The NAACP’s Last Desperate Effort

For some time, the NAACP has insisted that the Tea Party is comprised of racists and extremists, and have done everything possible to label it as a "whites-only" club.

Repeatedly, though, they have failed to provide any real evidence. Of course, that fact hasn't stopped those who want to believe it from doing so. Some people feel that any negative word regarding Barack Obama is an unquestionable sign of racism. And the Tea Party is certainly guilty of speaking out against our president, so many of Obama’s supporters have no doubt that the Tea Party is a racist hate-group.

But outside of these aforementioned people, the Tea Party is earning respect and influence in the political landscape, while the NAACP has lost nearly all credibility with the American public. And they had been doing so long before the Tea Party was even a whisper. Essentially, the NAACP is now considered by most as a dinosaur civil rights organization that has little useful potential in today's world beyond rabble-rousing, race-baiting, or community organizing. And there's not much real value in any of those things, except perhaps the latter, which perplexingly became a vital tool for any presidential skill-set in 2008.

The NAACP is gasping its last breaths of relevance before leaving the spotlight. And this is a good thing for most Americans. While we thank the NAACP for its contributions to the struggle for civil rights decades ago, we are tired of more recently shaking our heads at its outlandish claims of racism, and its efforts to prey on Americans’ fear of bigotry.

So now, desperate to remain relevant, they have produced a document meant to expose the Tea Party's racist roots and anti-Semitic values.

I would not doubt that there are very isolated segments of the Tea Party that hold bigoted or racist views. There are bad apples in every bunch; even Barack Obama’s supporting electorate has been proven to consist of blatant racists that suggest the infanticide of white children. But let's be honest. Most people who find the Tea Party to be racist usually think that way because of the perceived lack of racial diversity that the media loves to exploit.

But the Tea Party doesn't get a fair shake with this whole diversity thing. Membership may be largely Anglo-American, and African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans may hold a minority membership, but isn’t that reflective of the actual ethnic ratio of the American tapestry?

Furthermore, the Tea Party is even more disadvantaged by the fact that its counterparts are not even playing by the same rules. The NAACP, for example, is not held to the same standard of ethnic diversity, as its supporters are largely African-American. But we do not see Keith Olberman asking blacks at NAACP rallies, “Where are the white faces?”

The Tea Party is comprised of men and women of all races, bound together by a common set of principles, a shared sense of injustice in the government levying unwanted taxes, and a staunch desire to preserve traditional American values. Race is not a pre-requisite to be in their club, nor is any person denied membership due to their race.

I think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud.

So as usual, the NAACP’s claim of racism seems very manufactured and outlandish. But what about the claim of anti-Semitism in the Tea Party?

This is a futile, utterly outrageous attempt to paint the Tea Party some sort of Neo-Nazi organization. The NAACP’s argument is that some (again, very isolated) conservative elements of the Tea Party have been associated with anti-Semitic groups in the past. This is an absurd generalization that would equate to suggesting that the entire Democratic Party is a racist organization because Robert Byrd, a formerly prominent member of the Party, had been an influential member of the Ku Klux Klan. But that would be nothing more than ridiculous exaggeration. And as we know given the evidence in the last few decades, the NAACP is certainly not above that.

But since the NAACP is so eager to bring up the subject of anti-Semitism, perhaps we can take a glance at the broadly anti-Semitic rhetoric of a few African-American political figures that associate with the NAACP.

Barack Obama sat under the tutelage of a man that for twenty years spouted anti-Zionist rhetoric deriding America for its efforts to establish and defend an Israeli state, and is prone to making such comments as “them Jews ain’t gonna let him [Obama] talk to me.” Louis Farrakhan is a well-known and militant anti-Semite. Both were invited to speak at an NAACP event this past summber.

While running for president in 1984, Jesse Jackson claimed that the Jews were conspiring against him after he made a negative comment about Jews in New York, calling the city “Hymietown.” In 1991, Al Sharpton fueled an anti-Semitic riot by delivering speeches demonizing “diamond merchants” (code for Jews), which resulted in a rabbinical student being stabbed to death by a mob shouting, “Kill the Jews!” Both have been associated with the NAACP in the past.

The NAACP’s accusing the Tea Party of anti-Semitism seems to hold little water. But when you consider the anti-Semitic past of these African-American political figures associated with the NAACP, it really hearkens to the proverbial pot and kettle.

The Tea Party should have no problem deflecting these nonsensical claims. If anything, it furthers the damage to the credibility of the NAACP. Sal Russo of the Tea Party Express suggests that this event makes it obvious that “the NAACP has abandoned the cause of civil rights for the advancement of liberal Democrat politics.”

And that should come as no surprise to most Americans. Strong-arming, race-baiting, community organizing and activism are the NAACP’s calling cards, commonly used to extract money from private business and the wealthy under the guise of “social justice.” I’d say the organization meshes rather nicely with the current administration in Washington.

William Sullivan

The EPA's Showdown in Texas

In May of this year, the Environmental Protection Agency alleged that Texas was not meeting the expectations set forth by the Clean Air Act, so the federal agency would take over permitting and licensing for the state’s greenhouse gas emissions. Of course, the Clean Air Act is 40 year old legislation that is meant to address public health concerns and has nothing to do with the deterrence of global warming, so it is suspect that the EPA is using it as justification to regulate carbon output.

But the state of Texas is prepared to fight tooth and nail to preserve its right to regulate the emissions of its vast energy industry. And they have good reason to do so. As Peggy Venable of the Washington Times notes, “shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law [the Clean Air Act] would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt.” Naturally, the EPA wants to ease the friction for Texans, so they have been willing to apply a “tailoring rule” to “reduce the number of regulated sources.”

But for Texas, that just isn’t good enough. In the event that you’ve never heard of the Alamo, suffice it to say that we Texans are pretty big on taking a stand where matters of principle are concerned, and we know that what the EPA is trying to do just ain’t right.

Federal law does not give the federal government the right to regulate greenhouse gases, so the addressing of such issues is left to each state respectively, per the Tenth Amendment. Therefore, the imposition of federal oversight in Texas’ energy industry is a direct violation of its Constitutional right.

Beyond this fact, dramatic reductions in pollutants have taken place throughout the last decade, making it quite apparent that Texas is doing a terrific job meeting its stated obligations as declared by the Clean Air Act. And as far as those carbon emissions that the EPA is so eager to consider pollutants, Peggy Venable goes on to address their concerns on that matter, too:

According to Department of Energy and EPA data, since 2000, Texas' carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel usage have fallen more than those of almost any other state and every country except Germany as a result of our policies to foster renewable energy, make the electricity market more competitive and efficient, and improve our environment.

So even in regard to the greenhouse gases that are not addressed in the Clean Air Act, Texas is still way ahead of the curve. The EPA could be focusing of something else and addressing real problems rather than fabricating them. So why is this administration pressing Texas in an effort to take over its energy regulation?

Certainly, considerable revenue could be obtained by forcing energy companies to purchase licenses. And sure, Texas would be the biggest cash cow as it will require more licenses than any other state. But there’s an allegorical significance that makes the Texas vs. EPA showdown particularly interesting.

The EPA’s recent power-grab closely resembles the shenanigans of Barack Obama’s administration, which has exceeded the bounds of its federal authority to impose oversight upon all sectors of American production via makeshift and erratic legislation.

And Texas is representative of the kind of place that Americans have always gone to get away from that sort of thing, dating back to frontiersman and politician Davy Crockett who, when he became tired of the politics of Andrew Jackson’s cronies in Tennessee, left his political career and took up residence in the state after allegedly telling them, “You can all go to Hell, I’m going to Texas.” He viewed Texas as a land of opportunity, free of the bureaucratic yokes that were found elsewhere. And today, American families and American businesses flock to Texas for the exact same reason. Texas has no state income tax, low cost of living, thriving job markets, and a lot of room to grow.

And we Texans like it that way, so we will not back down. If the EPA and this administration insist, we and our leaders are more than willing to make our state the venue where Americans will see a political fight of epic proportions.

This figurative bout is bound to be a manifestation of the struggles between liberalism and conservatism, authoritarianism and republicanism; a battle royal for the very soul of our country. And perhaps we can declare, for good and all, whether we want to be ruled by kings who can change our laws as they please to impose their will, or whether we want to live as free men whose laws protect us from such tyranny.

William Sullivan

Breaking News: California still prefers ignorant protest to common sense

A police officer has recently killed a man in Los Angeles for threatening the lives of civilians and charging the officer with an upraised knife in-hand. Beyond all perceivable logic, the citizens of Los Angeles are protesting the shooting.

From an article reporting the incident:

Police said three bicycle officers were patrolling the area Sunday when someone flagged them down and said a man was threatening passers-by with a knife.

When officers confronted the man, they ordered him to drop the knife but he refused, Lt. Andrew Neiman said.

"Instead, he came after the officers with a knife raised in the air, leading one of the officers to fire at the suspect," Neiman said.

Authorities have not released the man's name. However, friends identified him as Manuel Jamines, 37, a construction worker and father of three.

Protesters contend the man was not dangerous and say officers should have used a non-lethal weapon to subdue him.

They contend he wasn't dangerous? Really? They couldn't have come to that conclusion rationally. Seriously, in what universe is a knife-wielding man charging at you not dangerous? What knowledge do these idiotic protestors have that was not at the disposal of the officers and witnesses who saw firsthand the danger he posed? How ignorant and misguided can these protestors possibly be?

William Sullivan

Update 9/8/10: There has been an escalation by the protestors overnight.

Less Ambiguous Eco-Terrorism

Eco-terrorist James Jay Lee has recently been shot and killed for taking and threatening hostages at the Discovery Channel headquarters. In his later years, he was awoken by Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, and he had become a militant environmentalist and supporter of the anthropogenic global warming theory. A recently released manifesto reveals that he held a grudge against the Discovery Channel for their lackluster efforts to support the theory and demonize the skeptics. And as purveyors of information offered for public assimilation, he felt it is their duty to do exactly that.

The manifesto he leaves behind is truly frightening. The diatribes found therein read nothing like the musings of a student of science or a concerned environmental activist, but rather like the ideological ravings of a lunatic. And it raises the disturbing question, how closely does his fanaticism align with that of the current environmentalist movement?

Unlike other manifestos espousing hateful ideologies, James Jay Lee’s does not direct his hate at any religion, race, or culture. Mein Kampf, for example, presented the evil yet focused arguments that the Bolsheviks and Jews were cancerous elements, a threat that must be purged. Lee, on the other hand, espouses a more holistic hatred, as all human beings are equally malignant in his eyes. At numerous points in his rant, Lee references human civilization as “filth,” and he demands that the Discovery Channel’s programming expose humanity’s “disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed.” There are few other binding values in his ideology beyond these labels of humankind.

But the clues to Jay Lee’s eccentric sickness do not end there. He delves to deeper abysses by proclaiming, “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”

Talk about a “final solution.” Most cultures across the globe correctly perceive children as innocent and understand the need for their protection. Only a sick and twisted mind could hold the idea that children are the disease of the Earth. The sane inhabitants of this planet view children as the potential means by which humanity can better the world for nature and mankind.

If James Jay Lee were alone in such environmental fanaticism, there might not be significant cause for alarm. But thousands of activists and even accredited environmentalists have professed such ridiculous beliefs and been absolved in the past. For example, David Graber, a biologist of the National Park Service, is quoted as saying something remarkably comparable to Jay Lee’s recent appeal for the culling of mankind:

I know scientists who remind me that people are part of nature, but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line ... we quit the contract and became a cancer. We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth.... Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.

Even though few environmentalists vocally espouse these extremes, such unnoticed rhetoric is frightening because these sentiments about the human detriment to the planet are foundational in the environmentalists’ ideology. Rarely do these beliefs manifest themselves as violence or destruction beyond anomalies like Lee’s attack or random acts of destruction like the torching of a Hummer dealership, but they often manifest themselves as political rhetoric. In recent years, procreation and population growth have been accused as the inevitable culprits of prophesied environmental catastrophes, and have been used as arguments to promote tax credits for non-procreating individuals and as ammunition to expand abortive practices, including support of federal abortion funding.

So James Jay Lee’s actions may have been extreme. But when set against the ideology of many anthropogenic global warming activists, how radical were his core beliefs?

William Sullivan

Brad Pitt Ponders Punishment for BP

Brad Pitt has voiced his opinion on the BP oil spill, and like most Americans, he thinks it has been a terrible disaster. Of course, it hits home a little harder for Pitt because he and his significant other, the inimitable Angelina Jolie, sometime live in the vibrant French Quarter. And it's clear that he loves the city of New Orleans, as he has generously given dollars and precious effort to rebuild the city after the disaster of Hurricane Katrina.

So much does he love New Orleans, and so passionately does he hate BP for their crimes against the Gulf Coast and the environment, that he has made the recent comments, "I was never for the death penalty before - I am willing to look at it again" in regards to BP executives.

Likely, this was just said for some sort of dark comic effect. I mean, he couldn't possibly be serious, could he? Richard Ramirez, aka The Night Stalker, is an unrepentant mass murderer guilty of heinous crimes of the worst order, including multiple rapes and murders, and he lives on the government dime in California after more than 20 years of incarceration. The only reason he still lives is because of bleeding-heart Hollywood types like Brad Pitt who argue that capital punishment is never the answer. Crimes of this caliber have not given Brad Pitt pause to reconsider the death penalty, but now that the rich executives of BP are vilified by the media as the culprits of some fabricated environmental holocaust, he is ready to start casting stones?

I do not think that Pitt was serious when he made this comment. At least I hope not, or he's far more deluded than I give him credit for.

Though I thoroughly enjoy his work and find him very talented, the simple fact is that Brad Pitt is a performing artist. Nothing more. His position as a performing artist does not lend his opinions on political matters credibility, and those opinions are no more validated or profound than those held by mimes or trapeze artists. In light of this, it truly boggles the mind to consider that Hollywood icons like Brad Pitt are the most influential figures for the progressive agenda.

His comments, and any who would agree with such comments, are downright misguided and stupid. After all, if Mr. Pitt was abreast of current political affairs and if he really cared about his adopted home state of Louisiana, he'd likely be directing his ire to the more important culprit of Louisiana's pressing issues: the Obama admistration that has fiscally pounded families and businesses in the state via senseless drilling moratoria.

William Sullivan

Spencer Ackerman Exposes the Socialistic Media Dysfunction

In a new report, Spencer Ackerman, once a journalist for the Washington Independent, despondently confirms the assertion that Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary rhetoric has always been indefensible for the left. In the recently exposed Journolist correspondence, regarding the national attention being paid to Rev. Wright in the 2008 campaign, he laments, “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us.”

“The game,” as he describes it, could better be described as “the truth” about the kind of spirituality Jeremiah Wright imparts upon his congregation, and the kind of moral education that was imparted upon our president. As Wright’s teachings helped to shape Obama’s world view for 20 years, the subject was certainly relevant to the campaign. But Ackerman knew well that such potentially negative news could reach independent voters and be disastrous for his preferred candidate’s agenda, so he plotted a new route with his fellow “journalists.”

And we now know that this route entailed nothing short of depraved, yellow journalism and unjust slander. He suggested, “Instead, take one of them [on the right] — Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country?” This is a confession that he and his cohorts are guilty of falsely labeling innocent people as “racists,” a tactic meant to keep Obama’s opposition in perpetual fear of political attack.

Generating fear in the opposition is key for any propaganda machine, and our leftist media is no different. Ackerman states:

“It’s not necessary to jump to Wright’s defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically."

This idea is certainly not original, and more importantly, it provides a vital glimpse at the true ideology of the leftist media. Upon reading this passage about what the left needs to do to win their propaganda war, it took only a moment’s pondering to realize where I had heard something similar in the past:

We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent
him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be; make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move.

I found this fascinating piece of “rhetoric” while reading Humberto Fontova’s book, Exposing the Real Ché Guevara. They are the words of Ernesto “Ché” Guevara, the murderous socialist that remains responsible for thousands upon thousands of deaths in the name of the Communist ideals that he believed. Many of his victims were sought out and attacked, both politically and physically, for a simple difference of opinion and ideology.

Though it may come as a surprising revelation to the counterculture that reveres him, Ché Guevara was a staunch believer in Stalinism, a brutal political code involving statist propaganda and the absolute suppression of free speech and individualism.

The primary American standard of the First Amendment runs entirely antithetical to such an ideology. Yet Ackerman and many of his colleagues share with Ché a belief in the Stalinist plank that those who differ in opinion and ideology should be hunted and attacked, and that they should be made to live in constant fear for their free expression of opinion, should it differ from the necessary state-media conglomerate.

The real tragedy is not that our more prominent media organizations are comprised of morally vacant, socialistic, and thoroughly un-American people like Ackerman that claim to be “journalists” or “reporters.” The real tragedy is that even though we have hard evidence that our trusted media outlets manipulate information to deceive Americans into believing as they do, these reports do not get the wide exposure warranted by such a scandal, because the media has continued protecting themselves and the administration with which they align.

And that is why this story, along with countless others that could incriminate Obama’s administration, has been largely buried by the mainstream media beneath heaps of irrelevant commentary about Sarah Palin’s family, audio clips of Mel Gibson’s rants, or President Obama’s insipid clucking with the ladies of The View.

William Sullivan

Oakland continues its downward spiral

In January, 2009, Johannes Mehserle, a 28 year old Bay Area Rail Transit (BART) officer, shot and killed a man in a confrontation. The fatally wounded man, 22 year old Oscar Grant, was unarmed and had been previously involved in a fight. Witness’ accounts have described Grant’s demeanor as anything from relatively compliant to violently resisting. Nonetheless, Oscar Grant was tragically killed when Mehserle drew his pistol and fired, though he claims to have done so in error, having attempted to draw his taser.

But more important to the public than any of the facts in the case is that the man shot was black and the officer who shot him was white, so the assumption that Mehserle killed Grant simply because he was a black man ran wild before any other facts were considered.

The first response to this incident by citizens that want to prove it was a racially motivated killing is probably similar to Barbara Plantiko’s, a protesting immigration lawyer. She just doesn’t “buy that he got confused” when he drew his firearm rather than his taser. A cop should be able to tell the difference between a taser and a gun. Anyone could tell the difference, right?

When calmly presented the choice between the two, I'd wager most citizens could. But what escapes these firearm “experts” like Plantiko is that the situation provides the variable, not necessarily the discrepancy between the weapons. Most citizens have never been in a scenario where a perceived assailant threatens them, and they have never been made to manage the fear that such that such circumstances create. And in this situation, Mehserle, in haste and fear, made a dreadful mistake that cost Grant his life. At least that’s what a jury of his peers found to be the truth.

Still, being ignorant of such scenarios doesn’t stop racially sensitive citizens with a healthy disdain for authority from playing armchair judge and jury to condemn Johannes Mehserle. Apparently, the citizens of the City of Oakland are far more convinced of his murderous intentions than the jury that deliberated and came to their verdict based upon all of the facts presented in the case.

Mehserle was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, a sentence that carries a certain weight beyond the guilt that will likely plague him throughout his life. But that is not enough for the Oakland citizens thirsting for justice and retribution, so they decided to deliver their own brand of "justice." Riots littered the City of Oakland after the verdict, as its citizens destroyed their own neighbors’ property to express outrage.

I can't say with a straight face that our justice system is infallible, and I cannot say that the verdict was absolutely justified with a ruling of involuntary manslaughter. But what I can say with certainty is that Oakland’s citizens destroying their own community is not a justifiable means of expressing the anger that results from their paranoia of racism, and they should be held accountable.

So perhaps we should finally take the rioters of Oakland to task for their crimes. After all, we can certainly establish their extremely questionable character when it comes to knee-jerk allegations of racially motivated violence and the vilification of the authorities that risk their lives to protect its citizens.

The nation watched in disgust just two years ago, as Lovelle Mixon, a black man with a highly felonious past, killed four police officers after a traffic stop gave way to a shoot-out. He killed the officers, of white and mixed race, while holed-up in his sister’s apartment before the police finally brought him down. The officers slain were family men, and heroes.

But how did some of the scummy elements in Oakland react? They called Mixon’s actions a response to police brutality, and his death a murder. They held ceremonies to mourn the death of a lecherous villain, guilty of breaking our laws and robbing innocent families of their fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons. And some even heralded the villain as a martyr whose death spotlighted a racial rift between the city’s police officers and its minority citizens.

Around the nation, we retched in disgust at their shameful display of misjudgment and misplaced ire by the citizens of Oakland. And now, we are to believe that these same citizens have a right to riot because they think Grant’s death was a racially motivated crime?

Not a chance. They’ve lost their credibility in gauging such issues. Therefore, many Americans recognize that the riotous citizens of Oakland are guilty on the counts of provocation, destruction of property, and an inability to act as human beings.

Eric Holder and the Department of Justice, however, don’t find Oakland guilty of those crimes. He finds them victims, and the carnage they have self-inflicted must mean that some kind of wrong was done to those people who are creating the havoc. Therefore, they will take further measures to investigate Grant’s death to see if it was racially motivated, biased against a black man. And if they deem Mehserle guilty of the crime, you can bet they’ll prosecute the case as an example of racism.

And the Department of Justice’s desire to zealously investigate this alleged crime of racism is ironic when you juxtapose it with the fact that they just threw out a case of proven voter intimidation, committed by a man that is unequivocally biased against white people in Philadelphia. But I guess since the citizens of Philadelphia haven’t destroyed their own communities out of anger about that injustice, it’s just not worth the Department of Justice’s time.

William Sullivan