Representative Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) sometimes gets a little carried away on the floor of the House of Representatives. This past Wednesday, as she took to the floor during a debate over a Republican-sponsored bill, she declared
… how well it is that we have lasted some 400 years operating under a Constitution that clearly defines what is constitutional and what is not.
Oops. The Constitution was framed in 1787 and ratified the following year. Note that the folks at Fox declared, “The Constitution was adopted in 1787.” Not so … and it’s never a good idea to chide someone about their ignorance of history while exposing your own.
This is not Representative Jackson Lee’s first embarrassing misstep. She’s had Neil Armstrong landing on Mars in 1969, declared that South Vietnam still exists, and called herself “a freed slave.”
Somehow, some of the very people who had no problem when Andrew Napolitano went off the deep end or when one of their own engaged in a historical hiccup could not wait to jump all over this.
From Pensacola came a predictable screed (how boring!):
These flogger-types pretzel up and gnash their teeth when heritage folks identify personally with Confederates — when they talk about “we” and “us,” referring to Confederates during the war — but you never hear a peep out of floggers when other folks make similar statements.
I didn’t hear her correct Judge Napolitano, but then she’s confessed she doesn’t really understand history, although she’s also claimed that she’s a historian.
One of her commenters, a flawed poet from Virginia, declared:
But Brooks only sees what Southerners do wrong!
Obviously he hasn’t talked to my colleagues.
Besides, David, Rep. Jackson Lee is a southerner. Heck, I thought you would like her because of her last name (how more Confederate heritage can you get than that?). And yet you exclude here from being a southerner. Why is that? What makes her different from the people you define as southerners?
Maybe we can find out why if we returned to the pronunciamiento from Pensacola:
There’s no history there, but there’s lots of scorn and ridicule from people who would rather die than correct — or even acknowledge — blatant and egregious errors made by a protected class member… Can you say hypocrisy?
Once more someone has race on her mind. After all, the good judge is white, but our friend from Pensacola remained silent. But I didn’t say anything about her unwillingness to discuss a white man’s shortcomings because of her fear that it would undermine her claims of white superiority. That would never occur to me. Nor would I call her a hypocrite for practicing the same sort of double standards she claims to deplore in others.
But when it comes to Connie Chastain, it’s always about race … or sexual preference … or bitterness against non-Christians. Maybe she’ll write a book about that some day.
Or she can listen to Carl Roden, who recently declared:
Why is it that people HAVE to be something based on outward appearances and genetics?
I mean maybe I am off kilter here, but I always defined individualism in terms of defining who you are based on personal preferences.
My genetics may say I have Irish, African, or Asian ancestry, my skin may be white, dark, or whatever, but in the end those things only tell background, they do not define who I am as a man when I wake up in the morning, when I go through my day, what values I choose to live by, ect.
This obsession with racial identity politics is ridiculous to the point now that we are literally coming up with new ethnic groups out of existing people and further labeling people and forcing them into categories of thought based on someone’s flawed politically correct criteria.
Connie Chastain could learn so much by listening to Carl Roden. Maybe Carl can help her get beyond her … issues.