Race and Freedom

[Lumi]

Race and Freedom

Cliven Bundy should be happy for the public revelation of the private comments of fellow racist Donald Sterling; the latter has replaced the former as the person Americans most love to hate. These two bigots recently spewed racial hatred: Bundy suggesting that African-Americans might do well to consider slavery over freedom, and Sterling offering disjointed comments that reveal his evident beliefs in white supremacy.

Bundy is a Nevada rancher who became a hero to the right for standing up to the heavy hand of federal suppression of property rights in the West. He and his family had been grazing their cattle on land they believed was theirs or the state Nevada?s for more than 100 years, when along came the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which claimed the land and assessed Bundy for his use of it. A federal judge upheld the claims and the million-dollar assessment; yet Bundy refused to pay. Instead of filing the judgment in a courthouse, as you and I would do if we had a judgment against Bundy, the feds showed up with 200 camouflage-clad machine gun-bearing federal agents determined to steal Bundy?s cattle.

Soon, thousands of Nevadans showed up to support Bundy, whereupon the feds enacted a ?free speech zone.? They ordered the protesters either to disperse, or to enter the zone and protest there. The zone was a 25-square-yard patch of earth in the Nevada desert, three miles from the Bundy/BLM confrontation site.

Sterling is a billionaire who owns the Los Angeles Clippers of the National Basketball Association (NBA) and was a hero to the left for his public support of liberal causes. He has given generously to the Los Angeles chapter of the NAACP and to the Democratic Party in California. He is white, married and apparently enjoys the company of a biracial girlfriend. Recordings of his several wild, weird, disjointed rants directed to the girlfriend and uttered in the privacy of his own home have been played publicly. In them, Sterling directs his girlfriend not to attend Clipper games in the company of her African-American friends.

Both of these men used hateful and hurtful words that were animated by truly condemnable attitudes about race. No moral person credibly could suggest that slavery is preferable to freedom, and no moral person credibly could suggest that whites are superior to blacks in any respect. Those were attitudes advanced by antebellum slave owners and 20th-century supporters of laws that used the machinery of government to harm blacks during the 100 years following the Civil War.

All rational people, understanding the colorblindness of the natural law, have a moral obligation ? but not a legal one ? publicly to treat persons of different races with equal dignity and respect. I can morally prefer a friend or a mate who is of my race, but I cannot morally hate a potential friend or mate just because the person is not of my race. I do not know what is in their hearts, but Bundy and Sterling are apparently haters.

What to do with them because of their speech? Nothing. I mean nothing. Racially hateful speech is protected from government interference by the First Amendment, which largely was written to protect hateful speech. Neither Bundy nor Sterling has been accused in these instances of racially motivated conduct ? just speech animated by hatred.

In the Bundy case, the feds did suppress speech by keeping it three miles away from them. Free speech, assembly and the right to petition the government would become empty and meaningless if the governmental targets of the speech and assembly could not hear it. The First Amendment will condone outlawing the use of a bullhorn by protesters in front of a hospital at 3 o?clock in the morning. But it will not condone free speech zones for the sake of government convenience. The entire United States of America is a free speech zone.

In Sterling?s case, is it fair to punish someone for speech uttered in the privacy of his home? It would be exquisitely unfair for the government to do so, but the NBA is not the government. When Sterling bought his basketball team, he agreed to accept punishment for conduct unbecoming a team owner or conduct detrimental to the sport. Is speech conduct? For constitutional purposes, it is not; the Constitution does not restrain the NBA. It is free to pull the trigger of punishment to which Sterling consented.

But it needn?t do so.

Hateful and hurtful words have natural and probable consequences where the people are free to counter them. The government has no business cleansing the public marketplace of hateful ideas. The most effective equalizer for hatred is the free market. It will remedy Sterling?s hatred far more effectively than the NBA can. As advertisers and sponsors and fans desert Sterling-owned properties, he will be forced to sell them, lest his financial losses become catastrophic. And it has removed Bundy from the public stage altogether.

But don?t hold your breath waiting for the forces of freedom to nullify hatred. Soon the forces of darkness will attempt to do so as creative prosecutors and hungry litigators bring the government into the fray. I hope they stay home and follow the natural law principle of subsidiarity, which mandates that public problems be solved using the minimum force necessary, not the maximum force possible ? and no force at all where peaceful measures are just as effective.

I would not invite Bundy or Sterling into my home, nor would I befriend them. But I will defend with zeal and diligence their constitutional freedoms.

Reprinted with the author?s permission.

 

[Lumi]

The Unforeseen Consequences of the Don Sterling Story

As we witnessed the media spectacle that was the Don Sterling story unfold, there is an element of the story that is going completely unspoken. Everybody realizes that there is an elusive, slippery slope involved. If they can "ban" a basketball team owner from his own team after having his privacy invaded one day, what can they do to someone else on another? Make no mistake, Mr. Sterling's privacy was invaded, and in my opinion, this is a perfect example of society being willing to give up their own privacy rights, for the sake of argument, in favor of slamming someone they detest. Little do they realize that someday, someone will detest something they, or someone they love, might say. Will the same rules apply then? As disgusting as Sterling's words were, he still has the right to privacy. The fact that this conversation was released to a media outlet is as detestable as Sterling's comments, in my opinion. If you disagree, wait until it happens to you.

All of this is beside the bigger point, however. There is a larger agenda at work here, and it is one that is quite alarming. If all you do is watch the main stream media for the endless, mindless dribble that ooze's from the mouths of paid propaganda artists, you will never see it, even though it would be right in your face. You see, what we have here boils down to something this simple: one man, because of his views on race, was publicly stripped of every right he had and the property he owns. His reputation has been destroyed and people are willing to cast him aside as a leper because he, in the privacy of his own home, made some unpopular, and yes very, disturbing remarks.

Based on some of the other evidence I am about to present, I am going to argue that the agenda is to get people to accept that this can happen to anyone who expresses views that the left can misconstrue as "racist." After all, President Obama unarguably goes out of his way to blame everybody that disagrees with him as a racist. Is this what we face, a public opinion trial in which our property is at stake?

These are not uncommon questions. They have been discussed at length by many radio hosts today. As I have said already, everybody understands that there is indeed a slippery, slippery slope involved here. What nobody is talking about is how this agenda item ties in with others like "white privilege education." I write about this quite often, but as a reminder, this leftist indoctrination method seeks to discredit American culture by claiming that racism is embedded in the institutions and that the "white male" dominated power structure has a built in system of discrimination. It goes on to claim that blacks and other minorities cannot be racist because they lack this institutional power to discriminate. Diving deeper into subjects like "critical race theory," we see that children are being taught that blacks cannot be expected to fairly compete in our constitutional system of governance because of this "embedded racism." Finally, "white privilege education" seeks to teach young children that all white people, because we enjoy the privileges and benefits of a system designed exclusively for us, (as if we don't believe the black man should be free) are guilty of systemic racism. To sum it up, white people are racist because they are white, period.

Keeping this in mind, even if psychological conditioning wasn't on top of the agenda list, (even though it is because we are dealing with communists here) what would happen to our country in ten years if all the people who had been conditioned to believe white privilege suddenly decided to treat everyone the way Sterling is being treated, all because they believe, through their left wing indoctrination, that everyone is racist? (If you don't believe what I am saying about white privilege, I urge to scour your children's school books, you will find it.) All of this suddenly puts a new twist on things, doesn't it? It wouldn't be so alarming if we didn't have a president who accused everyone of racism simply for disagreeing with him.

If all of this isn't bad enough, we actually have a racial grievance industry that is dependent upon a population that thinks they are victims of racial injustice. Just recently, we witnessed to what extent the diabolical left is willing to go to convince young minorities that they are victims. The head of the EPA recently gave a speech to young blacks, urging them to advocate for stricter regulations to combat global warming because, get this, black children suffer from more pollution than white people do. If that is not a deliberate attempt to convince a group of people that they are poor, oppressed victims, then I do not know what is folks.

That, my patriotic friends, is why the events surrounding this Don Sterling story are so alarming. It involves a whole demographic of people who are being taught they are oppressed by a racist white majority. They are becoming fed up with this fabricated oppression, and demanding change they can't comprehend. All in this one incident, we see a man deprived of his property and stripped of his rights because the things he said hurt a few people's feelings.

I don't feel the need to condemn the man because in all reality, he condemned himself, and I know I am not a racist man. I was disgusted by what he said. I am equally disgusted that there is such a huge effort on the part of radical leftists to convince young minds that all white people are racist, especially when you consider the truth about the racist past of the Democrat Party. A new precedent could very well have been set today, and that would be one where people, out of a sense of outrage can strip a man out of his constitutionally protected rights to life, liberty and property. If you support this, then you are a fool because it's only a matter of time before someone detests something you say.

 

[Duff Miver]

I would not invite Bundy or Sterling into my home, nor would I befriend them. But I will defend with zeal and diligence their constitutional freedoms.

This author needs to understand the First Amendment better.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

The First Amendment is, pure and simple, intended to prevent government from limiting political speech. It was never intended to protect vile, hateful or untrue speech.

There is no guaranteed freedom to engage in hate speech. It is not protected, just as libelous speech is not protected, and speech intended to incite violence is not protected.

If you think the First protects all speech, give it a try. Walk up to the biggest, baddest SOB you can find and call his mother a XXXXXXX XXXXX. He won't be violating the First when he puts your lights out.

 

[Lumi]

None the less
Whomever wants to call the biggest, baddest MOFO
A.... And/Or???
That would be that individuals right to do so,
He would be taking a calculated or miscalculated risk

As you well know I am protected, but not ever would I call some BMF
Out just because I have iron, that is 100% irresponsible
And all the Iron bearers I know wouldn't run their pie hole hoping for
A confrontation

This whole thing with Sterling should make everyone's butt pucker
Your phone, computer,DVR... Can record your conversations.
Duff I don't know if you like Blue Slurpees?
But somewhere out there, there is Blue Slurpee Civil Rights group,
And they will grab you by your short and curlys and then the entire line of Slupee Civil rights organizations will hammer you.
Don't Fuck with the Slurpees !!

 

[Duff Miver]

Make no mistake, Mr. Sterling's privacy was invaded, .

I just listened to entire recording, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZh6WGbZUvA

Talking to his GF who was recording the conversation. If he knew, if she told him she was recording, then he has no expectation of privacy.

If she recorded without his knowledge, then, yes, she has invaded his privacy.


What really strikes me about the whole thing, more than the privacy or racism issues, is a lesson his Daddy should have taught him.


Don't date dumb cunts.

And, as Bill Clinton would say: Don't let them suck your dick either.