Jesse Jackson

NAACP: From Pride to Prejudice

by Bill O'Connell on July 16, 2010

Share and Recommend:

The NAACP was once a proud organization with a noble cause, to advance the lot of people of color. Today it has abandoned those principles to become just another attack arm of the Democratic Party. This week they released a resolution condemning racism within the Tea Party movement.

I have been to a number of Tea Party events with hundreds of thousands of peaceful orderly participants and racism was not evident, surprisingly so. I say surprisingly because with any gathering of that magnitude to have a few fringe elements at either end of the spectrum would almost be expected. So is it possible there are racist elements at any given event? Sure. It is routine in the Tea Party? It is so rare, you have to aggressively search to find it and when you do, what proof is there that they are really Tea Party members or supporters or just some wacko who walked into the crowd with a sign?

Let’s look at the Strategy

The left has tried vainly to paint the Tea Party as racist because that is the most toxic label that they have. The racist label brings out the black electorate, polarizes the progressives, mortifies the moderates, and makes conservatives cringe. If they can make it stick it is very effective. It is also overused and as such, it is losing its sting. So how do you make it stick?

One way is to follow what the NAACP is doing. Pass a resolution condemning racism and demand the Tea Party repudiate racism in their ranks, which by the way is virtually non-existent. If you can cow the Tea Party members to take the pledge, then the liberal/progressives can plant racists at each rally with nasty signs, videotape them and then blame the Tea Party for failing to honor their pledge and thus “proving” racism is in the ranks of the Tea Party and it cannot be eradicated. This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

Let’s Look at the Facts

This is from the NAACP web site:

“Today, NAACP delegates passed a resolution to condemn extremist elements within the Tea Party, calling on Tea Party leaders to repudiate those in their ranks who use racist language in their signs and speeches.”

I was a marshal at the Tea Party rally in New York on April 15^th this year. We were concerned about reports on the street that infiltrators with racist signs might show up to garner media attention, which to that point had been rather thin. What were we to do? We couldn’t take their signs away, we couldn’t touch them as they had as much of a right to be there as we did. We came up with the idea that we would carry signs repudiating the person that our signs pointed to. We would approach the person, politely, tell them that their sign did not comport with the values of the Tea Party and ask them to put the sign away or leave. If they did not comply, we would surround them with our signs that said those views of that individual were not consistent with the Tea Party so that any media picking up their sign would see ours as well. If things got aggressive we would call in the police that were on hand. To my knowledge we never had to use our tactic as there were no racially offensive signs at the rally. We did not need a resolution by the NAACP to develop our counter strategy. It was part of our core beliefs, which puts the big lie to the NAACP’s resolution.

More from the NAACP web site:

“The resolution came after a year of high-profile media coverage of attendees of Tea Party marches using vial, antagonistic racial slurs & images. In March, respected members of the Congressional Black Caucus reported that racial epithets were hurled at them as they passed by a Washington, DC health care protest. Civil rights legend John Lewis was called the “n-word” in the incident while others in the crowd used ugly anti-gay slurs to describe Congressman Barney Frank, a long-time NAACP supporter and the nation’s first openly gay member of Congress.”

The first part of this passage was almost laughable. High profile media coverage? The lame stream media has been trying to bury the Tea Party by not covering them. What main stream media coverage was there in Washington in September of 2009 where several hundred thousand Tea Partiers rallied? It was dismissed as a couple of thousand.

Nancy Pelosi’s stunt to march through a crowd of Tea Party members to pass the Obamacare bill, did draw a lot of media attention and controversy. Show us the money! Andrew Breitbart put up $100,000 to anyone who could produce any video evidence that the things claimed in the above quote from the NAACP actually happened. There were media cameras and microphones all over the place, hundreds if not thousands of people with cell phone cameras and miraculously not one of them captured what the NAACP claims happened as fact. John Lewis was invited on several news programs to give his side of the story and he declined. Mr. Breitbart is still waiting to write that check. As Groucho Marx famously said, “Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?”

NAACP President Ben Jealous had this comment. “I give a 42-page speech. Half a page is focused on the tea party,” Jealous said. “We need the media to pay attention to the issues that are most important to this country” such as jobs, education, and crime. Uh, what did you expect sir? If you wanted the media to pay attention to the other 41 ½ pages of your speech, perhaps you should have dropped to bogus charge against the Tea Party.

I scoured the NAACP web site for any mention of the New Black Panther party and the case against them that was dropped by the Obama Justice Department. The site lacks a search feature so it made it more of a challenge but I looked through the site’s blog and found nothing. Now here is a case that is plainly caught on video tape and other video tape is found of King Samir Shabazz, spewing racial epithets and advocating murder of whites or “crackers” and their babies, but we hear nothing about this from the NAACP.

So, we have the NAACP issuing a resolution about alleged racism in the Tea Party for which they have no proof (there are some still pictures on their websites of people holding signs, but no reference to where the pictures were taken or who the sign holders were. They could have just as easily been a plant to smear the Tea Party). They ask the Tea Party to pledge to oppose racism, which I have demonstrated that opposing racist messages is standard operating procedure among the Tea Party, but they make no mention of the overt racism among their followers, where that racism is clearly on full display in living color with sound and includes not only racist sentiments but a call to actually murder whites. This apparently is considered worthy discourse to the NAACP leadership.

I call upon all members of the NAACP who really believe there is no place for racism in America to cancel your membership in the NAACP and join the Tea Party. We do not tolerate racist messages among our members. We have many African Americans in prominent positions in the Tea Party and we would have more if you join us. Our positions to end wasteful government spending and free up our economy will probably do more to advance you and your fellow NAACP members than fighting for the next government program. The NAACP has run aground on the shoals of petty squabbles to help the Democratic Party. It’s time to abandon ship and swim for shore.

The above opinions are my own. I do not speak in an official capacity for the Tea Party.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Stay on the Plantation

by Bill O'Connell on July 3, 2009

Share and Recommend:

On this Fourth of July weekend we will have many opportunities to celebrate the genius of the founding fathers who created this country. There is no other country like ours nor has their been. It was and is a beacon of hope for people around the world who we welcome, those who come here legally, to help continue to build this great country. Here is how Emma Lazarus described the new Statue of Liberty.

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame,
“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

by Emma Lazarus, New York City, 1883

Liberals vs. Conservatives

The most stark difference, I see, between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives believe in the individual and their right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, while liberals believe in groups. And God help you if you stray from the Plantation of your group. Groups, like blacks for instance, have “leaders”. For years if you wanted to know what blacks thought about an issue you asked Jesse Jackson. He would tell you what blacks thought and then he would tell blacks what they are supposed to think. If your skin was black, you belonged in the group called “blacks” and Jesse Jackson was your leader, no independent thought, no dissension, he was it. He would collect the money from the coffers of the guilt ridden whites, take his fair share, and preside over the distribution of the rest. In return to access to power he would tell blacks to always vote Democratic. It was a very lucrative career for Jesse Jackson. For blacks? Not so much.

If you were so bold as to be a black with an independent mind such as Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Larry Elder, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, Janice Rogers Brown, J.C. Watts, and many more, watch out. You were to be condemned in the vilest language imaginable for your failure to surrender your soul and pledge your fealty to the black leadership.

But this country was built on individual rights, the Pursuit of Happiness, not the guarantee of Happiness. This country was not founded on the principles of taking from the successful and giving handouts to those who are not, either through misfortune or sloth. Those suffering from misfortune were cared for by organized religion and charity. Liberals believe that government should use its enormous power to steal from successful individuals and give to whoever they deem to be needy. There is no clearer demonstration of this than in who gives to charity.

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). — RealClearPolitics

Consider for example, “Buck-a-Day” Biden, who gave an average of $1 per day to charity, although being a millionaire, with an annual salary of $174,000 per year. In a formulation that liberals like to use, Joe Biden earns that much money before his head hits the pillow on New Year’s Day. But he keeps virtually all of it and from his seat of power tells us how it is patriotic to pay more taxes to fund pork projects for his favored groups.

The Hunt for the Latest Escapee from the Plantation

Lieutenant Ben Vargas is a New Haven Connecticut firefighter. He had the audacity to pass a test for promotion and fight for the promotion he won when the city of New Haven invalidated the test because no blacks made the cutoff. You see, Ben Vargas is Hispanic and as such liberals have assigned him to the group that includes all Hispanics. When not protesting how not every Hispanic is successful, Hispanics are required to fight for other groups if they are not all successful. Ben Vargas stood up for his rights and was assaulted by a black man in the bathroom of Humphreys East Restaurant and ended up in the hospital. Having wandered off the plantation, the Hispanic firefighters association publicly refused to back him up.

Lieutenant Vargas, who posted the sixth-highest score on the exam, was ridiculed as a token, a turncoat and an Uncle Tom — all of which, he said, “made my resolve that much stronger.” — NY Times, July 3, 2009

This case has achieved notoriety because of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. This case came before her and was dismissed with little explanation. The Supreme Court just overturned the decision 5-4. Now Lieutenant Vargas is set to become Captain Vargas. Here are his views:

“I consider myself an American — I was born and raised here,” he said in an interview on the porch of his home in the wooded suburb of Wallingford. “I love my people. I love my culture. I love our rice and beans, our salsa music, our language — everything my parents raised us with. But I am so grateful for the opportunity only the United States can give.”

That’s the American Dream.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (4)

Much Ado About Nothing

by Bill O'Connell on January 1, 2009

Share and Recommend:

An editorial in today’s New York Times, the editors with high dudgeon opine about the parody “Barack the Magic Negro,” and how inappropriate the Republicans are to stoop to these levels. This absurdity is on par with someone setting a house on fire and then wanting to be hailed as a hero because they dialed “911″. Let’s break this down.

Which conservative made up the “Barack the Magic Negro” moniker? Uh, none. Actually it was the L.A. Timesthat published an opinion piece on March 19, 2007 entitled, “Obama the ‘Magic Negro’”. The LA Times is hardly a bastion of conservatism, being among the most liberal newspapers in the country. In the piece it lumped Obama in with Sidney Poitier, Morgan Freeman, Scatman Cruthers, Michael Clarke Duncan, Will Smith and Don Cheadle as examples of “white America’s idealized, less-than-real black man.” In other words, Obama was an unworthy presidential candidate because “He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist.” So let’s re-cap this. The LA Times says that Obama shouldn’t be running for president because he is not sufficiently “in-your-face” anti-white, and that somehow makes the Republicans out of touch?

Paul Shanklintook the LA Times article and made a parody out of it. In the parody (def: any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.) Shanklin imitates the voice of Al Sharpton speaking through a megaphone. The Sharpton character refers to the LA Times as calling Obama the “Magic Negro” and laments that people are going to vote for Obama and not Sharpton, even though Sharpton has “paid his dues” and comes from “the ‘hood.” Where’s the racism? Sharpton has run for the presidency. Sharpton was unsuccessful. Does Sharpton resent Obama for seeming to make it look so easy? I don’t know, and he probably wouldn’t admit to it if you asked him, but let’s look to someone from a similar camp to Shapton, Jesse Jackson. While not realizing he was within range of an open mike, Jackson was taped as saying the wanted to “cut Obama’s n**s off,” for apparently talking down to blacks. Again, so how is this racism by conservatives ? If you live in or around New York and have witnessed the antics of Al Sharpton over the years, this is a dead-on parody.

I disagree with Chip Saltsman’s judgment in publicly sending this parody around while running for the chairmanship of the RNC, for the simple reason the Magic New York Times would twist a liberal position into racism by conservatives. But the New York Times fiddles as its readership collapses, because of patently ridiculous editorials such as this one. Oh, by the way, did you see where the New York Times is being sued for $27 million in a deformation of character suit, for printing a misleading article alleging an affair between a lobbyist and John McCain? As thin as the story was, they ran it on the front page, above the fold. Do you think they were trying to influence the election, not on the editorial page, but on the front page? Once known as the newspaper of record, the New York Times is now a disgrace.

Share and Recommend:

Comments (0)

Jesse Jackson

Recent Posts

Archives

Blogroll