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!"))

People seem to forget the Civil Rights movement, and the treat the Kings endured from WHITE CONSERVATIVES like J. Edgar Hoover, Bull Connor, George Wallace, White Citizen's Councils and others. Thank GOD, there are people like Reverend Joseph Lowery to REMIND those who weren't around about it. Nobody's giving RFK a pass, but the FBI under HOOVER did those wiretaps and tried to blackmail and embarrass the King family. I sure you forget that.
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

I didn't see it myself, but the clips I've seen on the news and what I've read online makes me sick. I give Bush a lot of credit for not stooping to their level.

Just another case of kill the messenger when you don't like the message.

Two different Debs.

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.

Cobra,

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.

I am absolutely disgusted. I posted about it too! http://hooahwife.blogspot.com/2006/02/class-morals-politics.html

Another missed opportunity to bring a divided nation together. It is clear where the divisive rhetoric is coming from - but then, the democratic party apparently likes being identified as the disgruntled victimized minority. (Notice Clinton's apologist words about the Cartoon jihad referred to on www.michellemalkin.com)

The insultingly inappropriate behavior will backfire and drive moderate Dems more to the right.

Amy, you well know that the makeup of the political parties in the South has dramatically changed since the 1960s. I think the more telling numbers on the Civil Rights Act are those when you look at the breakdown of North and South.

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.

Sadly, this is a continued trend. The liberals politicise everything, as any good marxist does. This happens at funerals, it happens at Mass / Church services around the country. People gather to worship G-d, and honor the dead, and get politcal diatribe. The Lord and Mrs King got forgotten. But the Democrats got their message out. I guess that makes it alright then.

Cobra, your "numbers" dont' change anything I said above.

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.

CPT Tom, fellow Yankee Catholic, welcome! I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on liberals politicizing Mass/Church. My best friend and I talked at length yesterday (we're both pretty serious Catholics, not the cafeteria kind) about how the parishes we're in haven't instituted the GIRM. We're both military and move around and don't see the implementations.

Amy is right about the Repblicans stance on Civil rights. So why and how have Dems been the "champions" of the black community? It all goes back to the depression. FDR social programs and socialist govt has bought the black votes for decades. 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.

PS.... see how the new people add their URL or e-mail becuase they have nothing to hide? I've been reworking my rules of engagement this week and will have them posted by Friday.

Democrats do not know what maturity and decorum are.

Cobra, you are such a racist. How do you stand yourself?

The same thing happened at the Welford? funeral in Wisconsin? Anything to gain the stage illigitimately. Sounds familiar? Shameful. At the same time, a group called Code Pink harrasses military funerals and our Soldiers recovering from wounds while they were defending our country. No shame.

There are some things that are above Democrat/Republican. You are the one labeling comments as partisan attacks when, in fact, they were made by friends of Mrs. King in the capacity friends and fellow civil rights activists. President Carter and President Clinton were not there representing Democrats. President Bush was there representing the United States government and he should be exposed to public shame if he deserves it, and obviously most of the people in attendance thought that he did.

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.

EM, you can I am politicizing, I can say I'm not.... I'm just reporting the story with some commentary.

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.

There you go labeling again. Why would you say that I am a liberal and not American? I am, in fact, American. And, I don't pigeonhole myself as a "liberal" but it seems to me that anyone who disagrees with something you believe is (in your mind) a liberal.

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 can't really add onto what everyone has said, I agree completely that the Democrats behaved deplorably. What a sad shame.

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.

Mrs. King is an American hero and deserves to be eulogized as such. She personally sacrificed as much or more than almost any other American to advance the cause of American Civil Rights in her lifetime. That said, her views are her views (on the subjects of the war in Iraq, homosexual rights, etc...). They do not necessarily constitute moral perfection. The Kings were squarely on the right side of the Civil Rights issues. They were clearly wrong on the War in Viet Nam, and on this war as well. Although Dr. King was a Pacifist (with a caveat for self defense), it was necessary for him to hold that view with his employment of Mohatma Ghandi's philosophy of non-violent resistance which was the chief tactic of his protests. So what works to advance Civil Rights within our society doesn't necessarily adapt neatly to National Security.

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.

EM

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.

Amy, sounds like a good idea for a post. I have walked out of church during homilies (or rather "reflections") that are political. There is no excuse for that kind of stuff, considering that it is a captive audience and there is no opportunity for conversation or debate.

I believe the only people who have a right to denounce the eulogies are the family members of Coretta; after all it is the family who arranged for them to be there.

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.

Amy -- I believe this post to be very racist and offensive.... is that ok with YOU?

".....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"

Amy and CPT Tom, you have both said that only one third of the audience applauded Reverend Lowery. I don't doubt the truthiness of your statements, i.e. you feel them to be true, but if you look at your own video from Fox News it shows that at least half of the audience was standing and most of those not standing were applauding.

What difference does it make that half, a third or all were applauding? It is still self-aggrandizing political exploitation of a FUNERAL that is supposed to be a SOLEMN RELIGIOUS EVENT.

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.

EM, from the videos I have on my site, there are 1/3. However, the audience was largely African American and most are not Republicans. It shouldn't surprise anyone.

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.

EM, I understand that the Civil Rights movement was a very complex one. You’re alluding to Dixiecrats. Here’s a great opinion piece that is really worth reading. Here’s a few excerpts:

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.

EM

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.

It’s also interesting that it was a Republican President who kick started the Civil Rights legislative program in 1957. No civil rights act had been introduced into America for 82 years. (before Eisenhower introduced the 1975 Civil Rights bill)

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.

Deb, Johnny is my hubby and he is anything BUT a racist. His comments weren't offensive. He described the black community as handing down from generation to generation the "gift" of voting Democratic, which has actually worked against them.

Also, the out of wedlock birth rate is now up to 72% in the black community. Is THAT okay with YOU?

HI Johnny, thank you for your service to our nation!

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!

Deb, yes, you're right. I thought that was Johnny's quote. Johnny mentioned the 69% out of wedlock rate among blacks... it's 72%.

Anyway, I was wrong.

Thank you! I have great respect for those who admit when they are wrong.

Now, on the subject of the cause of out of wedlock births, what are your and Johnny's thoughts?

The rate is directly commensurate with the escaltion of LBJ's War On Poverty/Great Society programs that began in the 1960s. The capstone program was Aid For Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) which made fathering optional among the poor. The government paid women with children for Housing, food, health care and education as long as the wome