Up yours, Jim Clyburn!

In an August 13th interview with Sam Stein at The Huffington Post, House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn opined that protesters who object to effectively nationalizing America's healthcare are bigots.

"I have seen this kind of hate before. I have seen this discussion before," he said. "I have seen snarling dogs going after people who were trying to peacefully assemble. I have seen the eyes of people who were being spat upon."

Are black patients forced to ride in the back of ambulances? (I'm not an EMT, but I'm pretty damned sure that all ambulance patients have to ride in the back.)

Are there hospital lunch counters in this country where black folks are not permitted to sit?

Are black ER patients being turned away by angry white security guards holding back slavering German Shepherds?

Are black surgical patients prepped with fire hoses?

"Paging Dr. Faubus...Dr. Orval Faubus...white courtesy telephone, please..."

What the fuck are you talking about, Mr. Clyburn?

"This is all about activity trying to deny the establishment of a civil right. And I do believe that health care for all is -- a civil right," the House Majority Whip argued. "And I think that is why you see this kind of activity. This is an attempt on the part of some to deny the establishment of a civil right."

Hold-on, bucko; healthcare is very important, but it is absolutely not a "civil right". Random House defines that term as:

1. rights to personal liberty established by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and certain Congressional acts, esp. as applied to an individual or a minority group.

2. the rights to full legal, social and economic equality extended to blacks.

American Heritage has a slightly different definition:

pl.n. The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.
adj. or civ·il-rights (sĭv'əl-rīts')
1. Of or relating to such rights or privileges: civil rights legislation.
2. Of or relating to a political movement, especially during the 1950s and 1960s, devoted to securing equal opportunity and treatment for members of minority groups.

From the U.S. Constitution:

Amendment XIII

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The careful reader will note that there is no reference to "health care" nor anything even vaguely resembling it in those Amendments.

Back to the Huffington Post interview:

Clyburn, a veteran of the civil rights movement, said he was particularly appalled by the use of the Swastika symbol at some of these town hall events. Noting that one had been painted on the office of Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), an African-American, Clyburn insisted that was proof enough that some of the protests were racially motivated.

"There is no question in my mind," he said.

So according to Mr Clyburn, the standard of proof is now a single act of vandalism which somehow unquestionably proves "some of the protests" are "racially motivated". (But since no perp has yet been arrested, we have absolutely no clue as to his or her motivation. It is entirely possible, since Rep. Scott behaved like an enormous race-pimping jackass just a few days earlier - and was captured doing so on video - perhaps one of his sympathizers decided to, y'know, "help a brother out" by making him look like a "victim". It's not like that's never happened before.)

So how many is "some of the protests", you fucking old race-baiting piece of shit? Three? Fifteen? Thirty-six? Do you even know how many hundreds of these protests there have been across our country since February? (When they started due to an enormous increase in government spending for the stimulus package, TARP and auto bailouts.)

Yes, millions of people are angry about a whopping growth in spending of taxpayers' money; this includes the attempt to nationalize healthcare. Which I was against when Hillary Clinton tried it, just as I am now. Legitimate, thoughtful objection to a policy (or policies) advocated by Barack Obama, or anyone else who happens to be a different race from me, does not equate to racism.

I'm profoundly tired of any criticism of Mr. Obama being decried by (alleged) liberals as the product of "racism". So I'm going to be very clear about this, Mr. Clyburn: the reason I hope you get flattened by a bus or break your neck falling down a flight of stairs has nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that you're black.

It has everything to do with the fact I find you to be a despicable and immoral human being, without whom both our Congress and our country would be slightly better off.

You see, sir...I've judged you by the character of your heart; one of us actually lives Dr.Martin Luther King's dream. I only wish he'd rise-up from the grave and give you the drubbing you soundly deserve.

Since that's probably not likely to happen, I can only hope that you soon enjoy a horribly painful and/or humiliating demise; you see, I really hate fucking racists.