Home | About | Donate

Today, John Lewis Stood Up for Human Dignity Once Again


Today, John Lewis Stood Up for Human Dignity Once Again

Bill Moyers, Michael Winship

On March 7, 1965, 25-year-old John Lewis, already a veteran of the Freedom Rides, Mississippi’s Freedom Summer and Martin Luther King Jr.’s March on Washington, walked ahead of 600 civil rights activists as they crossed the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama, on the first leg of what was meant to be a peaceful march for voting rights.


Its 2016.

This stuff has been going on for decades.

All of a sudden the Dems are on it when they don't have a majority.



Yes, "standing-up for human dignity" is a good thing. If John Lewis had not dismissed and demeaned Bernie Sanders as a candidate who stands for that and much more, including Sanders record of Civil Rights activism beginning in the '60's and continuing to this day, Lewis' actions on this issue today might carry more weight.
I will not comment on the denial and utter failures of RepubliCons to address the killings of innocents or Dems who apparently see only "gun violence" as a cause and answer.
The Congressional Black Caucus also chose to support Clinton and her brand of Dem DNC politics over Sanders also sticks in my craw! The corrupt politics that serve the wealthy and war-machine and party patronage of the Clinton's is not a model I chose to support.


One has to wonder how John Lewis' black constituency is taking stock of this?
Not hard to imagine the thinking is why couldn't they be doing this for prison reform, repeal of the 1994 crime bill, maybe even something along the lines of standing up for a living wage?
This is a safe gesture and political theater at its most unseemly as everyone knows its going nowhere in a congress deadlocked by the 'third way' pragmatist Democrats on the one hand and that radical insurgency tilting off the rightward spectrum on the other.
Imagine if these folks had only displayed this kind of dedicated resolve in Obama's first 100 days, we'd have single payer health care, we'd be out of these incessant wars, and our economy might actually be functioning to the advantage of everyone. Winship & Moyers ought save their praises for where they're actually deserved.


Today, John Lewis said, “The time is always right to do right. Our time is now.” Sounds like Eric Bibb. - but good for J Lewis - though pity he went missing when he could have marched alongside Bernie - you know, as his mentor would have done.


I think your comments, Emphyrio, point out the need to change congress and party control to a new party. It's not just about who becomes president but also what kind of help she/he will have.


Since its 1985 formation, the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) model has been for Democratic Party POTUS to make sure that Democrats control Congress for as short a time as possible.

Clinton accomplished this by zealously pushing NAFTA through during his first year, resulting in Democrats losing control of Congress in 1994 for the first time in forty years.

Obama accomplished this by bailing out Wall Street and rebranding Gingrich's 1990s corporate welfare program as Obamacare during his first year, resulting in Democrats losing control of Congress in 2010.

When Congress is controlled by Democrats its is impossible for A Democratic Party POTUS to meet the expectations of the Party's corporate paymasters AND have an excuse for the voters why you are pushing regressive legislation.


would be nice to see this kind of protest by the congress against the US selling weapons worldwide, but that ain't going to happen, huh? just a show and a poor one to boot. not fooling anyone who has half a brain. why wasn't this taken up when dems were majority? hmmm.


While I think Mr Lewis has an impressive and interesting history, I struggle with single-issue grandstanding when the mess we are in is multi-faceted and in large part due to people like Lewis looking the other way instead of screaming every single time.


He may have been great as a young man but he's a sell out now. The way he treated Sanders campaign is an embarrassment for all Dems that claim to be for the people.


Sadly this fine man lost credibility when he falsely claimed he saw Hiliary and Bill Clinton at the Martin Luther King speech in Washington DC. HRC was a Goldwater girl and no where near the march. Bill was not even working on politics at the time. Bernie whom he claimed he did not see was one of a million people there. Of course he did not see Bernie who was a young activist not an insider at the time. So this song and dance about guns is just to little to late. Just state the facts that the entire second amendment propaganda is just that. Bullets were not even invented at the time of the second amendment. 1 Supreme court justice called the 2nd amendment propaganda the biggest hoax perpetuated on the American people and Ginsburg has said it is archaic, which it is. Just have the guts to stand up to the gun nuts.


More proof of "Mars Rules":

"Once again the Republican leaders of Congress have been revealed for what they are: useful stooges of the gun merchants who would sell to anyone — from the mentally ill to a terrorist-in-waiting to a lurking mass murderer. And the Republican Party once again has shown itself an enabler of death, the enemy of life, a threat to the republic itself."

This is a terrific companion piece to the one written by Bill Blum on Scalia's legacy on this matter, from a legalese perspective.


Honoring attribution where it is due, I want to applaud you for being the FIRST one in these comment threads to recognize precisely how this political shell game works. You've laid it out for what, 8 years? It's as valid now as it was when YOU introduced the premise here. Good stuff.


True to the centrism of Moyers and Company, not a single insight into the deeper political motive of these Representatives. That motive, CLEARLY is opportunistic within the framework of "war on terror" politics.

That particular brand of politics should not be compared to the political ends envisioned by MLK.


Somehow you've missed that the Constitution guarantees the rights of the accused to be able to address State grievances against them in a court of law. In this case, accusations that a particular individual is a risk to the security of the State are made in secret and the State – according the the post 9/11 War on the Constitution otherwise known as the "war on terror" – sees no compelling sans-Constitutional reason whatsoever to share the reasons for such accusations with the accused.

Furthermore, the argument that this is essentially no big deal, completely dismisses the fact that being on a terror watch list, yet having no recourse whatsoever to clear one's name, can have many dire consequences for any given individual.

Some individuals could immediately lose their employment if not being able to fly.

Some individuals could lose face to face physical contact with relatives, friends, girlfriends, spouses, because of an inability to fly.

As far as the watchlist affording some protection to the public, regarding some FBI misstep or malevolent act…this presumes that the watchlist would be available for public scrutiny in the first place. Sorry that's a moot point.


I get that point of your argument and agree with it, however I think the bill should simply be an all out ban on such weapons, not a ban obviously couched in the politically expedient and insidious framework of the "war on terror".


God damn it! Even Bill Moyers has been sheepdogged into praising this latest attempt to expand the security state and remove due process.

Let me be clear. I am strongly for banning the kind of weapons that were used at Pulse. I'd like to see more gun control.

But this isn't about banning weapons, damn it! Wake up. It's about dividing the nation into two groups, those who have the right to buy weapons that are still legal and those who don't and don't have that right not because they've been convicted of a crime or found by a court to be mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others- just put on a list made by faceless bureaucrats because they suspect them. First they can't fly. Then they can't buy legal weapons. Then what? Should they lose the right to protest? Well, that is the next step by HRC and others who want to outlaw BDS.

This is disgusting and it disgusts me, angers me, that so many are proud of sell outs like Lewis who hasn't been a hero for decades. He has joined the other quislings like Dolores Huerta, Gloria Steinem, and Tom Hayden who sold their souls for political power long ago to the establishment.

AARRRGGHHHH!!!! Wake up!

People are so brainwashed on this I've been attacked as a conservative or Bill O'Reilly fan by good liberals on Facebook.


"This time they were agitating against one of the most grievous human rights horrors of all: the gun violence running amok in America, "

I kinda stopped there. Threw up a little in my mouth too.

Moyers and Winship definitely have problem is they think gang bangers offing each other is the "most grievous human rights horrors of all". My hope is they only did it for journalistic impact, not that it makes it any better. Other wise their credibility is down to zero.

BTW, even tho the US is awash in weapons (including scary looking rifles), crime has been steadily declining.


It is taking away more and more due process. "It's easy to justify it because it's about guns, but that's just what it's about today." ~Larry Wilmore, "The Nightly Show." June 23, 2016

I am against guns. I do not hold the idea that if victims just had guns they'd stop perpetrators. I hold to the idea that if you have more people with guns shooting you have more dying. I do not hold to the idea that we need guns so we won't be outgunned during the final clash of civilizations.

This is like protecting the right of Nazis to march in Skokie. I detest Nazis. It was horrid that they wanted to march in a community filled with survivors of the Holocaust. But the erosion of rights is begun when we let the rights of those we detest be taken away because we detest them, after all. We must protect freedom of speech even when the content of that speech is despicable. In the same way we must protect due process even when the content of that due process is something despicable like who gets to buy guns.

Again, ban the damn guns. Expand background checks so those who have had their rights removed through due process can't buy them in gun shows. But don't use the horror of what guns are to move further on in destroying the right to due process.

It makes sense to have a watchlist of those suspect of being terrorists- if it is that, a watchlist. Law enforcement investigates and observes and watches them. If evidence comes up that they are engaged in what they are suspected, then they should get warrants to do more searching. If that yields evidence, then they should arrest them and prosecute them. They should use RICO if they are conspiring but not yet themselves acting. This is all good. This is due process.

But it is wrong to use this suspect list to start saying certain people cannot engage in activity others can that is legal simply because they are suspect. First you deny them the right to fly. Then you deny them the right to buy legal weapons. Liberals, who should be civil libertarians, cheer this on because they know in their guts it is wrong that these weapons are legal. Then you deny them certain speech, such as advocating for BDS. Cuomo and Clinton right now are advocating this. They are convinced it is wrong (or they play to those who think this way) to not support Israel. So they want to take away that right.

This whole thing is a show. Those doing it know they won't get a vote. They know that even if they did get a vote it would not pass. Yet they engage in this show. But what is the result of the show? The result is liberals being ready to erode due process. It is liberals cheering on the idea of a No Fly list as a good thing.

The irony here? People get on the No Fly list who have no credible link to terrorism. Sometimes this is ludicrous because they are famous enough for everyone to know it's ludicrous. Famous or not, it too often is brown skinned folk. Like....

....wait for it...

John Lewis. Yes, John Lewis himself was on the No Fly list.

But he's famous. He got off. But some other John Lewis, some other brown skinned man with that name, well, even if he's got no connection to terror, well he's on the list. He doesn't get off. There's nothing really wrong with that if it was just a watch list. He's got his right to due process to protect him. Until liberals start cheering on the erosion of due process.


John Lewis was used by the Clinton campaign. Big mistake, John. You sold your soul.