Friday, June 29, 2007

The Supremes can't sing...

...but they can sure hand down some wacky legal decisions. And when they do get something right, they are slammed by all the usual liberal suspects.

Seems a little odd to me that a student who unfurls a "Bong Nits 4 Jesus" banner is not entitled to free speech, but a student who wears a t-shirt accusing Jorge Bush of drug use and alcoholism is indeed protected by the First Amendment.

As far as I'm concerned, it's not a debate over whether kids should be allowed to glorify drug use (if that's what was going on in the first case, which I'm far from certain was so) or whether Jorge did or does either of those things.

But I suspect those, and not what the Constitution says or implies, were the issues for the nine black-robed ninnies in Washington.

We walk a fine line in this country. I can't go through a day without seeing something I don't want to see, reading something I don't want to read or hearing something I don't want to hear. But that is the price we pay for being able to do, write and say what we want.

Well, for now, anyway. I haven't the slightest doubt that the socialist lefty wackos in government not only think "there oughtta be a law" but are planning to make a law or two stamping out any kind of speech that goes against their peculiar agendas.

The real winner, to me, is the decision that race should not be used as a basis for preferential treatment in schools.

Isn't this what the liberals and affected minorities have been wanting ever since they began their crusades against whites being the preferred race many years ago?

Or are they saying -- as the Democrat would-be presidents seemed to be saying at their most recent debate -- that they won't rest until the "minority" of their choice not only has the right to stand in line for success with everyone else but is guaranteed a spot at the head of the line?

Those of the leftward persuasion are already babbling about "the return of segregation" and are no doubt having nightmares about Sheriff Jim Clark, Bull Connor and Strom Thurmond rising from their graves to put those "whites only" signs on drinking fountains and bathroom doors across the land.

What a load of dung.

This decision does not deprive anyone of their rights, even if Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson don't see it that way. What it says, in effect, is that everyone has equal rights.

It's damn hard to pander, Clinton- and Jackson-style, to any particular group when you can't promise them a free pass.

I believe in equality. I have no more rights -- and want no more -- than anyone else who is in this country legally. But I also have no fewer rights, even if I am a white man who doesn't stand up and cheer every time Hillary opens her mouth and wouldn't vote for her even if the opposition ran Atilla the Hun against her.

That, of course, is the reason Mrs Bubba Clinton tacks on that phony down-south preacher's accent every time she talks to a black audience, and why she is so critical of the Supremes' decision. She can get votes from them.


lowandslow said...

Your problem, Scribbs, is that you keep insisting on interjecting logic into your argument. Foul! Remember the liberal mantra? "Do as I say, not as I do."

John said...

This modern segregation they decry is self imposed by minorities and 'diversity' agendas. Assimilation is discouraged.
When NC was pouring many into 'traditionally Black Universities', I saw Jackson at a speech at NC A&T, which was celebrating state of the art engineering facilities and more.
Jackson couldn't be happen his college was being brought into the mainstream. He warned and pleaded that they not allow the university to lose its 'Blackness".
It is about power and money. When Black sutdent unions, and race based professional groups, identifying as hyphenated Americans are given credibility, segregation is ensured. Equal under the law is out.