Anything You Have, I Can Take

The recent flap over so-called racist statements allegedly made by Donald Sterling, owner of the LA Clippers is a tumble down a slippery slope.  The result of this fiasco is that the NBA commissioner Adam Silver essentially stole Sterling's team from him.  But can he really do that, and if he can, is it a good thing?

From an article from Sports Illustrated, we learn: " . . . Silver has broad authority under the NBA's constitution and bylaws to suspend and fine an owner for conduct detrimental to the NBA. According to Sliver, Sterling admitted it was his voice on the recording in which he made racist remarks. Even if the recording was unlawfully created under California law -- the recording would likely be unlawful if the conversation was confidential and Sterling didn't give consent -- Silver is authorized to punish Sterling based on the recording's impact on the league. It is safe to say that Sterling's comments, have deeply harmed the NBA and its relationship with players, sponsors and fans. Sterling seems to lack a viable argument that his conduct was not seriously detrimental to the NBA."

"Sterling is also disadvantaged in challenging the suspension and fine because of how a court would treat such a challenge. A court would review Silver's decision under the deferential "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. This standard would essentially require Sterling prove that the NBA -- and specifically Silver, acting as the NBA's ultimate arbiter -- failed to follow its own rules in how it investigated Sterling and punished him. For instance, if the NBA failed to authenticate the recording, concealed evidence or not requested a meeting with Sterling, Sterling might have sufficient grounds. Silver's remarks during the press conference, however, suggest all relevant rules and policies were followed. Absent Sterling proving there was a procedural defect of serious importance, Sterling likely has no viable appeal to either the fine or suspension. . . " 

OK, fine.  Let's look at this.  Did these comments really harm the NBA and its relationship with players, sponsors and fans?  If so, exactly how?  Some fans may be offended and boycott Clippers games, and that may hurt Sterling in the pocketbook.   That would be his loss and fans' right to do so.  But in a larger sense, has it hurt the NBA?  Hell, no.  How can one man's opinion - however offensive it may be to certain people - be "harmful" to an entire league?  And what about Silver's opinion?  Are we not allowed to disagree with his decision?  Are we so sensitive that we allow one man to steal another man's private property for no other reason than we may disagree with him, and without any semblance of due process?  Maybe Sterling is a real reprobate, and maybe someone is plotting to get him out of the Big Boy's Club of the NBA.  But using this situation for that nefarious purpose is not only ill-advised, it's downright dangerous in its probable repercussions.

Look.  I couldn't care less about what was said, or how it was learned, or how it was leaked, or how the uber-sensitive and perpetually offended among us may have reacted.  That's just a distraction, and I don't care.  I do care that any man or public body, or government agency for that matter, may seize private property for nothing more than a politically incorrect, dissenting opinion.  That's a slippery slope in a nation whose Constitution protects our God-given right to free speech, freedom of association, and security in our persons and effects. This is total nonsense, and in my mind, it's simply a way to redistribute a very lucrative franchise from Sterling to someone else. Notwithstanding the pseudo legal justification nonsense in the SI article above, I hope Sterling gets a good lawyer and sues the pants off the self righteous Adam Silver and the NBA.

We should watch this whole episode very closely, because it's another test case of how the "authorities" - whomever and wherever they may be -  will use fear and intimidation to re-appropriate your goods and chattel, just for expressing an opinion. It just happened to a rancher in Nevada, and it'll happen to us, too.  Mark my words.

Lawlessness Continues

Here's a tantalizing thought for all you lawyer types out there.  Because the Kenyan is not a natural born US citizen, and therefore ineligible to hold the office of president, might not a legal challenge to nullify every single piece of legislation he has signed into law be constitutionally made?  Yeah, I think so, too.  But does anyone have the balls to stand up to the onslaught of personal destruction and character assignation the Democrat party and their sycophants in the media that will surely ensue?  Yeah, I don't think so, either.

Any debate about the whereabouts of his birthplace is moot.  There are several proofs of this.  First, the Hawaiian birth certificate was a fraud so amateurish even the press laughed about it. Second, he has multiple aliases and fake social security numbers.  How can we have an American President with fake IDs and aliases?  Third, there exists a YouTube video of an event filmed when he was running for senate in Illinois, wherein he categorically told the crowd, "I was born in Kenya."  By his own admission, made during a campaign event, before the Antichrist picked him from obscurity to run for president, he states he's ineligible for the nation's top job.  I've personally seen that video, but I can no longer find it on the internet.  How strange.

You think Richard Nixon was deceitful?  He was a choir boy compared to the Kenyan.  The affect of the Kenyan's deceit and his subsequent lawlessness is to essentially render the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our concept of being a nation of laws utterly meaningless.  He's destroyed the nation as a functioning republic, and still has three more years to polish off the hit job.  Why have laws at all if the President of the United States so willfully violates them?  Or when his very presidency itself is illegitimate?  His administration is packed with kindred spirits who are eager to abet the lawlessness:  Lois Lerner used the power of the IRS to deny - and revoke - tax exempt status for conservative groups.  Eric Holder refuses to investigate and punish Black Panthers who prevented conservatives from voting in Pennsylvania; he illegally ran guns across the border to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to kill rival gangs as well as US Border agents.  The list is endless, and it's obvious this administration thinks we serve them rather than the other way around.

Some people say we're doomed as to continuing to be the nation we once were.  Some say there's nothing to see here, just MoveOn.org.  Some say it's time to water the tree of liberty with a little hemoglobin.  Some say Costa Rica and Belize are really nice.  Some say we need to work within the system we have, and vote the bums out.  I'm not sure any of these alone will regain the folks' - the We The People - confidence in their government.  Maybe a combination of several of these solutions would work to restore our nation.  Maybe we should try Vote 'Em Out, and Kill The Rest.  Maybe.  I'm just sayin' at the end of the day it will be up to us.

Common Core Must Go

My contention with Common Core is not in its supposed standardization; in fact I think standardization is important in elevating our national educational outcomes.  What I object to is having the federal government involved in education in any way.  With few exceptions, anything the federal government tries to control soon becomes a fiasco.  Educating the next generations of our children is something too important to allow to be screwed up.  Fortunately, many states are beginning to see the light.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/16/pushback-continues-states-grow-increasingly-wary-common-core/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell

As to Common Core content, the continual subliminal and insidious indoctrination into a progressive mindset is – and will continue to be – the government’s primary concern.  Educating kids in history, civics, math and science, and actually producing well educated, well rounded, and most importantly, critical thinking young adults is secondary.  Consider these actual reading comprehension problems in Texas:

http://www.ktsm.com/news/school-yard/pasodale-elementary-parents-question-bizarre-homework-assignment

Both of my local Tampa daily newspapers - one centrist and one flat out Marxist - today had several articles decrying the advent of private and charter schools.  But because of heavy handed governmental intervention into states’ sovereign education programs, what are parents to do in the face of government continuing to govern against the will of the people?  Many parents seek to circumvent the whole pubic education process by sending their kids to private schools, or by home schooling.  Either way, these options are either more expensive or certainly less convenient than sending the little ones to public schools.  However,  many parents put their money where their kids' futures lie.

That’s telling.

Government versus Privacy

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That's the complete text of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  At roughly fifty words, it's very simple and concise. One doesn't need a pointy-headed liberal law professor to explain it.  It says exactly what it says, as do the other nine amendments of the original Bill of Rights.  This one says the government has no business in your personal and private effects.  Gee, given blatant governmental over stepping of its authority, that must mean this regime is acting unlawfully and in direct contravention to the Constitution. Ya think!?  The government's spy agencies, CIA and NSA among them, have dozens of operations designed to track you and every word you write or utter.  Warrantless stops (stop and frisk, TSA groping), electronic spying, monitoring of telephone calls, tracking internet use, undisclosed facial recognition, drone surveillance, inspection of medical records or tax returns, red light cameras and so much more are ALL illegal.  Now what do we do?  Protest?  Vote?

The time for those civil processes has passed. The Feds know it, too.  They know that most people are Fed up (pun intended) with the heavy handedness of this government in every capacity, and they fear a backlash.  Riots certainly, armed insurrection absolutely.  That's why this regime has armed to the teeth heretofore non-law enforcement government agencies.  Those agencies whose responsibilities seem to have little to do with combating crime now carry heavily armed active law enforcement operations.  How about this partial list of agencies and their newly empowered enforcement duties:

• U.S. Department of Education
• U.S. Bureau of Land Management
• U.S. Department of the Interior
• U.S. Postal Inspection Service
• National Park Service
• Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admonsistration

The government can't detain you for mere suspicion - legally.  Of course, with all that firepower at their disposal, one would be hesitant to draw down on agents of any of these previously benign agencies even if one were carrying legally.  So now here's the conundrum: the law means nothing when one is confronted with heavily armed jackbooted government thugs.  This regime has turned the Constitution on its head.  Think long and hard about that in November, and if we still have the chance, again in November of 2016.