John Lewis wonders: Who knew Rush Limbaugh was a Black Panther?

This afternoon, talk show guru Rush Limbaugh attempted to draw the connection between those who support some limits on firearms, and their alleged idealism of Martin Luther King Jr.’s adherence to non-violence. A bit of the transcript from Limbaugh’s website:

”If a lot of African-Americans back in the sixties had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, do you think they woulda needed Selma? I don’t know. I’m just asking. If John Lewis, who says he was beat upside the head, if John Lewis had had a gun, would he have been beat upside the head on the bridge? And these people that think like [Tom] Brokaw are all over the media. This is the way they’re looking at this.

“So now what this has become, there is still slavery, there is still bigotry, there is still racism. It’s concentrated among people who are devoted to defending the Second Amendment, and they primarily live in the South. They are white, and they’re extremists, and they’re religious, and this is what they honestly believe.”

Here’s the official response, in a news release from U.S. Rep. John Lewis:

“Our goal in the Civil Rights Movement was not to injure or destroy but to build a sense of community, to reconcile people to the true oneness of all humanity. African Americans in the ‘60s could have chosen to arm themselves, but we made a conscious decision not to. We were convinced that peace could not be achieved through violence. Violence begets violence, and we believed the only way to achieve peaceful ends was through peaceful means. We took a stand against an unjust system, and we decided to use this faith as our shield and the power of compassion as our defense.

“And that is why this nation celebrates the genius and the elegance of Martin Luther King Jr.’s work and philosophy. Through the power of non-violent action, Dr. King accomplished something that no movement, no action of government, no war, no legislation, or strategy of politics had ever achieved in this nation’s history. It was non-violence that not only brought an end to legalized segregation and racial discrimination, but Dr. King’s peaceful work changed the hearts of millions of Americans who stood up for justice and rejected the injury of violence forever.”

Lewis, who’s wife was buried last week, will be in Washington to attend the luncheon that follows President Barack Obama’s inauguration.

- By Jim Galloway, Political Insider

For instant updates, follow me on Twitter, or connect with me on Facebook.

65 comments Add your comment

Voter

January 18th, 2013
7:35 pm

Really? This is a subject to discuss? Who cares!

Weetamoe

January 18th, 2013
7:47 pm

He lies. See Dr T.M. Howard of Mississippi who kept a submachine gun at the foot of his bed and wore a pistol at his waist, John R Salter who claims he is alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms, the son of the founder of the Louisiana organization Deacons for Defense and Justice—and many more. Lewis’s mendacity is exceeded only by his ignorance.

Seriously?

January 18th, 2013
8:00 pm

That’s your response? That the idiocy of a few trumps the great minds of people like John Lewis, one of the smartest, kindest people I’ve ever met? Congressman Lewis did not start this discussion he responded to an idiot who tried to use him in an argument where he had no right to use him. His remarks are not about the second amendment they are about the philosophy of the civil rights movement. So, go clean your gun, fly your rebel flag and shut up.

GUTRAKE

January 18th, 2013
8:11 pm

This article explains why Rush gets under their skin. It takes monumental verbal and ideological gymnastics to approve the heading alone. The death of common sense has been a tragic blow to humanity.

JG

January 18th, 2013
8:30 pm

Rush Limbaugh is a draft dodger! Nuff said, he was coward when his country needed him

Bigguy

January 18th, 2013
8:31 pm

Does he still rely on the power of compassion for his defense? I doubt it.

Jerry

January 18th, 2013
8:36 pm

MLK had a applied for a concealed weapons permit and owned guns. Gun control laws were created to disarm blacks.

td

January 18th, 2013
8:36 pm

Try to go and google the first sentence and wham!, media matters, dailykos, pmsnbc, democraticunderground and newworldenclpedia all had article insulting Rush either right after the comments on the air or immediantly following his show today.

Looks like Rush is right and the left is scared to death of the truth teller.

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
8:40 pm

Following Rush’s logic, if Medger Evers was carrying a gun, he would not have been shot by a sniper?

Frederick Douglass

January 18th, 2013
8:48 pm

JG @ 8:30 pm,

Limbaugh was exempted from military service because of a large unsightly pimple on his ass; that pimple now sits between his shoulder blades and he speaks out of it.

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
8:53 pm

td… yes, you’re right, a lot of people are scared of Rush. And it’s pretty clear to all what gets under his skin. Let’s see… say the words “Twice-elected President of the United States” No asterisks. That’s a truth there brother. Everybody’s got something that gets under their skin.

JWW

January 18th, 2013
8:54 pm

weetamoe, that’s why we don’t really know who the men you speak of. Dr King’s choice of action is was the only way to go. It worked. Thought it’s not perfect, the US is a much, much better countrythen it would have been. If the men you spoke of rose to be the spokesmen of the day and attempted to use force, Kennedy, Johnson would have never doen the things they did to raise the Blacks out of 3rd class status. Perhaps you should read Gandhi or Tao. Peace Brother

Now, rush is an Idiot. Had what he suggested been done, every Black person on the bridge would have been shot. From that point on, any Black person attempting to stand up for their rights would have been killed too.

JWW

January 18th, 2013
8:54 pm

weetamoe, that’s why we don’t really know who the men you speak of. Dr King’s choice of action is was the only way to go. It worked. Thought it’s not perfect, the US is a much, much better countrythen it would have been. If the men you spoke of rose to be the spokesmen of the day and attempted to use force, Kennedy, Johnson would have never doen the things they did to raise the Blacks out of 3rd class status. Perhaps you should read Gandhi or Tao. Peace Brother

Now, rush is an Idiot. Had what he suggested been done, every Black person on the bridge would have been shot. From that point on, any Black person attempting to stand up for their rights would have been killed too.

Mr. Snarky

January 18th, 2013
9:06 pm

Rush is an idiot. If blacks had shown up at protests with weapons the cops would have massacred them and the movement would have failed miserably. Amazing that such an ignoramus has a national following.

td

January 18th, 2013
9:12 pm

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
8:53 pm

td… yes, you’re right, a lot of people are scared of Rush. And it’s pretty clear to all what gets under his skin. Let’s see… say the words “Twice-elected President of the United States” No asterisks. That’s a truth there brother. Everybody’s got something that gets under their skin.

You must be pretty young my friend because Rush was twice as animate with some of the things GWB did and with Bill Clinton then has been with Obama his whole first term.

Cherokee

January 18th, 2013
9:20 pm

“Rush was twice as animate with some of the things GWB did”

You don’t even try to pretend that you’re telling the truth anymore, do you….

Limbaugh is a drug addled lying adulterous pedophile. But hey, at least he isn’t gay, so I guess he’s okay by you, td…

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
9:22 pm

td… never said nobody else ever got under skin. I listened with amusement at his comments about McCain. I also listened to the comments from a couple of GOP elected officials who called in to apologize to him after they publicly disagreed with him. So yes again, a lot of people are scared of Rush. And I really respect your replying without name calling.

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

January 18th, 2013
9:26 pm

There is a reason why liberals take little snippets out of what Conservatives say and get their panties all wadded up over it-

African-Americans back then had civil rights denied to them left and right. That’s why they were marching. You are engaging in activist behavior, and you’re buying guns to try to maintain a civil right that is granted you in the Constitution. If anybody is a Bull Connor in this regard, if anybody is the authorities, letting loose the dogs and trying to deny you your civil rights, it’s the government. Anybody with a brain can figure that out. But Brokaw doesn’t see it that way at all. He says, “Good people stayed in their houses and didn’t speak up when there was carnage in the streets, and the total violation of the fundamental rights of African-Americans as they matched in Selma.”

So those of you who are not mobilizing to change the Second Amendment, those of you who are not mobilizing to make it more difficult to get guns and weapons, are the modern equivalent of people who sat around and let Bull Connor turn his dogs loose on the marches in Selma. Man, the foundation of what you must believe to be this out of phase. And then he said they let Bull Connor and the redneck elements in the South and the Klan take over their culture in effect and become the face of it. Now, Bull Connor and these guys are all Democrats. But you, in Tom Brokaw’s eyes, you are who are trying to defend a civil right that you have by virtue of the Constitution are the modern equivalent of people who denied civil rights to blacks in the sixties in Tom Brokaw’s view. That has governed the way he sees this country ever since it happened, and a lot of other journalists, too.

Try this. If a lot of African-Americans back in the sixties had guns and the legal right to use them for self-defense, do you think they woulda needed Selma?

See what the lib left out?

Mr. Snarky

January 18th, 2013
9:28 pm

It’s one thing to keep a gun in the house in case a lynch mob comes after you (and this wasn’t just a gun nut’s fantasy) vs. using weapons to effect social change, which would never work. That said, if you were black during Jim Crow and the klan decided to get you, they would, and guns wouldn’t protect you. Same thing goes today really. IMO The most likely consequence of having a gun in the house is someone shooting themself or their spouse.

td

January 18th, 2013
9:29 pm

Cherokee

January 18th, 2013
9:20 pm

I guess you did not hear Rush go off about “No child left behind” or Medicare part D? These were liberal/Socialist agenda items being proposed by a conservative. Yes, Rush went off for weeks at a time for RINO’s selling out their souls. Being a traitor to the cause is 10 times worse then doing what is predicted out of a progressive.

td

January 18th, 2013
9:35 pm

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
9:22 pm

I try to be respectful to everyone unless they personally attack me first or their comments are way over the top filled with ugliness. I enjoy having intellectual discussions with people from a different philosophical background.

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

January 18th, 2013
9:35 pm

Something libs like galloway do not want you to know -

82% of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 versus only 64% of Democrats.

The original House version:[16]

Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[17]

Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version:[16]

Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[16]

Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
9:51 pm

Aesop… I don’t think libs are hiding that fact. Quite a few Democrats moved to the Republican party in no small part to the Act. For example… let’s see… what was his name..oh yea, Strom Thurmond. Throw in Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and voila, here we go. So no, don’t think anyone is hiding that fact.

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

January 18th, 2013
10:01 pm

strom thurmond was the leader of the opposition to the Civil Rights Act, so he moved to the Republican Party because they voted……………..in favor of it?

stretch it out, homey

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
10:19 pm

Several biographies of Thurmond are out there…let’s try this:
Thurmond was an avid Democratic Party politician, but the 1948 presidential election became a benchmark year for what became his and southern Democratic politicians’ revolt from the national party. Democratic president Harry S. Truman’s 1948 reelection campaign advocated pro–civil rights legislation (abolition of the poll tax, support of an antilynching law, the creation of a permanent Federal Employment Practices Commission, and a ban on discrimination in commerce). Southern states reacted negatively to this platform by revolting from the national party to form their own, prosegregation and antiblack civil rights, wing of the party—the Dixiecrats, or States’ Rights Party. Thurmond was nominated the Dixiecrat presidential candidate, officially representing the party’s position that states had the right to retain segregation. Thurmond lost the election, but his staunchly southern prosegregation and antiblack civil rights positions launched him into the helm of southern political leadership.

Thurmond was elected a U.S. senator of South Carolina in 1954, and during his tenure he opposed the passage of several civil rights bills—the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 (in obstructing the bill’s passage he set the record for the longest Senate filibuster—twenty-four hours and eighteen minutes), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, all of which were important in advancing blacks’ civil rights. His continued dissatisfaction with the Democratic Party’s stance on civil rights issues led him to sever his ties with the party in 1964 and become a Republican.

Despite Thurmond’s initial support for Lyndon B. Johnson (a southern Democrat from Texas) as the vice presidential candidate in 1964, Thurmond later openly opposed the national party’s liberal plank on civil rights. The summer before the 1964 presidential election, Thurmond decided not to attend the Democratic national convention because of his ideological differences on civil rights, which separated him from the national party’s politics. In a 1964 speech to a South Carolina audience, Thurmond denounced the Democratic Party platform and announced his realignment with the Republican Party and his support of Barry Goldwater’s (a Republican senator from Arizona) 1964 presidential candidacy.

Cherokee

January 18th, 2013
10:22 pm

Sure td, but that’s not what you said – you said – and I’m paraphrasing – that Rush attacked Bush twice as much, or as hard, or as severely, as he’s attacked Obama.

Not even you really believe that – and certainly no one else does – so why say it?

Kris

January 18th, 2013
10:40 pm

Nate shadt dealer, I want a job like this.

Former state Sen. Chip Rogers will start his new job Tuesday earning a lofty $150,000 – making him the seventh executive at Georgia Public Broadcasting

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/chip-rogers-will-make-150000-at-gpb/nT2Nc/

td

January 18th, 2013
10:44 pm

Cherokee

January 18th, 2013
10:22 pm

Oh I believe it because I felt the same betrayal and betrayal really hurts and makes one angry. I guess you have never been betrayed by someone you thought was a friend before. If you did then you would understand it. Obama is nothing more then a socialist and I despise his philosophy. This is a war of philosophies but it is not a betrayal from the same side so it is totally different. If you can not understand the difference then I do not know what to say about you.

lynnie Gal

January 18th, 2013
11:09 pm

Gun-toting Republicans can’t comprehend the principles of non-violence. It’s completely out of their range of understanding, so quoting MLK or John Lewis is just casting pearls before swine. You’re wasting your time trying to inspire them with lofty ideas or words, Jim.

Ultra right wing

January 18th, 2013
11:09 pm

Dennis Q,

Oddly enough you left out Democrats who were known bigots who stayed in the Democratic party. Guys like Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Al Gore’s dad, Bill Clinton’s role model and mentor(I think it was Fullbright), George Wallace, and on and on. Contrary to your load of baloney many of them remained Democrats.

Ultra right wing

January 18th, 2013
11:12 pm

“Gun-toting Republicans can’t comprehend the principles of non-violence.”

You need a dose of reality honey. The gun toting violence isn’t occurring in Republican suburbs. For the most part most of the murder and mayhem of gun violence is concentrated in heavily urban Democrat strongholds. Like Chicago which had over 500 homicides last year. Try again.

Ultra right wing

January 18th, 2013
11:17 pm

DennisQ,

One other thing since you mentioned LBJ. Did you know what a hard core racist the man was??? Do some research on him. And btw the things his black driver related of how LBJ would speak about black people is nothing short of shocking.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/lbj-transcript/

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
11:28 pm

Ultra… not “oddly”.. I said “a lot of Democrats left.” I didn’t say all. And Thurmond was one of them. Which part of that is baloney? Nor did I praise Johnson or proclaim him clean of bigotry. Aesop provided numbers indicating Republican support of Civil Rights. I pointed out documented example of Democrats opposing Civil Rights moving to the GOP. That still remains a fact as well. Which fact is baloney?

Mr. Snarky

January 18th, 2013
11:30 pm

I love it when right wing red staters try to make the case that the repubs are the party of civil rights, as if things haven’t changed since the 50’s. Nobody believes it, but maybe it helps them sleep at night, as fairy tales will do. It’s funny in a sad kind of way.

Idiot Rush comparing the unfettered right to assault weapons to the rights that Dr. King was fighting for is another BS fairy tale that they’re trying to foist on the public. Only the highly gullible would fall for that and most of the public isn’t buying.

Mr. Snarky

January 18th, 2013
11:36 pm

LBJ may not have been pure as the driven snow, but he got the Civil Rights Act through Congress against the efforts for racists from both parties. That was an awesome accomplishment that changed the country permanently for the better and demonstrates his core convictions better than any off-color anecdotes.

DennisQ

January 18th, 2013
11:41 pm

Mr. Snarky,

Your last comment = well said.

panic fan

January 18th, 2013
11:56 pm

History tells a sad story and history repeats itself im told.. power,money,guns its all control overseen by goverment and reported by media

rawmilkdrinker

January 19th, 2013
5:10 am

Rush Limbaugh is nothing more than a bug on the windshield of life. That he is splattered right in the line of sight is what makes him so annoying.

Cherokee

January 19th, 2013
5:25 am

Actually td, Obama’s economic philosophy is what has historically been that of moderate Republicans.

I know you and your friends like to toss around the socialist slur, but it’s just not reality, no matter how many times you say it.

3d

January 19th, 2013
6:54 am

These blogs are funny

Sobelle

January 19th, 2013
6:55 am

I’m a displaced South Carolinian who lived in the state when Strom Thurmond performed his act and decided to become a Republican. Then what do we find out in later years? He had an affair with a black lady and they produced a daughter. Yet he was up front and center on disagreeing with the Civil Rights Act. What a hypocrite! And I can’t understand why anyone would agree with a blow-hard like Limbaugh. He’s a bane on civilized people.

Vote For Obama Because He's Black

January 19th, 2013
6:56 am

Rush makes $50 million a year telling it like it is.
Do you think he’d be getting paid like that if he was stupid ?
What could he possibly learn from people who are living in the past like the civil rights pimps in Atlanta ?

CC

January 19th, 2013
7:30 am

“John Lewis wonders: Who knew Rush Limbaugh was a Black Panther?”

I wonder: Who knew John Lewis was a Klansman?

Not

January 19th, 2013
7:31 am

He gets paid like that because you and most all of his worshipers are stupid.

CC

January 19th, 2013
7:35 am

Not:

I’m sure you’re much more intelligent than Limbaugh! So tell us, what is YOUR annual income?

Aesop's Fables and other Lib Economic Theories

January 19th, 2013
7:37 am

You libs can do math, can’t you? In 1964, more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than did democrats. So, in moonbaticca, the story goes like this – strom hated the civil rights act so much that he left the party that was most against it and went to the party that was MORE FOR IT.

Can I get a duh?

Hooty Goot

January 19th, 2013
7:40 am

Who knew that Neal Boortz used to work for Lester Maddox? I did.

CC

January 19th, 2013
7:43 am

Aesop:

Well, there you go again . . .

Trying to confuse folks with facts, and it WORKS!

CC

January 19th, 2013
7:50 am

The Obama administration has floated a transportation authorization bill that would require the study and implementation of a plan to tax automobile drivers based on how many miles they drive.

The plan is a part of the administration’s Transportation Opportunities Act, an undated draft of which was obtained this week by Transportation Weekly.

The White House, however, said the bill is only an early draft that was not formally circulated within the administration.

“This is not an administration proposal,” White House spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said. “This is not a bill supported by the administration. This was an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration, does not taken into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/159397-obama-floats-plan-to-tax-cars-by-the-mile

(I believe the last statement just as I believe every word the liar-in-chief speaks, or directs to be spoken.)

Vote For Obama Because He's Black

January 19th, 2013
7:55 am

Do you think that big brown dome could host a radio show ?
He’s a nice man but not very intelligent.
I’d pay to see him debate Herman Cain.
He needs to go back to school and learn how to speak.