Congressman Allen West, astute political observer, takes a different look at the Donald Sterling Pile On.

“Folks, you’re missing the point about Donald Sterling”

By former Congressman Allen West
April 30, 2014

“Upon further review, the ruling on the field (court …” These are the words stated by referees after they’ve gone to the reply booth (monitor) in order to clarify a controversial call. Often, the reason for the review is because of a coach’s challenge. Therefore, in the same light, let us review the case of LA Clippers owner, Donald Sterling.

There can be no debate that the words of Mr. Sterling were reprehensible and disgusting. But how and why did these words come to light now, when his points of view were apparently well-known for many years?

It seems his “girlfriend,” Ms. Stiviano, decided to tape a private conversation between the two. Apparently, Ms. Stiviano had recently been sued by the estranged wife of Mr. Sterling, so there is some potential nefarious motive involved. Furthermore, the taping of a conversation without consent of the other party is illegal under California statute. There is some question as to whether he knew he was being recorded. Let’s assume for the moment he didn’t.

The national outrage against Mr. Sterling has come from an act that could be illegal and inadmissible in a court of law. Nevertheless, the court of public opinion has tried and convicted Mr. Sterling of being a jerk.

But have we come to a point in America where being a jerk is grounds for confiscation of a private property? It was Englishman John Locke who first proposed that individual rights as granted under natural law were life, liberty, and property. It was Thomas Jefferson who in the American Declaration of Independence used that paradigm to propose our unalienable rights from our Creator being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Sterling’s comments were repulsive, but they were stated in the privacy of his own home — at least he thought it was private.

So where do we go from here?

Have we come to the point that private conversations can be taped and released in the public domain in order to ruin the livelihood — pursuit of happiness — of private citizens? Ms. Stiviano, or whomever, knew exactly what they wanted the end result to be as they released this tape to TMZ.

Is this the “new normal?” Is this a violation of our privacy rights? Ok, so what types of conversations occur in the privacy of the NBA locker rooms, or the homes of the players? Yes, this is indeed a slippery slope as Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban asserted.

Fox News host and commentator Greg Gutfeld applauded this moment because of the consensus outrage being displayed. But I believe this outrage misplaced, or more accurately, mis-prioritized. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver said Sterling’s behavior was “dangerous to the NBA.”

Where is the cultural, public outrage over a behind closed door comment such as referring to the State of Israel as an “apartheid state?” Probably most of America doesn’t know who said it or even what “apartheid” means.

Or how about the outrage that should have come when our own president leaned over to then-Russian President Medvedev saying, “Tell Putin that after my re-election I will have more flexibility” and of course Medvedev said, “I will tell Vladimir.” And now we know what that “flexibility” has allowed.

Aren’t those “private” chats reflective of behavior that is dangerous for the United States?

Or how about the lies and deceit of President Obama on healthcare and of course Benghazi, which we now know a video had nothing to do with.

Has our culture devolved to the point that the private statements of an NBA owner draws more outrage than the lies and deceit of the President of the United States?

Donald Sterling’s behavior is despicable, but so is that of President Barack Hussein Obama — and whose abhorrent behavior has more impact on our country?

The difference is that the media lead us along like sheep to the slaughter, turning us into reactionary, shallow thinking, low information voters along the way. We know more about Sterling than Benghazi — or the IRS scandal.

Sterling is a jerk, an unlikeable fella, but is he guilty of a crime that demands his property be confiscated? Uh, no.

We’re told however that Obama is a likable fella — regardless of the incessant lies, deceit and abject failures. What is happening to American culture and values?

I don’t like jerks, but I really don’t like jerks who are liars, do you?

Allen West

Jsk personal aside: Thank you Congressman Allen West for your enlightening perspective. Please allow me to look at yet another angle. How is it that the media and the whole liberal self righteous proud world including the likes of Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the rest of the race hustlers and the many hypocritical owners of the NBA franchises and its new commissioner pile on to the obvious AH, Donald Sterling, with such zeal?

I can’t help but wonder if the whole world would get so upset if someone were caught telling someone, “Those fuckin’ Jews have all the money, they smell, they are dirty and I despise them and I don’t want you bringing them around to my golf club, my house, my restaurant, my hotels and as far as I am personally concerned you can f–k them any time you want.

What would the world, the media, the Jewish organizations do except make a lot of noise? Not a damn thing! And how jealous am I? It is politically incorrect to publicly say anything nasty about “African-Americans” but the Jews have always been fair game for unabashed declared malignant hatred. And no one closes the perpetrator’s business, their property is not confiscated and exorbitant punishment fees are not levied against them.

Of course, that is all not to say that Stirling is anything but an AH but, how are his remarks different from those of every committed Jew hater in the world? I think not. Hurray to the Blacks for making awful remarks about them politically incorrect and punishable by social ostracism for starters.

How about the Jews taking a lesson from the Blacks and shed the shtetl mentalities they garnered in the ghettos of Europe? Make their enemies pay the price for their mindless expressed hatred. Jewish blood is no longer cheap. Ask the enemies of the Israelis.

Jerome S. Kaufman

Subscribe: www.israel-commentary.org
https://www.facebook.com/schmice
Twitter: @israelcomment

Will Blacks finally wake up to their own Race Hustlers?

Will Blacks finally wake up to their own Race Hustlers?

The Decline of the Civil Rights Establishment
By Shelby Steele
Wall Street Journal July 22, 2013

By SHELBY STEELE

The verdict that declared George Zimmerman not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin was a traumatic event for America’s civil-rights establishment, and for many black elites across the media, government and academia. When you have grown used to American institutions being so intimidated by the prospect of black wrath that they invent mushy ideas like “diversity” and “inclusiveness” simply to escape that wrath, then the crisp reading of the law that the Zimmerman jury displayed comes as a shock.

On television in recent weeks you could see black leaders from every background congealing into a chorus of umbrage and complaint. But they weren’t so much outraged at a horrible injustice as they were affronted by the disregard of their own authority. The jury effectively said to them, “You won’t call the tune here. We will work within the law.”

Today’s black leadership pretty much lives off the fumes of moral authority that linger from its glory days in the 1950s and ’60s. The Zimmerman verdict lets us see this and feel a little embarrassed for them. Consider the pathos of a leadership that once transformed the nation now lusting for the conviction of the contrite and mortified George Zimmerman, as if a stint in prison for him would somehow assure more peace and security for black teenagers everywhere. This, despite the fact that nearly one black teenager a day is shot dead on the South Side of Chicago—to name only one city—by another black teenager.

This would not be the first time that a movement begun in profound moral clarity, and that achieved greatness, waned away into a parody of itself—not because it was wrong but because it was successful. Today’s civil-rights leaders have missed the obvious: The success of their forbearers in achieving social transformation denied to them the heroism that was inescapable for a Martin Luther King Jr. or a James Farmer or a Nelson Mandela. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton cannot write a timeless letter to us from a Birmingham jail or walk, as John Lewis did in 1965, across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala., into a maelstrom of police dogs and billy clubs. That America is no longer here (which is not to say that every trace of it is gone).

The Revs. Jackson and Sharpton have been consigned to a hard fate: They can never be more than redundancies, echoes of the great men they emulate because America has changed. Hard to be a King or Mandela today when your monstrous enemy is no more than the cherubic George Zimmerman.

Why did the civil-rights leadership use its greatly depleted moral authority to support Trayvon Martin? This young man was, after all, no Rosa Parks — a figure of indisputable human dignity set upon by the rank evil of white supremacy. Trayvon threw the first punch and then continued pummeling the much smaller Zimmerman. Yes, Trayvon was a kid, but he was also something of a menace. The larger tragedy is that his death will come to very little. There was no important principle or coherent protest implied in that first nose-breaking punch. It was just dumb bravado, a tough-guy punch.

The civil-rights leadership rallied to Trayvon’s cause (and not to the cause of those hundreds of black kids slain in America’s inner cities this very year) to keep alive a certain cultural “truth” that is the sole source of the leadership’s dwindling power. Put bluntly, this leadership rather easily tolerates black kids killing other black kids. But it cannot abide a white person (and Mr. Zimmerman, with his Hispanic background, was pushed into a white identity by the media over his objections) getting away with killing a black person without undermining the leadership’s very reason for being.

The purpose of today’s civil-rights establishment is not to seek justice, but to seek power for blacks in American life based on the presumption that they are still, in a thousand subtle ways, victimized by white racism. This idea of victimization is an example of what I call a “poetic truth.” Like poetic license, it bends the actual truth in order to put forward a larger and more essential truth—one that, of course, serves one’s cause. Poetic truths succeed by casting themselves as perfectly obvious: “America is a racist nation”; “the immigration debate is driven by racism”; “Zimmerman racially stereotyped Trayvon.” And we say, “Yes, of course,” lest we seem to be racist. Poetic truths work by moral intimidation, not reason.

In the Zimmerman/Martin case the civil-rights establishment is fighting for the poetic truth that white animus toward blacks is still such that a black teenager—Skittles and ice tea in hand—can be shot dead simply for walking home. But actually this establishment is fighting to maintain its authority to wield poetic truth—the authority to tell the larger society how it must think about blacks, how it must respond to them, what it owes them and, then, to brook no argument.

The Zimmerman/Martin tragedy has been explosive because it triggered a fight over authority. Who gets to say what things mean—the supporters of George Zimmerman, who say he acted in self-defense, or the civil-rights establishment that says he profiled and murdered a black child? Here we are. And where is the authority to resolve this? The six-person Florida jury, looking carefully at the evidence, decided that Mr. Zimmerman pulled the trigger in self-defense and not in a fury of racial hatred.

And here, precisely at the point of this verdict, is where all of America begins to see this hollowed-out civil-rights establishment slip into pathos. Almost everyone saw this verdict coming. It is impossible to see how this jury could have applied the actual law to this body of evidence and come up with a different conclusion. The civil-rights establishment’s mistake was to get ahead of itself, to be seduced by its own poetic truth even when there was no evidence to support it. And even now its leaders call for a Justice Department investigation, and they long for civil lawsuits to be filed—hoping against hope that some leaf of actual racial victimization will be turned over for all to see. This is how a once-great social movement looks when it becomes infested with obsolescence.

One wants to scream at all those outraged at the Zimmerman verdict: Where is your outrage over the collapse of the black family? Today’s civil-rights leaders swat at mosquitoes like Zimmerman when they have gorillas on their back. Seventy-three percent of all black children are born without fathers married to their mothers. And you want to bring the nation to a standstill over George Zimmerman?

There are vast career opportunities, money and political power to be gleaned from the specter of Mr. Zimmerman as a racial profiler/murderer; but there is only hard and selfless work to be done in tackling an illegitimacy rate that threatens to consign blacks to something like permanent inferiority. If there is anything good to be drawn from the Zimmerman/Martin tragedy, it is only the further revelation of the corruption and irrelevance of today’s civil-rights leadership.

Mr. Steele is a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution. Among his books is “White Guilt” (HarperCollins 2007).

Maybe you forgot who’s Al Sharpton?

MSNBC Gives a Violent Racist a TV Show
FrontPage Magazine
Posted by Daniel Greenfield
Aug 18th, 2011

Imagine if MSNBC gave a TV show to a violent racist who led angry mobs against Jewish and Asian communities and businesses – Mobs that gathered outside a Jewish synagogue chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews.”

Unimaginable, right? Wrong. After years of accusing FOX News of racism, MSNBC gave a violent racist his own show. Of course MSNBC would never give a white racist like David Duke his own show. But they have no problem giving one to Al Sharpton.

Sharpton is many things—a cunning gutter clown, a hate-filled agitator and a savvy trader in political favors. Those qualities have taken him from street riots to a kingmaker role in the Democratic Party to the White House, where he has become its link to the black community.

Sharpton has eclipsed Jesse Jackson as the national agitator with the highest profile, adopting Jackson’s old role of middleman between the Democratic Party and the black community, and his business model of blackmailing corporations with boycott threats to fund his organization. The National Action Network, Sharpton’s organization, commands appearances by Obama and Biden, and true to his usual financial dealings remains deep in debt while paying him a six figure salary.

But there can be no talk of Sharpton without discussing the trail of debris behind him. Yankel Rosenbaum, the University of Melbourne student, stabbed and beaten to death on President Street among the stately manors of what was once known as Doctor’s Row, was the most famous victim of Sharpton’s Crown Height Pogrom, but not the only one.

There was Anthony Graziosi, a white, bearded Italian electronics salesman wearing a dark suit, who was mistaken for a Jew, and died for it. Bracha Estrin, a Holocaust survivor, who saw the mobs chanting “Heil Hitler” and “Death to the Jews” and believing that history was about to repeat itself, jumped rather than fall into their hands.Twenty years ago this August, a line of bodies was lowered into the ground. And Sharpton walked away with a higher national profile than ever.

Three years later, another round of racist protests at Freddy’s Fashion Mart with protesters screaming, “Burn down this Jew store!” led to an attack that killed seven minority employees. The Freddy’s protests were led by Morris Powell, head of the Buy Black Committee at Sharpton’s National Action Network. Powell had been previously put on trial for breaking the head of a Korean woman during one of his pickets.

Sharpton’s modus operandi was to create chaos, and then represent himself as the man who could stop it. The uglier the confrontations got, the more people died, the more credibility he gained. In 2001, he went from terrorizing entire neighborhoods to claiming control over the outcome of the mayoral election. Shortly thereafter the New York State Democratic Party made it clear that attacks on Sharpton were no longer acceptable. Senate candidates were expected to court the hate monger and did.

And then it was presidential candidates. Sharpton’s presidential run utilized the same tactics at the national level that had worked for him at the city and state level. He wasn’t out to win, just to cause enough chaos and uncertainty that the party would buy him off. And it worked.

It was a surprisingly short journey from a racist agitator who intimidated city authorities, to a state leader who intimidated the New York State Democratic Party, to a national leader who intimidated the entire Democratic Party.

Less than 10 years after the Freddy’s fire, Sharpton was addressing a national audience from the stage of the Democratic National Convention. Twenty years after the Crown Heights Pogrom, he is Obama’s unofficial outreach man to the black community and on the verge of getting his own full-time MSNBC show. A long career of bigotry, blood on his hands and a video of him discussing a drug deal are not a barrier.

Sharpton cuts a ridiculous figure at MSNBC. It isn’t every man who can make Ed Schultz look like a class act, but Sharpton manages that. His on air flubs have gone viral and what’s worse is that when he isn’t stumbling over words, he has nothing to say.

MSNBC got rid of Olbermann, but replaced him with an even bigger diva with a long history of racist blackmail. Sharpton is more controversial than Olbermann, but far less articulate. If Olbermann was trying to be Cronkite in drag, Sharpton doesn’t know what to do without a microphone and a mob. Sharpton’s name has attracted attention, where Cenk Uygur’s only brought bafflement, and as a reliable Obama toady he won’t cause any grief for the White House.

But the MSNBC gig exposes what a hollow man the Reverend Al is. He is the son of a Cadillac driving slumlord and a spectacularly implausible choice as a civil rights leader. His ridiculous hairstyle, jumpsuits and jewelry, and his over the top delivery were the tricks of a carnival showman.

The MSNBC gig allows Sharpton to deliver White House talking points to a national audience, but what happens in 2013 without a Democratic administration in need of messaging? Sharpton has gotten this far by presenting himself as the intermediary between the Ivy League liberal and the black street. In Obama’s words, “the voice of the voiceless.”

But what happens if the turnout isn’t there? Sharpton has been able to drive racist mobs to target defenseless minorities, but if he can’t drive voters to the polls, then he will suddenly be much less useful to MSNBC and the party it serves. The future of the “limousine racist” is closely tied to black turnout in 2012. And if he doesn’t deliver, Sharpton will be back screaming at hate filled crowds in Brooklyn. Back to the minor leagues of the party of hate.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.

And. let us not forget Sharpton history as related in a recent Jewish Press article redacted below:

THE SCHNEIER/SHARPTON SHOW
By Jewish Press Editorial Board
Aug 24 2011

… The idea of Al Sharpton sitting around a table soberly discussing relations between blacks and Jews borders on the bizarre. Who can forget that in Crown Heights it was Rev. Sharpton who loudly harangued blacks and encouraged a racial interpretation of the death of 7-year old Gavin Cato?

… Rev. Sharpton at the time also talked about “apartheid” in Crown Heights and challenged local Jews, whom he referred to as “diamond merchants,” to “pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house” if they wanted to duke it out.

… Of course, no recap of Rev. Sharpton’s career would be complete without mention of the ugly controversy that gave him his first taste of notoriety – the Tawana Brawley hoax.

As John Perazzo summed it up for FrontPageMag.com in a 2007 article,

… [Sharpton] injected himself into the case of 16-year-old Tawana Brawley, who in November 1987 claimed that she had been repeatedly raped [and brutalized] for four days by six white kidnappers, at least one of whom was wearing a police badge . It was among the most disturbing tales in living memory.

Al Sharpton quickly assumed the role of special adviser to Miss Brawley and thereafter worked closely with the girl’s attorneys, C. Vernon Mason (who, later in his career, would be convicted of 66 counts of professional misconduct and disbarred from the legal profession) and Alton Maddox (who has publicly expressed his profound hatred for white people).

Sharpton and the Brawley lawyers demanded that New York Governor Mario Cuomo appoint a special prosecutor to the case and publicly charged that “high-level” local law enforcement officials were involved in the crime – an allegation that led to numerous death threats against members of the Dutchess County police department.

In the autumn of 1988, after conducting an exhaustive review of the facts, a grand jury released its report showing beyond any doubt that the entire Tawana Brawley story had been fabricated, and that at least $1 million of New York taxpayers’ money had been spent to investigate a colossal hoax.

Rev. Sharpton, some twenty tears later, still denies his negative role in Crown Heights and also maintains that he made no substantive mistakes. All he will express is remorse for perhaps having used language that “at times has been over the line.”

(The current question is rather: When is MSNBC “over the line”?) jsk