I’m sure you all remember South Carolina , who so artfully (gasp…I mean crudely) played the race card on the Clintons and followed that up by comparing John McCain and Sarah Palin to that infamous racist (Democratic) Governor George Wallace. , the Democrat from
Clyburn is a member of the House Democratic leadership and the highest ranking black in Congress. (Please note: I am calling people born in the United States to US citizens black and those born in the US whose parent(s) are from Africa , African-Americans.)
Surprise! Clyburn has come out in support of Gov. Blago’s Senate appointee, Clyburn says he thinks it is important to support the Constitution, even if we have political feelings that resist it., because, Clyburn states, the Constitution is on Burris’ side.
Gee, Jim, thanks for standing up for the Constitution. We know that it is irrelevant that Burris is black. Just as race is irrelevant to Lord (I mean Senator) Harry Reid who told Gov. Blago that three potential black senatorial candidates were unacceptable to him ‘cause they couldn’t win. It looks like racism runs both ways in the Sexist-Racist Party of America, aka the .
But, whoaaa here!! Does that mean Clyburn is going to speak up and not accept the Electoral College votes because he thinks the Constitution is more important than having an African-American usurper in the White House? Don’t hold your breath, folks, you’ll turn blue first.
If you recall from my previous article on Ron Paul, Paul said he would be laughed out of Congress if he stood up for the Constitution and blocked the Electoral College Votes for the usurper. I think it is fair to assume that Clyburn would not only be one of those laughing, but based on past history, he would have no problem playing the race card.
So, let’s see, according to Clyburn logic, the Constitution applies if it benefits a black man; it does not apply if it works against a black man, I mean African-American.
I am wondering if the SCOTUS justices have the same logic as Clyburn. In 2000, they concocted a surprising decision that led to the awarding of the Presidency to a Bush. Now, eight long years later, they appear to be concocting a non-decision to award the Presidency to someone who has the financial backing of the same people that backed Bush. I suppose there is some way of using the Constitution to rationalize both of these decisions. Can’t wait to hear it, but I won’t hold my breath, I might turn blue.
Here’s a short, fun video on the Preamble to the Constitution (maybe we should send it to the House of Lords, aka Congress, for viewing):