Donte Stallworth Suspended

The suspension has finally come. With Stallworth pleading guilty and accepting his sentence (30 days in jail, lifetime suspension of driver's license, 1,000 hours of community service, 2 years of house arrest to be followed by 8 years of probation), the ball was finally in NFL commissioner Roger Goodell’s court.

Unlike in the Vick case, where commissioner Goodell ordered the QB to stay away from his team while the NFL investigated, Goodell waited until Stallworth’s guilty plea before acting toward any suspension. On Thursday, June 18, Goodell suspended Stallworth indefinitely for his DUI manslaughter that occurred back in March of this year. Many are speculating on what the final suspension for Stallworth will be.

Also, many (as I have) are comparing Stallworth's case to Michael Vick’s case and the case of Rams' defensive end Leonard Little. Little was suspended 8 games for an offense very similar to Stallworth’s back in 1998. Little struck and killed Susan Gutweiler in St. Louis, MO after leaving a birthday party drunk. After being convicted of involuntary manslaughter, Little received 90 days in jail, four years' probation and 1000 hours of community service. In 1999 the NFL suspended Little 8 games for his transgressions.

In 2004, with the involuntary manslaughter conviction wiped from his record, in the suburbs of St. Louis, Little was again arrested for drunk driving (and speeding). According to police, Little had bloodshot and watery eyes, smelled of alcohol, and failed three sobriety tests. Because of his 1999 guilty plea to involuntary manslaughter in his drunken-driving crash case, prosecutors charged him as a persistent offender. This made it a felony case. Little was acquitted of drunk driving, but was convicted of the misdemeanor speeding charge.

As far as I can determine, Little was never suspended by the NFL for this second offense. I suppose because he was convicted only of speeding, the league probably felt no suspension was necessary. Stallworth and his representatives have already invoked Leonard Little’s case and will almost certainly do so again when it comes to dealing with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

Contrary to what many may believe, I have few problems with Stallworth’s sentence and I feel that his NFL suspension will probably be longer than it should. However, I do have a significant problem with the treatment of Michael Vick. I have a problem with his treatment by the media, the courts, the NFL, and the general public. I feel that what Vick did was unjust and deserved some scorn and punishment. However, both scorn and punishment were WAY out of proportion to his crimes.

For example, if Vick had been caught in a cock-fighting scandal, both funding and killing birds, his treatment would have been much less severe. In fact, he probably would have received his harshest treatment from the late-night comics and perhaps even received an endorsement deal from Kentucky Fried Chicken. (Not really, but this reminds me of a funny Jim Gaffigan line: Vegetarian: 'Do you know what they do to those chickens?!' Gaffigan: 'No, but it's delicious.')

I will not be surprised to see that Stallworth’s suspension is on par with Vick’s (a full season). This is assuming that Vick is immediately reinstated once his sentence is completed in July. If not—if Stallworth receives a suspension from the NFL far less than Vick’s—then I would not be surprised to see Vick consider suing the NFL for his treatment. I’m not sure if he would have a legal leg on which to stand, but if this scenario plays out, I would like to see him pursue it.

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Stallworth Gets 30 Days

Cleveland Browns' wide receiver Donte´ Stallworth has pleaded guilty to DUI manslaughter in Florida. Along with 10 years of probation and 1,000 hours of community service, Stallworth is going to serve 30 days in jail after striking and killing a man while driving drunk back in March of this year. Also, to avoid a lawsuit, Stallworth reached a financial settlement with the family of the man he killed. 

I hate to keep beating a dead horse—excuse me—a dead dog, but compare this to Michael Vick’s punishment. After pleading guilty in December of 2007, Vick was sentenced to 23 months in prison, which exceeded the 12 to 18 months that the prosecutors recommended. Vick was also fined $5,000 and given three years' probation for the crime of running a dog fighting operation. 

Michael Vick was also suspended by the NFL for the entire 2007 season—a suspension that went into effect before Vick admitted guilt to anything. Donte´ Stallworth has yet to hear anything from the NFL concerning a suspension. There have been no lawsuits against Vick in his sad story; however, according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Vick incurred financial losses of approximately $142 million. This includes $71 million in salary from the Atlanta Falcons, $50 million in endorsement income, and $20 million in previously paid bonuses. 

In addition, according to Sports Illustrated, Vick agreed to pay more than $928,000 to care for dogs seized on his property. According to federal court documents filed in April of 2007, 53 pit bulls were seized on Vick’sVirginia property. That works out to more than $17,500 per dog! That’s several thousand dollars more than the ANNUAL average healthcare plan costs American families! 

It will be interesting to see what kind of suspension the NFL gives Stallworth. Perhaps at least the NFL will dish out proportional judgment to the man who drove drunk and killed another human vs. the man who fought and killed dogs. 

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Moral High-Ground Proves to be a Slippery Slope for Pro-Abortionists

After abortionist George Tiller’s murder, the left-wing media (bloggers, commentators, etc.) went wild with calls of “domestic terrorism.”  The lustful dash by liberals to paint all pro-lifers and Christians with the same brush as Tiller’s killer, Scott Roeder, was pathetically predictable.

Just a sampling of the attacks: Christina Page of the Huffington Post called Tiller’s murder a “foreshadowing.” She added that if you think Tiller’s murder was an isolated incident, “You are wrong. The trend is clear and frightening.” Also on the Huffington Post, Shannyn Moore called Roeder’s act “Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism.” The president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said the killing was “not an isolated incident. It is part of an ongoing pattern of hateful rhetoric…”

The facts simply do not support this anti-Christian, anti-Pro-Life propaganda. According to the National Abortion Federation’s own statistics, there have been a total of eight abortionists murdered in the U.S. since 1977. Tiller’s was the only one in the last 11 years. There have been 17 instances of attempted murder since 1977 with only one occurring in the last 11 years.

Now, one murdered abortionist is too many, but it pales in comparison to the 50 million or so humans who have been killed in their mothers’ wombs since 1973. In fact, the pro-abortion lobby has done more to devalue human life than any other organization or individual in the history of our nation. After all, our culture has been taught for the last 40 years or so that life is a “choice.” Given this, should we be at all surprised when anyone decides to take the “choice” of life and death into his own hands, regardless the age of the victim?

But, as many pro-abortionists have so perceptibly noted, abortion is legal, while assassinating abortionists is not. However, prior to Roe v Wade in 1973, this was not the case. In most U.S. states abortionists and their assassins were both felons under the law. Just because something is now “legal” doesn’t make it moral.

Since Tiller’s death, “Another Pro-Life murder” has been a frequent sentiment on left-wing blogs. Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, were called to task for fomenting the atmosphere of “hate” that supposedly led to Tiller’s murder. Many on the left shared the sentiments of Shannon Moore mentioned above: Tiller’s murder was a case of Christian domestic terrorism.

The Obama administration wasted little time weighing in on the matter. Obama himself said that he was “shocked and outraged” by Tiller’s murder, referring to it as “heinous acts of violence.” The Attorney General directedU.S. Marshals to protect abortionists all over the country. There were also many calls by liberals for pro-lifers to condemn the act.

Just a day later, a very similar incident played out that revealed the true position of liberals when it comes to “domestic terrorism.” On the day after Tiller’s murder, a radical Muslim convert, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, gunned down two U.S. soldiers at a military recruitment center, killing one of them. In the light of 9/11, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and numerous other Muslim attacks against the U.S. both at home and abroad, one would think that Muhammad’s attack would bring about significant condemnation from U.S. officials and the media. The silence was telling.

There was no denunciation from Obama or his administration; no calls for U.S. Marshals to help protect recruitment centers (not that they would need it); and no calls for Muslims to denounce the event. In fact, there was little coverage of the entire event.

Fox News did report that Muhammad had “political and religious motives.” It was also reported that Muhammad had recently traveled to Yemen and Somalia, both hotbeds for Islamic extremism.

It has since been revealed that Muhammad may not have acted alone and may have even been part of a larger plot to attack multiple U.S. military targets. This important information still was only enough to draw scant attention from the liberal media or liberal bloggers.

All of this goes to show the true motives of liberals when it comes to Tiller’s murder. It was simply a convenient opportunity for liberals to go after pro-lifers in general. It was an irresistible occasion, however brief, for liberals to stand on the high moral ground. It was a chance for the pro-abortionists—who readily support the killing of humans in the womb—to temporarily turn the tables. Perhaps the nearly 3700 abortions that take place today will bring them back to reality.

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Supreme Politics

The retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter and the appointment by Barak Obama of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Souter’s replacement again brings to the forefront one of the most powerful roles that a U.S.president plays. One of the main reasons that I was a strong supporter of John McCain (after Super Tuesday) was for this very scenario.

I believe that there is no greater role for the President of the United States than those of Commander In Chief and the appointer of Federal Judges. The most enduring mark a U.S. President leaves on the nation is with the federal judiciary. Economic policies can be undone; defense policy can be reversed; education policy can be readdressed, and so on. However, federal judicial appointments are for life. Thus, it can literally take decades to reverse bad judicial rulings at the federal level.

In a speech to Planned Parenthood last year, Obama said, “We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom; the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”

Hence, it should surprise no one that Obama appointed the “empathetic” Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. What is surprising is the argument by many that conservatives will have a hard time opposing this nominee because she is the first Hispanic appointee to the Supreme Court.

Liberals (and some conservatives) all over the place are touting Sotomayor as “filibuster-proof” because of her gender, her race, and her “compelling life story.” Therefore, her appointment is seen as another savvy, brilliant move by “the Anointed One.” No such praise or political points were heaped upon George Bush in 2001 when he appointed Miguel Estrada to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

For over two years Democrats shamelessly filibustered Estrada. Tired of the drawn out fight, in September of 2003, he withdrew his name for consideration for the seat.

Estrada’s “compelling life story” (which certainly rivals Sotomayor’s) and his “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association not withstanding, because the D.C. Circuit is widely seen as a stepping stone to the Supreme Court, Democrats were not about to let President Bush appoint a conservative Hispanic to such a position.

The battle over Estrada went on for 28 months. There were few, if any, cries of racism towards the Democrats—no political pressure for them to relent because Estrada was Hispanic. In fact, an internal memo to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin reveals that a handful of liberal organizations desired to keep Estrada off the court because his Latino heritage made him “especially dangerous” and “the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”

President Bush also appointed Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General. He was the first Hispanic appointed to one of the “big four” cabinet jobs. Bush appointed Colin Powell as Secretary of State—the first black man to occupy the position. He later appointed Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State—the first black woman to occupy the position.

It seems that there were a lot of “firsts” when it came to President Bush and minorities. In 2004, USA Today noted, “With little fanfare and not much credit, President Bush has appointed a more diverse set of top advisers than any president in history.”

“Not much credit” is putting it mildly. As often as liberals are lauded for their progressive views toward minorities, conservatives are vilified. It is one of the greatest myths perpetuated today: liberals are for minorities and conservatives are not.

Whether it comes to Clarence Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Alberto Gonzalez, et al, liberals have no qualms about going hard after conservative minorities, and they are not made to pay for it politically in the media. The same luxury is not afforded conservatives who go after liberal minorities.

To firmly oppose Sotomayor, what conservatives must do is keep the debate framed around the issues and her liberal judicial philosophy. No matter how often the attempt is made to frame the debate around race, gender, and her “compelling story,” conservatives must treat Sotomayor as any other liberal with the wrong ideas about the judiciary. After all, it would be discrimination to do otherwise.

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

"All the Gold in California"

“All the gold in California,” Larry Gatlin and his brothers sang, “is in a bank in the middle of Beverly Hills in somebody else’s name.” Who would have thought that Mr. Gatlin was a prophet? Just about everything inCalifornia these days is in “somebody else’s name.”

Facing an economic catastrophe of unprecedented proportions, on May 19, by an average of 65%, California’s voters wisely rejected a slate of propositions that would have raised taxes. These tax increases were the liberals’ answer to a $21 billion budget deficit that the state faces in the next fiscal year beginning July 1.

Make no mistake about it, California, just like the federal government, is firmly in the control of liberals. In a column a few weeks ago, I referenced a 2002 article by Harold Meyerson from the liberal magazine American Prospect. Given the current turn of events in the “Golden State,” that reference deserves another look. If you recall, Meyerson hailed California, since it was firmly in control of the Democrats, as a “laboratory” for Democratic policies. In California, Meyerson said, “the next New Deal is in tryouts.”

As I said a few weeks ago, which is now even more obvious, the “New Deal” was no deal at all. Even the New York Times recently lamented the “severely dysfunctional politics” under which Californians suffer. I wonder if the California voters are ready for a little “change.”

California, of course, is not alone in its dire deficit dilemma. As the Times points out, “cumulative state deficits over the next two years are estimated at $350 billion to $370 billion.” However, California alone has an economy that is one of the world’s largest. This has many people asking that all too familiar question these days: Is California too big to fail?

California, along with the other states, has already received billions from Obama’s federal “stimulus” program. If California gets bailed out further, what is to stop the other states from again coming to the federal government with their hands out? Of course, this should more aptly be called a taxpayer bailout, because that is exactly who will pay for it (again!).

It’s not as if Californians aren’t taxed enough. According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008 California ranked 6th highest in the U.S. in state-local tax burdens. They’ve been in the top ten (as high as second) for each of the last fourteen years. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the top ten for state-local tax burdens last year: 

10.) Rhode Island 9.) Wisconsin 8.) Vermont 7.) Ohio 6.) California 5.) Hawaii 4.) Maryland 

3.) Connecticut  2.) New York 1.) New Jersey.

Notice how “blue” these states are. (All went for Obama last election.) There is a saying across politics which declares that, “California is where the future happens first.” It will be intriguing to see if the financial woes occurring in California will play out next in these other rather liberal states.

The ten lowest last year for state-local tax burdens: 41.) Arizona 42.) Louisiana 43.) Texas 44.) Tennessee 45.) South Dakota 46.) New Hampshire 47.) Florida 48.) Wyoming 49.) Nevada 50.) Alaska. Notice the “redness” of these states. Seven out of ten of these went for McCain in the last election.

Also, according to World Net Daily and the Bureau of Labor Stats, “unemployment in March was 20 percent higher in so-called “blue states” won by Democratic candidate Barack Obama in last fall’s presidential election than in “red states” won by Republican candidate John McCain.”

As I also pointed out in my column a few weeks ago, the states have been called “laboratories of democracy.” If one wants to see how things will work at the federal level, take a look at the states. As our economic struggles continue, it will be worthwhile to keep an eye on the states to see who gets their financial house in order first. I’m betting on “red.”

Copyright 2009, Trevor Grant Thomas

At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.

Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World

tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com