer had been with Limbaugh show for 25 years. Yet the tone of Sleep Train’s withdrawal statement last Friday hinted it might not be pulling out for the long run…

Limbaugh spokesman Brian Glicklich on Thursday forwarded a copy of an email that he said had been sent to Sleep Train Chief Executive Dale Carlsen. In it, Glicklich wrote that Limbaugh had personally received the company’s requests to resume advertising on his show.

“Unfortunately,” Glicklich wrote, “your public comments were not well received by our audience, and did not accurately portray either Rush Limbaugh’s character or the intent of his remarks. Thus, we regret to inform you that Rush will be unable to endorse Sleep Train in the future.”

Via the Daily Rushbo, he talked about this a bit on yesterday’s show, claiming that two sponsors had already asked to return and that “one of them is practically begging to come back.” I don’t know why Sleep Train would pull ads if the prospect of losing Rush forever made them nervous enough to cave this quickly. They’ve alienated the right by abandoning him and irritated the left by going squishy over it. Have we learned nothing from l’affaire Komen, my friends? Rule one of inserting yourself into a hot-button public debate: Once you pick a side, stick to it. Sheesh.

 

 Tags: ads, boycott, contraception, rush limbaugh, Sandra Fluke, sleep train

 

Comment:  I am very pleasee Rush is on my side of  American political battles.  

 

I am a Dennis Prager guy, as one can imagine, who is my favorite in the talk industry for countless reasons starting with his approach to issues, the depth of character he exhibits when covering controversy, and his displays of  emotion which are truly honest and sincere which indicate the depth of love and care he has for his country and the principles upon which it was founded.   Dennis Prager is unique and a jewell.    He is the best…..and the best don’t come  two for a penny.

 

Rush is also the best.    He is a Godsend to our American conservative movement equal to Dennis but with a different approach…..He’s Rush.   Dennis is Dennis.   Dennis has a klutsy sense of humor which covers a few moments of down time rearranging his drive to get back to thinking and reasoning regarding the vital issues and dishonesties which plague the country.

 

Rush is a masterful entertainer.   He is a masterful conductor of Rush Limbaugh as if he is conducting himself with a complete Wagnerian orchestra blasting away with the Walkyries or something similar. 

 

Both talents appear to thoroughly enjoy their station in life.     God Bless them both.

 

 

 

 

CNN’s Soledad O’Brien Tries to Deny Obama’s Connections to Harvard Chief Black Racist, Derrick Bell

         Video: Does  Soledad O’Brien know

         what “Critical Race Theory” is?

 by Allahpundit at Hot Air

Via Dan Riehl and Ace, this almost too good to check. Go read Rebel Pundit’s post for an explanation, then skip to 2:00 below. (If you missed Ed’s post this morning, by all means watch the whole thing.) After sneering at Joel Pollak for supposedly mischaracterizing the discipline and then refusing to define it herself, she finally demonstrates her grasp of Critical Race Theory by uncorking a definition that’s curiously similar to … the opening of Wikipedia’s intro on CRT, replete with the noncolloquial use of “intersection” to describe an interdisciplinary study. Could be a coincidence — the definition she gives is generic — but the thought of her taking this much of a tone with him over his alleged ignorance while she’s got some intern reading Wiki entries to her in her earpiece is irresistible.

But is that what happened? Turns out O’Brien does know who Derrick Bell is. Go look at this page at Michelle’s new site Twitchy compiling some of her tweets about him. She marked his passing last October, retweeted Charles Ogletree’s tribute to him, and mentioned that she was “re-reading” one of his books, so she’s familiar with his work. Could be they were even acquainted (she was a Harvard undergrad), although in that case, she maybe should have mentioned it to the viewers as a prelude to the ritual savaging of Pollak as a racist, huh? Bottom line: Yeah, evidently she does know what Critical Race Theory is, and yet somehow, despite that fact, the formulation she came up with here is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Pollak’s definition is much closer to the mark: CRT is all about how American law is used to disempower blacks and preserve white privilege. To get a sense of the academic environment in which it flourished, read this short, depressing memoir of Harvard Law in the early 1990s by NRO’s David French. I think his read on Obama is basically correct. The One is happy to go along with whoever the leading liberal lights are in whichever left-wing community he’s inhabiting at any given time, sans judgment. For more on that, go read this ABC feature about some of the more, shall we say, eccentric liberals that he’s palled around with over the years. And note the tone: ABC plays it off as essentially a joke and much ado about nothing, but try to imagine a similar right-wing rogues’ gallery for Mitt Romney and how they’d cover that. Hacktastic.

Click here for video:   http://hotair.com/archives/2012/03/08/video-the-wikipedia-definition-of-critical-race-theory/

 Tags: breitbart, cnn, critical race theory, derrick bell, joel pollak, obama, Soledad O’Brien