First, the NAACP President and CEO, Benjamin Todd Jealous says:

We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

It’s commendable that Jealous has taken the time from making baseless accusations of Tea Party racism to almost directly call out one of his supporters who actually is a racist.  Of course, he also begins to immediately distance the NAACP from their own banquet by repeatedly calling it a “local event,” and provides cover for Sherrod by portraying her comments as an isolated incident.

Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.

The reaction from many in the audience is disturbing. We will be looking into the behavior of NAACP representatives at this local event and take any appropriate action.  [emphasis mine]

The “local” office that was directly overseeing this event is still a part of the NAACP.  It is not some autonomous entity that has stolen their name and is using it without permission.  I was not at the event, so I don’t know what was said outside of the tapes that have been released.  However, there is currently little, if any, indication that Sherrod felt any remorse for her actions.

As for the crowd, they showed no signs of disapproval when Sherrod announced that she didn’t do all she could for the farmer because he was white.  Contrast that to the reaction of Conservatives to bigoted remarks by Ryan Sorba at last year’s CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference).

Finally, if the NAACP is so concerned by Sherrod’s remarks, why did it take over a year and media publicity to address them?  I am not asking Jealous to personally condemn any malicious members with a widely publicized press conference, but there is no evidence of any private rebuke.  I’m fairly certain the NAACP can determine the speakers at its banquets.  Sherrod’s attitude should have disqualified her from any future relationship with the organization.  Jealous’ comments would sound less hollow if he had been able to point to specific actions taken privately by the NAACP in the wake of this event.  That he cannot indicates further systemic problems with his organization.

Video by the Douglas County Tea Party via sECULARsTUPIDEST

Well, Mr. President, it looks like quite a few in the House are ready to “have that fight.”  Congressman Steve King from Iowa, the same state in which Obama made the above remarks, is pulling out all the stops with a plan that could potentially put repeal on the table and force another vote before November’s midterm elections.  With a majority of Americans still supporting a full repeal months after the bills passage and Congressional reelection campaigns underway, how many vulnerable Democrat politicians would be willing to cast another “aye” vote?

As of yesterday evening, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) had obtained 130 signatures in support of a discharge petition.  If he is able to reach 218 signatures, then the House would be forced to allow a vote.  While discharge petitions are rarely successful, this legislation could present the perfect storm.  If everyone who voted against the bill signed the petition, it would have 212 signatures.

King only needs to win over 6 members of the opposition.  For those six members, this could be the vote that keeps them in office.  Gibbs himself has finally confessed that the Republican Party could take back the House this fall.  Except for the most liberal districts in the nation, “Standing with Obama” is not a great campaign strategy.  Repealing ObamaCare provides a substantive way for Democrats who voted against the American people to demonstrate that they’ve “seen the light.”

Will King’s effort succeed?  I don’t know.  Discharge petitions are rare.  Successful discharge petitions are even rarer.  And it’s not like Obama is going to refrain from using the veto pen to protect his signature government takeover.  But either way, the effort will keep the Health Care debate in the national consciousness.  It will force Democrats to defend their votes, and that is definitely good for our republic.

is to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.

Its vision statement:

is to ensure a society in which all individuals have equal rights without discrimination based on race.

and one of its objectives:

To inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination

Of course, despite the talk about “all persons” and “all individuals,” none of this applies if the victim is white.  The NAACP has yet to even make a mention of the racism inherent in the New Black Panther party.  They have not commented on the court proceedings, or the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop the case even after they won by default.

If the NAACP’s objective is to “inform the public of the adverse effects of racial discrimination and to seek its elimination,” why are they passing up an opportunity to do just that.  How hard can it be?  The New Black Panther Party’s racism is well documented.  What part of “I hate white people, all of them.  Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him.” leaves any room for doubt?  Is there any context in which advocating infanticide could possibly be considered acceptable or healthy for a community?

Instead of addressing the very real injustice of voter intimidation perpetrated by the New Black Panther Party, the NAACP has chosen to focus on fabricated injustices of the Tea Party.  At least we know where they stand.  The NAACP is now comprised of liberals first.  The New Black Panther Party’s anti-Capitalist stance and minority composition grants it immunity from condemnation. Meanwhile, a group that mirrors the demographic composition of the nation but opposes unfettered liberalism must be declared racist.

When the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded in 1909, it had a legitimate purpose.  Their original mission:

To promote equality of rights and to eradicate caste or race prejudice among the citizens of the United States; to advance the interest of colored citizens; to secure for them impartial suffrage; and to increase their opportunities for securing justice in the courts, education for the children, employment according to their ability and complete equality before law.

The change was slow, but ultimately, the organization and it’s like-minded counterparts succeeded.  With the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act despite an attempted filibuster by the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd, we as a nation began the final leg of this journey.  Unfortunately for the NAACP, they now face the activist’s paradox.  Since they have been so successful, their organization no longer has a purpose.  Their stated mission has hardly changed, which means they must continue to find racism, change their mission, or dissolve.

Unfortunately for our nation, the NAACP has been hijacked by leftists who seek to use its former glory to advance their agenda.  The organization’s systemic need to fuel race-related tension in order to remain relevant leads to remarkable condemnations.  We saw this in California, where the Los Angeles NAACP succeeded in getting a “controversial,” “racist” Hallmark graduation card pulled from the shelves.  The card’s offense?  The characters put the universe “on notice” and warn black holes to “watch your back.”

Now, the NAACP has taken it a step farther.  They have lied to the American people in order to slander the Tea Party.  In announcing the decision, the NAACP claims:

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.

Quite simply, this did not happen.  There is absolutely zero evidence that it did happen.  This walk, out in the open, smug, through the middle of the opposition, was meant to provoke, and it didn’t work.  And the Congressional Black Caucus should know.  Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. recorded the entire episode and was unable to produce any evidence that racial epithets were shouted once, let alone fifteen times.

The NAACP further claims, “Missouri Representative Emmanuel Cleaver was spat on during the incident.”  Let’s assume Cleaver has any credibility left after claiming there was a “chorus” of people shouting the n-word.  After foolishly rushing a press release, Cleaver ultimately backtracked on the apparent “spitting incident.”  If Cleaver says it didn’t happen, why would the NAACP report the incident as fact several months later?

The NAACP concludes with this:

The proposed resolution had generated controversy on conservative blogs, where in some cases the language has been misconstrued to imply that the NAACP was condemning the entire Tea Party movement itself as racist.

When you condemn “racist elements” that don’t exist, you slander the entire movement.  The NAACP is just doing its part in attempting to discredit any opponent of Obama’s radical agenda.

/********** Update: NAACP Doubles Down on Twitter **********\

Before publishing their condemnation, the NAACP doubled down on the false charges via Twitter.  Here’s what the organization had to say:

Twitter’s character constraints have also forced the NAACP to be honest.  This is meant to be a condemnation of the Tea Party in an attempt to de-legitimize the political movement.  The whole bit about “racist elements” was to provide media cover.

Liberals inhabit a word where “grassroots” means having the SEIU send in a busl0ad of paid “supporters” to hold a “spontaneous” rally.  And of course, media trucks just happen to be right around the corner and notice the commotion.  This is why liberals insist the Tea Party must be a front for the GOP.  The can’t conceive of a movement that isn’t coordinated by some vast network of “grassroots” architects.  They know liberal grassroots campaigns are always a charade, so they assume the same must be true of any grassroots movement. Someone must be pulling the strings.

Liberals still don’t get it.  There is no “Tea Party” (other than the fake one in Nevada, that is).  “Tea Party” was just a theme which became a label.  Although there are some actual tea party groups now, these did not exist before the movement.  They grew out of it to provide some organization at the local level, but there is no national group directing their progress.  There aren’t chapters of the Tea Party.  There is no central command.  Each local tea party acts independently but they are all united by a common cause.  These independent Tea Parties don’t make the same arguments because they’ve circulated a list of talking points. (Most of the organizations have never communicated with any groups outside of their own state.)  Tea partiers make the same arguments because they believe in their philosophy.  They have true conviction.

The Tea Party didn’t mash together 170 existing Conservative groups.  Before the movement began, I’m not even sure there would have been 170 groups to mash together.  With “One Nation,” the Left is trying to duplicate a true grassroots movement with a centralized network.  It won’t work.  They might ultimately hold a few rallies, maybe even a press conference, but their coalition will ultimately flop because it is not built around ideas.  It is built around competing with a legitimate grassroots movement.

Huckabee is a committed social conservative.  From what I have seen, he is devoutly religious, and often shares his views about faith. Huckabee seems like a nice guy, a good neighbor.  But America is not craving a social conservative.  We don’t need a “feel-good,” “compassionate,” president, we need someone willing to take radical liberals like Pelosi head-on. We need a fiscal conservative willing to slash the runaway entitlement spending built up by Congressional Democrats.  Huckabee may be the most moral presidential candidate in recent history, but I struggle to imagine him rolling back liberal regression.

Before there was ObamaCare, there was RomneyCare, the Massachusetts health care plan.  I don’t often advocate single-issue politics, but this is a major issue.  How can we trust a man who brought an equally destructive—albeit constitutional—health care takeover to his own state to repeal the Democrat takeover of our health care at the national level?  The simple answer: we can’t.

Politically, Giuliani is probably the most dependable, but he is a New England Republican.  He is a “moderate” who supported “comprehensive immigration reform” to provide a “path to citizenship” on the 2008 campaign trail.  Amnesty never has worked; amnesty never will work; it fails every time it is tried.  If the immigration snafu isn’t enough to take down Giuliani among Conservatives, Democrats are sure to break out the scandal file and bring up the same ethics charges that stymied his campaign the last time around.  All-in-all, unless he’s facing a weak Democrat with a continued GOP upswing, Giuliani  is a losing candidate.

And finally, if McCain chooses to run in 2012, he is a fool.  If the Republican party selects him as the nominee, then it deserves to go down in flames.

From Sotomayor to Kagan, Obama has nominated the most unqualified, far-Left justices in my lifetime.  Even worse, Senate Republicans have hardly feigned a struggle to prevent their confirmation.  Like our current President, Obama’s justices disdain the Constitution, and will accept any argument to subvert its clear meaning and intent.  Fortunately, Obama has only had the opportunity to refresh the liberals on the 4 side of recent 5-4 decisions.  And if the New York Post is correct, Obama may never get the chance to crack the 5.  According to the paper:

Justice Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least three more years – through the end of Obama’s first term, sources said.

That means Kennedy will be around to provide a fifth vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice.

Kennedy is the swing vote on the Court. Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and—until recently—Stevens are a rubber stamp for Obama’s statist agenda.  Stevens retired so that Obama could replace him with a far-left justice—in his words, “what is best for the Court.”  Obama must be denied any opportunity to replace Kennedy with another liberal justice.  Apparently, Kennedy is well aware of the implications of his retirement, and is quietly reminding Obama that he likes his odds in the waiting game.  If Obama is defeated in 2012, Kennedy can retire in the summer of 2013 knowing that the President will—as the Post noted—likely nominate a Conservative justice who rejects the Left’s notion of a “living Constitution” that “needs to be refreshed.”

Even if Obama manages to get reelected in 2012, Kennedy can wait out the second term and still retire at 80, a full decade before Stevens stepped down from the bench.  Hopefully, he will continue to do what is best for our Constitution and our nation.

After all, a consensus has emerged.  The facts of the case are settled.  We cannot second guess the expert testimony of the crime’s only witness.  By Gore’s own logic, we must acknowledge the crime has occurred.  All we can decide is his fate.  What are the consequences for such a heinous act?  How can we prevent similar crises in the future?

Fortunately for Mr. Gore, our justice system does not play by his rules.  Should this case ever see a courtroom, Gore will be granted an equal opportunity to present his side of the story.  He will be allowed to present his own evidence and to thoroughly examine any evidence brought against him.  Mr. Gore will be judged by a jury of his peers—which, considering his former boss, is probably a bonus.  If only the same level of honest discussion and analysis were allowed in the scientific community, a world which has been muddied by political posturing for far too long.

“President Barack Obama on Wednesday lashed out at Republicans as out of touch with the daily problems of Americans, hoping to sharpen the contrast with the opposition party as midterm elections loom.”

Obama harped on two recent—and highly disingenuous—Democrat Party talking points.  First, Representative Joe Barton’s apology to BP, and second, House Minority Leader John Boehner’s criticism of the Democrats’ fallaciously named Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act which puts the keys to the economy in the hands of the same incompetents who just wrecked the family car.

In response to Obama’s criticism of Joe Barton, as I previously stated:

“Even if his comments were politically clumsy, Rep. Joe Barton hit the philosophical nail on the head.  The United States is supposedly a nation of laws.  Seizing a crisis as an opportunity to extort $20,000,000,000 from a business has no place in such a nation. ….

While Barton’s comments might not receive such sympathy from the general population or Gulf coast residents, Obama has already worn out this card. ….  Liberal pollsters at Public Policy Polling recently found a majority of Louisiana voters give George W. Bush better marks for his response to Katrina.  The two aren’t even close.  Bush swept the question by a margin of 15 points.

[Furthermore,] How does it look when Gulf coast voters who don’t follow politics every day find out Obama has received $20,000,000,000 and still hasn’t managed anything more than photo ops and inflammatory rhetoric? ….”

Since then, the Gulf crisis has only gotten worse, and team Obama has done little but obfuscate and obstruct.  Blaming Republicans won’t clean up the spill or bring jobs back to Florida, Texas, Louisiana, or any other state.  Pointing fingers only reminds voters how inadequate Obama’s response to this crisis has been.

Criticism of Boehner faces a similar fate.  Ironically, the Minority Leader’s so-called “gaffe” has prompted Speaker Pelosi to finally open up about the non-recovery of Obama’s “recovery summer.”  As she points out on her website, the United States has lost 8,000,000 jobs and $17,500,000,000,000 (17.5 Trillion) in net worth.  All of this has taken place since the Democrats took the legislative reigns in 2006.

And of course,  after attacking a couple of Republicans who actually hold elected office, Obama couldn’t resist the chance to attack his predecessor who officially stopped working 528 days ago.  According to the AP:

“‘How do we get government spending under control?’ he asked, giving voice to public complaints. ‘That’s a legitimate question. …, all of us should be worried about the fact that we have been running the credit card in the name of future generations. And somebody’s going to have pay that back.’

Obama said the main culprit was not the costly emergency measures under his watch but a structural habit of the government spending more than it takes in. He said the answer is to reduce spending in a ‘gradual way’ that doesn’t hurt people.”

On its face, this comment sounds sensible, but it flagrantly disregards the facts.  Yes, we are overspending.  In the most recent decade of Republican Congresses, our nation averaged an annual deficit of $97,720,000,000.  That is unsustainable, but it’s far better than the most recent decade of Democrat-controlled congresses during which we’ve averaged an annual deficit over 3.5 times as large at $357,950,000,000 per year.

Even worse, despite rattling off his “good intentions” in a town hall, Obama has taken no action to reduce spending, even gradually.  Instead, he has dramatically grown the government.  This is right in line with the Democrats’ record.  Over the past 40 years, the Democrats have never had a budget surplus or reduced the national debt.  Over the past 40 years, the United States has enjoyed only 4 years of government surplus and debt reduction. All four occurred during Republican Congressional control.

The obscure law came to the forefront of local politics after opportunistic government officials in King, NC used the provision to ban alcohol sales and possession of firearms, and to impose a 12 AM to 5 AM curfew.  Ostensibly, the bans were enacted to help protect residents from an impending snow storm.  Of course, that storm never materialized.

If the court accepts the case, they could ultimately rule on yet another aspect of the Second Amendment: can governments regulate firearms on public property?  The first case, Heller vs. DC, held that the District could not ban possession of firearms for self-defense in the home.  Similarly, because of the nature of the case, the McDonald case found a fundamental, individual right to own a gun for self-defense in the home, but it did not directly address regulation of weapons outside of the home.

While “gun-free” zones are demonstrably ineffective and any ruling upholding a firearms ban on public property would appear inconsistent with the courts most recent decisions, this area still lacks precedent.  Hopefully, the court will finally acknowledge a fundamental right to bear arms—not just keep them—but nothing is guaranteed.  Barring any preemptive action by state legislators, this will be another long court battle culminating in an equally thin verdict.

That is, unless you work at the New York Times.  To them, “the real story here isn’t Weigel’s public embarrassment — it’s the shame of FishbowlDC for publishing private correspondence, and the disgrace of JournoList for harboring at least one would-be career wrecker.”  Just like their response to ClimateGate, the New York Times has chosen to kill the messenger and ignore the message.  The Times concedes, “The only decent response is to disband the email list,” but why would they have even considered doing so if one of their members had not released Weigel’s comments?

Furthermore, for all the Times’ talk about what should and shouldn’t be “private correspondence,” this is the same entity that published the Top Secret “Pentagon Papers” on the newspaper’s front page in 1971.  How is it okay to publish a classified military report, and not okay to publish a few emails that were sent to an email list, a method of correspondence which Weigel should have had no reasonable expectation would remain private?

FishbowlDC was right to publish Weigel’s comments.  They demonstrated the open bias of the Washington Post reporter who was assigned to cover the Tea Party movement and Conservatism in America.  The real story is Weigel’s open bias, and the Washington Post’s tenuous attempt to maintain their facade of objectivity by relieving Weigel from his position.  We’d all be better off if the Washington Post would just admit that they basically agree with Weigel.  The honesty would be refreshing, and it might even improve their struggling circulation numbers.

Yesterday, the regents of the University of Colorado (CU) in voted 5-4 to appeal the court’s decision to overturn their campus gun bans.  In other words, they’re throwing a temper tantrum because the court decided the school’s board of regents didn’t have the authority to override state law.  (The ruling does not apply to private schools because they are not under the jurisdiction of the state, and their campuses are not public property.)  Specifically, the court ruled:

The statute’s plain language applies to “all areas of the state” and does not specify public universities in its list of exceptions. § 18-12-214. Had the legislature intended to exempt universities, it knew how to do so.

To justify the ban, the Colorado state legislature would have needed to revise the Concealed Carry Act of 2003.  They have not done so, nor should they.  Reinstatement of the ban would necessarily contradict state law, and have the unintended consequence of “granting the Regents immunity from legislation unless a statute expressly and unequivocally provides that it applies to the University.”  That’s quite a price to pay to ease the minds of insecure administrators.