Selma, Alabama, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, and Senate Democrats
Yes, I know, the regular readers of this space are growing weary of my harping about a former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle being third in line for the Presidency. But, based on last Sunday's events in Selma, Alabama and some quotes I read from the day, I cannot resist. If liberal extremists can beat lies to death, I can certainly beat the truth to death.
Anyway, yesterday, was the 42nd anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday", 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. The event was marked a few days earlier by Sens. Obama and Clinton, among others, as they participated in the annual, empty, shallow, reenactment of the original march. I describe the reenactment as such because none of the participants of the reenactment will say "Selma" for another 363 days.
During one of her speeches, Sen. Clinton mentioned that the civil and voting rights acts of the mid-60s and the Selma march were the catalysts for her, Sen. Obama and Gov. Richardson's (Richardson is a Hispanic American) run for the Presidency.
Well, for those scoring at home, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was personally filibustered by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D, WV), a former Ku Klux Klan member, for 14 hours and 13 minutes - still a Senate filibustering record - boy, he must have been really motivated! At least three times since 2001 and once since November 2006, Senate Democrats have elected Sen. Byrd as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, making him third in line of Presidential succession (Sen. Byrd would be second in line if liberal extremist, Bill Maher gets his wish and Vice President Cheney dies before a replacement is sworn in.)
Simply, did Sens. Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, who was in the Senate in 2001, and Biden and Dodd while we are at it) vote for Sen. Byrd?
Who are the political opportunists participating in reenactments that no longer provide any consequential effect other than glorifying the opportunists?
Do any of these Democrats have the courage to make a meaningful contribution to improving race relations in this Country and call for Senate Democrats to strip Sen. Byrd of his Pro Tempore position?
In absence of such a call, their flowery rhetoric is nothing more than a fantastic insult to all Americans.
The lack of curiosity of the liberal media is absolutely no surprise.
Yes, I know, the regular readers of this space are growing weary of my harping about a former Ku Klux Klan Kleagle being third in line for the Presidency. But, based on last Sunday's events in Selma, Alabama and some quotes I read from the day, I cannot resist. If liberal extremists can beat lies to death, I can certainly beat the truth to death.
Anyway, yesterday, was the 42nd anniversary of the "Bloody Sunday", 1965 civil rights march in Selma, Alabama. The event was marked a few days earlier by Sens. Obama and Clinton, among others, as they participated in the annual, empty, shallow, reenactment of the original march. I describe the reenactment as such because none of the participants of the reenactment will say "Selma" for another 363 days.
During one of her speeches, Sen. Clinton mentioned that the civil and voting rights acts of the mid-60s and the Selma march were the catalysts for her, Sen. Obama and Gov. Richardson's (Richardson is a Hispanic American) run for the Presidency.
Well, for those scoring at home, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was personally filibustered by Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D, WV), a former Ku Klux Klan member, for 14 hours and 13 minutes - still a Senate filibustering record - boy, he must have been really motivated! At least three times since 2001 and once since November 2006, Senate Democrats have elected Sen. Byrd as President Pro Tempore of the Senate, making him third in line of Presidential succession (Sen. Byrd would be second in line if liberal extremist, Bill Maher gets his wish and Vice President Cheney dies before a replacement is sworn in.)
Simply, did Sens. Clinton and Obama (and Edwards, who was in the Senate in 2001, and Biden and Dodd while we are at it) vote for Sen. Byrd?
Who are the political opportunists participating in reenactments that no longer provide any consequential effect other than glorifying the opportunists?
Do any of these Democrats have the courage to make a meaningful contribution to improving race relations in this Country and call for Senate Democrats to strip Sen. Byrd of his Pro Tempore position?
In absence of such a call, their flowery rhetoric is nothing more than a fantastic insult to all Americans.
The lack of curiosity of the liberal media is absolutely no surprise.
posted by Zack at 5:37 PM
4 Comments:
I have chimed in on this topic several times before. I am as perplexed as you are regarding Byrd's stature within the halls of Congress. Really, it's disgraceful and unbelievable that he's gotten an indefinite free pass, and from both sides of the aisle no less.
ROC,
I'll stay on this issue as long as I write this blog.
Sen. Byrd is a very old man; he will die soon (a fact, not a wish; I'm not liberal extremist, Bill Maher after all). Who's going to say something nice at Sen. Byrd's funeral? Will the liberal media attack anyone that does? No, of course not.
The liberal media didn't care that liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black was ex-KKK either.
wouldn't you just love to hear Trent Lott's thoughts on this matter!
Anonymous,
Some where on this site I've re-produced Sen. Lott's comments from Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th Birthday party. Sen. Lott was just trying to be nice to a very old man. And he was crucified. In 1948, when Strom Thurmond was running for President, as a segregationist, he was a Democrat. My goodness, the facts always seem to trip up the Democrats.
Obviously, when I wrote above "who's going to say something nice at Sen. Byrd's funeral, I was definitely making reference to Sen. Lott.
Sen. Byrd was/is KKK. He voted against Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas. He filibustered the 64 Act for 14 hours. He used the n-word twice in a televised interview in 2001 and defended the use in the same interview. Senate Democrats think he should be Pro Tempore.
We are not yet serious about improving race relations in this Country.
Post a Comment
<< Home