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.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.