Dems Hijack Coretta King Funeral
Tuesday, February 7, 2006 at 08:18PM 
Liberals just can’t keep from stepping in it. Who could forget January 16, 2006, when Democrats used Martin Luther King, Jr. Day to divide the country and bash President Bush by using racially inflammatory iconography? Hillary Clinton said to a mostly black audience: "When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run like a plantation." Dem. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin made bizarre statements about a non-white New Orleans, which he referred to as "Chocolate City". Al Gore chose the day honoring King to blast President Bush and the domestic surveillance program.
"She extended Martin’s message against poverty, racism and war / She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar."
"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there / But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here / Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor."
Watch the video of Lowery’s comments (hat tip: Expose the Left)
About a 1/3 of the audience stood and wildly cheered… the rest apparently taken aback by Lowery looked shocked.
Jimmy Carter said in his attempt to eulogize Ms. King:
"It was difficult for them then personally with the civil liberties of both husband and wife violated as they became the target of secret government wiretaps and and other surveillance."
Watch the video of Carter’s comments (hat tip: Expose the Left) Carter apparently neglected to mention that it was the Dem. Kennedy administration, with Attorney General Robert Kennedy in particular, who authorized the "secret government wiretaps" on the Kings. (*no need to mention that…..)
Jesse Jackson hit the nail on the head when he said, "We can’t let them take her from us and reduce her to their trophy and not our freedom fighter." Democrats want to monopolize civil rights issues (and homeland security, etc.) but Pres. Bush is sincere in his regard for both Mrs. King and her accomplishments. This is probably the reason Hillary Clinton at the State of the Union shook her head and rolled her eyes laughing when President Bush said:
"The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again."
It’s not that she was disagreeing, but that she was frustrated at the President’s ability to take their last legitimate causes and make them his own, through sincerity and ingeniuity. They hate it when that happens.
Remember the 2002 Paul Wellstone funeral? Dem. Sen. Paul Wellstone from Minnesota died just weeks before his re-election bid. During his funeral, Democrats once again hijacked the funeral for political purposes and ranted about political gains against Republicans…..and lost big with the voters.
Watch the Wellstone funeral video (hat tip: again, Expose the Left)
What Democrats did today was destructive and despicable. It dishonored the memory of both Coretta Scott King and Martin Luther King. She deserved a better.
Michelle Malkin Stop the ACLU Righting America HooahWife Sister Toldjah Jo’s Cafe’ Conservababes Don Singleton Ms. Underestimated Generation Why? Iowa Voice The Cafeteria is Closed
Trackback URL:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/trackback/378393
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (150)
AMY -
Yeah, what a joke this was! I find that almost every day I have yet another reason to dislike Liberals and how they conduct themselves. And about once every week or two I see another reason to like President Bush. As always, he handled this unconscionable behavior with dignity as befits his office.
Carter is nothing less than a National embarassment - often directly to an international audience.
((But doesn't Laura look like she is THIS CLOSE to leaping out of that chair and smacking the daylights out of Reverend Whatsisname!!! Priceless! I wonder what George is saying to her...something like "Now CALM DOWN, Sweetheart!"))
Oh, and what about false imprisonment and police beatings by the ostensibly white agents of government on King and the NON-VIOLENT civil rights marchers? I suppose in Patriot Act America, you would CELEBRATE such behavior, especially Michelle Malkin, who has championed the return of INTERNMENT CAMPS.
I give Lowry and Carter a STANDING OVATION for their speeches, just like the majority of thinking Americans who attended that ceremony.
--Cobra
2nd Deb: IT WAS A FUNERAL, NOT A POLITICAL EVENT! Nah, actually, it was a political event and not a funeral. The Dems should be very proud of themselves.Pres. Bush has way more class and greeted the attacks with a smile and a hand shake. He's a class act all the way.
First let’s not forget this was a FUNERAL. It’s disgusting to bash the President (as he sits behind you, no less), at a FUNERAL. It’s always about trying to score political points, even at the expense of the dead. And I thought they were compassionate liberals.
These are the same people who use soldiers for political purposes and while condemning the cartoons featuring the prophet of peace Mohammed, justify cartoons mocking Christ or featuring amputee soldiers…… all in the name of free speech and political awareness. These folks are a bunch of hypocrites.
You must not have seen the funeral speeches. About 1/3 stood and applauded. The rest were as appalled as the rest of us. It’s clear that liberals will sacrifice anything for a political moment.
Let’s not forget, while we’re at it, who started the racist movement in the United States.
Democrats originated the KKK:
************************************************
http://www.kkklan.com/briefhist.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anti-kkk-cartoon.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan
"The Ku Klux Spirit", by J.A. Rogers, noted Negro historian of the 1920's. The Ku Klux Spirit was first published in 1923, by Messenger Publishing Co. It was republished in 1980, by Black Classic Press. Pg. 34: "A fact not generally known is that there were thousands of Negro Klansmen. These were used as spies on other Negroes and on Northern Whites."
"Nathan Bedford Forrest: A Biography", by Jack Hurst. On page 305 : "...(the Klan was) reorganized to oppose radical proponents (the Radical Republicans) of what it perceived to be Black domination, NOT to scourge Blacks themselves. Although it has been written that Ku Klux Klan ranks were open only to the more than 100,000 honorably discharged ex-Confederate veterans, the hierarchy in some areas and some instances seems to have accepted and even recruited Blacks, provided they went along with Conservative-Democratic political philosophy. In Memphis of late 1868, sixty-five Blacks organized a "Colored Democratic Club" under the watchful eye of Klansman-editor Gallaway - - who according to an account in the Appeal, "made a motion on behalf of the White men present, that they give employment and protection to Colored democrats."
"The Klan became the violent arm of the Southern Democratic Party."
************************************************
Civil Rights Act of 1965:
SENATE:
Democrats: 69% voted “yea”
Republicans: 82% voted “yea”
CONGRESS:
Democrats: 61% voted “yea”
Republicans: 80% voted “yea”
Voting Rights Act:
SENATE:
Democrats: 74% voted “yea”
Republicans: 97% voted “yea”
CONGRESS:
Democrats: 80% voted “yea”
Republicans: 85% voted “yea”
Cobra, opposition to the Civil Rights movement in the south in the 50's and 60's were white Democrats (can you say Robert "Sheets" Byrd, Dem. Sen. who was a member of the KKK?) Since Abraham Lincoln Republicans have always been on the side of African Americans and as usual, it is the Democrats who perpetuate this racial fraud; that is, that THEY are racial champions. This simply is NOT the case based on historical fact and voting records.
Remember that Pres. Bush is the first President to select a black Sec. of State in both Colin Powell and Condi Rice. He didn't choose a "Jocyln Elders" tolken black like Bill Clinton did (she as Gen. Surgeon couldn't think herself out of a paper bag). Both Powell and Rice are extraordinary statesmen. Democrats have given us....... Harry Belfonte?
You stood and cheered for the wrong people.
The insultingly inappropriate behavior will backfire and drive moderate Dems more to the right.
Civil Rights Act of 1964:
House of Representatives:
Southern Democrats: 7-87
Southern Republicans: 0-10
Northern Democrats: 145- 9
Northern Republicans: 138-24
Senate:
Southern Democrats: 1-21
Southern Republicans: 0- 1
Northern Democrats: 46- 1
Northern Republicans: 27- 5
So, in the House seven Southerners vote for the Act and in the Senate only one Southerner voted for it. Isn't that interesting?
Also, I watched most of the funeral yesterday and you obviously did not, otherwise you would know that a few statements taken out of context were not representative of the event. Bush seemed out of place there. Why would he attend a memorial service for someone who supported gay rights, abortion rights, and who opposed capital punishment and the war in Iraq?
You should go to http://www.c-span.org and watch the full video of the speeches that you criticized. You will see that it was a celebration of Mrs. King's life and the things that she accomplished and continued to fight for.
It seems to me that the Republicans are the ones who are exploiting Mrs. King's funeral for political gain.
You cannot be serious that you think Republicans are exploiting the Mrs. King. The Republican President and past Repub. Pres (Bush Sr.) were EXTREMELY gracious in the face of these overt attacks. I guess Republicans should just bend over and not have a reaction. Just say nothing. It's pretty embarrassing to be a Democrat right now and that's why it's uncomfortable to have this bad behavior pointed out.
Most of the speeches, and even most of Lowery's and Carter's speeches, were excellent. I'm not criticizing the funeral, Mrs. King, etc. I'm condemning the classless behavior of Democrats. And it's my pleasure to do so.
Cobra, you are such a racist. How do you stand yourself?
No, Amy, you are the one politicizing things.
I am not embarrassed to be a Democrat because I am not a Democrat.
Your point that President Carter talked about Mrs. King be subjected to wiretaps under J. Edgar Hoover shows that this statement was not bashing Republicans. Abuse of power by any official--Republican, Democrat, or otherwise is wrong. Hoover abused his power under Democrats and Republicans.
The numbers that I used showed that the divide in support for the Civil Rights Act of 1965 was by geography more than by party affiliation. That is clearly illustrated. In the House the South voted against it 7-97 and the North supported it 283-33. In the Senate the South voted 1-22 and the North 73-6.
I know you're not a Democrat because you're not an American. You are a liberal, though. I was referring to Democrats, not you, when I said it's embarrassing to be a Democrat.
The point is that it was UNDIGNIFIED to use Mrs. King as a way of accusing the President regarding his domestic surviellence program. It was just not the appropriate time for it. He gave a press conference after the funeral slamming the Pres.... that's still not appropriate, but better than from the pulpit at a Civil Right hero's funeral. I don't think this is a hard concept.
I understand what you're saying about demographics, but you're missing the point. There were far less Repubicans elected to office in the south... there were less Republicans in the south because the south had "issues" and elected far more Democrats. There were 94 Dem Congressmen in the south and only 10 Republican and 22 Dem Senators in the South vs. 1 southern Republican Senator. Don't you think that says something? The racist south didn't want Republicans because Democrats, not Republicans, more accurately represented their views! Not to mention the Republicans were the minority party at the time.
I did not make myself clear about the North/South issue regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The South was represented in Congress at the time by Democrats like Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms was also a Democrat back then. Where would they fit in today's Democratic Party? That's right, they wouldn't. In fact, Thurmond joined the Republican Party because of LBJs support of the CRA of 1964.
To understand why the "Solid South" back then was Democrat you need to understand Reconstruction and the Compromise of 1877. I don't have the time to explain it here, but you should read up on it when you have time.
I feel so sorry for the King family having to sit there and hear that garbage, where was the sympathy from the Dems? Have they no respect for anyone? Apparently not.
President Bush acquitted himself well in the face of such blatant partisan exploitation with his class and dignity. I am personally appalled at the grandstanding done at Mrs. King's funeral.
I wish that more African Americans would evaluate the Democratic party with more scrutiny; the real disaster today with the black community is the runaway rate of out-of-wedlock births (69% of all black births), not racism, which is aggravated by Democratic policies.
You are very naive if you think that Carter and Clinton were there just as "friends" of Mrs. King. It was a funeral. Those are not usually used for political purposes, as castigating the president certainly is. It was really bad taste and ill-mannered to intrude on the grief of the family and the nation like that.
EM, the folks that cheered, while loud, were only a third of the people in the room. It's a safe bet that they thought the comments were inappropriate too.
All you need to do is take one look at the King’s children as the speakers eulogized their Mother. They stood, they clapped and they shook their heads in agreement when Rev Lowery, Bill Clinton (I might add that this crowd roared when he spoke) and Jimmy Carter spoke. Could that mean that the family agreed with the eulogies given?
Ultimately, the family’s opinion is what matters most, not ours.
".....The black community has passed their voting habits down to the next generation. Blacks dont look to the rights Repblicans tried to extend them during the civil rights era but to the money and handouts given to them during the depression yrs. And as long as Dems. continue to "champion" the same social program they will continue to the "champion" for the Blacks.
February 8, 2006 | Scott"
It is well-below the level of dignified decorum established by the Kings who brought the majesty of religious language, iconography and discourse into the political sphere affording it a dignity it did not otherwise have. These opportunists have brough political partisan polemics into a sacred religious event.
I counter protest the anti-war hippies every Wed. and we get the bulk of the positive response. People in the mainstream don't all feel the the way that those who stood and applauded do.
by
Diane Alden
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/13/194350.shtml
Republicans and Civil Rights
“What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)?
Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans.
The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract.
Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat.
As a matter of fact, the record shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats.
In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
[See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html
and
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html.]
(John) Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.
Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.
I know. I was there…….”
It goes on….. very interesting.
What doublespeak. You are questioning my truthfulness, don't hide it under the "you feel them to be true" psycho babble crap.
How loud the crowd yells is your standard for what is proper? If that is your standard, then you'd have been right at home in Nazi Germany or at the Roman Coliseum.
It was political grandstanding of the worse kind. Actually it made Bush look even better as he just ignored it and went on to make very sincere and situation appropriate remarks.
I used to admire Jimmy Carter for being a caring and good person inspite of politics. But this day he sounded like another party hack. Too bad.
The 1957 Civil Rights Bill aimed to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. It wanted a new division within the federal Justice Department to monitor civil rights abuses and a joint report to be done by representatives of both major political parties.
Eisenhower publicly supported the bill (it was, after all, his Attorney-General who had produced the bill). However, the final act became a much watered done affair due to the lack of support among the Democrats. The Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, was a Democrat, and he realized that the bill and its journey through Congress, could tear apart his party as it had right wing Southern senators in it and liberal west coast ones.
Also, the out of wedlock birth rate is now up to 72% in the black community. Is THAT okay with YOU?
The comment I referenced was from "Scott" not Johnny so please read that one again.
Racial Discrimination is:
Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners.
I think Scott's comment fits that definition.
I'm not really sure why you are asking me if it's ok with me that 70% of black women choose to have babies out of wedlock. But I can tell you this, I do not judge ANYONE until I know the entire story, and even then I err on the side of compassion and understanding. A judge not least you be judged kinda thing. There are real people behind these statistics remember?
I do however think the rate is directly effected by a of lack of education. I would be interested in what you feel is responsible.
And you know what Twain said about statistics -- there are lies, damn lies and statistics!
Anyway, I was wrong.
Now, on the subject of the cause of out of wedlock births, what are your and Johnny's thoughts?
Do you believe that those like Senator Byrd who opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were racists? Because he opposed such legislation does he lose all credibility in such matters? Do you think think that Senator Byrd is still a racist today? Has he changed with the times or do think once a racist always a racist?
The point is that the Democratic Party takes way too much credit for the progress of civil rights in America. They have stood in the way of this progress through the creation of the KKK, trying to fillibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957, showing less support for the Civil Rights Act of 1965, and thereafter by feeding minorities a lie that the Government is their sugar daddy, abortion is fine and it's nobody's business whether you have babies out of wedlock or not. These things have lead to their enslavement. Republicans seek to empower individuals.
Most if not all of the Senators/Congressmen who stood against the Civil Rights Acts are now gone. Thank God. 2005 when the Civil Rights Act of 1965 came up for renewal, it was liberal democrats, white, black and otherwise, that, instead of calling to mind the importance of maintaining the act and celebrating it's existence, used it as an opportuntiy (ONCE AGAIN... snore...) to blast Pres. Bush. This is what Harry Belafonte said at that "celebration":
-"The Bush administration has been rather dismal for the lives of black Americans."
-"Hitler had a lot of Jews high up in the hierarchy of the Third Reich. Color does not necessarily denote quality, content or value," referring to Bush as Hitler.
-"[If] a black is a tyrant, he is first and foremost a tyrant, then he incidentally is black. Bush is a tyrant and if he gathers around him black tyrants, they all have to be treated as they are being treated."
Dick Gregory, actor, said:
-"They (black conservatives) have a right to exist, but why would I want to walk around with a swastika on my shirt after the way Hitler done messed it (the swastika symbol) up? So why would I want to call myself a conservative after the way them white racists thugs have used that word to hide behind? They call themselves new Republicans."
-"The United States is the most dishonest, ungodly, unspiritual nation that ever existed in the history of the planet. As we talk now, America is 5 percent of the world's population and consumes 96 percent of the world's hard drugs."
-"They didn't win, and I got that from the white press. At four o'clock [on Election Day 2004], that evening, the white press said from the exit polls that [Democratic presidential nominee John] Kerry had won by a landslide and then three hours later something funny happened." commenting that Bush stole the 2004 election.
Judge Greg Mathis, yes the African-American TV judge, said:
"They all need to be locked up because they are all criminals and they are all thieves. It is indeed criminal to steal an election and within two years run up a federal deficit of half-a-trillion dollars, send our young people over to Iraq to die for an unjust war. What they are doing is criminal."
-"The Bush administration is the enemy of our (black America's) progress. They shot and missed when they enslaved, segregated and oppressed our people. They shot and missed when they stole the past two presidential elections. They shot and missed when they denied our right to vote."
The politicians weren't much better than the ignorant entertainers. I wrote about it here:
http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2005/8/10/racists.html
The point is, Democrats dragged their feet, stonewalled and fillibustered racial progress in the 1950-60's, and now they want ownership of the Civil Rights Movement. Forget it. The Civil Rights leaders could not have succeeded against the Democratic Party without the help of the Republican Party, which they overwhelmingly got.
I hope that answers your question, and then some.
After my brief flirtation with your blog several weeks ago I became unbelievably busy with real life, but I had some time today to look through what I've missed.
I didn't get a chance to see any of the funeral footage, but I'm inclined to agree that a funeral is an inappropriate venue for remarks like these. Also, I came across what I thought was a truly bizarre piece of news the other day:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5192571
It's about an anti-gay group planning to protest outside King's funeral. If you listen to the story, you may be surprised to find out there usual protest venues are military funerals. I was shocked. And I have a feeling you'd agree, also inappropriate. I couldn't find anything specifically on these protesters and King's funeral, but this article about their latest military funeral mentions it in passing:
http://www.tnimc.org/feature/display/15718/index.php
I was glad to hear in the NPR story that legislators seem overwhelmingly in favor of making funeral protests illegal.
Also, Amy, I was surprised and disappointed not to find you'd done a post on the new encyclical. A subject I thought for sure would interest you, and about which I was sure you'd have something interesting to say. Of course, I realize you're probably a busy lady and can't write about it all.
Interesting theory!
It sounds like you are saying a man's lack of responsibility toward the woman he impregnated was, at least in part, the cause of out of the increase of wedlock births. Is that fair to say?
Or perhaps women with a choice chose the independence of social programs over abusive and unhealthy relationships that 'shotgun weddings' produced?
Or perhaps not the social programs themselves but the abuse of them?
Deb, that is more than just a theory of Johnny's. Former Dem. Sen. Daniel Patrick Mohynahan predicted today's situation back in the 60's.
Women are not passive, they are active participants. Please don't try to tell me that they are all victims of male rape. It is an ugly cycle, but women have the choice to ruin their lives and their children's as much as the man does. Of course the male has an equal responsibility.
I found this statement a bit behind the power curve:
"Or perhaps women with a choice chose the independence of social programs over abusive and unhealthy relationships that 'shotgun weddings' produced?"
If you are suggesting that women are only on welfare to avoid abusive men? How about this? If women enable themselves by not having sex with a man she's not married to, she eliminates the need for assistance. And, women are much more likely to be in an abusive relationship if it is sexual before marriage.
The choice of the woman is to not fool around with someone she's not married to and to kick the current culture in the crotch, debilitating it from taking her down.
Please don't make it seem that women have no choices and that welfare, abortion, whatever is her only hope as a refuge from men.
If you believe that “liberals” were the folks training attack dogs and fire hoses on non-violent civil rights marchers, well…it’s a good thing that it’s BLACK HISTORY MONTH, and there is plenty of information at your finger tips to dispel those lies. Now let’s talk about your hero J. Edgar Hoover:
>>>”The unfolding story of the civil rights protest movement and the leadership role of Martin Luther King, Jr., is a most ignoble chapter in the history of FBI spying and manipulation. As the civil rights movement grew and expanded, the FBI pinpointed every group and emergent leader for intensive investigation and most for harassment and disruption, the FBl's domestic version of CIA covert action abroad. The NAACP was the subject of a COMINFIL investigation. The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were listed by the FBI as "Black-Hate" type organizations and selected for covert disruption of their political activities. But the most vicious FBI attack was reserved for King and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. All of the arbitrary power and lawless tactics that had accumulated in the bureau over the years were marshaled to destroy King's reputation and the movement he led. The FBI relied on its vague authority to investigate "subversives" to spy on King and SCLC; its vague authority to conduct warrantless wiretapping and microphonic surveillance to tap and bug him; its secrecy to conduct covert operations against him. The campaign began with his rise to leadership and grew more vicious as he reached the height of his power; it continued even after his assassination in 1968.”
>>>”While the nation mourned, the FBI held a conference at the beginning of December to plan its campaign to destroy King and the civil rights movement. At that all-day meeting FBI officials put forward proposals that make G. Gordon Liddy's Watergate plan seem pale by comparison. Officials of the nation's number-one law enforcement agency agreed to use "all available investigative techniques" to develop information for use "to discredit" King. Proposals discussed included using ministers, "disgruntled" acquaintances, "aggressive" newsmen, "colored" agents, Dr. King's housekeeper, and even Dr. King's wife or "placing a good looking female plant in King's office" to develop discrediting information and to take action that would lead to his disgrace.”
<a href="http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/NSA/Vendetta_MLK_LS.html">WHY CARTER WAS RIGHT TO BRING IT UP</a>
As far as “black illegitimacy” goes…what of it? I thought you right wingers were PRO LIFE? I thought you believed that every life is precious? Unless you’re now making a DISCLAIMER as far as BLACK BABIES are concerned. (Channeling Bill Bennett, maybe?) Would you right wingers care to explain the 24.5% “white illegitimacy” rate alongside of the OVER 50% white divorce rate?
And to throw another log on the fire:
>>>"In the middle of the eighteenth century, over 40 percent of American women were pregnant at the time of their wedding."
>>>"Two-thirds
According to a 1996 California Department of Health and Human Services study, "two-thirds of the state's teenage mothers were victims of child abuse. What's more, nearly a quarter said they had been raped. Among those victims, the average age of the first attack was 12, and it was committed by an assailant – sometimes a friend or family member – who was 22."
<a href="http://www.pobronson.com/factbook/pages/225.html ">Facts on Birthrates</a>
It is perfectly within your right to post statistics with the purpose of disparaging and dehumanizing minorities. Just remember that in 2006, there are minorities around like MYSELF who will happily retaliate with statistics about America that most right winged conservatives will not appreciate.
--Cobra
Please stop pretending you know more about "Black History Month" than Americans who live through it every year.
I'd love an example of how Fox News is biased and CNN isn't. Fox News is hoodwinking... how? I don't think I'm the one who's been hoodwinked.
Calm down with the condescension, Cobra. You've already suggested I go to a community college, read up on European history and now about civil rights. Everythign I posted is a fact. The source you quoted wasn't from the 1996 California Department of Health and Human Services, it was posted on another site. CDHHS may have found that conclusion with some study, but I'm extremely suspect. Even in a liberal state like California those stats sound ridiculous.
However, if it is true, I can almost garauntee that live in boyfriends did most of the "attacking" on their girlfriend's daugther. That's usually the way it works. So my point is still taken. Promiscuity is a deceitful web and the black community has fallen victim to it.
If you suggest again that you're only here to enlighten us, I'll have to ban you. You're condescension is rancid.
No. Actually, I don't know EM. I like EM's posts however.
Now, you write:
>>>"Promiscuity is a deceitful web and the black community has fallen victim to it."
Now you accuse me of being condescending, and go and make a statement like that? Are you claiming that the "white community" doesn't engage in premarital or extramarital sex? The statistics don't support you.
--Cobra
No, Cobra, that's not what I'm saying. All I'm saying is that the black community is in a crisis with a 72% out of wedlock birth rate. The white stats are significantly lower, but I'm not comparing one race over another. Whites have sex out of wedlock, too. They aren't producing an entire illegitimate population, though.
If you're not acquainted on a daily basis with live in America, you're not going to get this. You're looking at pages on some web site and not the daily reality.
I don't have time to argue this today but stand by everything I've said.
Peace.
I think the idea here was to demonstrate that in 2006 the #1 problem plaguing the African American population in the US is not racism, but illegitimacy. The leading cause of poverty in the US is homes headed by a single parent, which in most cases is Mom. Whatever the historical causes of illegitimacy are, it not racism.
More than 80% of Africam American children were being raised by both parents in Harlem in 1925 (stats from Dr. Walter Williams), an astounding figure considering the oppression of Jim Crow at the time and relative liberties enjoyed by blacks now. It was not until the radical government intervention of LBJ's Great Society programs (a democratic party mega-initiative) in the lete 60s that the problem began to be exacerbated by the government subsidy of illegitimacy. It cannot be disproven that government assistance to unwed mothers has actually made the problem severely worse.
This is not a race issue, except to point out that the efforts of white liberals (and black leaders such as Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc...) have actually contributed to the demise of the African American family. If I were black, I would be very apprehensive about receiving this kind of 'help' from the democratic party.
"Please don't try to tell me that they are all victims of male rape."
No I didn't and won't say that, it is too radical and wrong to say ALL when we know nothing of the individual and their situation. I was simply offering something to consider. Some yes, all no. It is very nieve to say there is a one size fits all explanation.
"Of course the male has an equal responsibility."
My feeling is that men failed that responsibility FIRST because society not longer forced them to marry. Because of that failure, women had to assume both ends of their responsibility. I believe that was a burdon too much to bare for women who were not educated. To make matters worse, they had no access to birth control because the were NOT married to the man who impregnated them. I remember my mother telling me once that the best form of birth control was. "Put a quarter between your knees and hold it there." I'm glad I got educated!
Todays high rate of out of wedlock births is more directly affected by our cultural openness toward sex and less that of social programs. If social programs are the cause then why have the out of wedlock birth rates not decline with declining social program dollars?
"I found this statement a bit behind the power curve:"
What is a power curve?
"And, women are much more likely to be in an abusive relationship if it is sexual before marriage."
They are also less likely to become involved with an abusive man if they are educated. I do know a lot about this from personal experience.
"Please don't make it seem that women have no choices and that welfare, abortion, whatever is her only hope as a refuge from men."
In the same token don't deny that social programs are a steping stone for a woman to gain education and independance. In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Clearly not all women are as strong, self-reliant, and educated as you and I are. Sometimes it takes the assistance of our fellow citizens to help them get there.
Amy, main differnece between you and me is I would gladly spend a billion dollars to help educate these women rather than a billion on wars.
Johnny,
Because people are individuals reather than statistics, your assertion can not be proven either.