White and unashamed?

Did Scalia Really Say That He Was 'White and Proud?'

Actually, he didn’t, of course.

But South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn, justly proud veteran of the civil rights struggle, made it all clear for us.

The Seattle Post Intelligencer quotes him responding to Scalia’s “racial entitlement” remark with a lovely bit of race-baiting, thus.

"I'm not easily surprised by anything, but that took me to a place I haven't been in a long time," Clyburn said of Scalia's words from the bench. 

"What Justice Scalia said, to me, was ‘The 15th Amendment of the Constitution ain't got no concerns for me because I'm white and proud.'"

Scalia neither said that nor anything like it.

But Clyburn was trying to put the most evil racist spin that he could manage on what Scalia actually did say, for this interview.

That's pretty much his most important job, these days, for the Democratic Party, after all.

Attacking the Republican Party, white people in general, and white conservatives in particular for racism, that is.

And so he put the most evil, racist words in Scalia's mouth that he could think of.

And what came to him was to attribute to Scalia an assertion of pride in his race.

That assertion was the most evil, racist thing he could think of to put in Scalia's mouth.

In case you missed it, the liberal cultural mandate is that white people need to be profoundly, permanently, and unequivocally ashamed to be white.

Actually, that's pretty much the UN, indigenista mandate.

And that is exactly how very many, if not most, if not all of America's black people feel.

If you openly are not ashamed to be white then you are a racist and they wish upon you the worst they can, short of actually hiring a hit man.

As for Scalia, the remarks put into his mouth are not even remotely close to what he actually said, and the attack neither shows he was wrong about the congressional motivation for renewal of the Voting Rights Act nor that Section 5 allowing for federal interference in state control of voting is really still needed.

That, of course, is the legal question before the court.

Scalia’s scornful though accurate remarks were irrelevant.

As have been the relentless and vicious attacks on him, ostensibly in defense of Section 5 though often without even a mention of it.

Scalia reminds Clyburn of [Strom] Thurmond.

The hell, you say, you old fraud.

The article also says,

Clyburn is also chilled by a bevy of state voting laws - in South Carolina, among other states - designed to make it more difficult to vote, and directed at voting habits (e.g. voting on Sundays) favored by African-American citizens.

Do African-Americans habitually vote when the polls are closed?

Nobody in America votes on Sundays.

I would much rather we did, though.

The quote from Clyburn continues.

"When you have in 2012 ... states making changes to their laws that you can look on their face and see that these changes will make it harder for minorities to have their votes affect the results that they intend, you say that we don't need (the Voting Rights Act) anymore? Is this some kind of entitlement?" he asked.

I am not certain but I suppose he here irrelevantly refers to the plethora of voter-id laws, perfectly sensible in themselves and not especially burdensome, but expected by all parties (hence the fight) to stave off more Democratic than Republican votes.

But for Democrats everything is about race and they are always on the right side and it's always whites whom they fault.

Recall anything Al Sharpton ever said about white people in his entire adult life, including his career on MSNBC as a voice of the Democrats and liberals, where this deep-dyed and forever unrepentant hater of white people replaced Pat Buchanan, intentionally driven out by liberal allegations of racism.

Recall Rev. Wright, the president's mentor for two decades in Chicago, the Reverend's infamous sermon damning America to hell, and his friendship with Louis Farrakhan.

Recall the Gates affair.

Recall the president’s and the AG’s responses to the Martin-Zimmerman affair.

And recall the liberal/Democratic positioning and handling of all of these things.

Not much from the Republican/conservative side on Scalia's remarks or the attacks on him for them.

Not yet, anyway.

Except from Limbaugh, I think.

By the way, it is only questionably appropriate for anyone to be ashamed of or proud of his race.

You are not to blame for everything ever done by anyone of your race, nor do you deserve credit for anything ever done by anyone of your race.

But it's sort of like being proud or ashamed of your family.

I suppose it really can't be helped.

But all the same when others try to make you ashamed of what your horse-thief of an uncle did for a living it is they who should be ashamed.