The LA Clippers owner has fined $2.5 million and banned for life for making racist comments in a private conversation which was illegally taped.
A friend of friend of mine (a lifelong Democrat) was working as a nurse backstage at the 2008 Democratic Convention. She overheard Michelle Obama mutter “f*cking white people.” Michelle was awarded with getting to live in the White House, and millions of dollars in taxpayer funded lavish vacations.
Al Sharpton makes racist rants in public all the time, including calling for Jews to be killed – and will receive the NAACP lifetime achievement award in two weeks.
John Kerry calls Israel (20% Arabs) an apartheid state, and praises Gaza (0% Jews.)
Amendment I
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.
Sterling is a big Obama donor as well. I guess they figured that well had dried up.
His views were not a secret prior to this revelation.
BTW – They are the LA Clippers., You got Soccer on your mind. 😉
Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
If we’re going to ban things like what Sterling said (and I don’t agree with him) then we need to ban the speech of those on the Left who call us on the right “Domestic Terrorists”.
Will all the people the commie/progs want to burn cause gorebull warming? Congress shall make no laws….what about the President or the courts or even the media?
The first amendment protects you from the government. It doesn’t protect you from pissing off your employer, or your business association.
Yes. This whole dust up is part of the ongoing anti-white hate war.
I find it very chilling that you can have your business (private property) ripped away without due process because of what you think or say. And here is a new flash. Some people don’t like other people because of the color of their skin. Get over it. Try living in the projects of any large city if you’re white. You’ll be in for a rude awakening if you live to tell about it.
Thought crime is impossible to defend against. Prosecution is capricious. The head of that company lost his job for contributing money years ago opposing gay marriage, which as I remember Congress also opposed at one point with the Defense of Marriage Act. He didn’t beat up gay people, just opposed the passage of a law. Very dangerous precedents. Mark Cuban was interviewed about the LA Clippers owner and said basicly everyone is a jerk and we should allow people to be jerks in private–excellent point. I would venture that 99% of the population has said something racist to someone during their life and 100% have thought something racist. Let’s all go turn ourselves in.
Believable story @ Michelle considering The First Church of Hate she and her husband attended for 20 years.
Wow. Amazing commentary. Sterling is in a business and has a contract with the NBA that governs their relationship. This may play out in the courts or Sterling may go quietly into the night but, either way, it’s no first amendment issue, it’s a contract law issue.
As to Sharpton, et al, of course he’s a racist, race-baiting publicity whore. But he’s under no contractual obligation not to be one. And the same with Michelle Obama, though a report from a friend of a friend with unknown context is pretty thin. At least she had the sense not to be recorded saying it if, in fact, she did say it.
And presumably Sterling did not agree to have the conversation recorded and thus, under California law, the recording was illegal. But the illegality of the recording and the content thereof are two different things. It would be irrational to expect that the content would be ignored because the recording was illegal.
Sterling’s history of asinine decisions, buffoonish racist behavior, and self-aggrandizement is long and well-documented, so this latest episode is really the culmination of those characteristics. The fact that Sharpton (or Kerry, or Michelle Obama or anyone else) suffers no negative consequences is irrelevant to what is really, in the end, a distraction (Sterling affair) from a distraction (NBA basketball and professional sports in general).
He will not go quietly “into that good night”. And I agree it is not a first amendment issue. But I look forward to the legal fight.
Freedom of speech is protected and hence Sterling will not be arrested for what he said in the privacy of his own home.
This does not have any bearing on the economic consequences of his statements. The NBA is a business. Racist comments by one of its owners is not good for business. Hence he is expelled from the consortium.
His “girlfriend” is a low-life for taping a private conversation. But also, Sterling is a low-life for having (acquiring?) a “girlfriend”, who is half-black and half-Mexican, and likely whose primary purpose was to improve his image after his past racist statements & actions against both blacks and hispanics. (With low-life secondary benefits as well).
No sympathy for either dirtbag in my book.
The girlfriend apparently loves to hang with Magic Johnson,(just goggle images)
who according to many has business interests trying to acquire the Clippers. Curious.
Been waiting for the shoe to drop, and who’s going to buy them.
Lots of good insightful comments. Yours is one of them.
The poster above should realize that Al Sharpton would never get away with his antics, were they reversed and he was white and making the same racist statement about black people..
I totally agree that Donald Sterling is being treated unfairly. All I want to point out is that the author seems to think that Isreal connot be an apartheid state because 20% of its population is Arabic. When South Africa was an apartheid country, they had plenty of black people. Because the blacks were treated as inferior to the whites, it was an apartheid country. I am pretty sure that the Arabs in Isreal are not treated as equals to the Jews. Thus it is an apartheid country whether you like it or not.
Israel is by far the most integrated, tolerant and diverse country in the Middle East. What are you talking about?
An excellent example of “damning by faint praise.” Being more integrated, tolerant, and diverse than other Middle Eastern countries is hardly indicative of being integrated, tolerant, and diverse. Cuba is more tolerant than North Korea. So?
Correct. If you are an American Christian, you will not be allowed to settle in Jerusalem, for example. Whereas Israeli Jews can and do come here and live and become dual citizens.
I agree that Israel is the most integrated and tolerant country in the Middle East. But, compared Europe and other Civilized Countries, Israel does not win.
That would be the same “civilized” Europe which killed 7 million Jews not too long ago?
I started readingI started reading this site a couple weeks ago because I started looking into the climate change data and began to realize that what is presented in the MSM is nonsense. Now I read from Goddard that Israel is tolerant, and his evidence for this statement is that some Arabs live there. Impeccable logic. I guess only a 100% ethnic cleansing (which is the ultimate Israeli goal, anyway) would show Israel to be intolerant. I guess if this is the logic used by climate change deniers, maybe my recent decision was wrong, and CNN is correct in their climate change stance. CNN’s logic is actually more sound than what I see here.
B TW, Iran has 25,000 Jews in their country, and they won’t go to Israel even when Israel offers them >$50,000 per family to do so:
theguardian.com/world/2007/jul/12/israel.iran
Please take your anti-Semitisim somewhere else. You are a typical progressive Nazi liar.
Goddard:
Never heard that response before (i.e.: “criticism of Israel” = antisemitism, and “critic of Israeli action”=Nazi). You are a true intellectual. I don’t know the “climate change denier” community very well, but you would help their cause if you shut down your site. You’re an imbecile. I will find a site run by someone serious.
You are a liar Bill x. You stated:
Then you immediately turn around and start using the term denier. Ergo you are merely a troll. A bad one at that.
Nobody here denies climate change, you natural variability denier.
gator69:
Sorry. I am new to the field and don’t know the terminolgy yet. What is the correct term?
Why would someone who knows nothing about climate go around using terms like denier? You have much to learn. Most of us here have closely studied all sides of this issue for years, and find that the alarmists and grantologists (correct terms) have zero evidence that there is any global effect on climate due to man’s activities. I for one was studying climatology at a major university thirty years ago, and never stopped.
On the fascist side you have alarmists, grantologists, and those who seek to control humanity. On the other side you have lukewarmists, skeptics, pragmatists and Libertarians.
Don’t let the door slam you in the ass on the way out.
I read Easterbrook’s “Evidence-Based Climate Science”, then started reading the journal articles cited in that book. I have only read scholarly articles thus far, and they don’t tend to refer to groups with terms like “grantologists” or “lukewarmists”, so I didn’t know how to refer to your group. The term I used was not used with any malice; I simply chose a word. The word was not central to what I was saying, and you should try to get over it.
I wonder why this site exists. Is it for a small group of people to parrot each other’s’ views – to “preach to the choir”? Or do you actually want to disseminate ideas to change peoples minds? If it is the latter, then you suck at it. Using third grade logic to support off-topic stances (stances which are increasingly rejected by more and more people) does not impress any passersby that might otherwise listen to what you might have to say about the subject of the site. As I said, your ranting, insults and general stupidity have the opposite effect. They make “skeptics” look like imbeciles. If you don’t want to change anyone else’s mind and just want to talk amongst yourselves, then why do it in public? Exchange E-mails and talk amongst yourselves. Intelligent “skeptics” would thank you for the favor.
ROFL. Did you read the chapters In Easterbrook’s book written by Steve Goddard?
I didn’t recognize your name from the book. I checked out who Easterbrook was before buying the book, but have not checked out the other authors yet. I guess I should have. Who are you, by the way? What is it that makes you a climate expert? What kind of degree do you have? I can’t seem to find out much about you. Have you ever published a single thing in a journal?
That you wrote some chapters in the book means nothing as far as what we have discussed here. Had you included your views on Israel’s “tolerance” in your chapters (complete with your third-grade logic supporting those views), I am sure Easterbrook would have edited them out for the same reason I am questioning why they exist on your site.
In response to your prompt, I will now start checking out the authors of the book. After 10 minutes of doing so on the web, I am not impressed. Maybe I should start backtracking on what I was thinking on the subject – I am feeling I made a bad mistake. Maybe I was fooled by the book publisher. Congratulations, you are achieving the opposite of what your site should be about.
Congratulations. You are less intelligent than anyone gave you credit for.
Only a fool takes advice from a troll and liar. The owner is no fool.
British climate experts said in 2000 that snow is a thing of the past. Excellent credentials.
Nobel Prize winner Al Gore said that the Arctic will be ice free in 2014 at his Nobel acceptance speech. Extremely impressive credentials!
You don’t want to list your credentials, so that means you don’t have any. That is fine, you don’t need a degree in a subject to be knowledgable about it. But with an issue as big as climate change, I would assume that there are some academics that are on the “skeptic” side, at least there should be if there is any substance to the skeptics’ views. When I decided to start reading about the skeptics point of view, I chose Easterbrooks book because it was the most authorative thing I could find. Now I am having doubts about what I read in that book.
Your response to me was to attack individuals on the other side of the argument, which is a tactic used by those who have nothing else to stand on. This is a tactic used by the same people who say that people who criticize Israel are antisemitic Nazis. As I already said, third grade logic does not impress me. Yes, many climate change people are alarmists, but that des not prove their overall view is incorrect. You seem to have made mistakes before, whether this one was intentional or not, I have not determined yet:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/
When climate change proponents point out this post by you, it also doesn’t prove your view is incorrect. Maybe you just made a mistake.
I decide what I believe in by looking at the facts, and I do not respond to third grade logic, or to people calling me an anti-Semitic Nazi. My next step is to see what the responses have been to what was in the book I read. Judging from the intellect I have seen on this site, I fear that I may have jumped to a conclusion far too quickly (not that my mind was made up, anyway).
You want names and credentials? Easy peasy!
Skeptical Scientists: Credentials and Statements
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, M.S. Atmospheric Science, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present), Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (2002-Present), IPCC Contributor (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007), IPCC Lead Author (2001)
“I’m sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see.” – John R. Christy
Patrick J. Michaels, A.B. Biological Sciences, S.M. Biology, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology, Virginia State Climatologist (1980-2007), Associate Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1986-1995), President, American Association of State Climatologists (1987-1988), Research Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia (1996-Present), IPCC Contributing Author and Reviewer
“A number of studies point to sources other than greenhouse gases as explanations for the modest warming trend of the late 20th century.” – Patrick J. Michaels
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics (Harvard), S.M. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (Harvard), Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967), Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972), Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983), Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983), Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) (1983-Present), Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, Fellow of the American Geophysical Union, IPCC Lead Author (2001)
“Given that the evidence strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished.” – Richard S. Lindzen
Roy W. Spencer, B.S. Atmospheric Sciences, M.S. Meteorology, Ph.D. Meteorology, Research Scientist, University of Wisconsin (1982-1984), Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA (1984-2001), NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991), American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996), Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2001-Present)
“As a climate researcher, I am increasingly convinced that most of our recent global warming has been natural, not manmade.” – Roy W. Spencer
S. Fred Singer, A.M. Physics (Princeton), Ph.D. Physics (Princeton), First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964), First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967), Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970), Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971), Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994), Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University (1994-2000)
“We see no evidence in the climate record that the increase in CO2, which is real, has any appreciable effect on the global temperature.” – S. Fred Singer
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics, M.S. Soil Science, Ph.D. Soil Science, Research Scientist, U.S.D.A. Agricultural Research Service (1967-2001), Editorial Board, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1973-1993), Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977), Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2003), Editorial Board, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present), President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
“I find no compelling reason to believe that the earth will necessarily experience any global warming as a consequence of the ongoing rise in the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide concentration.” – Sherwood B. Idso
Boy, that fact-based reasoning there doesn’t make you don’t sound like a neo-nazi or anything.
Gator69:
Thanks for the info. First informative post on this thread.
Stark:
(a 100% ethnic cleansing (which is the ultimate Israeli goal, anyway))
<>
When a majority of Israelis think that transferring (aka “ethnically cleansing”) Palestinians to another Arab country is the best solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, saying that ethnic cleansing is Israel’s goal does not make you a neo-Nazi, it makes you someone who is able to draw logical conclusions based on facts:
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/174891#.U2MC2JtOXL8
Actually there are less than 9000 in Iran today. Versus a high of about 80,000 before the Islamic revolution.
You should never trust the Gruinard.
The Arabs in Israel enjoy a much higher quality of life than those outside the borders, who are more concerned with fighting, bombing, firing missiles, and protesting than building businesses and working.
This is in stark contrast to what happened in South Africa.
I am not saying the the Israelis treat that Arabs worse than the White people treated the Black people in South Africa. The fact is that the Arabs in Israel are not considered equal to the Jews in Israel. This is Aparthied.
The majority of Arabs living in Israel prefer Israeli rule over Arab.
“As in the 2010 poll, last month’s respondents offered a variety of mostly practical motives for preferring Israeli citizenship: higher income, better jobs, and a more reliable social safety net, specifically including healthcare, pensions, and disability benefits. Freedom of movement under Israeli rule also ranked very high; contrary to the common misconception of an “isolated” community, around two-thirds of these Palestinians reported that they visit not just west Jerusalem, but also other parts of Israel and the West Bank at least once a week. By contrast, when asked about the prospect of living in a Palestinian state, over half said they would be concerned about less freedom of expression and more corruption.”
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/poll-shows-40-percent-of-jerusalem-arabs-prefer-israel-to-a-palestinian-sta
“over half said they would be concerned about less freedom of expression and more corruption”
That would explain why they aren’t trying to emigrate to the US……
For Jim and john (kerry): How many members of SA Parliament were blacks during Apartheid?
Want to take a guess on the number of Arabs in Israel’s Knesset today? I will save you the trouble of looking.
12. And they have a long history of membership as well.
I agree that, except for the terrorists held in jails, the Arabs who live in Israel do so voluntarily and they think that that they are better off living in Israel that any of their other options. Myself, I was lucky enough to be born in the USA and I feel very fortunate that I have much better options in the way I live my life than most people who live in the Middle East.
There are 69 present and former Arab members of the Knesset and an Arab on the Supreme Court as well as serving as diplomats, ambassadors and various govt positions.
Yep
One has the right to free speech, but also to bear the economic consequences of that speech. What Sterling did was incredibly hurtful to the players and the public. The NBA took the proper actions. Sure, Sterling’s comments were made privately, but the public cannot “unhear” them.
Now we just need to get the left to stop being hypocrites. They need to marginalize the race-baiters, not embrace them.
It’s not just hypocrisy….the left profits on it.
So why was larry Johnson not banned?
Sterling was well known for making such comments over many years. The NAACP would still have given him an award if this hadn’t come out. It’s all about money.
No, its not about money. Its all about politics/power. The Democrats believe that they WIN when America is divided and black racism hates whites. Someone paid the bimbo big $$ to get the recording. Someone told all the major media to play this story up huge. Someone (DNC) is pushing racism because its an election year. It has nothing much to do with Mr. Sterling or what he said. And they are giving up a lot of money to push this hate racism.
Isn’t it amazing how there is always a market for dirt? TMZ is a testament to it. It rarely goes the other way around.
The guy is 80 years old. His mind is obviously not right. Not trying to give him a pass, but he is probably not all there.
In the overall, this appears to be less about h8te speech than wresting control of an NBA team located in in the left-trendy city of Los Angeles (I can’t believe that my browser’s dictionary cited LA as being misspelled!) from its owner by any and all means available. Old whats-his-name was apparently known to verbalized such ‘thoughts’ previously, and now EVERYone is acting so shocked … faux shock for the purposes executing an option on one of the seven deadly sins known as Greed; also known as avarice, or covetousness …
Thomas Aquinas wrote, “Greed is a sin against God, just as all mortal sins, in as much as man condemns things eternal for the sake of temporal things.”
Enjoy your ‘team’ in purgatory, Oprah (or Michael J.).
No, its not about money. Its all about politics/power. The Democrats believe that they WIN when America is divided and black racism hates whites. Someone paid the bimbo big $$ to get the recording. Someone told all the major media to play this story up huge. Someone (DNC) is pushing racism because its an election year. It has nothing much to do with Mr. Sterling or what he said, or the NBA, or his team. And they are giving up a lot of money to push this hate racism
I did say “appears”; I do not claim to have all the facts, but, do not overlook the fact that persons involved can (and will) benefit monetarily from this fiasco.
ALWAYS follow the money. If the someone involved says “It’s not about the money” it _is_ about the money …