Discussion:
Trump does not have a reconciliation problem - he has an interference problem from the existing order Re: Trump-Lewis feud could be harbinger of new round of hyper-partisanship
(too old to reply)
lo yeeOn
2017-01-19 00:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights was
absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of this
country.

As a matter of fact, it has since become known that John Lewis also
boycotted G W Bush's 2001 inauguration, about which John Lewis now
claims amnesia. (His reasoning apparently had more to do with the
election, and therefore partisanship, than anything else about Bush.)

John Lewis made a great contribution to the Civil Right Movement of
America and helped to continue to right a wrong committed against our
African American brothers and sisters - after the work of Abraham
Lincoln.

But John Lewis has forgotten that the journey of righting that
mega-sized wrong is far from finished. We need only see the lots of
our African American brothers and sisters today to know.

John Lewis mistakenly thinks that he is entitled to wear that halo
called the "last standing civil right leader" and just sits and coos.

But John Lewis is wrong on many counts. First, Andy Young, one of the
civil rights leaders who was a close aide of Martin Luther King, Jr.,
is still alive. Second, I have seen him repeatedly value his
relationship with the Democratic Party leadership more than the
progressive cause. And there is Harry Belafonte, who has strongly
opposed the Iraq War. So the MSM and the powers-that-be aren't
mentioning others active in the Civil Rights Movement than John Lewis
because John Lewis is serving a useful purpose as the few who are
pliantly supporting Washington's insiders - the existing order - and
their foreign policy.)

I remember John Lewis going around at a crucial moment last year to
question Bernie Sanders' involvement in the Civil Rights Movement,
repeating saying something like "I saw Bill and Hillary at the civil
rights protests but didn't see Bernie Sanders there".

Well, Bernie Sanders represented the progressive cause and I voted for
him in the primary. Yet my vote was never counted. While my vote
would not have meant anything, tens of thousands of similar Sanders
votes that were not counted cannot be ignored. And John Lewis himself
contributed to the loss of the presidential election because of what
he and other Democratic party elites ignominiously did in sticking to
a less-than-progressive, less-than-desirable candidate in the general
election.

What was John Lewis thinking, if he attended G W Bush's second
inaugural, after Bush knowingly killed so many Muslims in the Middle
East with his fraudulent wars?

What was John Lewis thinking when he completely ignored Hillary's role
in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya? Didn't he know
that Gaddafi helped many of the poor in various African countries with
his pan-African policy that also befriended a much bigger and more
significant country as far away on the continent as South Africa?

But all John Lewis cared about was being close to Nancy Pelosi and
other Democratic Party elites, while ignoring that African youths are
not getting an education or having a job.

So, it is inaccurate to characterize the "feud" as all innocent on
Lewis' part. According to the BBC News:

Mr Lewis, a revered member of the 1960s struggle, sparked
controversy on Friday when he called Mr Trump's victory illegitimate
because of Russia's alleged interference in the election.

Trump is put in a position in which he cannot remain silent when
someone with influence like Lewis is participating in a rumor which
accuses him of working for Volodya, instead of the American people.

Why Trump is in such a position is because the existing order in
Washington is doing everything it can to stop him, despite his win.

Keep in mind that John McCain is the one who brought that despicable
anti-Trump dossier to the FBI chief Comey and demanded that he made an
assessment about it. And the Democrats have consistently blame Putin
for Hillary's election loss.

To understand why McCain's active role in this, we can listen to Ron
Paul Institue's executive director Daniel McAdams:

We should be clear what McCain's role was in this. McCain is a
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an extraordinary
powerful individual in Washington DC.

McCain just today released his own new defense budget: five years -
five trillion dollar defense budget; a lot of that is aimed at
Russia. It is great for the American military-industrial complex,
which is what keeps John McCain in office. So that is one of the
reasons he does this. One of the reasons why he cannot stand Donald
Trump and he could not stand to have any change in Washington's
anti-Russia policies... If anyone is hurting American democracy,
it's people like John McCain and whoever hired this person to dig up
this supposed dirt to create this dirt...

They've created the narrative that Trump is somehow in the pay of
the Russians.

Again, John Lewis is entitled to boycott anything he wants. But he
chose to do things that have diminished his own credibility as a
leader of the African American community, by mindlessly invoking
unsubstantiated accusations against the president-elect that smacks
appeasement of the powers that be rather than virtue.

John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.

So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.

As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters. It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.

lo yeeOn
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping
his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the
election results," Trump wrote in two tweets. "All talk, talk, talk
no action or results. Sad!"
Late Saturday evening, Trump continued to hammer Lewis in a third tweet.
"Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime
infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
Trump wrote.
Trump's comments were all the more charged as they came at the start
of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend and were seen as
dismissive of Lewis's work in the civil right movement, a time when he
was subjected to arrest and assault. Adding to the racial overtones is
the disparagement of Lewis’s district, which is majority black, as
“crime infested.”
The incident has left Democrats and Republicans bracing themselves for
yet another showdown between the president and his political opponents
— one that threatens to usher in a new era of the kind of crippling
hyper-partisanship that often characterized the eight years of the Obama
administration."
lo yeeOn
2017-01-20 06:50:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights
were absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of
this country.

As a matter of fact, it has since become known that John Lewis also
boycotted G W Bush's 2001 inauguration, about which John Lewis now
claims amnesia. (His reasoning apparently had more to do with the
election, and therefore partisanship, than anything else about Bush.)

John Lewis made a great contribution to the Civil Rights Movement of
America in the last century. Let no-one forget that the Civil Rights
Movement helped to continue to right a wrong committed against our
African American brothers and sisters - long after the unfinished work
of Abraham Lincoln and others in that era.

But John Lewis has forgotten that the journey of righting that
mega-sized wrong is far from finished. We need only see the lot of
our African American brothers and sisters today to know.

John Lewis mistakenly thinks that he is entitled to wear that halo
called the "last standing civil right leader" and just sits and coos.

As it happens, John Lewis is wrong on many counts.

First, Andy Young, one of the civil rights leaders who was a close
aide of Martin Luther King, Jr., is still alive.

And there is Harry Belafonte, who has consistently and strongly
opposed the Iraq War. (If the MSM and the powers-that-be aren't
mentioning others active in the Civil Rights Movement than John Lewis,
maybe it's because John Lewis is serving a useful purpose as the few
who are pliantly supporting Washington's Democratic party leaders -
the insiders and the existing order - and their deceptive foreign
policy.)

Second, I have seen him repeatedly value his relationship with the
Democratic Party leadership more than the progressive cause.

John Lewis is more concerned with his relationship with the party
establishment than with the African American community at large which
has needed his leadership the most. But I remember him going around
at a crucial moment last year to question Bernie Sanders' involvement
in the Civil Rights Movement - repeatedly saying something like "I saw
Bill and Hillary at the civil rights protests but didn't see Bernie
Sanders there" - despite evidence of Bernie Sanders' overt activism to
the contrary.

It is indeed terribly ironic that despite John Lewis' belief,

Bernie Sanders was volunteering with the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) and getting arrested in Chicago during a demonstration.
Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican and volunteering with Barry
Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Bernie Sanders was the leader of the University of Chicago chapter
of CORE and as early as 1961 was leading sit-ins to protest racial
discrimination in the university's housing policy --- the first
sit-ins to take place in the North. He also led a protest of a
Howard Johnson's restaurant in Chicago for the chain's refusal to
adopt a non-discriminatory policy in the South. In 1963 Sanders was
arrested and convicted of resisting arrest after a protest of the
city's segregationist policies in its public schools. And, also in
1963, Sanders attended the March on Washington which featured
leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr and John Lewis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-harris-jr/why-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement_b_9415736.html

Well, in fact, Bernie Sanders represented the progressive cause and I
voted for him in the primary. Yet my vote was never counted due to
corruption of the Democratic party which John Lewis has been
consistently eager to please. But while my vote would not have meant
anything, tens of thousands of similar Sanders votes that were not
counted cannot be ignored. Yet all that mattered to John Lewis was to
ensure the nomination of Hillary Clinton, an ambitious career
politician who is the antithesis of a progressive candidate.

Indeed John Lewis himself contributed to the loss of the presidential
election because of what he and other Democratic party elites
ignominiously did in sticking to a less-than-progressive,
less-than-desirable candidate in the general election.

Third, what has John Lewis been doing to improve the lives of African
Americans in the decades since he marched with Martin Luther King,
Jr. and other civil rights activists? If John Lewis is a leader of
the African Americans, he has been missing in action for decades in an
age when few of them go to college while a disproportionate number of
them go to jail and are in a perennial state of unemployment.

And what was John Lewis thinking, if he attended G W Bush's second
inaugural, after Bush knowingly killed so many Muslims in the Middle
East with his fraudulent wars?

John Lewis should have learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. who
actively opposed the Vietnam war and saw his opposition as a logical
extension of his civil rights advocacy. MLK Jr was a vocal opponent
of the war even though established leaders of the time, whose
assistance he might really find helpful, were pro-war. John Lewis
should have recognized at the least how discriminatory wars are.
Poor families are over-represented among our soldiers, and every one
of our soliders who has fallen in Iraq was a life needlessly thrown
away, and left a family with a needless tragedy.

What was John Lewis thinking when he completely ignored Hillary's role
in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya?

Didn't he know that Gaddafi helped many of the poor in various African
countries with his pan-African policy that also befriended a much
bigger and more significant country as far away on the continent as
South Africa?

But all John Lewis cared about was being close to Nancy Pelosi and
other Democratic Party elites, while ignoring the African-American
youths not getting an education nor having a job.

So, it is inaccurate to characterize the "feud" as all innocent on
Lewis' part. According to the BBC News:

Mr Lewis, a revered member of the 1960s struggle, sparked
controversy on Friday when he called Mr Trump's victory illegitimate
because of Russia's alleged interference in the election.

Trump is put in a position in which he cannot remain silent when
someone with influence like Lewis is participating in a rumor which
accuses him of working for Volodya, instead of the American people.

Why Trump is in such a position is because the existing order in
Washington is doing everything it can to stop him, despite his win.

Keep in mind that John McCain is the one who brought that despicable
anti-Trump dossier to the FBI chief Comey and demanded that he make an
assessment of it. And the Democrats have consistently blamed Putin
for Hillary's election loss.

To understand why McCain's active role in this, we can listen to Ron
Paul Institue's executive director Daniel McAdams:

We should be clear what McCain's role was in this. McCain is a
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an extraordinary
powerful individual in Washington DC.

McCain just today released his own new defense budget: five years -
five trillion dollar defense budget; a lot of that is aimed at
Russia. It is great for the American military-industrial complex,
which is what keeps John McCain in office. So that is one of the
reasons he does this. One of the reasons why he cannot stand Donald
Trump and he could not stand to have any change in Washington's
anti-Russia policies... If anyone is hurting American democracy,
it's people like John McCain and whoever hired this person to dig up
this supposed dirt to create this dirt...

They've created the narrative that Trump is somehow in the pay of
the Russians.

Again, John Lewis is entitled to boycott anything he wants.

But he has chosen to do things that have diminished his own
credibility as a leader of the African American community, by
mindlessly invoking unsubstantiated accusations against the
president-elect that smacks appeasement of the powers that be rather
than virtue.

John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.

So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.

As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters. It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.

lo yeeOn
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping
his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the
election results," Trump wrote in two tweets. "All talk, talk, talk
no action or results. Sad!"
Late Saturday evening, Trump continued to hammer Lewis in a third tweet.
"Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime
infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
Trump wrote.
Trump's comments were all the more charged as they came at the start
of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend and were seen as
dismissive of Lewis's work in the civil right movement, a time when he
was subjected to arrest and assault. Adding to the racial overtones is
the disparagement of Lewis’s district, which is majority black, as
“crime infested.”
The incident has left Democrats and Republicans bracing themselves for
yet another showdown between the president and his political opponents
— one that threatens to usher in a new era of the kind of crippling
hyper-partisanship that often characterized the eight years of the Obama
administration."
lo yeeOn
2017-01-20 19:36:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights was
absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of this
country.
...
John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.
So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.
As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters: It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.
Reconciliation is not Trump's problem, it is America's problem. If one
said John Lewis is a bound man like Obama per Shelby Steele, I certainly
would not disagree. But the issue is Trump does not have to behave like
some kind of "bound man."
You (or your source) said, and I quote:
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.

"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would
temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened
to widen the rift between the two parties.

Thus sombody is suggesting Trump needs to act in such a way that
extant division or antagony between the "two parties", viz., Trump and
anti-Trump, may have a chance to "temporarily ease" but his "feud"
with John Lewis "threatend to widen the rift between the two parties".

So you can understand that it is precise such a statement that was the
basis of my response.

Trump was not behaving "like some kind of `bound man'". Trump was
merely acting as a counter puncher and reacted only when he had to.

Trump has enormous opposition from the Establishment, the neocons, and
the "Deep State". That is clear!

When people continue to push garbage around in the public in an
attempt to weaken his popular support and derail his presidency, he,
understandably, sees that he must respond. Trump had to respond to
Rep. John Lewis just as he had to respond to Captain Khan's father
because what they did and accused Trump of was to help people like
John McCain and Hillary Clinton to do the work for the neocons, which
is "carnage" (abroad and at home) for America.

lo yeeOn

------------------------------------------------

[My corrected post attached below for clarity and completion]
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights
were absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of
this country.

As a matter of fact, it has since become known that John Lewis also
boycotted G W Bush's 2001 inauguration, about which John Lewis now
claims amnesia. (His reasoning apparently had more to do with the
election, and therefore partisanship, than anything else about Bush.)

John Lewis made a great contribution to the Civil Rights Movement of
America in the last century. Let no-one forget that the Civil Rights
Movement helped to continue to right a wrong committed against our
African American brothers and sisters - long after the unfinished work
of Abraham Lincoln and others in that era.

But John Lewis has forgotten that the journey of righting that
mega-sized wrong is far from finished. We need only see the lot of
our African American brothers and sisters today to know.

John Lewis mistakenly thinks that he is entitled to wear that halo
called the "last standing civil right leader" and just sits and coos.

As it happens, John Lewis is wrong on many counts.

First, Andy Young, one of the civil rights leaders who was a close
aide of Martin Luther King, Jr., is still alive.

And there is Harry Belafonte, who has consistently and strongly
opposed the Iraq War. (If the MSM and the powers-that-be aren't
mentioning others active in the Civil Rights Movement than John Lewis,
maybe it's because John Lewis is serving a useful purpose as the few
who are pliantly supporting Washington's Democratic party leaders -
the insiders and the existing order - and their deceptive foreign
policy.)

Second, I have seen him repeatedly value his relationship with the
Democratic Party leadership more than the progressive cause.

John Lewis is more concerned with his relationship with the party
establishment than with the African American community at large which
has needed his leadership the most. But I remember him going around
at a crucial moment last year to question Bernie Sanders' involvement
in the Civil Rights Movement - repeatedly saying something like "I saw
Bill and Hillary at the civil rights protests but didn't see Bernie
Sanders there" - despite evidence of Bernie Sanders' overt activism to
the contrary.

It is indeed terribly ironic that despite John Lewis' belief,

Bernie Sanders was volunteering with the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) and getting arrested in Chicago during a demonstration.
Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican and volunteering with Barry
Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Bernie Sanders was the leader of the University of Chicago chapter
of CORE and as early as 1961 was leading sit-ins to protest racial
discrimination in the university's housing policy --- the first
sit-ins to take place in the North. He also led a protest of a
Howard Johnson's restaurant in Chicago for the chain's refusal to
adopt a non-discriminatory policy in the South. In 1963 Sanders was
arrested and convicted of resisting arrest after a protest of the
city's segregationist policies in its public schools. And, also in
1963, Sanders attended the March on Washington which featured
leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr and John Lewis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-harris-jr/why-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement_b_9415736.html

Well, in fact, Bernie Sanders represented the progressive cause and I
voted for him in the primary. Yet my vote was never counted due to
corruption of the Democratic party which John Lewis has been
consistently eager to please. But while my vote would not have meant
anything, tens of thousands of similar Sanders votes that were not
counted cannot be ignored. Yet all that mattered to John Lewis was to
ensure the nomination of Hillary Clinton, an ambitious career
politician who is the antithesis of a progressive candidate.

Indeed John Lewis himself contributed to the loss of the presidential
election because of what he and other Democratic party elites
ignominiously did in sticking to a less-than-progressive,
less-than-desirable candidate in the general election.

Third, what has John Lewis been doing to improve the lives of African
Americans in the decades since he marched with Martin Luther King,
Jr. and other civil rights activists? If John Lewis is a leader of
the African Americans, he has been missing in action for decades in an
age when few of them go to college while a disproportionate number of
them go to jail and are in a perennial state of unemployment.

And what was John Lewis thinking, if he attended G W Bush's second
inaugural, after Bush knowingly killed so many Muslims in the Middle
East with his fraudulent wars?

John Lewis should have learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. who
actively opposed the Vietnam war and saw his opposition as a logical
extension of his civil rights advocacy. MLK Jr was a vocal opponent
of the war even though established leaders of the time, whose
assistance he might really find helpful, were pro-war. John Lewis
should have recognized at the least how discriminatory wars are.
Poor families are over-represented among our soldiers, and every one
of our soliders who has fallen in Iraq was a life needlessly thrown
away, and left a family with a needless tragedy.

What was John Lewis thinking when he completely ignored Hillary's role
in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya?

Didn't he know that Gaddafi helped many of the poor in various African
countries with his pan-African policy that also befriended a much
bigger and more significant country as far away on the continent as
South Africa?

But all John Lewis cared about was being close to Nancy Pelosi and
other Democratic Party elites, while ignoring the African-American
youths not getting an education nor having a job.

So, it is inaccurate to characterize the "feud" as all innocent on
Lewis' part. According to the BBC News:

Mr Lewis, a revered member of the 1960s struggle, sparked
controversy on Friday when he called Mr Trump's victory illegitimate
because of Russia's alleged interference in the election.

Trump is put in a position in which he cannot remain silent when
someone with influence like Lewis is participating in a rumor which
accuses him of working for Volodya, instead of the American people.

Why Trump is in such a position is because the existing order in
Washington is doing everything it can to stop him, despite his win.

Keep in mind that John McCain is the one who brought that despicable
anti-Trump dossier to the FBI chief Comey and demanded that he make an
assessment of it. And the Democrats have consistently blamed Putin
for Hillary's election loss.

To understand why McCain's active role in this, we can listen to Ron
Paul Institue's executive director Daniel McAdams:

We should be clear what McCain's role was in this. McCain is a
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an extraordinary
powerful individual in Washington DC.

McCain just today released his own new defense budget: five years -
five trillion dollar defense budget; a lot of that is aimed at
Russia. It is great for the American military-industrial complex,
which is what keeps John McCain in office. So that is one of the
reasons he does this. One of the reasons why he cannot stand Donald
Trump and he could not stand to have any change in Washington's
anti-Russia policies... If anyone is hurting American democracy,
it's people like John McCain and whoever hired this person to dig up
this supposed dirt to create this dirt...

They've created the narrative that Trump is somehow in the pay of
the Russians.

Again, John Lewis is entitled to boycott anything he wants.

But he has chosen to do things that have diminished his own
credibility as a leader of the African American community, by
mindlessly invoking unsubstantiated accusations against the
president-elect that smacks appeasement of the powers that be rather
than virtue.

John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.

So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.

As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters. It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.

lo yeeOn
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping
his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the
election results," Trump wrote in two tweets. "All talk, talk, talk
no action or results. Sad!"
Late Saturday evening, Trump continued to hammer Lewis in a third tweet.
"Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime
infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
Trump wrote.
Trump's comments were all the more charged as they came at the start
of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend and were seen as
dismissive of Lewis's work in the civil right movement, a time when he
was subjected to arrest and assault. Adding to the racial overtones is
the disparagement of Lewis’s district, which is majority black, as
“crime infested.”
The incident has left Democrats and Republicans bracing themselves for
yet another showdown between the president and his political opponents
— one that threatens to usher in a new era of the kind of crippling
hyper-partisanship that often characterized the eight years of the Obama
administration."
lo yeeOn
2017-01-21 22:47:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
All employees in a company or a government can choose to be reactive.
Sometimes they have to. The CEO or the president, however, must
demonstrate he could be proactive. In the case of Obama and John Lewis,
they are bound in the sense that they have to act a certain way to
please the white folks to join the club. Is Trump also a bound man
because he has little or no idea on how to run the US government for the
greater good?
Thank you for your clarification. But it is so insulting to say that
black leaders "have to act a certain way to please the white folks to
join the club" because, for one thing, it would be a sure sign that
they cannot be trusted to do the right thing for their people, and
therefore all the people in this country. And for another, while
Rep. Lewis might not have asserted leadership for the African American
community at large, Trump see it his duty to lead all the people of
the United States. And he can't when Rep. Lewis insinuates that he is
illegit and that he is an agent of Russia.

And what factual basis does Rep. Lewis have to make such a spurious
accusation against President Trump? None, other than believing a pile
of dubious say-sos by the spies - people with little reputation on
credibility, at least since the WMD lies that allowed the warmongers
of Washington to go to war, kill a lot of people, destroy our economy,
and accrue a growing debt that is now nearly 20 trillion. Are these
spies what a leader of the oppressed African American community wants
to associate himself with?

Bob Woodward of the Watergate fame has denounced the "Trump dossier"
as garbage. Rightly so. Therefore Rep. Lewis has been pushing around
garbage in the public arena for pure partisanship. And Trump needed
to respond, lest that the stench will stick.

I wouldn't judge Trump at this early stage and I continue to believe
that he had no choice in how he responded to Rep. Lewis.

lo yeeOn
Post by lo yeeOn
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights was
absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of this
country.
...
John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.
So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.
As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters: It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.
Reconciliation is not Trump's problem, it is America's problem. If one
said John Lewis is a bound man like Obama per Shelby Steele, I certainly
would not disagree. But the issue is Trump does not have to behave like
some kind of "bound man."
You (or your source) said, and I quote:
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.

"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would
temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened
to widen the rift between the two parties.

Thus sombody is suggesting Trump needs to act in such a way that
extant division or antagony between the "two parties", viz., Trump and
anti-Trump, may have a chance to "temporarily ease" but his "feud"
with John Lewis "threatend to widen the rift between the two parties".

So you can understand that it is precisely such a statement that was
the basis of my response.

Trump was not behaving "like some kind of `bound man'". Trump was
merely acting as a counter puncher and reacted only when he had to.

Trump has enormous opposition from the Establishment, the neocons, and
the "Deep State". That is clear!

When people continue to push garbage around in the public in an
attempt to weaken his popular support and derail his presidency, he,
understandably, sees that he must respond. Trump had to respond to
Rep. John Lewis just as he had to respond to Captain Khan's father
because what they did and accused Trump of was to help people like
John McCain and Hillary Clinton to do the work for the neocons, which
is "carnage" (abroad and at home) for America.

lo yeeOn

------------------------------------------------

[My corrected post attached below for clarity and completeness]
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights
were absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of
this country.

As a matter of fact, it has since become known that John Lewis also
boycotted G W Bush's 2001 inauguration, about which John Lewis now
claims amnesia. (His reasoning apparently had more to do with the
election, and therefore partisanship, than anything else about Bush.)

John Lewis made a great contribution to the Civil Rights Movement of
America in the last century. Let no-one forget that the Civil Rights
Movement helped to continue to right a wrong committed against our
African American brothers and sisters - long after the unfinished work
of Abraham Lincoln and others in that era.

But John Lewis has forgotten that the journey of righting that
mega-sized wrong is far from finished. We need only see the lot of
our African American brothers and sisters today to know.

John Lewis mistakenly thinks that he is entitled to wear that halo
called the "last standing civil right leader" and just sits and coos.

As it happens, John Lewis is wrong on many counts.

First, Andy Young, one of the civil rights leaders who was a close
aide of Martin Luther King, Jr., is still alive.

And there is Harry Belafonte, who has consistently and strongly
opposed the Iraq War. (If the MSM and the powers-that-be aren't
mentioning others active in the Civil Rights Movement than John Lewis,
maybe it's because John Lewis is serving a useful purpose as the few
who are pliantly supporting Washington's Democratic party leaders -
the insiders and the existing order - and their deceptive foreign
policy.)

Second, I have seen him repeatedly value his relationship with the
Democratic Party leadership more than the progressive cause.

John Lewis is more concerned with his relationship with the party
establishment than with the African American community at large which
has needed his leadership the most. But I remember him going around
at a crucial moment last year to question Bernie Sanders' involvement
in the Civil Rights Movement - repeatedly saying something like "I saw
Bill and Hillary at the civil rights protests but didn't see Bernie
Sanders there" - despite evidence of Bernie Sanders' overt activism to
the contrary.

It is indeed terribly ironic that despite John Lewis' belief,

Bernie Sanders was volunteering with the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) and getting arrested in Chicago during a demonstration.
Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican and volunteering with Barry
Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Bernie Sanders was the leader of the University of Chicago chapter
of CORE and as early as 1961 was leading sit-ins to protest racial
discrimination in the university's housing policy --- the first
sit-ins to take place in the North. He also led a protest of a
Howard Johnson's restaurant in Chicago for the chain's refusal to
adopt a non-discriminatory policy in the South. In 1963 Sanders was
arrested and convicted of resisting arrest after a protest of the
city's segregationist policies in its public schools. And, also in
1963, Sanders attended the March on Washington which featured
leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr and John Lewis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-harris-jr/why-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement_b_9415736.html

Well, in fact, Bernie Sanders represented the progressive cause and I
voted for him in the primary. Yet my vote was never counted due to
corruption of the Democratic party which John Lewis has been
consistently eager to please. But while my vote would not have meant
anything, tens of thousands of similar Sanders votes that were not
counted cannot be ignored. Yet all that mattered to John Lewis was to
ensure the nomination of Hillary Clinton, an ambitious career
politician who is the antithesis of a progressive candidate.

Indeed John Lewis himself contributed to the loss of the presidential
election because of what he and other Democratic party elites
ignominiously did in sticking to a less-than-progressive,
less-than-desirable candidate in the general election.

Third, what has John Lewis been doing to improve the lives of African
Americans in the decades since he marched with Martin Luther King,
Jr. and other civil rights activists? If John Lewis is a leader of
the African Americans, he has been missing in action for decades in an
age when few of them go to college while a disproportionate number of
them go to jail and are in a perennial state of unemployment.

And what was John Lewis thinking, if he attended G W Bush's second
inaugural, after Bush knowingly killed so many Muslims in the Middle
East with his fraudulent wars?

John Lewis should have learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. who
actively opposed the Vietnam war and saw his opposition as a logical
extension of his civil rights advocacy. MLK Jr was a vocal opponent
of the war even though established leaders of the time, whose
assistance he might really find helpful, were pro-war. John Lewis
should have recognized at the least how discriminatory wars are.
Poor families are over-represented among our soldiers, and every one
of our soliders who has fallen in Iraq was a life needlessly thrown
away, and left a family with a needless tragedy.

What was John Lewis thinking when he completely ignored Hillary's role
in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya?

Didn't he know that Gaddafi helped many of the poor in various African
countries with his pan-African policy that also befriended a much
bigger and more significant country as far away on the continent as
South Africa?

But all John Lewis cared about was being close to Nancy Pelosi and
other Democratic Party elites, while ignoring the African-American
youths not getting an education nor having a job.

So, it is inaccurate to characterize the "feud" as all innocent on
Lewis' part. According to the BBC News:

Mr Lewis, a revered member of the 1960s struggle, sparked
controversy on Friday when he called Mr Trump's victory illegitimate
because of Russia's alleged interference in the election.

Trump is put in a position in which he cannot remain silent when
someone with influence like Lewis is participating in a rumor which
accuses him of working for Volodya, instead of the American people.

Why Trump is in such a position is because the existing order in
Washington is doing everything it can to stop him, despite his win.

Keep in mind that John McCain is the one who brought that despicable
anti-Trump dossier to the FBI chief Comey and demanded that he make an
assessment of it. And the Democrats have consistently blamed Putin
for Hillary's election loss.

To understand why McCain's active role in this, we can listen to Ron
Paul Institue's executive director Daniel McAdams:

We should be clear what McCain's role was in this. McCain is a
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an extraordinary
powerful individual in Washington DC.

McCain just today released his own new defense budget: five years -
five trillion dollar defense budget; a lot of that is aimed at
Russia. It is great for the American military-industrial complex,
which is what keeps John McCain in office. So that is one of the
reasons he does this. One of the reasons why he cannot stand Donald
Trump and he could not stand to have any change in Washington's
anti-Russia policies... If anyone is hurting American democracy,
it's people like John McCain and whoever hired this person to dig up
this supposed dirt to create this dirt...

They've created the narrative that Trump is somehow in the pay of
the Russians.

Again, John Lewis is entitled to boycott anything he wants.

But he has chosen to do things that have diminished his own
credibility as a leader of the African American community, by
mindlessly invoking unsubstantiated accusations against the
president-elect that smacks appeasement of the powers that be rather
than virtue.

John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.

So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.

As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters. It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.

lo yeeOn
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping
his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the
election results," Trump wrote in two tweets. "All talk, talk, talk
no action or results. Sad!"
Late Saturday evening, Trump continued to hammer Lewis in a third tweet.
"Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime
infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
Trump wrote.
Trump's comments were all the more charged as they came at the start
of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend and were seen as
dismissive of Lewis's work in the civil right movement, a time when he
was subjected to arrest and assault. Adding to the racial overtones is
the disparagement of Lewis’s district, which is majority black, as
“crime infested.”
The incident has left Democrats and Republicans bracing themselves for
yet another showdown between the president and his political opponents
— one that threatens to usher in a new era of the kind of crippling
hyper-partisanship that often characterized the eight years of the Obama
administration."
lo yeeOn
2017-01-21 20:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by lo yeeOn
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights was
absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of this
country.
...
John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.
So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.
As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters: It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.
Reconciliation is not Trump's problem, it is America's problem. If one
said John Lewis is a bound man like Obama per Shelby Steele, I certainly
would not disagree. But the issue is Trump does not have to behave like
some kind of "bound man."
You (or your source) said, and I quote:
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.

"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.)
seemed to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would
temporarily ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened
to widen the rift between the two parties.

Thus sombody is suggesting Trump needs to act in such a way that
extant division or antagony between the "two parties", viz., Trump and
anti-Trump, may have a chance to "temporarily ease" but his "feud"
with John Lewis "threatend to widen the rift between the two parties".

So you can understand that it is precisely such a statement that was
the basis of my response.

Trump was not behaving "like some kind of `bound man'". Trump was
merely acting as a counter puncher and reacted only when he had to.

Trump has enormous opposition from the Establishment, the neocons, and
the "Deep State". That is clear!

When people continue to push garbage around in the public in an
attempt to weaken his popular support and derail his presidency, he,
understandably, sees that he must respond. Trump had to respond to
Rep. John Lewis just as he had to respond to Captain Khan's father
because what they did and accused Trump of was to help people like
John McCain and Hillary Clinton to do the work for the neocons, which
is "carnage" (abroad and at home) for America.

lo yeeOn

------------------------------------------------

[My corrected post attached below for clarity and completion]
Like "Nixon goes to China", Trump is in a position to reconcile with
black Americans. But he does not see it that way. The feud would only
strengthen extremist elements on both sides of the color divide.
"A public feud between Donald Trump and Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) seemed
to jettison any lingering hopes that the inauguration would temporarily
ease partisanship in Washington and instead threatened to widen the rift
between the two parties.
Lewis's assertion that Trump is not a "legitimate president" and his
announcement that he would skip Friday's inaugural ceremony prompted
the president-elect to sharply criticize the civil rights leader
Saturday morning.
Rep. John Lewis has every right to boycott the Trump inauguration and
he was courageous to stand with others at a time when civil rights
were absent for African Americans and other disadvantaged segments of
this country.

As a matter of fact, it has since become known that John Lewis also
boycotted G W Bush's 2001 inauguration, about which John Lewis now
claims amnesia. (His reasoning apparently had more to do with the
election, and therefore partisanship, than anything else about Bush.)

John Lewis made a great contribution to the Civil Rights Movement of
America in the last century. Let no-one forget that the Civil Rights
Movement helped to continue to right a wrong committed against our
African American brothers and sisters - long after the unfinished work
of Abraham Lincoln and others in that era.

But John Lewis has forgotten that the journey of righting that
mega-sized wrong is far from finished. We need only see the lot of
our African American brothers and sisters today to know.

John Lewis mistakenly thinks that he is entitled to wear that halo
called the "last standing civil right leader" and just sits and coos.

As it happens, John Lewis is wrong on many counts.

First, Andy Young, one of the civil rights leaders who was a close
aide of Martin Luther King, Jr., is still alive.

And there is Harry Belafonte, who has consistently and strongly
opposed the Iraq War. (If the MSM and the powers-that-be aren't
mentioning others active in the Civil Rights Movement than John Lewis,
maybe it's because John Lewis is serving a useful purpose as the few
who are pliantly supporting Washington's Democratic party leaders -
the insiders and the existing order - and their deceptive foreign
policy.)

Second, I have seen him repeatedly value his relationship with the
Democratic Party leadership more than the progressive cause.

John Lewis is more concerned with his relationship with the party
establishment than with the African American community at large which
has needed his leadership the most. But I remember him going around
at a crucial moment last year to question Bernie Sanders' involvement
in the Civil Rights Movement - repeatedly saying something like "I saw
Bill and Hillary at the civil rights protests but didn't see Bernie
Sanders there" - despite evidence of Bernie Sanders' overt activism to
the contrary.

It is indeed terribly ironic that despite John Lewis' belief,

Bernie Sanders was volunteering with the Congress of Racial Equality
(CORE) and getting arrested in Chicago during a demonstration.
Hillary Clinton was a Young Republican and volunteering with Barry
Goldwater, who voted against the Civil Rights Act.

Bernie Sanders was the leader of the University of Chicago chapter
of CORE and as early as 1961 was leading sit-ins to protest racial
discrimination in the university's housing policy --- the first
sit-ins to take place in the North. He also led a protest of a
Howard Johnson's restaurant in Chicago for the chain's refusal to
adopt a non-discriminatory policy in the South. In 1963 Sanders was
arrested and convicted of resisting arrest after a protest of the
city's segregationist policies in its public schools. And, also in
1963, Sanders attended the March on Washington which featured
leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr and John Lewis.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-harris-jr/why-bernie-sanders-civil-rights-movement_b_9415736.html

Well, in fact, Bernie Sanders represented the progressive cause and I
voted for him in the primary. Yet my vote was never counted due to
corruption of the Democratic party which John Lewis has been
consistently eager to please. But while my vote would not have meant
anything, tens of thousands of similar Sanders votes that were not
counted cannot be ignored. Yet all that mattered to John Lewis was to
ensure the nomination of Hillary Clinton, an ambitious career
politician who is the antithesis of a progressive candidate.

Indeed John Lewis himself contributed to the loss of the presidential
election because of what he and other Democratic party elites
ignominiously did in sticking to a less-than-progressive,
less-than-desirable candidate in the general election.

Third, what has John Lewis been doing to improve the lives of African
Americans in the decades since he marched with Martin Luther King,
Jr. and other civil rights activists? If John Lewis is a leader of
the African Americans, he has been missing in action for decades in an
age when few of them go to college while a disproportionate number of
them go to jail and are in a perennial state of unemployment.

And what was John Lewis thinking, if he attended G W Bush's second
inaugural, after Bush knowingly killed so many Muslims in the Middle
East with his fraudulent wars?

John Lewis should have learned from Martin Luther King, Jr. who
actively opposed the Vietnam war and saw his opposition as a logical
extension of his civil rights advocacy. MLK Jr was a vocal opponent
of the war even though established leaders of the time, whose
assistance he might really find helpful, were pro-war. John Lewis
should have recognized at the least how discriminatory wars are.
Poor families are over-represented among our soldiers, and every one
of our soliders who has fallen in Iraq was a life needlessly thrown
away, and left a family with a needless tragedy.

What was John Lewis thinking when he completely ignored Hillary's role
in the murder of Gaddafi and the destruction of Libya?

Didn't he know that Gaddafi helped many of the poor in various African
countries with his pan-African policy that also befriended a much
bigger and more significant country as far away on the continent as
South Africa?

But all John Lewis cared about was being close to Nancy Pelosi and
other Democratic Party elites, while ignoring the African-American
youths not getting an education nor having a job.

So, it is inaccurate to characterize the "feud" as all innocent on
Lewis' part. According to the BBC News:

Mr Lewis, a revered member of the 1960s struggle, sparked
controversy on Friday when he called Mr Trump's victory illegitimate
because of Russia's alleged interference in the election.

Trump is put in a position in which he cannot remain silent when
someone with influence like Lewis is participating in a rumor which
accuses him of working for Volodya, instead of the American people.

Why Trump is in such a position is because the existing order in
Washington is doing everything it can to stop him, despite his win.

Keep in mind that John McCain is the one who brought that despicable
anti-Trump dossier to the FBI chief Comey and demanded that he make an
assessment of it. And the Democrats have consistently blamed Putin
for Hillary's election loss.

To understand why McCain's active role in this, we can listen to Ron
Paul Institue's executive director Daniel McAdams:

We should be clear what McCain's role was in this. McCain is a
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, an extraordinary
powerful individual in Washington DC.

McCain just today released his own new defense budget: five years -
five trillion dollar defense budget; a lot of that is aimed at
Russia. It is great for the American military-industrial complex,
which is what keeps John McCain in office. So that is one of the
reasons he does this. One of the reasons why he cannot stand Donald
Trump and he could not stand to have any change in Washington's
anti-Russia policies... If anyone is hurting American democracy,
it's people like John McCain and whoever hired this person to dig up
this supposed dirt to create this dirt...

They've created the narrative that Trump is somehow in the pay of
the Russians.

Again, John Lewis is entitled to boycott anything he wants.

But he has chosen to do things that have diminished his own
credibility as a leader of the African American community, by
mindlessly invoking unsubstantiated accusations against the
president-elect that smacks appeasement of the powers that be rather
than virtue.

John Lewis did not choose to boycott George W Bush's second inaugural
despite the objective evidence of having caused massive deaths in the
Middle East. John Lewis chose to align with Hillary and actively
oppose Bernie in the Democratic party nomination process.

So it seems that John Lewis has repeatedly chosen to help the neocons
in Washington to push around garbage and dump it into the public arena
- all apparently because the Democratic party echelons have chosen to
be a part of the war party (in the last few decades) and to now play
this gambit of accusing Russia of having interfered in America's
election and resulted in Hillary's loss. Consequently, I don't think
it is fair for anyone to say that Trump has no right or reason to take
his counter punch. I would go further to say, as explained above,
that Trump has no choice in this matter.

As for what the "feud" might have on our African American brothers and
sisters. It all depends on what Trump will actually do. But is every
known "progressive" siding with Lewis? I doubt it. Harry Belafonte
was an important ally of Martin Luther King, Jr., when was the last
time John Lewis talked to him? Trump will have an extra hard time to
do his job, since the McCain, the Democratic party elites, and the
deep state are all working hard to thwart any progress Trump will try
to make. And of course, if Trump avoids war with Russia and China, it
will be a little easier for his domestic program to advance.

lo yeeOn
"Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping
his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to
mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the
election results," Trump wrote in two tweets. "All talk, talk, talk
no action or results. Sad!"
Late Saturday evening, Trump continued to hammer Lewis in a third tweet.
"Congressman John Lewis should finally focus on the burning and crime
infested inner-cities of the U.S. I can use all the help I can get!"
Trump wrote.
Trump's comments were all the more charged as they came at the start
of the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend and were seen as
dismissive of Lewis's work in the civil right movement, a time when he
was subjected to arrest and assault. Adding to the racial overtones is
the disparagement of Lewis’s district, which is majority black, as
“crime infested.”
The incident has left Democrats and Republicans bracing themselves for
yet another showdown between the president and his political opponents
— one that threatens to usher in a new era of the kind of crippling
hyper-partisanship that often characterized the eight years of the Obama
administration."
Loading...