Laura Ingraham Frets: Liberals Are Trying To Act Like Martin Luther King Was Some Liberal Or Something

Amoebic dysentery vector Laura Ingraham celebrated the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom yesterday by chatting with Pat Buchanan about black-on-white crime, fretting that liberals were stealing the legacy of Martin Luther King, and cutting off a recording of a speech by civil rights hero John Lewis with the sound of a gunshot. But don't worry about that last one, it was only a joke!

Ingraham was very unhappy with Saturday's march celebrating the anniversary of the 1963 event, complaining that its goal "was to co-opt the legacy of Martin Luther King into a modern-day liberal agenda," because as everyone knows, Martin Luther King was really a conservative Republican who gave a beautiful anti-affirmative action speech that consisted of a single line about his dream that one day people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Ingraham also worried that speakers at the commemorative march were dragging in a whole lot of crazy liberal ideas that Martin Luther King would certainly have opposed:

"From gay marriage, to immigration -- amnesty, was thrown in for good measure. We talked about the Voting Rights Act."

Not entirely clear if the reference to the Voting Rights Act was one more of the things she considered extraneous; we'll just go with "yes," because why wouldn't she also assume that King would be fine with voter ID laws and gerrymandered redistricting?

Ingraham also invited Pat Buchanan on to explain that the real legacy of 1963 is that blacks today are doing race war on whites. The civil rights scholar

recounted being at the original March on Washington, reminding listeners that Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech wasn’t even covered by The Washington Post the next day. And he noted that while there were strides made during the civil rights era, it was still fraught with race riots and incendiary language from some black leaders, including Malcolm X.

It's that kind of important context that makes all the difference, isn't it?

Buchanan went on to suggest that King's legacy has largely been wasted; dogs across the nation reportedly howled in agony as he somehow managed to get through the following paragraph without actually using the terms "shiftless" or "uppity":

they have got to start to address the problem of black racism -- that is black-on-white assaults, rapes, robberies, attacks, murders. They occur … at eight times the rate of white-on-black attacks in the 2007 statistics. And since the black community is only one-fifth the size of the white community, that means it’s 40 times as likely to have these kinds of crimes come out of that community as the white community. And the black leadership, if it is leadership, has got to begin to address this outrage and this phenomenon.”

The highlight of Ingraham's broadcast was her complaint against Georgia congressman John Lewis, who never should have mentioned immigration reform because... well, it's just wrong to mention immigration reform in a discussion of civil rights, which really should be focused on how bad white people have it these days. Ingraham began playing a recording of Lewis's speech, which she then interrupted with a humorous sound effect:

For folks in the "never click on the video" contingent, that's a clip of Lewis saying

“We must say to the Congress, pass comprehensive immigration reform,” Lewis said. “It doesn’t make sense that millions of our people…”

Followed by a recording of a gunshot. Hahahaha, that there is some cutting-edge satire directed at a man who should know better than to say things that stir up trouble, since he got his skull fractured by Alabama state troopers at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma. Some people just never learn anything from history, do they?

 Comment reminder: Please reviewthe rules; we'd like to hope that we won't have to prune fantasies involving Ingraham or Buchanan getting shot or having their skulls fractured. We're allegedly better than that? Also, too, "with votes" is almost as tired and overused as "also, too." If you're feeling ragey, please apply some history nice-time as a corrective. 

[ MediaMatters / Daily Caller ]