Tag Archives: racism

The NAACP Pot Calls The TEA Kettle Black

Bookmark and Share The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has today proven itself to have turned its back on its cause and those who their cause was once for.

In considering and passing a resolution that in essence condemned the national TEA movement by declaring it to be comprised of racist components that must be denounced, the NAACP has done nothing less then create a fan in which the ever present embers of racism can be inflamed and used to fuel African-American participation in the upcoming, critical midterm elections.

By declaring the limited government, constitution promoting, less spending, low tax,  movement  as a movement with dangerously divisive racist affiliations, the NAACP has completely removed themselves from the category of respectable civil rights organization and flung themselves into the category of illegitimate Democrat political front group.

While the NAACP is all about race, the Taxed Enough Already movement has nothing to do with race. And while the TEA movement believes in a Constitution that represents all  people and stands for our being free from the oppression of an overreaching federal government, the NAACP exploits race to promote race based economic and social policies that induce more government and more taxes. But are these differences enough to play the race card?

And is it not hypocritical of the NAACP to demand that a political movement which they oppose, denounce a false charge of of racial hatred when the NAACP themselves promote racism and neglects to condemn racist elements that thrive within their own ranks?

If the NAACP is truly sincere in their mission , I believe that they themselves would denounce racism in all its form, including the forms of reverse racism being practiced by the Obama justice department or the intimidation tactics of militant racist elements like the Black Panthers who are loosely connected to the NAACP.

Short of making their own official denunciation of such race based improprieties, the NAACP has no ground from which to launch their own attacks and make their own demands from others to do the same regarding unproven and unfounded accusations that they make of a movement which opposes the NAACP’s political agenda.

The truth is that is that the difference in political agenda’s is what lies at the heart of the NAACP resolution regarding the TEA movement. As the midterm elections approach, the predominantly liberal membership’s NAACP  agenda relies upon a strong Democrat majority remaining in Congress .  Yet as President Obama and Democrats continue to plummet in the polls and the people lose confidence in their leadership, as a front group for the DNC, it behooves the NAACP to do all that is possible to incite the African-American electorate and motivate them to vote through the powerful emotion of anger.

By painting the members of the TEA movement as racist the NAACP is also  suggesting that its ideology ideology  is racist, and in doing so, the NAACP is helping to insure a certain amount of anger from the community that they need to show up in big numbers in November.

In 2008, African-Americans turned out in higher percentages then ever before and Democrats took the White House and both branches of Congress. The dramatic increase in African-American turnout was compounded by the nearly unanimous 94% of their vote which went to Democrats. The vast number of black voters and their nearly universal support for Democrats was in large part prompted by the candidacy of the first partially African-American, major Party, presidential candidate in history.

But now that the novelty of the perception has worn off and support for the policies behind the color and rhetoric of the candidate Obama has dwindled, African-Americans are not showing up at the polls in the same record numbers that produced record victories for Democrats in 2008.    This fact was made evident when attempts to use President Obama in the statewide elections of New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts, failed to bring out the large number of African-American voters that they had hoped for and in all three cases, the Democrat candidates involved in those races, failed miserably.

The need to do anything possible to turn that trend back around is what lies at the heart of this racially divisive resolution which has forced the NAACP pot to call the TEA kettle black.

Leaders in the TEA movement do condemn racism and they shun it in all it quarters and the TEA movement includes all races and religions. Unlike the NAACP, the TEA Party is a political movement for fiscal responsibility for all, not for a single race of people. Unlike the NAACP, the TEA movement is not using race to advance its cause. In the TEA movement, people are looked at not for the color color of their skin, but listened to for the content of their views.  Unlike the way it is in the NAACP, in  the TEA movement, black conservatives are commended for their beliefs, not placed at the back of the bus and mocked as Uncle Tom’s because of their political opinions.

Over a hundred years ago, the NAACP was founded for a sincere purpose, out of a sincere need and with motives of pure intentions. A hundred years later and it is clear that the organization’s sincerity of purpose has been lost and that it has come to represent the same type of racism that it was originally meant to combat.   And in truly hypocritical fashion, they have become a shill for the Democrat Party that exploits race, promotes reverse discrimination and ironically, promotes policies that enslave their fellow African-Americans to a federal government and bureaucracy that does its best to institute an permanent culture of dependency on a liberal led federal government.

In the mean time, like the new Black Panther’s, the new NAACP is doing little to advance colored people and much to advance racial divisiveness and Democrat Party politics.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

What If George Bush Spoke of “Light Skinned” Candidates “With No Negro Dialect”?

Bookmark and Share  What if George Bush described Barack Obama as a candidate who was “light skinned” and “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one”?

Oh I think we all know what would happen………………All hell would break out!

Al Sharpton would be holding a 5 borough march throughout New York City, with the President hanging in effigy at the head of it. Oh, and special guest speakers at the end of the march….that would likely include Senator Schmuck Schumer, Governor David Paterson, Mayor Bloomberg, and a slew of congressional representatives like Louise Slaughter, Carol Maloney, Charlie Rangel, Anthony Weiner and too many more to allow to speak on stage in one night.

They would be joined by Marches in Chicago led by Jesse Jackson, in several in California led by people like Maxine Waters, and Loretta Sanchez, as well as Barbara “Call Me Senator” Boxer and a host of her liberal underlings in the House.

They would all be calling upon him to resign from office. Some might even be trying to have him impeached.

All across the country, most of the population would be denouncing the President for his insensitive, prejudicial remarks. Most Republicans would also be chastising the President for his remarks and almost all would be distancing themselves from him and his remarks.

Back in 2002, incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott

Attended a birthday party for long serving Senator Strom Thurmond. In a toast-like offering at the party he stated “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”

 

Strom Thurmond, was a segregationist when he ran in 1948.

Lott’s choice of words were certainly inappropriate. They were also not intended to be a reference to segregation or racism. In an immediate apology, Lott tried to explain that he was not referring to the segregationist policy that Thurmond held over fifty years ago and dropped long ago, but rather his body of work over his lifetime.

The apology was not enough.

Jesse Jackson called for Lott to resign. Former and always bitter Vice President Al Gore declared Lott’s remarks to be “racist.” And in an interview on CNN Gore stated that Lott should apologize for his comments or face censure by the Senate. The Vice President could not let it go and days later publicly stated…… “It is not a small thing … for one of the half dozen most prominent political leaders in America to say that our problems are caused by integration and that we should have had a segregationist candidate. That is divisive and it is divisive along racial lines. That’s the definition of a racist comment,”

Now I don’t know about you, but I did view any direct reference by Trent Lott to race, dialect, color, segregation or anything divisive. Inferences were made by many like Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Nancy Pelosi and even Barack Obama before he was a Senator but unlike Harry Reid’s insensitive remarks, there was no mention of color or prejudices.

They all put word in Trentt Lott’s mouth and they defined what he said to mean something he did not mean.

And joining in the chorus of partisan pricks from liberal hangmen, was the media, which was all too happy to help Democrats tie the noose around a Republicans neck. They continuously hounded Lott and other Republicans. The Lott comment was headlines for days. And people like Harry Reid only fed the flames of partisan fury that burned like created by leading Lott to his lynching. This went on until Trentt Lott and Republicans understood that the dust up caused by the toast to a man on his one hundredth birthday was turning into a sandstorm that would not die down.

So several Republicans agreed to throw Lott under the bus, and Lott resigned.

Of the resignation, Harry “The Racist” Reid said;

‘He had no alternative,’ ‘Senator Lott dug himself a hole and he didn’t dig it all in one setting. He dug it over the years. And he couldn’t figure out a way to get out of it.’” (”Nevada Lawmakers Not Surprised By Lott Resignation,” The Associated Press, 12/20/02)

He also through this in;

“If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it’s that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I’ve always practiced how I play.”

Apparently, that is not really the case. Apparently Harry Reid believes that dark skinned black Americans who speak ebonics are less than Presidential.

Personally, I can’t argue with at least part of that sentiment. I mean I truly could not imagine myself electing Fifty Cent or Snoop Dog President of the United States.

That is not because of their color. It is because of the attitude they convey, the lack of respect they demonstrate, the vulgarity of their performances and language. This is not limited to African-Americans though. Eminem, the Caucasian rapper from Detroit also known as Mathew Matthers would also be a non starter for me. 

But I don’t think Harry Reid was talking about rappers or pop icons. Was he actually stating that politicians like maybe Jesse Jackson, Jr., spoke too black and had skin too dark to be elected President?  Was it a reference to someone else like maybe Maxine Waters or the African-American Mayors of Philadelphia, Baltimore or Detroit. Maybe he meant Southern Congressman John Lewis was too dark skinned? I don’t know, but he said it. I didn’t. I would not claim that those people can’t get elected because of their dialect or color. Congressman Joe “You Lied” Wilson didn’t say that. Mitt Romney didn’t say that.  Nor did Dick Cheney or Sarah Palin say that.

Harry Reid did!

So what’s the difference here? Why did Trentt Lott’s head have to roll for a toast to a hundred year old man who, at the time, was the longest serving senator in history? A toast which made no mention of race but which he still apologized for?

The difference is Democrats are pure hypocrites. The foundation of their political being, liberalism, is a hypocritical based ideology that proves to be full of double standards and incongruent logic.

Need more proof?

Compare the defense that Democrats been offering Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for his remarks about color and speech to the general tone of the following remarks that Democrats made regarding then incoming Republican Senate Majority Leader Trentt Lott for his remarks about the decades of service that a 100 year old Senator gave to his country:

Then-Senator Joe Biden:

“What he said was insensitive as hell; it’s very offensive. Race is serious stuff. It’s not something you kid about.’” (Erin Kelly, “Del. Lawmakers, Civil Rights Leaders Condemn Lott’s Comments,” Gannett News Service, 12/13/02) 

Sen.Barbara Boxer:

‘His apology does not take away the sting of his divisive words, nor the pain inflicted on millions of African Americans under segregation,’ she said.” (Edward Epstein, “Bush Calls Lott’s Remark ‘Wrong,’” The San Francisco Chronicle, 12/13/02) 

Then Sen. Hillary Rodham:

“the GOP must decide whether Lott ‘represents the views of the majority of Republicans in the Senate and in our country.’” (Ron Kampeas, “Some Republicans Say Lott’s Apology Should End Controversy,” The Associated Press, 12/14/02) 

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski:

“Lott’s comments ‘demonstrate a glaring insensitivity to the pain African-Americans suffered as a result of segregation and discrimination.’” (Julie Hirschfeld Davis, “Lott Repeats Apologies, Rejects Calls To Resign As Senate Leader,” The Baltimore Sun, 12/14/02) 

Sen. Debbie Stabenow:

‘Those kinds of comments have no place in our society and should be repudiated by every American,’ ‘At this point, the Republican caucus in the U.S. Senate needs to think long and hard about the kind of values they want their leadership to represent.’” (Katherine Hutt Scott, “Mich. Delegation Members From Both Parties Criticize Lott Remarks,” Gannett News Service, 12/14/02) 

Senator Patty Murray:

“The comments by Lott, R-Miss., were offensive, hurtful and wrong. Worst of all, they do not appear to be isolated remarks. At a time when our country should stand as one, (the comments) serve only to divide. Americans deserve leaders who will stand up for the civil rights of all citizens.’” (Gregg Herrington, “State’s Two Democratic Senators And Gop Chairman Take Lott To Task For Remarks,” The Columbian [Vancouver, WA], 12/14/02)That’s just a small sampling.

So I ask you…………………….What makes it okay, or not a big deal for the Democrat leader of the United States Senate to make irresponsible, racially insensitive remarks while it is not okay and a very big deal if a Republican leader of the Senate has his words twisted into racially insensitive inferences that were not intended?

Why should Harry Reid not be forced to resign?

This is a moment of truth for Democrats. Now is the time for them to demonstrate whether they are the hypocrites that I have come to know them to be, or if they are a party with at least a scintilla of  integrity and with any sense of fairness and justice.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics