At Home with Donald Sterling

Now that every preening pundit has stood up in their various pulpits to denounce Donald Sterling, praise Adam Silver and look to Magic Johnson as a Mr. Clean, albeit a bit diseased, the lull has taken over and the race hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson have moved on to the next flim-flam. Thus do we have a quiet moment to look somewhat dispassionately at the event in its totality and what its lasting effect might be. Sterling was inside his plantation with one of his personal, female assistants whose name escapes me for the moment and whose relationship to Sterling is irrelevant. They were talking; no other person was in the cirle of their conversation. Except, of course, as all now know, the friend was taping the conversation. Sterling was unaware of the taping which thus constitutes a criminal act for which she could be prosecuted. At some point subsequent, she intentionally and with an unknown purpose, released the tape recording to the media and the rest is some kind of cultural history. The pilloring and punishment imposed upon Sterling are more than substantial. Whether such are deserved does not appear to be reasonable when the actual facts are examined. Sterling's words are clearly protected speech in terms of the First Amendment of the federal Constitution. They were not criminal conduct. He was not shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, inciting riot or slandering someone. He was having a supposedly private conversation with a trusted friend of some time whose name I do now recall. Judas, I think, or something similar. Clearly, his words were not for publication but published they were, surreptitiously at best. It is also clear that the general sentiments Sterling holds are held by millions of Americans. Ask Obama, Holder, Jackson, Sharpton, Sotomayor and other race-bating hustlers, each of whom decries that racism in America is alive and widespread. Each of them, by the way, like Sterling, lives in a lily-white neighborhood. None lives in Harlem, Detroit or South Central. Every person with the means to do so avoids living in places like Harlem, Detroit or South Central. Supreme Court Justices, elected officials and newsroom savants all think diversity is a wonderful, broadening experience for university students but, sadly, it has no beneficial effect on the street or neighborhood where they have chosen to live. It is also a no-brainer to state that Adam Silver does not live in Detroit, Harlem or South Central or any neighborhood closely resembling them. His home is also in a lily-white area and his kids attended elite academies. He sent none to any school offering the richness of diversity to be found in a classroom chockful of poor kids from the local ghetto. You can bet the farm on that. He's Jewish, not stupid. He would never condemn his children to the fruits of the diversity tree. So what is Sterling really being punished for? He is being shunned and excommunicated for a private conversation, uttered inside his own home, manifesting in words that which his betters manifest by the way they live their lives. More, his words were made known only through the criminal conduct of his single listener who is apparently a friend or more of a person who is likely to benefit from Sterling's banishment. The preeners may paint themselves an inch thick with self-adulation but, if allowed to succeed, to this favor shall we all eventually come. None may laugh at that.

Unexpected

Washington is abuzz with the unexpected news flowing from Crimea and Vladimer Putin's latest moves in the diplomatic chess game of governments. The legacy media cackles the same line as to the "unexpected" actions of various foreign government officials. It is ever thus in D.C. Blame cannot be allowed to fall upon The Great One or his appointees any more than guilt may be found for another Kennedy driving in a stupor on or off the public highways as the case may be. Forgive me but it has been my impression that my elected officials, their appointees and the permanent leeches who operate the goverment were far too knowledgeable to be surprised by a crude Russian such as Putin. Yet again, it appears that unexpected events overcame the genius of the Supreme Leader in the White House. But, like most who live in public housing, he appears to have little information outside of his own project as he is constantly surprised by unexpected events which trip up his plans for the lives of Americans, those citizens of a nation he dislikes so much that he promised to transform it as soon as he became its leader. Most of us know about the unexpected; we face it regularly: the car breaks down and we need another $400; one of the kids breaks his arm playing; my new boss doesn't like me and suggested I find other employment. Rather than commiseration, most of us learn we have to, somehow, deal with it. We should have planned for the unexpected as it is to be expected in life. Except in Washington where nothing is ever anybody's fault, where nobody is ever fired and where nobody expects the unexpected.

IF NOT HILLARY, WHO? THAT'S EASY

Recent rumors have it that Hillary Clinton, best known for being the wife of a former president, is not in good health and may decide not to run for her husband's former job. As to the truth of the rumor, I have neither knowledge nor opinion. I would hope it not to be true as I wish none poor health even if I disagree with them. But should it turn out to be true or if Mrs. Clinton should decide not to run for whatever reason, it would surely scramble the Democrat Party nomination race. Who would emerge from the pack to replace the current front-runner? Some have speculated that New York's governor, Andrew Cuomo, might be the likely candidate. I doubt it. He might run but he can't hide from his divorce and lackluster governorship. Besides, he is a long way from nationally known and has zero credibility in foreign affairs or the ways of Washington. There is, however, a perfect candidate for the Democrats, one having the following charateristics: * nationally and internationally well known; * many years as a senior elected official in Washington; * a war-hero; * presidential looking, articulate and scandal-free; * previous presidential candidate who ran well. Who is this mystery man? It's easy: John Kerry of course. Now you know why he decided to give up a safe Senate seat to become Secretary of State with a tenure only as long as the Obama administration. Wily John had some advance knowledge of Mrs. Clinton's issues and decided that as Secretary of State, he would enhance his resume and be ready to run in 2016. If you disagree, name the next most likely democrat.

The Heckler's Veto

The 9th Circuit today announced a decision that may be constitutionally correct but, at the same time, terribly wrong. A public high school in California banned students from wearing American flag T-shirts on Cinco de Mayo on the grounds that the wearing of the T-shirts would incite disruptive behavior on the campus. There had been such behavior between Mexican and white students and it was reasonable to assume more of the same. This type of situation is common: a heckler or hecklers creates or threatens to create a disruption if some person or group is permitted to speak or demonstrate. Those in charge often give in to the "hecklers" to avoid riots, violence or whatever is threatened. It is clear that this strategy works and it is also clear that it is generally a violation of the 1st Amendment rights of the speaker or group that has been shut down. The decision was based on a Supreme Court case which permitted authorities to preserve the peace and to proscribe one's constitutional rights. So, in the case decided, a bunch of Mexican students threaten riot/fights/disruption if non-Mexicans wear American flag T-shirts. Let's change the facts though and see what result you would anticipate. Let's say that Jesse Jackson was going to speak against amnesty for illegal aliens who work for low wages thus competing with black employment. Enraged illegals threaten to create a disturbance outside and inside the hall where Jackson is to speak. Do you think they would be permitted to shut Jackson off? Or would the local constabulary be out in force to stop any rioters in their tracks? Or is that too rhetorical a question? Where was the constabulary on that Cinco de Mayo?

The Conservative Problem

Most polls show Americans to be fairly conservative. Surely there is no radical liberalism in the majority of people or voters. The question thus arises: How do we have so many liberal laws? I think it reflects the lack of a real, conservative political organization plus the many lifetime liberal politicians and their willingness to incrementally move toward their objectives. Surely the Republican party is not a conservative political organization to the same extent that the Democrats are a liberal political organization. Democrats have few, if any, conservatives in their ranks anymore. There are no more Blue Dog Democrats. Republicans have many elected officials who share one or more liberal views. Think gay marriage, immigration, debt limits or voter ID for such issues. Liberal politicians move as a Roman phalanx: together, slowly perhaps, but always together and in the same direction. They are always on message. Conservative politicians march to their own drummer, seldom together and in varying directions. The effect of this differential is the incremental implementation of liberalism within the laws of our land and the slowly slipping away of your liberty and mine.

Better Late Than Never

For a variety of reasons, the hiatus lasted far longer than intended. But, as before, popular demand has brought me back to publishing thoughts and opinions on those topics which are important in current day America. Before deciding to continue, I looked back at prior posts. It was with unfortunate prescience that my Romney predictions came to be. Other posts are also instructively accurate. Thus armed, I've decided to sally forth once more. As always, I welcome comments. Ad hominem comments are ignored and trashed.

Hiatus

The blog will be off-line as I am moving home and office plus taking a holiday.  It should re-commence in mid-May.

Cheers!

Mad Men of Hollywood

There's a popular TV show named "Mad Men" which is set in the 1960s but still, like virtually every Hollywood concoction, it's anti-Republican/conservative and pro-Democrat/liberal.  A recent show had specific dialogue which said the (George) Romney was "a clown".  George Romney was, of course, Mitt's father.

When will there be an episode describing Hussein Obama's father as a clown, a deadbeat Dad or any other derogatory word?  Or comments about Hussein's illegal relative(s) or his DUI uncle?

To quote that eminent constitutional scholar, N. Pelosi, "Are you serious?"

(HT: Legal Insurrection)

T'aint Funny McGee

Americans of a certain age will recognize Molly's weekly jousting with Fibber.  I was reminded of it this week when Justice Scalia asserted his 8th Amendment privilege against being required to read the 2,700 page ObamaCare bill in order to determine what should be excised and what should be retained.  It was funny and the court's audience laughed.  If you think about it though, it's not really a laughing matter.

Do think about it: two thousand seven hundred pages of fine print law in one bill.  I'm pretty smart; learned to read decades ago; studied literature and philosophy in college and, later, went to law school.  My everyday work requires me to read, read, read.  Pleadings, statutes, cases, letters, contracts and more.  But I promise you I could not read and understand a two thousand seven hundred page law.  Nobody can.  In fact, nobody does.  Famously Pelosi said we have to pass the bill in order to find out what's in it.  Other congressman concurred and nary a one has stood up and said: "I read the bill; I understand the bill."  You can be sure Hussein Obama has never read the bill either.

So, who has?

Lobbyists; the special interst boys and girls on K Street; staffers lurking in Congress who, for money and more, make sure that their pet supporter's codicils are somewhere in those two thousand seven hundred pages that nobody has read.

Anyone else?

Yup, but just not yet.  Faceless and endless bureaucrats will pore over the law down through the years and exert whatever pressure they can find therein to impose the then-current administration's policies on you, Dear Reader and your children down through the end of this once-free Republic.

SCOTU and The Trojan Horse

As a working lawyer, I seldom deal with Constitutional issues.  They rarely arise in business litigation or divorce cases.  Much of what I learned in my Con Law classes is rusty or forgotten.  Nonetheless, I have followed the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare but more with a political than a legal interest. 

The whole business got me thinking of the Commerce Clause, which for years has been the Congressional rationale for its ever-expanding encroachment into the nooks and crannies of American's lives.  The Founders, those dead, white, Christian men who wrote the greatest constitution ever devised, were so clever.  You see, whilst the entire thrust of the Constitution is to deny government power by limiting it to those powers enumerated within the Constitution's four corners, those crafy craftsmen snuck in the Trojan Horse known as the Commerce Clause which, with lawyerly penumbras emanating when needed, could be used to set agricultural subsidies or mandate health care insurance for all.  Beware of Founders bearing gifts.

Always life has tipping points and, this past week, one was seen and heard by all.  In shock and awe by this mandate, the court stood athwart the colossus and said: Enough already.  We're co-equal here; you may play within the rules but we get to say what those rules are.  And this is not a rule we recognize.  We're going to consider this rule over here in SCOTUS.  And, in a couple of months, we'll give you all our Opinion.

Seriously, Ms. Pelosi.

Hussein and Other Blacks

Black Panthers offer $10,000 for the head of George Zimmerman and Hussein Obama says not a single word about these bounty hunters.  Eric "My People" Holder says nothing even though he's in charge of the Department of Alleged Justice.  Hate-mongers Sharpton and Jackson rant; black pundits everywhere are in full hue and cry.  All this is supposedly about the police not yet arresting Zimmerman as their investigation is incomplete.  Not really.

What it's about is to make sure black voters remain convinced the world is out to get them so that they do not defect from their political plantation and vote to re-elect Obama in November while, simultaneously, increasing the visibilty and prestige of the race-hustling types such as Sharpton.

The liberal media is beside itself as usual, screaming about white-Hispanic murders of blacks without one  mention of crimes by blacks on whites which are far greater both absolutely and relatively.

We are seeing, again, how illiberal liberals truly are; how twisted, small and deformed their social thinking is.  We are also seeing further division among races which is surely leading to a white/Asian political party, perhaps Republican, perhaps not, but surely in process.

The Justices and The Mandate

Now that the arguments are done, the waiting and guessing begins.  Will Kennedy side with the President and retain his aura of the swing-vote with the DC elite? (inside the court, Kennedy is referred to as "Flipper")Will Scalia be consistent and vote as he did in another recent commerce clause case?  And Roberts.  Will he do whatever the rumor-monger wants to tout.  All over DC and the high-brow media these speculations about what might tilt those justices are amok.

Interestingly, at least to me, there is one set of speculation one never hears: Nobody, but nobody, ever questions how Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor will vote.  Everybody knows that the liberals will vote one-way and one-way only: a party line vote all the way.

Interesting how everybody simply knows that the liberal, democrat justices are not at all ever swayed by argument.  They always vote liberal when the issue is politically charged.  Liberals always do.  They are closed-minded and we all know it.  That's why nobody even thinks about how a liberal will vote.  They know.

How liberal is that?

Low Esteem of Black Male's Life

As part of the black politician's exploitation of the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Demcrat Black Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver said that the death was emblematic of the low esteem in which a young black man's life is held.  He's right.  Young, black males are substantially more likely to be murdered than young, white males.

Cleaver's problem is that almost always, those young, black males are murdered by guess who?

Young, black males.

Congressman Cleaver is doing the usual black thing: blaming everyone and anyone else for what is a black problem.  Whites rarely kill blacks; blacks kill blacks.

The Primary Is Secondary

It, the Republican primary race, is over and Romney will be the nominee, Louisiana's results notwithstanding.  The Republican party will nominate an unpopular RINO, who is the intellectual and political godfather of socialized medicine in the United States and who has never been re-elected to any office held.

Mr. Romney's source of primary delegates is founded on states which neither he nor any Republican is likely to win against the incumbent.  It is useless for a Republican candidate to spend a nickel to try to win California's electoral votes as my home state will vote for a dead Democrat over any Republican.  That is a fact exercised in Illinois every election, presidential or not.  It is smart primary politics to work those useless electoral states as they do count for the convention nominating process.  But no Republican candidate will obtain a single California, Illinois, Vermont or Massachussets electoral vote, not one.

Romney will be a dreary candidate against the more cool, media-backed incumbent.  He's a pretty-boy with a perfect 10 resume.  That's why he's unliked: he's too perfect, he's all resume; he gives no vibes as to understanding the general electorate.  I think that's because he doesn't understand the general electorate: he sees people as various statistical cohorts which needs to be managed.  McCain was a better candidate than Romney will be including the fact that McCain had Sarah with him to liven up his mortuary appearance.  Romney will have none of that.  And we know how that worked out.

Nevertheless, Romney is very consistent.  He will do what he has historically done best: he will lose.

Liberal Logic

George Zimmerman, the person who shot the boy who looked like Hussein Obama's putative son, is universally described as a white male in the mainstream media.  Seldom is his picture displayed.  The reason is that he is clearly not a Euro-white male: he is a Latino, an Hispanic.  Sadly for the Sharptons, Jacksons and other racist rabble-rousers, that truth does not fit the narrative they're selling.

To a liberal, that Zimmerman has a white father and a Peruvian mother is enough to make him the white killer of a black man.

Following that liberal logic leads one, ineluctably, to the conclusion that Hussein Obama, who has a Kenyan father and a white mother is our 44th white president.

Abortion on Television

Did you ever wonder why an abortion is never shown on television?  We see re-enactments of murder, rape and mayhem.  We see real death, disasters and destructions in news programs.  But we never see an abortion.  Why?

An abortion, the "procedure" as its proponents call it would, if seen, end abortions once and for all.  Imagine the Obama abortion, the one in which the doctor errs and the baby is not killed during the "procedure" but is alive and outside the womb.  Obama, with others, voted to permit the doctor to kill the born child without penalty.

How can anyone do that?  Only a gutless politician could vote that way for his own election.  No decent person would consider it; it is murder to be sure.  Yes, it is: the intentional killing of one human being by another is murder.

Think about it; picture it in your mmind.  Then ask yourself why it has never been shown on television. 

Romney's Electability III

Once again the inevitable Mitt Romney falls far short, capturing something less than a third of the Republican primary voters.  We've said right along that he's a cold fish, plastic and unlikeable.  (See Older Posts)  Romney is simply not a leader in the electoral sense.  It's more than clear that he's very intelligent, has led an exemplary life and is a lot better than Hussein Obama.  But it's not enough.  If you can't get more than a third of your friends to vote for you, how can you secure votes from the undecideds and the democrat voters? 

You can't - and that is the issue.  Newt is, finally, sounding that tocsin.  It's way past time for the Republican Grandees to note that that bell tolls for them as well.  If nominated, Romney will not win the election as Republicans will not come out and vote for him in the enthusiastic droves that Hussein engenders in blacks, Mexicans and food stamp voters, including lottery winners.  That's the ball game.

Feministas

As noted in my prior post, I rarely comment on feminism but Gloria Allred's newest blather is worth noting as it's just so much obvious bs.  Her latest clarion call is a demand that the Florida prosecutors arrest Rush Limbaugh for violating some state law prohibiting defamatory statements against women.  Limbaugh is a Florida resident.

There are major legal impediments with Allred's braying.  First, the law is unconstitutional as it offends the eqaul protection clause of the Constitution.  You can't have a law like that which applies to females only.  I now assume that Allred is okay with rules unfair to men on their face; it's just women who can't be treated unfairly.  It's okay to be unfair to men.  It's a bit like affirmative action: repayment for historical (and hysterical) wrongs.

Another major legal problem is that Limbaugh's remarks are simply not defamatory in the legal context.  They are opinions; they are hyperbole and a reasonable person would interpret them that way.  Such are constitutionally protected speech.  Sorry Gloria; this time you're up the wrong tree.  But she's looking for publicity, not a conviction.  And our compliant press is not simply ignorant but incurious.  They will let any liberal say anything but nitpick the conservative to death.

The lesson here?  Democrat liberal loudmouths get wide-spread exposure from the press even when it's obvious that what they say is wrong.  No lawyer would shout this except secure in the knowledge that there will be no blowback from a press which would love to see Limbaugh taken down/

Speaking of Feminism

I rarely do feminism blogs but this Fluke thing is beyond rational thought.  Can you image the cojones Fluke must have to ask someone else to pay for her personal pleasure?  Why not ask the dude she's with to cover (no pun) the cost or, better, to bring his own condom(s)?  Why does she even need contraception?  Is she a high-risk taker so as to have mucho sex but not mucho safe sex?  Please say it isn't so.

If this new useful idiot of the left is having safe sex, i.e., sex with a guy wearing a condom, she has no need for contraception.  If she's not having safe sex, she needs to attend safe sex classes.  Such are a bit like traffic school where everybody knows how to drive but forgot to follow the rules and got caught.  Maybe, a trip to her doctor would be in order?

Who should pay for that?  Not me.  Maybe you, Lefty.

Experiment in Feminism

Let's try this on for size.  Our feminist friends are large on women having rights equal to men.  Logically, that would mean that in their ideal world, women and men have equal rights.  Okay?

Man tells wife: "I'm outta' here Fatso."  Shortly thereafter, a judge says: "You may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support.  You made a deal and you broke it.  Breaking a contract has consequences.  Pay up."  Okay?

Wife tells hubby: I'm outta' here BetaBoy."  Shortly thereafter, a judge says: She may be outta' there but you're also going to be out some bucks in spousal support.  It's public policy.  Pay up."  Okay?

"Fair is fair" said the fair feministas.