NAACP Slammed By Liberal Website For Playing "The Race Card"

[Guest Swamprunner]

For your reading enjoyment.

The Tea Party Isn

Seems that the one's base is losing it.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I don't usually visit the Daily Beast, but that was a pretty good article.

Thanks for sharing it.

Hannity had a caller this afternoon who was black, a medical resident

and member/ speaker at Tea Party Rallies. She was not happy with the

NAACP calling Tea Partiers racists. Hannity called her "Dr. Love". He let

her have the show for 5-6 minutes. She went on and on about how the

Tea Partiers have constantly welcomed her with open arms everywhere

she speaks. Just one more example of the left lying about "We the

People".

Sarah Palin came on the show right after Dr. Love and put her

two cents worth about the racism crap. Good show.

[eapking]

Good article. Some folks are starting to wake up finally. This constant race card throwing by the left, at anyone with a different opinion is just pathetic. I happens here in Memphis all the time. Former Mayor Herenton wrote the book on it. He's using similar tactics now against Steve Cohen. His angle is: 'if you're not black you are not qualified to represent the district'. If a white candiate used this argument, the press would have a pointy sheet over his head and he'd be hung out to dry.

Folks, racism is racism no matter the color of the bearer.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It seems the real racists are the ones using the word most, nowadays.

[eapking]

It seems the real racists are the ones using the word most, nowadays.

That'd be "King Willie", for sure.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Overuse of the racism accusation will lead to desensitization and the accusation will cease to have social-regulatory effect. The overuse of racist accusation is like crying wolf. Eventually it is ignored even when the wolves actually arise.

Obviously there are real racists, of all colors, but only a few people are proud and public about it.

When folks have been raised in racist environment for years, many folks can't necessarily just one day decide, "I'm not gonna be racist anymore" even if they intellectually realize it is wrong. If a person has an ingrained attitude toward other groups, it can take a long time to rise above and unlearn old thinking habits.

Most folks don't want to be perceived as racist, any more than they want to be perceived as crazy, violent, lazy, stupid, or whatever. Most folks value peer opinion and reputation. I think a lot of folks bend over backwards to behave in a non-racist fashion, in part because they don't want peers to view them as 'bad people'.

Over-used accusations of racism will desensitize and take the 'sting' out of this social sanction. Eventually, people won't care if they are called racist, and this will make it easier on true public proud racists. The David Dukes and Farrakhan's of the world will find it easier to peddle their wares, because if every Tom, Dick and Harry has been called a racist, then what will be so special about true racism in the Black Panthers or White Aryan Resistance? The desensitization may also increase the incidence of true racist behavior, because the word has lost its 'sting'.

[mav]

It is quite amazing that The Daily Beast is sticking up for the Tea Party. Has hell froze over?

[Guest Ghostrider]

- Big Government

wow...

[Guest earthworm]

Check out www.daybydaycartoon.com for some good & funny insight on this.

[Guest peacexxl]

WOW! Talk about ignoring the facts to fit your agenda. The NAACP did not call the Tea Party racist. The NAACP called upon the Tea Party to disavow rascism within the group. They asked that those with a legitamate political agenda and love for this country disassociate themselves and the group from the wingnuts who's opposition to the administration is based primarily on the president's race. I would think that doing so would greatly increase the legitamacy of the Tea Party and neutralize arguments that they are just a fringe group. It might actually move them toward becoming THE third party in our system if that is in fact a goal.

I guess the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense is just easier.

[Guest GT_Rat]

Since the Tea Party constantly does disassociate itself from racism, repeatedly denouncing it, it seems a bit self serving from the NAACP doesn't it?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Has the NAACP ever called upon the New Black Panthers to disavow racism?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

WOW! Talk about ignoring the facts to fit your agenda. The NAACP did not call the Tea Party racist. The NAACP called upon the Tea Party to disavow rascism within the group. They asked that those with a legitamate political agenda and love for this country disassociate themselves and the group from the wingnuts who's opposition to the administration is based primarily on the president's race. I would think that doing so would greatly increase the legitamacy of the Tea Party and neutralize arguments that they are just a fringe group. It might actually move them toward becoming THE third party in our system if that is in fact a goal.

I guess the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense is just easier.

Now the NAACP, an organization with a historic role in civil rights, seems to be taking Jackson’s path to irrelevancy.

At its national convention in Kansas City, Mo., this week, the NAACP offered a resolution condemning what they call “racist elements†in the anti-big government tea party movement.

“You must expel the bigots and racists in your ranks or take full responsibility for all of their actions,†NAACP President Benjamin Jealous said.

Let me hazard a guess here. Some critics of President Barack Obama don’t like him because he has black skin. They might invoke other issues, but the black skin thing bothers them.

Conversely, some Obama supporters like him because he’s black. They might talk about other issues, but it’s the black skin that compels them.

But for the NAACP to condemn the tea party as racist — and the point of the resolution was to put the libertarian movement on the political defensive — isn’t only wrong, it’s wrongheaded. From Big Government

No one has ever shown a Tea Party member to be a racist or bigot. Large sums of money

have been offered to anyone that can prove any racism with a video or other evidence.

The charge of racism has only been by innuendo or by a group trying to stir racism to

a supposed surface. The NAACP president should have never made that statement as

he was just joining the crowd to stir the pot up more. There are enough blacks in the Tea

Party movement to dispel what he says, and they have always been welcomed. This isn't

even about racism, just politics, and it is crap.

[Guest peacexxl]

Has the NAACP ever called upon the New Black Panthers to disavow racism?

That would be because the New Black Panthers have no relevance for anyone. Trying to connect the New Black Panthers to the NAACP is like trying to connect the Tea Party to the KKK. It is an absurd leap. But that does not mean that it is good for the Tea Party to ignore the fact that very vocal, small minority within their ranks are getting a great deal of exposure in their name. If they their true platform to be considered, then they have to seperate themselves from what is a clearly poisonous element within the group.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If someone can demonstrate racism within the Tea Party

then do it! Don't bring on faceless accusations. They

make for meaningless discussions and frivolous debate.

If it's there, then deal with it. Otherwise it is a nonstarter.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Lester Weevils]

That would be because the New Black Panthers have no relevance for anyone. Trying to connect the New Black Panthers to the NAACP is like trying to connect the Tea Party to the KKK. It is an absurd leap. But that does not mean that it is good for the Tea Party to ignore the fact that very vocal, small minority within their ranks are getting a great deal of exposure in their name. If they their true platform to be considered, then they have to seperate themselves from what is a clearly poisonous element within the group.

Hi Peace

Can you supply documentation of the poisonous element in action? Lots of talking heads have alleged such. For that matter, lots of talking heads allege that the Tea Party has no real relevance for anyone, and perhaps they will be correct at the end of the day.

The NAACP legal defense fund was involved trying to influence the Justice Dept to drop the Black Panther voter intimidation case, so the Black Panthers must be at least mildly relevant to the NAACP or they wouldn't have shown any interest in that case.

I just think that racism should be treated even-handedly, and it should not be imagined where it does not exist or the concept will be diluted until it has no relevance.

For instance, years ago I regularly contributed to SPLC and in the past they actually did some good things, but them fellers seem to have gone off the deep end. A couple of months ago heard a long detailed interview with one of the SPLC lawyers and he saw evidence of racism in every non-democrat political org. All of em were racist in his book. This is reminiscent of some folks back during the red scare era who saw commies in every closet and under every bed. Sure, there were commies in some closets and under some beds, but certainly not ALL of them.

It is evidence of using racism accusations as a cynical political tool. Or evidence of some folks becoming completely unhinged. Take yer pick.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

For a better example of racism and lies, do you remember when MSNBC et al used a picture of a supposed white man with an AR 15 slung over his shoulder at an Obama gathering out west last year?

It turned out after the picture was uncropped the man

was black. The video showed that, also. There is

political racism going rampant in the media when they

are exposed like that. And that didn't happen to involve

the Tea Party. It was pure media bias. If the NAACP

really wants to advance people of color, it should not be disingenuous and should not align itself with the likes of

any political organization or media campaign. There are

far too many good examples of blacks being a positive

force for good and defending liberty in this country to

end up being belittled by organizations which would rather control them. Ask someone like Lt Col Allen West

what inspires him. He is an inspiring individual.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StPatrick]

WOW! Talk about ignoring the facts to fit your agenda. The NAACP did not call the Tea Party racist. The NAACP called upon the Tea Party to disavow rascism within the group. They asked that those with a legitamate political agenda and love for this country disassociate themselves and the group from the wingnuts who's opposition to the administration is based primarily on the president's race. I would think that doing so would greatly increase the legitamacy of the Tea Party and neutralize arguments that they are just a fringe group. It might actually move them toward becoming THE third party in our system if that is in fact a goal.

I guess the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense is just easier.

How is calling for a group to "disavow racism within the group" not an easy hit-job on the whole group? While they didn't call the tea party movement racist, they certainly implied that racist elements were present with at least tacit acceptance by leadership and membership of said movement.

Does this activism work independently of the political goals of the NAACP, or is it perhaps more nuanced? Let's consider one potential example:

What if you pulled 100 tea party activists out of a crowd, and had rules for the selection of those 100 folks that would, according to popular and accepted beliefs, suggest the individuals were predisposed to racist sentiments? What is the probability that you would manage to find a true dyed-in-the-wool racist? What are the odds that you'd find one that had taken action of any kind based on those beliefs? Those probablities are impossible to calculate, but stop now and consider what the percentage might be if you were to take your best guess.

...

...

...

First, let's set the rules for selection; most would agree that this would be a very good way to find a racist, based on what we know of who is likely to be a racist (as defined currently; that is, a white person bigoted towards nonwhites):

1. Caucasion by race

2. American by birth; at least 3rd generation with no immigrant parents

3. From a state that was part of the confederacy

4. From a rural area

5. Born at least 15 years before the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1968 - this allows for actual memories and experiences during legal segregation, which should help reduce sentimentality among young racists for a world they never experienced. Anyone born 1943 or earlier, fitting the above conditions, will have seen firsthand the reality of government mandated racial discrimination, and could then be inferred to hold an opinion of those policies, be they for, against, or neutral with respect to those policies.

Now, research the histories of these men.

There has been one survey that does this frequently, but it includes a handful of women and minorities as well. Their impact is, of course, minimal in a quick investigation like this, since they don't fit the criteria, being too female, too northern (and I know there are racists in the north, but let's deal with the most popular and easy to find racists), too black, or too young. Out of 100 respondents over nearly 60 years, 1% of the respondents were easily identified and unequivocally classified as a racist. Since 1% of 100 is 1, clearly we're only talking about one individual. This person is male, white, from a southern state, 3rd generation immigrant or later, and over the age of 67, indicating personal experience with both Jim Crow and segregation as an everyday normality. Based on our classification system, he fits the profile we're seeking.

Having espoused, in public, opinions on the inferiority of blacks, their inability to serve honorably in the military, and in fact having held the post of "Exalted Cyclops" in the Ku Klux Klan, and having romanticized his early dealings with that organization, we can safely say this man is an avowed racist.

So, we must ask, who is this evil man? How could such a person walk among polite company without shame, or even lead a normal life? Surely, such a bad person would never be accepted among decent company.

Well, since you're all waiting for the answer: the "survey" I mentioned is the roll call of the US Senate since 1958, and there's only one known mutant who fits the above description.

Since 1958, this creature, allegedly a "man" has been known as the (recently deceased) Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-WV).

Thus, I now call upon the NAACP to pass a resolution requiring the entire US Senate, and especially the Democratic Caucus of which former Senator Byrd was such an esteemed member for 52 years, to disavow the potential racists in their midst.

The the above show that the Senate has had racist members in the recent past, ergo the Senate may contain racists today. I'm sure a proclamation from our Senate Majority Leader is in the works.

Warning, Dems: the easiest way to cheapen and blunt the claim of racism is to hurl it at everyone who disagrees with you, while ignoring the bigots among you. Eventually, there will be a real wolf, and there won't be anyone to come help, as the young shepherd cries too frequently.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

An existential question which probably cannot be unambiguously answered--

Which would be more racist--

1. A person who votes AGAINST a candidate primarily based on race.

2. A person who votes FOR a candidate primarily based on race.

3. Both behaviors are about equally racist.

[Guest peacexxl]

First, let's set the rules for selection; most would agree that this would be a very good way to find a racist, based on what we know of who is likely to be a racist (as defined currently; that is, a white person bigoted towards nonwhites):

1. Caucasion by race

2. American by birth; at least 3rd generation with no immigrant parents

3. From a state that was part of the confederacy

4. From a rural area

5. Born at least 15 years before the passage of the Civil Rights act in 1968 - this allows for actual memories and experiences during legal segregation, which should help reduce sentimentality among young racists for a world they never experienced. Anyone born 1943 or earlier, fitting the above conditions, will have seen firsthand the reality of government mandated racial discrimination, and could then be inferred to hold an opinion of those policies, be they for, against, or neutral with respect to those policies.

I truly hope that this is for effect and you don't really think that this is an accepted definition of a racist. I can tell you from personal experience that this is not the case. Clearly, at least in my eyes, racism is far more subtle and widespread than this.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I haven't seen anyone on here use anything close to

racism, just as I haven't seen anyone within the Tea

Party movement use anything close to racism. It may

be something subtle as you say, Peacexxl, but it

happens on all sides. It is mostly bias, which is human.

I still want to see the racism that caused the NAACP

to issue that statement, and I want to know why they

haven't adopted MLK's approach instead of political

socialist hogwash that is still ruining it for all of us.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalks

[Guest Swamprunner]

peacexxl:

Get over yerself. It's not about Obama, it's about his policies. It's not about Obama, it's about his spending. It's not about Obama, it's about the people he surrounds himself with. It's not about a black man, but about a man who has socialist tendencies.

~swamp

[Guest 6.8 AR]

An existential question which probably cannot be unambiguously answered--

Which would be more racist--

1. A person who votes AGAINST a candidate primarily based on race.

2. A person who votes FOR a candidate primarily based on race.

3. Both behaviors are about equally racist.

That is the bottom line.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[StPatrick]

I truly hope that this is for effect and you don't really think that this is an accepted definition of a racist. I can tell you from personal experience that this is not the case. Clearly, at least in my eyes, racism is far more subtle and widespread than this.

I apologize if it was unclear...I thought the aggressively sarcastic tone used while defining racism, in the terms of fever swamps such as dailykos.com, the DNC, NAACP, or even the media (but I repeat myself), should have been enough.

Let me boil the whole thing down to the lowest common denominator: grab 100 tea partiers. Then, grab 100 US Senators from 1958 till a couple weeks ago. Only one group is guaranteed to include an Exalted Cylclops of the Ku Klux Klan.

Again, perhaps political philosophy plays a large part in the NAACP's definition of racism, based on the above.

For easy interpretation, here's my original post, in one simple clause: NAACP says Tea Party = Racists. The NAACP accepts the presence of a racist in the Senate who supports their political preferences for the latter portion of his 58 years. Thus the definition of "Racists" can be inferred as those who disagree with the NAACP's politics.

Better?

[Guest peacexxl]

This is the problem with "RACISM" in current times as I see it. Too many people from one point of view, want to see racism everywhere they look and use it as an excuse for not being able to get ahead. At the same time, too many people from another point of view choose to keep their eyes closed and not recognize racism unless it is draped in a white hood and burning a cross. The NAACP first of all, has not just rolled over and accepted the racist elements within the governemt, this is in great part why the formation of the congressional black caucus, congressional hispanic caucus, congressional asian caucus, and many other smaller groups whithin the government were formed. But if these groups are brought up seperately, then there is an accusation of racism or "reverse racism" based purely on their existance. The question is usually presented of why isn't there a congressional white caucus, and the response from the opposing side is usually that there is and it's called the senate.

The point is that if someone mentions racism within 50 yards of people, everyone around feels like they have been hit with shrapnel and have to go on the defensive. I think that if we could all recognize that it exists, even in the subtleties of our culture, and point it out and say that we do not accept it, then there would be no need for groups to scream it from the roof tops and make such a big deal out of it. But when it is ignored and people act like it only exist in the paranoid mind of activists of an era that has long passed, then it gets to fester and lurk in the back ground and has a way of smelling up things for everyone.

In the mean time, the Tea Party has done exactly what I think the NAACP was asking in the first place by ousting Mark Williams after his "Letter to Lincoln". And the fact that he felt comfortable enough to write such a letter and thought that it would be widely accepted speaks volumes to the original point that was trying to be made.