A helpful reminder why some whites voted for the Great Fat Orange Klansman

Zerlina Maxwell And 'The End Of White Politics'

She spends a lot of time on MSNBC insisting on the unique importance of the black vote, pushing for a fairly radical racial leftist agenda and defending vandalism of any white monument, so far as I can tell.

Might not be entirely right, so, cum grano salis.

Still, she (probably) and many others (certainly) on that network and at CNN and BBC News, many of them white, validate the warnings of what now seems an age ago, when Trump and others first claimed it's not really just about public honors for the Confederacy.

It's about a veto on any public honors exercised by agents of the racial left for whom not many whites would be allowed monuments in the United States of America, or perhaps in any white settler-state in the world.

If even Lincoln doesn't pass your test . . . .

Her anticipation of the eventual demographic eclipse of whites and her insistence that the Democrats behave as though it's already happened and magically made blacks the US majority, or at least the majority of the Democratic Party (it absolutely won't do the former and probably won't do the latter), will seem excessive to many and scary to some.

[The online CIA Factbook says the US is still over 70 % white and about 13 % black and above 15% all others. Hispanic is not a race but an ethnicity, and Hispanics may be of any race and are so counted in the US census.]

[Political sites or organizations of any persuasion seem all to insist it's really about non-Hispanic whites rather than whites in general. Because why? Justices Sotomayor and the late Cardozo not white enough? Does Juan Carlos de Borbón seem a little too dark?]

She wants the Democrats to behave like a nonwhite - a racial left party is what she really means - party, at least as regards its agenda, and to more or less ignore the (non-racial left) whites who presumably make up an actual majority of its voters, members, and officials by a pretty long way.

She says this is what they need to do to win elections; trying to bring back white Obama voters who went with Trump last time - who make no sense at all to me - won't work.

Of course she says that.

Given the outsize roll she wants for the racial left and their ludicrous, anti-white agenda, what else would she say?

MSNBC and CNN and Donald Trump are all just fine with that.

Miller, Bannon, and even David Duke will send her fan mail and flowers.

CNN and MSNBC using indigenista- and other racial - ire to bash Trump's Rushmore super-spreader

Tiresome, and as we get ever closer to the election you can be sure CNN and MSNBC with grow ever more shrill and ever more focused on themes of the racial left.

Presidential elections bring out the worst in both parties: the most extremist views of their activist outliers.

For Democrats, that includes lefties of all sorts who actually despise the party and most of its voters, and especially its white voters, for their politics and many also for their white race.

Yes, the Democrats are a majority white party, and absolutely need white money and white votes to have a chance.

The closer we get to a presidential election the less you would know that, from the propaganda.

Who has not noticed the increasingly vocal urging of the moral necessity of reparations and the utter racist immorality of opposing them or refusing them, on both networks?

In the present case, Rushmore is now denounced by CNN and MSNBC opinionators according to two lines dear the left who swear by Zinn and for whom A People's History of the United States is just true history rather than an essay in anti-American hatred virtually inventing the weaponization of history.

First, as racist in that the sculptor is alleged to have had some sympathy with the Klan, though never a member in an era when membership was without social or political cost.

And second, as a sin against sacred Indian lands (but the tribes agreed with the project at the time) and a evil validation of the also racist European settling and rise to dominance in the Americas.

Trump and his campaign are laughing at Democrats

This gives them quite a wedge.

Republicans, Trump in the lead, will promise to put the statues back up.

He might even do it tonight.

What will Democrats do?

They can't win elections without a good piece of the white vote.

They have to open a big space between themselves and all this.

They have embraced removal of statues of Confederates and renaming of government property, but not removal of statues of all slaveowners, Columbus, or other explorers.

What will Biden do or say?

San Francisco protesters topple statues of Ulysses Grant and other slave owners

On Friday night in San Francisco, protesters tore down and defaced statues of white men who enslaved black and indigenous people – among them Ulysses S Grant, the 18th president who in the civil war led the Union armies in the defeat of the slave-owning Confederacy.

Video posted on social media and by local news outlets showed a small crowd in Golden Gate Park cheering as people toppled the statues with rope, covered them with red paint and, in at least one instance, dragged them through the grass.

Statues of Father Junípero Serra and Francis Scott Key, the author of the Star-Spangled Banner, were also brought down.

Grant was the last US president to have personally owned another human being.

And this isn't helping, either.

One dead and one wounded in shooting in Seattle police-free zone

This is derogatory? No, but they aren't waiting for the Red Guards to come for them.

Eskimo Pie no more: Ice cream owners will drop 'derogatory' name

After nearly 100 years, Eskimo Pie ice cream will get a new name.

"We are committed to being a part of the solution on racial equality, and recognize the term is derogatory," Elizabell Marquez, head of marketing for parent company Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, told CNN in a statement.

Preemptive surrender.

Shooting in New Mexico

City of Albuquerque removes statue of Juan de Oñate

I do not support the taking down of this statue, statues of Columbus, or other statues erected essentially to celebrate the European peopling of the US and the Americas.

The indigenista Children of Zinn consider the white settling of the Americas to be an atrocity and racist crime all by itself, and insist there was a general white genocide of the natives though Indians are far more numerous today than ever in the past.

I don't endorse or in the least accept their view of this history.

All the same, it ought to be illegal to show up at any demonstration with a weapon.

Demonstrators illegally defaced and attempted to tear down a statue in an act of race hatred and a man attempted to stop them with physical intervention.

Shoved to the ground, he took out a gun and shot a demonstrator.

He was then surrounded by armed militia in camos and wearing riot gear.

The man was arrested.

There is some dispute about whether he was a member of the militia, who are being described in the media as vigilantes who showed up armed to prevent the crowd harming or taking down the statue.

The Republican Party continues to exist because white Democrats have no balls.

Republicans, on the other hand, have no brains.

Who told him to always take the side of the devil?

Next he'll be defending introduction of German monuments to Hitler.

Trump, Pelosi at loggerheads over Confederate monuments in US South

President Donald Trump on Wednesday ruled out a change to US military bases named after Civil War Confederate leaders, pushing back on pressure to rid public places of monuments honoring the once pro-slavery South.

"These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great A merican Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom," Trump said in a tweet.

"My Administration will not even consider renaming these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations. Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with," he wrote.

. . . .

Ten bases honouring generals from the secessionist South, which lost the Civil War and its struggle to preserve slavery, are in the spotlight. They include the famous Fort Bragg, Fort Hood in Texas and Fort Benning in Georgia.

He may need to veto something as it looks like enough GOPsters in the senate support changing these names to pass something.

Senate Armed Services on collision course with Trump over Confederate names

The Senate Armed Services Committee on Wednesday voted to require the Pentagon to rename military bases and other assets named after Confederate generals, a move that puts the Republican-led panel on a collision course with the White House.

The committee adopted an amendment to the annual Pentagon policy bill that gives the Defense Department three years to remove the names of Confederate generals from U.S. military assets, according to a source familiar with the closed-door proceedings.

The language, adopted by voice vote as President Donald Trump preemptively threatened to veto any defense bill that did just that, affects massive bases like Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia. 

But it also goes further and includes everything from ships to streets on Defense Department property.

Full disclosure.

I personally oppose ending commemoration of Washington, Jefferson, or even Columbus, leading figures of the history of the US or the New World, because of their - grave, indeed - sins since they are not celebrated, commemorated, held up to admiration, or even merely memorialized for their sins.

But I quite agree that celebration of historic figures precisely for their sins is not acceptable.

And I personally oppose leftist indigenism regarding the Americas, Africa, or anywhere at all.

Everybody but white people . . . .

is allowed to be a racist and espouse racist theories of this, that, and the other thing.

Indigenism, for instance.

'Stolen lands': dozens arrested as Hawaiians protest $1.4bn telescope

"Genocide" now seems in Canada to mean "hate crime".

And yet, has it been shown these killings were all of them even that?

No, on second thought it looks like it just means the killers are assumed to have picked for victims women whose murderers, they think, the authorities won't try very hard to find and properly punish.

And that's actually bullshit, too.

There is only one reason these killings are being labeled genocide: the victims are Indians.

And the label is only conditional.

If and when the identity of a killer is learned, the label will be removed if, and only if, the killer is not white.

Or maybe if, and only if, the killer is an Indian.

Either way, at bottom, this is just indigenist victim bullshit and white man bashing.

Canadian Inquiry Calls Killings of Indigenous Women Genocide

Paul Tuccaro, a member the Mikisew Cree First Nation in northern Alberta, said he hoped the report would hold accountable any police officers who failed the women.

Mr. Tuccaro’s younger sister Amber, 20, disappeared in August 2010, he said. 

The mother of a 14-month-old son, she vanished after hitching a ride. 

Her remains were found in a farmer’s field, and a killer has never been found.

Mr. Tuccaro said it was accurate to call the killings a genocide.

“Whoever is doing what they’re doing, they think they can kill all these women, and nothing will come of it because they’re just ‘Indians,’” he said.

The MAGA boys

If this is right, and it certainly could be and likely is, he wasn't mocking anyone and he and the other MAGA boys were on the receiving end of hateful speech and conduct.

Both the Black Hebrews (That's a thing? Yes.) who shouted insults at them and the Indian who shouted indigenista weaponized history were the ones in the wrong, if anyone.

As for the kid's claimed personal embrace of diversity, if real he might have been one of the few people there not playing out identity grievances and hates.

Apart from that it seems the MAGA hat might be attributable entirely to the kid's Catholic sociocon commitment.

It seems he and the other students were in DC for an anti-abortion march.

Statement of Nick Sandmann, Covington Catholic High School junior, regarding incident at the Lincoln Memorial

The protestor everyone has seen in the video began playing his drum as he waded into the crowd, which parted for him. I did not see anyone try to block his path. He locked eyes with me and approached me, coming within inches of my face. He played his drum the entire time he was in my face.

I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves. To be honest, I was startled and confused as to why he had approached me. We had already been yelled at by another group of protestors, and when the second group approached I was worried that a situation was getting out of control where adults were attempting to provoke teenagers.

I believed that by remaining motionless and calm, I was helping to diffuse the situation. I realized everyone had cameras and that perhaps a group of adults was trying to provoke a group of teenagers into a larger conflict. I said a silent prayer that the situation would not get out of hand.

During the period of the drumming, a member of the protestor's entourage began yelling at a fellow student that we "stole our land" and that we should "go back to Europe." I heard one of my fellow students begin to respond. I motioned to my classmate and tried to get him to stop engaging with the protestor, as I was still in the mindset that we needed to calm down tensions.

I never felt like I was blocking the Native American protestor. He did not make any attempt to go around me. It was clear to me that he had singled me out for a confrontation, although I am not sure why.

The engagement ended when one of our teachers told me the busses had arrived and it was time to go. I obeyed my teacher and simply walked to the busses. At that moment, I thought I had diffused the situation by remaining calm, and I was thankful nothing physical had occurred.

I never understood why either of the two groups of protestors were engaging with us, or exactly what they were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial. We were simply there to meet a bus, not become central players in a media spectacle. This is the first time in my life I've ever encountered any sort of public protest, let alone this kind of confrontation or demonstration.

. . . .

I harbor no ill will for this person. I respect this person's right to protest and engage in free speech activities, and I support his chanting on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial any day of the week. I believe he should re-think his tactics of invading the personal space of others, but that is his choice to make.

I am being called every name in the book, including a racist, and I will not stand for this mob-like character assassination of my family's name. My parents were not on the trip, and I strive to represent my family in a respectful way in all public settings.

I have received physical and death threats via social media, as well as hateful insults. One person threatened to harm me at school, and one person claims to live in my neighborhood. My parents are receiving death and professional threats because of the social media mob that has formed over this issue.

I love my school, my teachers and my classmates. I work hard to achieve good grades and to participate in several extracurricular activities. I am mortified that so many people have come to believe something that did not happen -- that students from my school were chanting or acting in a racist fashion toward African Americans or Native Americans. I did not do that, do not have hateful feelings in my heart, and did not witness any of my classmates doing that.

But at least some of the people who first circulated the video and account making the MAGA boys bad guys aren't buying Sandmann's story.

All which points up the weak spot in the claim that the celebration of diversity on the left isn't, for many, really a celebration of everybody who isn't white paired with abiding hatred of white people and the world they have built.

To the extent that it is or is allowed to appear so, the conviction of so many that the Dems are the party that sells out whites while the GOP try to protect them is made plausible.

And to some degree it really is true.

Or the kid could be the Trumpist asshole he was originally taken to be, but so much smarter than Trump that he lies much more plausibly.

Indigenism

Indigenism is a hoax.

Human beings are native only to small parts of Africa.

Everywhere else they are an invasive species.

The description "Native American", like "indigenous peoples", is a politically motivated and racist hoax.

Vindicating the defenders of Confederate monuments

Opposed to taking them down, defenders of the monuments argued from Trump to Buchanan that those who wanted them taken down would move on to attack all monuments to America's past leaders.

The virtuous Children of Zinn seem determined to vindicate the claims of those defenders.

The social justice warriors, having spent their fury on monuments to the Confederacy, have gone in search of other targets. 

At the University of Wisconsin-Madison, they have set their sights on America’s sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln.

All the same, not all of America's celebrated heroes are honored for their sins, like the Confederate leaders.

And that makes the question of America's past and celebration of it a wedge issue that can be easily used against Democrats.

During this controversy, white Democrats have stood for taking down Confederate monuments because those monuments celebrate those people precisely for their sins: for fighting a treasonous war against the United States solely in order to preserve the chattel slavery of black people.

Monuments to Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, however, don't do that, nor do the bulk of monuments to American heroes of the past, and white Democrats have so far rejected tearing them down because of the sins of those heroes.

But the SJW's and many nonwhite Democrats are forthright Children of Zinn, committed to the racist dogma of indigenism as well as pretty much anything else expressing hatred of the white race and its history in the New World, and they have already denounced monuments to Jefferson and Washington, for example, because those men owned slaves and did not manumit them.

And the truth is that nearly all Democratic pundits, spokespeople, and office-holders have come to at least tacitly accept the indigenista racism of the Children of Zinn and the associated position on Columbus and the European peopling of the Americas, in many cities replacing Columbus Day with Indigenous Peoples Day.

But it is not the view of the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters, nor even of majorities of black voters, nor indeed of white voters in general, that the very existence of our country and its entire history should be publicly regarded as crimes, as polling in connection with the removal of Confederate monuments has shown.

And that makes this a good issue for Trumpists and Republicans in general to focus on.

The indigenista dogma

Grist for Buchanan's mill, these Children of Zinn, whether they know their spiritual father or not.

Tina Fey to white supremacists: 'It's not our country, we stole it from the Native Americans'

At no point did Indians collectively own or claim to own all of the current continental territory (contiguous or not) of the USA.

At no point did they collectively own or claim to own any territory at all.

Throughout their history, they were divided into nations and tribes as mutually hostile and prone to moving about as those of Europe.

And it was not unusual for those hostilities to result in ethnic cleansing or even genocide, from partial to utterly complete extermination of enemy peoples.

There is no basis whatever for the current racist moral dogma that every inch of the New World belonged by right collectively to the Indians, from whom current and past white occupants stole what they have.

No more than for the dogma current in white nationalist circles that Europe is rightfully the collective territory of the eurowhite wing of the somewhat broader white race, and everyone now there who is not a eurowhite is a morally criminal invader.

And every such person trying to go there, Mediterranean and black refugees and migrants especially.

Indigenista propaganda on Hawaii Five-O

Phooey.

Abolish all reservations.

Or grant white minorities in South Africa their own little homelands.

Or something.

How to parry propaganda

With counter-propaganda of equal or superior quality, of course.

This is not that.

America.

Writes Andrew Romano, D'Souza aims to rebut

what he describes as the four “indictments” [Howard] Zinn and his followers have made against America: “that we stole the country from the Native Americans; that we took half of Mexico in the Mexican War; that we stole the labor of African Americans; and that today our foreign policy and our free market system are forms of theft.”

The first three are of course false if only because the crimes alleged would all have happened long before any of us were born.

Also if, as I do not believe, it is a fact of law that the Indians at some time owned all that part of North America now comprised in the USA it is a silly fact of silly law.

[Aside: The ownership of the oil under the ground by Muslims walking upon it in so much of the world, while only just less silly, has been and is still far more fraught with evil consequence. /Aside]

And it does not impress me one whit more than any Conquistador's perfectly legal claim to take possession of vast continental territories in the New World for his royal sponsor merely by setting his foot on the shore ever impressed Zinn or his America-hating acolytes.

Too, if America was stolen from the Indians was not Mexico stolen from them, as well?

And if a thief later falls victim of another person who relieves him of what was not lawfully his, anyway, is that person also a thief - and, really, why bother to split these hairs?

As for the labor of slaves, well, the claim that anyone stole it is pretty clearly intended as moral rather than legal - making it pure eyewash.

As are, of course, the first two "indictments" if intended - as they surely were - to be moral in nature, concerned with alleged facts of supposed natural justice.

And what about the fourth indictment, really two,

that today our foreign policy and our free market system are forms of theft?

Again, more morality and so more eyewash.

Or rather, more coercive nonsense aimed to threaten and bully, to license hatred, betrayal, and even violence.

As was well said by the founder of legal positivism, laws, in brief, are commands of the state backed by force.

And the state?

In brief, force backed by bullshit - commonly, the bullshit of morality, the bullshit of religion, or both.

Politics is civil war, ultimately the war of all against all, mostly by means other than outright force, its chief weapons being the forms of bullshit just now cited.

Zinn's People's History was a blow against America of a potency that has only grown with the decades.

Oh, Andrew Romano's rebuttal of D'Souza's rebuttal has the same flaw as D'Souza's rebuttal of Zinn.

Still, it is impossible to read his defense of Zinn's indictments, or D'Souza's rebuttals of them, without seeing that all three men are exclusively committed to the energetic shovelling of vast amounts of the most aromatic bullshit.

The Lone Ranger

Robbie Collin got it right in The Telegraph.

Aimless, vague, but oddly without seeming too long.

Anti-American,  -Christian,  and -Capitalist,  this frankly but not very angrily indigenista, semi-comic re-telling of the tale of the TV and comic-book hero in which the wife and I liked Johnny Depp and Armie Hammer bashed white people from beginning to end.

The movie subcribes 100% to the  liberal, UN orthodoxy of the likes of Howard Zinn, today endorsed with delighted cynicism by so many of yesterday's losers and today's enemies of the euro-white powers.

We are a long way from the pro-settler outlook of Drums Along The Mohawk,  The Plainsman, and Stage Coach.

The apologists of Afrikanerdom pretty much had it right.

The behavior of the white tribes in Africa, the Americas, Oceania, and Asia was no worse than that of the natives.

If they sometimes obtained lands by conquest or theft that was no worse than the norm for the region or than the losers had done.

And in every case theirs was the superior civilization, the losers and the displaced being in many cases exactly the savages the euro-whites said they were.

Hollywood used to share that view.

But not for a long time.

Long since, it has changed sides and gone over to the Indians.

All the same, even a white person could enjoy this film, in between repeated slaps in the face.

If it doesn't occur to that white person, between slaps, to wonder about the price whites will increasingly have to pay, now that this attitude is culturally and politically dominant and the pro-white view of all this history has actually become thought-crime.

I have read in several places that an Australian court has ruled that every inch of Australia was the valid property in natural law of the Aborigines - whether of tribes or of the race as a whole I do not know - when the whites arrived.

Hence whatever was occupied or settled without actual purchase - by whites - though from whom may not be clear - was stolen.

Thus far does liberal racism control the moral and political high ground.

One might almost say that,  according to the liberals, and in these parts of the world, a white person has no rights a non-white is bound to respect.

Planet-hopping for resources

Avatar

What if there is no technological fix and crucial resources just run out, where you are?

What if the alternative to planet-hopping for resources is living like the Indians of Amazonia?

Phooey, the hypocritical silliness of American, Hollywood reds notwithstanding.

Dances with Wolves

Pay off the blue guys as little as possible to just get them out of the way, I say, assuming simply taking what you need is not practical.

We have made the sheikhs and tribal leaders of the barbarians of the Middle East fantastically rich and fantastically powerful in return for access to resources they knew nothing about and for which they had no use.

Resources they happened to be sitting on.

And how is that working out?

Hollywood, of course, holds the opposite view, as it has made clear in numerous films, with varying degrees of accusation aimed at 500 years of eurowhite expansion.

Heck, even Tom Cruise is making movies – fun movies – with that indigenista bias.

Oblivion

The world according to Howard Zinn.

Why do they want us to be sorry? It’s about power and money.

It's really the same reason they will never have done with their accusations of racism, sexism, and so on.

When a nation says, 'We are sorry.'

Denise Oliver Velez makes it pretty clear.

But what if we are not sorry since we have no cause to be?

We might regret and deplore the enslavement of Africans much as we do slavery in the ancient world.

Or as little, come to that.

But there is no more reason for us or for our country, today, to apologize for the one than for the other, since we have and had as little to with the one as the other.

And no more reason to attempt or be required to make compensation or reparations.

Would Ms. Velez like to try to recover compensation or reparations from the descendants of those who profited by kidnapping and selling Africans into slavery in the New World, now living still in the lands of their ancestors?

The entire argument that current Americans in some distinctly morally unacceptable way have profited by slavery but nobody else has, possibly excepting the whites of the rest of the Americas, is just extortionate, resentful, racist baloney.

And as to that I did warn you morality is a fiction providing a weapon of psychological abuse and coercion, often presaging actual violence.

See the posts labeled "amoralism," especially the earlier ones.

The same objections and more apply to indigenista nonsense about the whites of the Americas and Oceania owing reparations based on the racist moral notions that these places were and even are the rightful possessions of "the indigenous peoples" as a whole, while all white arrivals and all of their descendants are and have always been guilty - in contrast to their wholly innocent "indigenous" victims - of wrongful invasion, conquest, and theft of these areas. as well as genocide and ethnic cleansing.

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.

Yet another holiday for liberals to ruin

Snap

And you thought they’d just let it go with ruining Columbus Day?

Or El Dia de la Hispanidad, for the Latinos among us, nowadays at least as contested, I think, in the Latin world as Columbus Day is here.

And on reflection you might think it would actually be more so, no?

Given the larger mestizo and Indian (and African?) populations in Latin America, I mean, and the proclivity of the left for everywhere fomenting racial hatred directed against euro-whites.

[Update 11252012 0936 hrs EST.

Why?

Because it’s easier and a lot safer to foment and exploit politically than frank class hatred?]

Anyway, you can also ruin Thanksgiving with an excess of atheist hatred for religion, but that is so rare it is almost unheard of, in contrast to liberal-endorsed and liberal-encouraged indigenista hatred of euro-whites by both non-whites and whites.

And it doesn’t have the backing of the UN and official political correctness.

Next up, Christmas, with its tiresome – and tireless! – barrage of reminders (lies) – most of them from people of the left – of how it’s really a pagan celebration of the solstice, stolen by those wicked Christians and their department stores and turned into a nationwide obsession with Bing Crosby and shopping, to the endless offense of Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jains, Hindus, Native American Animists, Voodooists, devotees of Santeria, and (so they say) secularists.

Did I miss anybody?