Elle Reeve’s “special report” for CNN was a doozy of misinformation. One would think that a person who works at a high level for a world news network would know what she’s talking about. I suspect that many teachers teaching the CRT curriculum are equally ignorant.
Reeve’s was asked this question by CNN’s Brianna Keilar: “Do these vocal opponents of critical race theory actually understand fully what it is?” Here is Reeve’s response:
No. And why should they? It’s an academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level. But what they think it means is teaching white kids that all white people are bad and racist. And so, of course they’re afraid of that.
The last time I checked, everything is racist, including being white! By the way, CRT might have started as an “academic theory taught mostly at the grad student level,” but it has morphed into something much bigger and sinister. It’s become a catch-all for every left-wing ideology ever envisioned by liberals. Democrats are like children in a candy store when it comes to indoctrinating children to become life-long Democrat voters. Let’s not forget that there’s money to be made in the race game. For example, Stacey Abrams has made her fortune telling lies about voting legislation in Georgia. The same is true for Al Sharpton (her grafting mentor) and Jesse Jackson.
If parents are afraid of anything it’s bad history, faulty reasoning, racial division in the name of racial reconciliation, and being labeled racist from birth. Parents must deal with CRT crap as well as the teaching of sexual perversion in the children’s schools. Here’s my advice: Get your children out of public schools and elitist private schools.
Restoring the Foundation of Civilization
There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.Buy Now
In the same interview, Reeve’s declared the 1986 Crime Bill “racist” because it “gave much more severe sentencing to crack cocaine versus powder cocaine simply because black people were perceived as doing crack cocaine and white people weren’t.” Really? Who advocated for more severe sentencing for these drug crimes? Was it the white guys? No, it was the Congressional Black Caucus. Ann Coulter sets the historical record straight:
Black churches, black leaders and black members of Congress were enraged by what the crack epidemic was doing to their neighborhoods. A 1986 New York Times article reported on “all-night vigils” held by the leaders of 60 black churches, who called the crack epidemic “a new form of genocide.” Urban League President John Jacob railed against communities “held hostage by crack dealers,” saying “drugs kill more blacks than the (Ku Klux) Klan ever did.” Running for president in 1988, Jesse Jackson spoke of the scourge of crack cocaine and told a cheering crowd, “When I become president, the drug pusher is in trouble.”
It was then-Senator Joe Biden who “ushered in many of the laws that created these problems — at least on the federal level — in the first place. During the 1980s and ’90s, Biden sponsored laws that, for example, enacted federal mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking and increased funding for US prisons.” (Source) Biden is a Democrat and had the support of nearly 90 percent of the Black vote in the 2020 election. I suspect that Elle Reeve voted for him.
In short, Biden helped write and co-sponsored two of the most important pieces of legislation in the punitive war on drugs — the 1986 and 1988 laws — and helped create the sentencing disparity for crack and powder cocaine. And he was at least partly behind other laws that perpetuated mass incarceration and increased police powers. Not exactly the kind of record Black Lives Matter is looking for.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was also sponsored by Joe Biden. Again, do you want people like Elle Reeve and those who think like her teaching your children when they can’t get their facts straight?
Her next historical gaff is common even though it has repeatedly been debunked. All it takes to know the truth about the supposed racist intent of the Constitution and the “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3 is to read it and do some research on it. Here’s a place to start: BlackPast.org. And if it is too difficult to understand, I’ll explain it to her.
Contrary to what some Leftrists claim, the “three-fifths clause” is a clear indication that many of our constitutional founders wanted to end slavery through the legislative process. Instead we fought a devastating war that changed the United States forever. The three-fifths clause is not about personhood, that is, describing blacks as three-fifths of a white person.
The Northern states did not want to count slaves for determining the number of representatives a state would have. The Southern states hoped to include slaves in the enumeration to acquire additional representation and voting strength in Congress. The compromise was to count slaves (although the word is never used) as “three-fifths” of a person for representation purposes. The fewer slaves counted, the fewer number of representatives and the less legislative power the slave states would have.
There’s nothing new in this strategy. Today’s Democrats want to count non-citizens to bolster their legislative powers and give them the right to vote.
The goal of the Northern delegates was to dilute Southern voting strength to outlaw slavery by constitutional means. “The struggle that took place in the convention was between the Southern delegates trying to strengthen the constitutional supports for slavery and the Northern delegates trying to weaken them.”
If none of the slaves had been included in the population count for representation purposes, as Northern delegates wanted, the slave states would have had only 41 percent of the seats in the House. If all the slaves had been included, as the pro-slave states wanted, the slave states would have had 50 percent of the seats. By agreeing to count slaves as three-fifths of a person for representation purposes, the slaveholding states ended up with a minority voting position—47 percent. Robert L. Goldwin concludes:
[T]he point is that the “three-fifths clause” had nothing at all to do with measuring the human worth of blacks. Northern delegates did not want black slaves included, not because they thought them unworthy of being counted, but because they wanted to weaken the slaveholding power in Congress. Southern delegates wanted every slave to count “equally with the Whites,” not because they wanted to proclaim that black slaves were human beings on an equal footing with free white persons, but because they wanted to increase the pro-slavery voting power in Congress. The humanity of blacks was not the subject of the three-fifths clause; voting power in Congress was the subject.
Teaching CRT is a tool of the Left to divide the United States in the name of racial reconciliation. Don’t fall for the the trap.
The 1776 Report
Released just two days before the close of President Trump’s first term, Joe Biden pulled The 1776 Report from the White House website and ended the Commission using an unprecedented number of executive orders signed within hours of inaugural proceedings being completed. Why is the Left so determined to rewrite history? Are they terrified that Americans will dig deeper into the failed policies of socialism and communism? Is it because their ‘progress’ demands regression into government control, elitist power, and the censorship of a formerly free people?Buy Now
Robert A. Goldwin, “Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” Commentary (May 1987), 29.
“Why Blacks, Women & Jews Are Not Mentioned in the Constitution,” 30