, , , , , ,

screen-shot-2017-01-15-at-2-49-56-pmHoo Boy. Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) threw the unprovoked first punch on Meet The Press on 01-15-17:

Chuck Todd: You have forged a relationship with many presidents. Do you plan on forging a relationship with Donald Trump?

Rep. John Lewis: I believe in forgiveness. I believe in trying to work with people. It’s going to be hard. It’s going to be very difficult. I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.

Todd: You do not consider him a legitimate president?

Lewis: No.

Todd: Why is that?

Lewis: I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don’t plan to attend the inauguration. It would be the first one that I miss since I’ve been in the Congress. You cannot be at home with something that you feel that is wrong.

Todd: That is going to send a big message to a lot of people in this country, that you don’t believe he’s a legitimate president.

Lewis: I think there was a conspiracy on the part of the Russians and others to help him get elected. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open, democratic process.

Perhaps it would be useful to see what a Democrat colleague of Rep. Lewis recently had to say on this topic:


There you have it: Rep. Lewis must be a direct threat to our democracy!  Hillary wouldn’t have said it if it wasn’t true.  That’s why she’s president toda…ooops.  It may also be useful to recall the advice of soon-to-be-former President Barack Obama and his functionaries:

If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,’ Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.


…doesn’t President Obama’s rhetoric about ‘get in their face’ and White House advice to ‘punch back twice as hard’ justify disrupting Obama’s public events?

Obviously, Mr. Trump was merely following Mr. Obama’s advice on tactics, so it must be cool, right?  The author of that article wasn’t actually advocating disrupting Mr. Obama’s events, but using a rhetorical question to point out Mr. Obama’s–and other Democrat’s–hypocrisy. And as one might expect, Mr. Trump did punch back, though in a rather restrained way:




Also as one might imagine, Mr. Trump’s tweets have raised a media firestorm. How dare Trump respond to ‘civil rights icon” John Lewis?! How dare he utter anything but praise for a holy near-martyr of the civil rights movement? How dare Trump say anything less than laudatory about a black person? Racist! Oh, and Trump was right about Lewis’ district. It’s a substantial portion of Atlanta.  Notice too how Mr. Trump extended a hand to Rep. Lewis.

Actually, Kurt Schlichter got it right:


A quick history update, March 7, 1965: Lewis was part of a protest march at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, AL, a day that became known as “Bloody Sunday.” He was beaten, as Schlichter notes, that day by Democrats. Lewis was indeed a part of the civil rights movement, a movement that was, thankfully, successful and achieved its goals, but for old race warriors like Lewis, that wasn’t enough.

Circa 2017, actual racists are rare and are justly social pariahs, unwelcome in polite society, but that too, isn’t enough. On March 20, 2010, Lewis and several other black members of Congress went trolling for headlines by walking through a Tea Party protest at the capital. Afterward, they claimed they have been spat on, and called “nigger.” Much of the media gladly accepted it, after all, civil rights icon John Lewis was claiming it was true! Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. Tea Party demonstrations were, in those days, uniformly pleasant and calm events, the demonstrators always picking up trash and leaving the place of their protests cleaner than when they arrived. They were also uniformly polite and pleasant, even to those that disagreed with them.

Brietbart.com, among others, searched for video and audio of the supposed racial attack, and found a great deal of it. What they did not find is any evidence of spitting, name-calling, or even the least hostility to the black members of Congress who were seen to walk, unimpeded and unflustered, through the demonstration. Brietbart even put up $100,000.00 to be donated to the United Negro College fund if anyone could produce video or audiotape confirming the allegations of racism made by Lewis and his colleagues. It remains unclaimed today.

John Lewis did make a contribution to a better America–50 years ago–and his efforts bore fruit. For that, he has been praised for a half century. However, neither that, nor his race, excuses him from bad behavior today, nor does it render anything he has to say out of bounds. He is a U.S. Representative. If he can’t stand public criticism, he can resign, or at the least he shouldn’t call the duly elected President of the United States illegitimate, nor should he, or anyone, think to claim immunity from criticism because he’s black. We’re all responsible for our words and actions, in the past, today, and in the future.

Democrats are going to have to get used to a president that doesn’t take their lies and abuse lying down. Donald Trump was elected president in part because he is willing to aggressively confront the self-imagined elite that gratuitously attack America and Americans. When he takes on the press and race baiters like Lewis, much of America cheers, and rightfully so.

As the 2010 incident demonstrates, none are perfect, but at the end of eight years of heightened racial tensions, Lewis should be seeking comity rather than questioning the legitimacy of the outcome of a president election about which there is no legitimate reason to suspect foul play.

But Russia was spying on us! They tried to influence our politics! Russia always spies on us and tries to influence our politics. Democrats are only concerned now because it’s a convenient excuse for their near total loss of power. Russia threatening national security? No problem. Russia threatening Democrat power? Big problem.

Lewis did good things for the nation a long time ago. Now, he’s causing unnecessary and gratuitous damage in the name of the Democrat party and racial strife.

Considering it was the Democrat party, 50 years ago, that was the party of racial hatred, that’s ironically appropriate. The names change, but Democrats keep the racial pot stirred.