The pseudonym "Philo Vaihinger" has been abandoned. All posts have been and are written by me, Joseph Auclair.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Redistricting isn’t disenfranchisement



An interesting and revealing thought.

And that might be what Shelby County would do, given the shot.

Writes Tommy Christopher,

Scalia’s meaning is comically clear, especially when you read it in context: Congress is too afraid of the blacks and their race-traitor brethren to do the right thing, and let Shelby County suppress black votes through redistricting.

Obviously, the aim in that case would be exactly what it was with the redistricting elsewhere after the census of 2010, to minimize the electoral impact of Democratic votes just as far as possible through judicious gerrymandering.

The point is not racist but merely partisan.

But of course the Democrats never admitted that and have bellowed about racism in response to every move the Republicans have made for the last couple of years to cut or keep down the Democratic vote from voter ID to redistricting to refusing an express path to citizenship for the millions of illegals courted sedulously by the Democrats.

And they are really shouting about this one.

Well, it’s kind of a win-win, for them.

If the bullying succeeds and they get their way that’s a big win.

If it doesn’t they have even further seared shame into the minds of American whites and hate into those of American blacks.

Not coincidentally enhancing the loyalty of non-whites to the Democratic Party.

Oh.

Once again for the record, redistricting in no way attacks, diminishes, or denies anyone’s voting rights.

Irritating though it is.

No comments:

Post a Comment