Tea Party Ugliness: John Lewis Called N-Word

[Jonathan]

Was this thing a hoax?

The Hostility Follies
Video
The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime

[Sandy]

Was this thing a hoax?

The Hostility Follies
Video
The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime

The National Review?

Limbaugh or Beck might be more credible sources.

Yeah, I know, putting "Limbaugh" and "Beck" and "credible" in the same sentence is certainly an oxymoron, but then, so is "credible" and "The National Review."


Jonathan, you usually do better than that.

[Jonathan]

Was this thing a hoax?

The Hostility Follies
Video
The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime

The National Review?

Limbaugh or Beck might be more credible sources.

Do you have an actual source for the name calling? Video? Audio? I'm not saying it was a hoax but I find it strange that with all of the recording devices present, I can't find any evidence besides the Dems who claimed it happened.

[Stephen Fox]

Three recent blogs by a Baptist deacon; Cute or cause for concern

Violent Overthrow Unnecessary
All this militia business...bad juju! Be patient! Violent overthrow of the government is totally unnecessary! The administration and congress have sowed the seeds of their own destruction with imprudent fiscal policies and confiscatory taxes. In a year, two at the most, the government will collapse on itself with no outside assistance due to a shortage of taxpayers. When that happens, China will sue for possession to recoup its losses in the World Court and win. Since no one trusts a liar, the Chinese will not permit Barack, the Tragic Negro, or congress to remain in power. Few will be willing to shed their blood to protect and defend Obama's America. BTW, how's that change working for you?



American Free Enterprise
The first law of American Free Enterprise is that there is absolutely nothing on earth private enterprise cannot do better than government, far faster, more efficiently and far cheaper. Even war would be different if done by private enterprise. It would be done totally in house with the company contracting combatants from the belligerent nation and setting them to fight against each other until the issue was settled or resolvable at the coffee break level by the janitors.




The Very Last Words...
The absolute very last words I want to hear coming from the mouth of a Republican or Independent federal representative after November is, "We need to put all this past 'unpleasantness' behind us and get on with the business of mending the country." Well, just BS, in the highest mound possible.

The single most important reason that resulted in the severing of the colonial bonds with England by decree and the foundation of this country by force of arms was justice!! It was unjust to tax the colonies differently; it was unjust to deny them a voice in Parliament: and it was unjust to treat the people of the colonies as less than equals with the British population in general.

What America needs most after the November elections is justice, Justice, JUSTICE, by the carload, the truckload, the trainload and the shipload. Democrats, liberals and Marxists will howl "revenge", but they will be wrong. Their minds can neither embrace nor understand the concept of justice because it runs contrary to their horribly flawed idea of fair which, in itself, condones, no, demands, treating people unfairly. A society cannot survive on anything but justice. Justice is dispassionate and can be written down, codified and enforced. "Fairness" is an emotional response and is a rudderless ship on a storm tossed sea with a compass that swings independent of any true reference. Fairness can no more be codified or enforced than the term happy because its meaning is emotional, varies due to situation changes and is not the same to all people.

A government that has run rough shod over the Constitution, that has treated Americans unequally, that has misspent tax dollars to remain in power, that has garnered support for unwanted legislation by unethical methods, that has nationalized large sections of private enterprise, that has refused to account to the people for billions of tax dollars literally given to major banks and lending institutions, that has refused to investigate known violations of ethics and statue in Fannie Mae and Fredie Mac, that caters to private interests at the expense of public interests, that has given succor and support to our enemies and, in general, that has operated in violation of federal RICO statutes must be brought to justice, from the greatest to the least among its members. The country needs it, the people demand it and they will get it; it only remains to be seen whether the acquisition will be bloodless or not. The one thing justice WILL NOT any longer be is denied. This country CAN NOT heal without it.

After the grand juries and trials, congress needs to be about the business of reviewing every single statute on the books and repealing every single one that does not have a solid base in or that does violence to the spirit of the Constitution of the United States. This must be done to reverse the creeping socialism that has been encroaching on American society for eight decades. It takes but minutes, hours at most, to set the course for the longest journey, but it will take time to get there. No matter how frequent or how severe the storms enroute, given due diligence to the set course and the preservation of the vessel, arrival at the intended destination is all but inevitable.

[Jonathan]

The easiest thing to do (but the most dangerous, IMO) is to find examples of extremist rhetoric or alleged slurs and then figure ways to use them to attempt to discredit very large groups of folks having genuine concerns.

For example, I do see that Obama is very adept at using the Saul Alinsky handbook (ramming Obamacare through was a clinic) but this doesn't mean that everyone in the Democrat party or everyone on the Left has a disregard for Senate rules or the US Constitution. If I didn't believe this, there would be no purpose in trying to establish or carry on a dialogue about these things.

I'm very sensitive to reckless charges of racism, sexism and "homophobism" given how quickly they pollute the well of public discourse. I'm sensitive to the charges of socialism and Marxism for the same reason. Each of these things exist but their use should come, if at all, when all other attempts at description have failed. Re: "Godwin's Law".

In each of the examples that Stephen listed, there is some rambling, some extremist language, and some very to the point concerns that are shared by an increasing number of non-extreme folk in the US. It is one thing to speak against extremist language and yet another to use the presence of certain words as an excuse to avoid those arguments that are reasonable. Think Malcolm X. During the height of his days as a spokesman for the Nation of Islam, his rhetoric was routinely (and completely) derided by members of the establishment because of overheated rhetoric (obviously chosen for mass effect). The result was that much of value was missed, at the time, to the detriment of all parties.

[Sandy]

Was this thing a hoax?

The Hostility Follies
Video
The Democrats' Fake Hate Crime

The National Review?

Limbaugh or Beck might be more credible sources.

Do you have an actual source for the name calling? Video? Audio? I'm not saying it was a hoax but I find it strange that with all of the recording devices present, I can't find any evidence besides the Dems who claimed it happened.

All the major networks have the footage, and have shown it repeatedly, including the sound. Where have you been? I think even Fox actually captured the words, and may have actually played it a couple of times, though I don't actually watch them.

Citing the National Review as a source for saying that this might not have happened is like quoting a Nazi apologist on what evidence constitutes proof of the Holocaust.

[Jonathan]

All the major networks have the footage, and have shown it repeatedly, including the sound. Where have you been? I think even Fox actually captured the words, and may have actually played it a couple of times, though I don't actually watch them.

I checked with several networks, including their websites...saw footage of folks walking but didn't hear any audio of the n-word. I'll check youtube again.

Citing the National Review as a source for saying that this might not have happened is like quoting a Nazi apologist on what evidence constitutes proof of the Holocaust.

This is just stupid, Sandy. The National Review is a credible publication with an historical libertarian bent.

The next thing I'm looking into is the timeline of the event and the reporting on it. Looks strange.

[Sandy]

This is just stupid, Sandy. The National Review is a credible publication with an historical libertarian bent.

It's going to be a little bit more difficult for you to convince me that name calling, which is documented, witnessed, transmitted via video and audio footage, and testified to by those who were there and heard it, didn't actually happen when you yourself seem to have a tendency to do a little bit of namecalling yourself when someone disagrees with your conservative view. Your use of the word "stupid" here subtracts from your credibility in asserting that the African American Congressmen who were subject to the ugliness as they entered the Capitol was "invented." If that were the case, then you'd have a thousand tea-partiers screaming "foul" at the accusations. So why aren't those who were there making that claim? Because there are far too many witnesses to the ugliness to refute it.

As to the National Review, it is either "credible," or it has a "bent." But it can't be both. Historically, it is not known for an accurate presentation of the facts.

[Jonathan]

This is just stupid, Sandy. The National Review is a credible publication with an historical libertarian bent.

It's going to be a little bit more difficult for you to convince me that name calling, which is documented, witnessed, transmitted via video and audio footage, and testified to by those who were there and heard it, didn't actually happen when you yourself seem to have a tendency to do a little bit of namecalling yourself when someone disagrees with your conservative view.

Just point me to the video and audio, Sandy. Surely someone as convinced as you would have no trouble finding it. And, as I've stated, I'm interested in the truth here.

Your use of the word "stupid" here subtracts from your credibility in asserting that the African American Congressmen who were subject to the ugliness as they entered the Capitol was "invented."

1) You made this statement: "Citing the National Review as a source for saying that this might not have happened is like quoting a Nazi apologist on what evidence constitutes proof of the Holocaust" and I called the statement "stupid"...and I was kind. The comparison you tried to make is beyond stupid.

2) I haven't stated that the Congressmen "invented" anything, just that I haven't seen any video or heard any audio. Having compared a legit magazine with Holocaust deniers, you're now making false attributions. Having a bad day, Sandy?

So why aren't those who were there making that claim? Because there are far too many witnesses to the ugliness to refute it.

I don't know why, with all of the folks pro and con tea party having cameras and cellphones, I've not been able to find audio or video evidence. Maybe all of them were recording and none of the devices picked up what Rep. Lewis claims to have heard. Maybe Lewis made it up. I don't know, Sandy.

As to the National Review, it is either "credible," or it has a "bent." But it can't be both.

What? Do you read what you write before you hit "submit"?

Historically, it is not known for an accurate presentation of the facts.

And I'm sure you have some data to support that, right?

Always a pleasure, Sandy..and often quite humorous.

[Stephen Fox]

http://johnkillian.blogspot.com/2010/04 ... er-of.html

Will be interesting to see how it plays with the code language and rhetoric, especially in the Cullman Ralley. Looks like it kicks to a head the weekend of April 15.

[Kaylor]

For example, I do see that Obama is very adept at using the Saul Alinsky handbook (ramming Obamacare through was a clinic) but this doesn't mean that everyone in the Democrat party or everyone on the Left has a disregard for Senate rules or the US Constitution.

Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points. Love or hate it (or something in between), the health care was passed by using established Senate rules. Nothing tricky or new. That doesn't mean it was the right policy, but let's focus on real areas of contention and not made-up issues about process.

[Jonathan]

Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points.

the health care was passed by using established Senate rules. Nothing tricky or new.

Examples of Irony: one of the few remaining reasons that I have for wasting time on this forum.

[William Thornton]

Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points. Love or hate it (or something in between), the Conservative Resurgence was passed by using established SBC rules. Nothing tricky or new. That doesn't mean it was the right change, but let's focus on real areas of contention and not made-up issues about process.

[Kaylor]

Examples of Irony: one of the few remaining reasons that I have for wasting time on this forum.

Name a Senate rule that was broken or changed during this process.

[Jonathan]

Examples of Irony: one of the few remaining reasons that I have for wasting time on this forum.

Name a Senate rule that was broken or changed during this process.

The spirit of the reconciliation rule was violated. You know it, Obama knows it, Senator Byrd is the authority on the rule. The Dems knew that this bill could not have passed if it had to go through the regular process where Senate and House bill differences are addressed in committee hearings so they broke with history and set a dangerous precedent.

Beyond that, the way it was rammed through violated candidate Obama's own declarations about transparency.

As usual, political folks and members of the media only see this in the short term scope of wins and losses. The magnitude of this one event will be felt the next time there is a conservative president who has a GOP majority in the Senate and wants to fill vacant seats in the judiciary...or anything else. In addition, the way that the CBO was misused, its credibility is permanently damaged. For honest and ethical government, the Obamacare process poisoned the well. Congrats, Kaylor.

[Stephen Fox]

I would hope Jonathan in particular would make an effort to watch Charlie Rose interview with David Remnick last night on PBS.
Remnick has new book on Obama, and from the conversation last night has done a stellar job.
Heartily recommend it to Kaylor as well; maybe he can do a review for ed.com in conjunction with Cliff Vaughn.

Remnick caught my eye couple years ago with his profile of Elaine Pagels. Wouldn't hurt for Jonathan to read that one sometime this spring if he can find or make the time for it. Good for Bruce Gourley as well; even Parham and Josh Villines.

http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/269

[Kaylor]

The spirit of the reconciliation rule was violated. You know it, Obama knows it, Senator Byrd is the authority on the rule. The Dems knew that this bill could not have passed if it had to go through the regular process where Senate and House bill differences are addressed in committee hearings so they broke with history and set a dangerous precedent.

But the bill did go through the regular process. It passed in December after going through hearings for months and then getting 60 votes. The reconciliation was only used for a few edits and the Senate parliamentarian ruled that the changes were allowed with the process and did in fact pass the Byrd rules (except for 2 items about school grants that were stripped from the bill and thus never became law). That's why Obama signed two items--first he signed the legislation that went through the committee hearings and passed the Senate under the normal rules and then he signed the reconciliation edits. Reconciliation has been part of the Senate rules since 1974 and has been used more by Republicans than Democrats. I don't think it is the healthiest process but it is incorrect to say that the Democrats broke any rules or history or precedent. They merely followed the process Republicans helped create. It is this two-step process that you are forgetting with the link to the speech by Byrd. He was talking about not using reconciliation for the whole health care debate/legislation. But the Democrats didn't do that. They didn't try the idea of passing health care reform only via reconciliation. They went through the normal process of hearings and votes (did you sleep through last summer and fall that you don't remember the hearings and debates?). Byrd was against passing the whole legislation with reconciliation. He was not against using the process for fixes because that is what the process is for. You are taking his speech way out of context because things changed a lot since he made those remarks in April of 2009 (primarily, that the normal process was used).

I love how you claim merely that "the spirit" of the rule was violated, which means you must know that the rule itself was not. Guess you are now admitting you were wrong--again! (just like when you made-up the claim that Planned Parenthood has some of the community centers that will be funded with this legislation). By the way, not sure why I'm getting congratulated; I had nothing to do with this process. All I'm asking for here is for people to be honest. I'm not trying to convince you to be for or against the health care reform. I just think you need to be honest. And the fact is that the process that was used was well within Senate rules.

[Jonathan]

I would hope Jonathan in particular would make an effort to watch Charlie Rose interview with David Remnick last night on PBS.
Remnick has new book on Obama, and from the conversation last night has done a stellar job.
Heartily recommend it to Kaylor as well; maybe he can do a review for ed.com in conjunction with Cliff Vaughn.

Remnick caught my eye couple years ago with his profile of Elaine Pagels. Wouldn't hurt for Jonathan to read that one sometime this spring if he can find or make the time for it. Good for Bruce Gourley as well; even Parham and Josh Villines.

I'll put Remnick's book on my list, right after A Slobbering Love Affair and Obama Zombies.

[Stephen Fox]

Well Jonathan as Norma Rae's pastor said to her in the movie by the same name

"We're gonna miss your voice in the choir."

[Jonathan]

You Shall Not Bear False Witness

[Stephen Fox]

Chris Matthews had a segment on this last night. What happenned happenned.

I just left a note at Rick Wright's blog. I noticed there his tribute to Josh Villines recent effort at RD.org

Here is the note I left for Trinity Living:

Whatever the merits of your post above, I do hope you will engage David Remnick's new book on Obama, The Bridge, very soon.

Charlie Rose had a most fascinating interview with the author Monday night on PBS.

I encourage you to listen to the Kilgore/Posner conversation of last week and the discussion at www.religiondispatches.org; and or click over to my Baptist deacon blog where I have a tinyurl link for you there.

Hope you are otherwise well.

JOnathan is carrying the ball for you at bl.com. Hope maybe you could lower yourself for a short while and join us there as we pursue this, where Jonathan linked your blog today

[Big Daddy Weaver]

Not sure what most of Wright's posts have to do with Trinity Living. Might be time for a new blog name to better fit his theme.

Perhaps:

Rick's Insightful Principles for Life (or) I'm Full Of It


That someone would invest so much time and energy into challenging John Lewis' claim that he heard what he heard is revealing. Revealing is a generous word. I know John Lewis. I worked for John Lewis. I took phone messages from supposed constituents who used the N-word when describing my boss. I watched Chris Matthews last night as Chris played a recent message left on the answering machine of Congressman John Lewis. That message was a 20-second rant of G-D and the N-word, over and over.

It's really shameful that folks would question the truthfulness and integrity of a man like John Lewis.

Don't think your comment has made it through moderation yet, Foxy.

[Rock]

Let's try to get away from the incorrect partisan talking points. Love or hate it (or something in between), the Conservative Resurgence was passed by using established SBC rules. Nothing tricky or new. That doesn't mean it was the right change, but let's focus on real areas of contention and not made-up issues about process.

William,

Good to see that you are finally willing to allow for the possibility that the takeover was not the right change.

[Stephen Fox]

ethicsdaily.com has a loaded lineup this morning. Wayne Flynt on Justice and the Tea Parties and Mark Woods of the Baptist Times on Faith Voltaire and Rousseau.
Hope to pursue the various trails with yall here and there; hoping for sure Rock is giving it some attention.
At SBCimpact, looks like we are about to revisit the SBC Peace Committee

[Jonathan]

That someone would invest so much time and energy into challenging John Lewis' claim that he heard what he heard is revealing. Revealing is a generous word. I know John Lewis. I worked for John Lewis. I took phone messages from supposed constituents who used the N-word when describing my boss. I watched Chris Matthews last night as Chris played a recent message left on the answering machine of Congressman John Lewis. That message was a 20-second rant of G-D and the N-word, over and over.

Rick's website aside (from your comments about it, my guess is that you don't remember much about Rick from when he frequented this forum nor have you read his blogs about Orthodoxy...no biggie, who has time for due diligence these days, right? ), there are two issues here 1) the allegations that members of the Tea Party gathering, that Lewis and his posse decided to walk through on the day in question, hurled the "N-Word" at Lewis and the other Blacks with him and 2) voice messages and other things that did not happen with cameras present.

The issue in the title of this thread concerns 1). Rick (and I and Andrew Breitbart and a host of other folks) first watched the footage of the "walkthrough" as news came out that the N-Word was hurled at Lewis and company. Then some of us began to wonder why, even with media present, no one had a recording of the use of racial insults by these particular tea party folk. Andrew Breitbart even offered a reward for such a recording (which now stands at $100,000) and yet, nothing has turned up. It is a valid question, Aaron. Using racial insults is a vile action. It is no less vile to falsely accuse folks of using racial insults because, in these days, it only takes an allegation to stain someone with the label of "racist". So, until such evidence exists, Lewis' claim is just not enough. Yes, I know that you have fond feelings for your former boss and tend to think that part of his greatness has rubbed off on you (okay that last part was a cheapshot...sorry ) but Rep. Lewis is not above playing political hardball to further his leftwing, big government viewpoints.

So now we come to 2): voices messages. I saw a Chris Matthews (that's the guy whose leg hairs stand up when Obama speaks, right?) snippet where he played telephone voice messages, filled with racist language and other hateful words, to Rep. Lewis. In a day, and concerning a particular bill, where the ends justify pretty much any means, do I think that there is a possibility that these messages were faked...in other words, is it possible that pro-Lewis folks wanted to further the current MSM, Leftwing narrative and left these messages themselves? Sure. It is also possible that real racists left the messages. On the balance, again, aside from additional evidence (could the calls be traced or voice mapped to actual racists, etc...), all we have here are some racists messages without any sourcing.

In the end, Aaron, we have Rep. Lewis' word that he was called the N-Word during his strange walk through a protest group and with a number of cameras and audio recording devices present, there is yet to surface a single recorded piece of evidence that what Lewis said happened, actually happened.

It's really shameful that folks would question the truthfulness and integrity of a man like John Lewis.

I have no doubt that you have the highest respect for John Lewis and he has a history filled with acts of integrity and honesty. But, feet of clay being what they are, he has other items in his history that shows that he is not above playing the race card wrongly. His accusation, during the 2008 campaign that McCain and Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division" is an example. He also compared Republican rallies during 2008 as being similar to the old George Wallace rallies...shameful, indeed.

What is more shameful is the thinking that because the phrase "veteran of the civil rights movement" is attached to one's name, one has a free pass to play the race card with impunity.