The NAACP recently issued a new report by Devin Burghart, Leonard Zeskind and the Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights that “exposes the connection between numerous Tea Party leaders and racism.” (get the full report here)
This paper was sponsored by The Institute for Research & Education on Human Rights (IREHR). It describes itself as “a national organization with an international outlook examining racist, anti-Semitic, white nationalist, and far-right social movements, analyzing their intersection with civil society and social policy, educating the public, and assisting in the protection and extension of human rights through organization and informed mobilization.”
The Forward gets off to an encouraging start: “We know the majority of Tea Party supporters are sincere, principled people of good will.” The authors then write “it is important that we have a reasoned political debate without the use of epithets, the threat of violence, or the resurrection of long discredited racial hierarchies.”
Overall, the report is informative. As just an average guy and not a career politician or political expert of any kind, I enjoyed reading the detailed information provided about six of the major Tea Party organizations. (FreedomWorks, 1776 Tea Party, ResistNet, Tea Party Nation, Tea Party Patriots and Tea Party Express). The authors provide information on the founders of each group, some basic financials, the stated goals or missions for each group and their membership demographics. They also refer to smaller groups including SmartGirl Politics, Americans For Prosperity and Red State among many others, and promise to deliver a report providing more detail about these groups.
Beyond the history of the tea party groups, the rest of the report is a biased delivery of standard leftward talking points. After all, when you can’t win an argument on facts you can either admit you are wrong, or you can resort lies and name-calling. Allow me to summarize:
- Any reference to people that want secured borders, including groups like the Minutemen or supporters of AZ1070 are called “anti-immigrant.” Correction #1: We are anti-illegal-immigration. They use the phrase “anti-immigrant” 29 times in this report.
- The authors seemingly obsess over the “birther” element of the tea party movement. The word “birther” appears 12 times, as does “birth certificate.” Correction #2: The vast majority of tea party people are tired of birthers. They are not the mainstream.
- The word “racist” is used 58 times in the report, “racism” is used 26 times. Yet other than discussing the backgrounds of a very small number of people in the movement that have radical views or are/were associated with groups that virtually all tea party people disavow, the report offers zero proof of legitimate racism or violence. They mention two specific tea party signs that were offensive. (how many thousands were displayed?)
The focus on the far-right is obvious, hence the racism motif presented throughout this report. As an aside it would be great to see their focus on the far-left to see what they come up with when looking at groups like ACORN, the ACLU, or the Obama administration for that matter.
As you dig deeper into the report and try to find the actual substance, you quickly find that there is none. The authors trot out the failed yet still popular lies that Barney Frank was called a fag, John Lewis was called a nigger, and members of the Congressional Black Caucus were spat upon. None of these have been proven true, but facts don’t matter when you are playing the race card.
The authors hint at racism throughout the tea party movement, but other than their discussion of a few fringe personalities, they provide no proof. Here are just a few comments that typify the non-statistical portions of the report:
- “The Tea Party movement as a whole is a multimillion dollar complex that includes for-profit corporations, non-party non-profit organizations, and political action committees.”
- “The result of this study contravenes many of the Tea Parties’ self-invented myths, particularly their supposedly sole concentration on budget deficits, taxes and the power of the federal government. Instead, this report found Tea Party ranks to be permeated with concerns about race and national identity and other so-called social issues.”
- “Nevertheless, the impact of President Barack Obama’s election, and the fact that the First Family of the United States has ancestors who were once the property of white people, has had an effect. It is not direct and mechanical, like a cue ball hitting the nine ball into the corner pocket. But it is identifiable nonetheless.”
- “Theirs is an American nationalism that does not always include all Americans. It is a nationalism that excludes those deemed not to be “real Americans;” including the native-born children of undocumented immigrants (often despised as “anchor babies”), socialists, Moslems, and those not deemed to fit within a “Christian nation.”
The report also uses the common trick of pointing out comments from blogs and then finding the person that posted the comment and tying that person to a fringe group, then looping back around to try and connect it to the actual Tea Party. This technique is used more than once. And I have to ask the authors, do you really want to go down the path of comparing the content of posts between liberal versus conservative blogs and web sites? I welcome that challenge any time. The same can be said about death threats. They mention angry voicemails left at the NAACP after its resolution condemning “racist elements” of the tea party. Shall we compare those messages to the threats people like Glenn Beck receive? Or for that matter people at FreedomWorks or Tea Party Express? Again, I say bring it on.
For me, this report jumped the shark when it actually presented concern over the political opinion of the lead singer of a band that appeared at a Washington D.C. rally. Really? The band? They also complained about a sign that said “Honk if I’m paying your mortgage” because they felt it was insulting to the poor that many entitlement programs are aimed at.
Let me leave you with the closing statement, which actually may be all you need to read to get the gist of this report:
“It is here, at the conjunction of nativism, opposition to birthright citizenship, the denigration of President Obama, and the fear of the new majority in American life, that the unstated racism embedded within the Tea Parties becomes vocal and unmistakable.”
I think you get the point. Overall, the historical data provided about the larger tea party organizations is interesting, but if I were a college professor I would give this paper a failing grade if the goal was to persuade.
The Loud Talker is all wee-wee’d up after spending a weekend with like-minded patriots at Right Online 2010 in Las Vegas. This episode includes an interview with Americans For Prosperity Texas Director Peggy Venable, plus some truly scathing commentary aimed at Obama supporters. If you want the red meat just jump to somewhere near the 43-minute mark. Enjoy!
Get my podcast here.
Kevin Jackson is a rising star in the conservative new media world. He’s been on Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly’s shows, he has shredded an MSNBC anchor, he has educated clueless kool-aid drinkers, spoken at tea parties nationwide. and is a proud conservative worth listening to. I’m happy to call him a friend and I always love sitting down and speaking with him because you never know where the discussion might go. Can you dig it?
[I actually wrote this last Thursday, but Right Online kept me busy enough to prevent this from getting published until now.]
Lots of attention has been given to Shirley Sherrod’s NAACP speech and her subsequent firing (with initial blessings from the White House and the NAACP itself). I seem to find myself in the minority on this topic, but as always I am willing to change my mind if presented with a rational reason to do so. As of this writing I have seen nothing to indicate that Mrs. Sherrod did not make racist statements. In fact, after reading her entire speech my opinion has been solidified, not diminished.
The left has been screaming for everyone to watch the entire video. “If you do you will see that she was taken out of context.” Even conservative star Ann Coulter has said that the words were taken out of context and that Andrew Breitbart was set up. Puh-lease. Don’t insult Breitbart’s intelligence like that, he should apologize for nothing. Read on.
Please note: My take on the issue has resulted in a much longer post than I intended, but the topic is complex. There are no shortcuts when dealing with racism. I expect most liberals don’t have the attention span to read Sharrod’s entire speech, or this article for that matter, but hope it gives you something to think about.
For starters, Mrs. Sherrod was speaking at an NAACP event. The NCAAP has its own copy of the video, and offered it for the public to see. interestingly enough the NAACP supported the decision to fire Sherrod before reversing itself. As an aside: What purpose does the NAACP actual serve? A black friend of mine said that the group exists to support people of color to promote social justice, fairness, etc. However, I encourage you to peruse the NAACP.org web site and find me a picture or two of anyone other than a black person. Any Asians represented? Any Latinos? Native Americans? Indians? Eskimo? Canadian? </sarc>
Try this. Look over the list of winners from the NAACP 2010 Image Awards. The only non-black reference I can see is an award to the Dora The Explorer show. (I’m so glad my daughter has moved beyond this show. The content was fine, but for gosh sakes that girl does nothing but YELL. Not the best show to pop on first thing in the morning. But I digress…)
Given the makeup of this group I think it makes complete sense for it to rename itself the NAAAAP: National Association for the Advancement of African-American People. After all, isn’t the term “colored people” considered racist today? Can we agree that the lack of visible support for any race other than African-Americans seems to merit a name change? After all, Fox News has been criticized for not having enough people of color (despite the fact that MSNBC has an even percentage of visible non0-white stars). Where are the people of other colors at the NAACP? This is not a racist statement, but many liberals will perceive it as such. Either expand the NAACP’s diversity, or rename it to reflect the organization’s current modus operandi.
Let’s get back to the speech. Words have meaning. People are accountable for what they say. Mrs. Sherrod repeatedly brought up race when it did nothing to enhance her story or point. Again, if I’m wrong I am more than willing to change my mind. I just need some evidence to consider before doing so. Here is a brief summary of her speech leading up to the red meat.
- Thanks to everyone for being here… including the NAACP president who said he wasn’t there
- Mentions black avoidance of farm work due to the stigma of “working in the fields”
- Jokes about how hard it is to lose a job as a government worker
- Begins telling the sad story of her father’s murder and lack of punishment for the racist that killed him
- Mentions Sheriff Claude Screws, a sheriff that lynched a black man and was not punished
- Mentions the Rodney King beating
- Talks about Gator Johnson, a powerful sheriff that murdered lots of people
- Talks about wanting to leave her home town to get away from the horrible racism she faced as a teenager (note to black teens today: you have NO IDEA what she went through so cut out the victim crap. Especially that brainiac from the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party that wants to kill white people and their cracker babies.)
- Talks about her father’s desire to have a son and his death months prior to the birth of his only son
- Discusses her epiphany and decision to stay in the south and effect change
- Mentions God and encourages young people to get with God
Then the white farmer story begins.
Up to this point Mrs. Sherrod is doing fine. She is relaying her personal experiences as a true victim of real racism during one of the most racially volatile times in recent US history. The deep south included some despicable, hate-filled places, and sadly there are still remnants of this ignorant and disgusting behavior in the dark corners of Hicksville, USA. I cannot comprehend the fear she and her family felt during that time, and those seeds of fear grew into a racial mentality that has led her to where we are today.
But I have to ask: Do her experiences deem her free from responsibility for her racist remarks at an event hosted by the same organization that recently, officially — with the highly visible support of Michelle Obama — condemned supposed “racist elements” of the Tea Parties, despite having any proof of that racist elements actually exist?
After all, this was the entire reason Andrew Breitbart released the video in the first place. To point out the hypocrisy of the NAACP and the black double standard in general. Was the video edited? Yes. Can you run a 45-minute video during the news? No. Did the NAACP release its own EDITED version of the video? Yes. But who released what and whether or not it was edited has nothing to do with the fact that racist comments were made at an NAACP event. The problem isn’t that a woman has been victimized. The problem is that the same people that rushed to judgment are rushing to apologize, without taking the time to better understand the big picture.
Let’s get to the red meat.
“When I made that commitment [to stay in the South and work to change things], I [wasn't] making that commitment to black people — and to black people only. But, you know God will show you things and He’ll put things in your path so that — that you realize that the struggle is really about poor people, you know.”
Before she starts the farmer story she clarifies that she believes her work is about helping the poor, the have nots. It’s not about race. Her words.
“The first time I was faced with having to help a white farmer save his farm, he — he took a long time talking, but he was trying to show me he was superior to me. I know what he was doing. But he had come to me for help. What he didn’t know while he was taking all that time trying to show me he was superior to me, was I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him.”
- If this is about class, not race, what does it matter that this farmer is white?
- Can Mrs. Sherrod explain exactly how the farmer was trying to establish his superiority? Or was that just paranoia or racism on her part?
- If you were really helping out a poor man, why were you decided how much help to give him, instead of working to give him the full force of what your office could provide? Could it be that he was white and you couldn’t bring yourself to help a white man?
- And, f you were “trying to decide” how much to help, would that be you establishing your own superiority?
“So, I didn’t give him the full force of what I could do. I did enough so that when he — I — I assumed the Department of Agriculture had sent him to me, either that or the — or the Georgia Department of Agriculture. And he needed to go back and report that I did try to help him. So I took him to a white lawyer that we had — that had…attended some of the training that we had provided, ’cause Chapter 12 bankruptcy had just been enacted for the family farmer. So I figured if I take him to one of them that his own kind would take care of him.”
- You admit to doing less than your job, to doing something that would keep you from getting into trouble, but less than you probably would have done if the farmer was black,.
- You assumed the DoA sent him and you figured that the man would report back to the office, so you had to be sure you did *something* to create the image that you were truly trying to help the man.
- You took him to a white lawyer, “his own kind,” so that he would be taken care of. Why? Would another black lawyer act as racist as you did with this farmer?
- “it is about white and black, but it’s not — you know, it opened my eyes, ’cause I took him to one of his own and I put him in his hand, and felt okay, I’ve done my job.”
- No you didn’t. Your job was to help with the tools at your disposal. You limited your efforts and then dumped the farmer off onto one of “his own kind” assuming that all would be taken care of. That is racist.
- You also acted like a stereotypical government worker. “Close enough for government work’ as they say. You did a bare minimum, you did not do your very best. Doing so would apparently have been above your pay grade.
- This came back to bite you because the farmer called you back with a week to go before losing his farm and then you actually helped him out of a sense of need, not out of a sense of race. If you had done your job right the first time you would not have had to repeat your efforts the second time.
Now it gets interesting. The video provided by the NAACP gets edited right in the middle of the sentence where Mrs. Sherrod is talking about working with black farmers and a different lawyer. I find it convenient that the 45-minute video just happens to experience a glitch right in the middle of the supposed redemption story.
Yes. Redemption. This is the word that the left and apologist moderates on both sides are jumping on. (Funny how the left ignores religious concepts until it needs them huh?) Here’s the next paragraph:
“Well, working with [the new lawyer] made me see that it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t, you know. And they could be black; they could be white; they could be Hispanic. And it made me realize then that I needed to work to help poor people — those who don’t have access the way others have.”
In other words, it’s about the haves and the have nots. (open a copy of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The very first paragraph on the very first page of the book introduces this concept, the concept that Obama campaigned on and continues to campaign on.)
“There is no difference between us. The only difference is that the folks with money want to stay in power and whether it’s health care or whatever it is, they’ll do what they need to do to keep that power, you know. It’s always about money, ya’ll”
With this I agree. It’s about power, it’s about money. But it is NOT about race. We are all equal under God’s eye, but there are some people that think that they should be given equality instead of being forced to earn it. But just when I think I see a sign of good content, Mrs. Sherrod turns hard left.
“You know, I haven’t seen such a mean-spirited people as I’ve seen lately over this issue of health care. Some of the racism we thought was buried. Didn’t it surface? Now, we endured eight years of the Bush’s and we didn’t do the stuff these Republicans are doing because you have a black President.”
- What exactly did we “endure” under eight years of GWB? What racism did you see during either Bush presidency? None. All you are doing is parroting one of Obama’s pet campaign phrases without backing it up with facts.
- What “stuff” didn’t you do under GWB that conservatives are supposedly doing under BHO? Examples please.
- I would like to ask Mrs. Sherrod if it is possible to disagree with a Mullatto president without being a racist for doing so.
“Like I told you, God helped me to see that it’s not just about black people — it’s about poor people.”
So it is about black people, not just black people though. It’s about poor people. Poor black people. Is that what you are saying here? Or are you mixing up your words and I’m a racist for questioning you?
“it’s sad that we don’t have a room full of white and blacks here tonight, ’cause we have to overcome the divisions that we have. We have to get to the point where, as Tony Morrison said, “Race exists but it doesn’t matter.”
AMEN! But why was the room lacking in white attendees? Or Asian or Hispanic attendees? Could it be that the NAACP is merely a Blacks Only club that has lost its way? Were any non-blacks invited to the event? I completely agree that we have to get to the point where “Race exists but it doesn’t matter.” But we can only get there when people stop bringing race into everything.
By the way, did you cringe when reading the word “Mulatto” earlier? Did it cause that funny feeling in your stomach as though you were reading the word “nigger?” Does it matter that the term Mulatto is 100% accurate when describing our president and it is not a racist term? It is as racist as the word “albino.” But our society has become so amazingly politically correct that my use of an accurate term makes people uncomfortable, and probably makes some other people quite angry. In fact, here are a few words or phrases that when spoken by whites angers blacks: “You people,” “Our people,” “one of his own,” “people like me.”
All four of these phrases were used by Mrs. Sherrod in her speech. So let’s get back to that speech.
“But we kept working at it {saving the mans farm]. And we found some honest lawyers — they were white — I wish I could say that about all lawyers, especially black lawyers, but they will nickel and dime you to death. I don’t have — sorry — I don’t have two dozen pennies for most lawyers. But anyway that land has been saved, you know. But they were trying to force a sale of all of it. They’ll eventually get 62 acres of the 515. And guess what? They have a white man already lined up to buy it. “
WHO CARES what color the buyer is? Yes. You realized that you had to do your job in order to help this man save his farm. You did so only after first doing the bare minimum needed to keep out of trouble in the event that the farmer reported back to the department your level of assistance. How noble of you. How governmental of you. You actually performed the task your pay grade requires. Not everyone gets a trophy for doing their job. That’s what the paycheck and benefits are for.
Now if you’ve done any reading of the leftward blogs you will find numerous calls for law suits against Fox News. Fox is being blamed for reporting this story. Fox is being accused of libel and slander. Funny thing, the only reason Fox is being accused is because it was the only network that reported the story initially. And did so AFTER she was let go. But reporting a story is not a crime. Distorting a story is a crime. And given the quotes and opinions found in this article I am still of the opinion that Mrs. Sherrod is a nice, God-fearing lady that has suffered bad things in her past, but she is also a woman that is comfortable with her racism. Fortunately for her she is apparently being offered new government jobs, without one of those pesky job interviews. Must be nice to be a government worker.
In summary, I would like those that believe her story is about redemption, about overcoming racism, to show me how this is the case. Thanks to her own words I see a woman reading a story of her racist attitude and actions that took place in 1986, followed by a switch to rich versus poor. She doesn’t talk about why these people are poor, or who enables their lifestyle. She simply transitions from racism to class warfare, the Saul Alinsky “haves and have nots” concept. After all, “it’s really about those who have versus those who don’t.”
President Obama should be proud of her. What are the odds that Mrs. Sherrod is seated at the side of Michelle Obama during the next State of the Union address?
Bank on it.
What is the mission of the NAACP? “The mission of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.”
All persons? I don’t think so. Talk a walk through the NAACP web site and show me where any race other than black is represented. This isn’t a racist statement, it is simply an observation. Look at the awards from the most recent “Image Awards” and find me a non-black reference other than “Dora The Explorer.” (personally I think Little Bill is a ton better than Dora. The music is awesome, and Little Bill lacks the incredibly annoying voice that Dora has.) Claiming that the NAACP promotes the welfare of all racist is like saying that ACORD promotes the welfare of all political parties. Prove me wrong.
Apparently this year the organization is taking a page from the Obama playbook by removing any and all transparency surrounding the creation of its official resolution aimed at tea party members. Thanks to Philip Klein at the American Spectator, we know of a few portions of the current draft of this resolution:
- “Some Tea Party members have used racial epithets and verbally and physically abused African-American congressman and others, and have been charged with making dangerous threats against duly elected public officials…”
- Another line of the resolution called the Tea Party movement a “threat to the pursuit of human rights, justice and equality for all.”
- “BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the NAACP call upon all people of good will specifically but not limited to all political parties and human rights organizations to publicly repudiate the racism and expel the racial instigators of the Tea Party, and to stand in opposition to its drive to push our country back to the pre-civil rights era.”
Hmm. I’ve been to several tea party events including the original 9/11 DC rally and the 4/15 Alamo rally. I can say with confidence that these events were outstanding examples of courtesy, patriotism and camaraderie. To suggest that these events were racist in any way is dishonest. To assert in writing that they are an attempt to “push our country back to the pre-civil rights era” borders on insane.
Yet these stereotypes exist because the press continues to spread lies, and our president and first lady continue to willfully mislead the American public about race issues purely for their own personal gain. This disgusts me and it should disgust you too.
Remember when Michelle Obama first played the race card on 60 Minutes? Instead of using their own life as an example of what minorities can achieve in America, she chose to remain divisive. And now, at a time when race relations appear to me to be as tense as they have ever been in my lifetime, does she take the high road and use her pulpit at the NAACP to try and unite people? No. Instead, the NAACP feels compelled to craft a condemnation of an organization that it does not understand, based on evidence that does not exist. Of course, you cannot defend yourself against something you are not, but that is besides the point.
I would like to see the NAACP summit try to join communities, not divide them. I would like to see our president creating racial harmony and understanding, not poking his nose into racial issues only when the white community can be blamed (see the Cambridge Police, the freedom of the Philadelphia New Black Panthers, or the lawsuit(s) against Arizona for a crime that does not exist). I wish I could say that our president was a uniting force. Instead, I sadly see a man focused on his legacy, not his leadership. Perhaps he could learn something from the following excerpt from a speech from a great man, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Oh, there will be a day, the question won’t be, “How many awards did you get in life?” Not that day. It won’t be, “How popular were you in your social setting?” That won’t be the question that day. It will not ask how many degrees you’ve been able to get. The question that day will not be concerned with whether you are a “Ph.D.” or a “no D.” It will not be concerned with whether you went to Morehouse or whether you went to “No House.”… On that day the question will be, “What did you do for others?”
