If you are Black and live in America, then you are represented by the once esteemed organization known as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), such is the message the NAACP leadership would have the country believe.
Thus by refusing to address the NAACP as president, George W. Bush has slighted all Black people here and for all eternity, or so would the likes of Julian Bond and others lead us to believe.

In reality the NAACP does not speak for all Black Americans, nor does it represent their interests. Candidate George Bush addressed the NAACP convention in 2000, and vowed to reach out to Black America and vigorously enforce civil rights laws in this country. Shortly thereafter, the NAACP all but accused Bush of complicity in the dragging death of James Byrd in 1998. The assertion being that Bush supported lynching because he had opposed that state’s hate crimes statute. The correlation is preposterous, but easily accepted by those with limited analytical capability or with little appreciation for the US Constitution. People should be punished for their crimes, not their thoughts. Given the NAACP’s frosty treatment of Bush from inauguration day to the present, it comes as no surprise that he has not previously addressed the formerly august body, who would, given NAACP Chairman Julian Bond’s likening of the President to a Nazi, yearning to see the swastika wave along side Old Glory?

In spite of these slights, the President agreed to address the convention last week. Perhaps the president was hoping to extend an olive branch to the organization he had previously reached out to. The same organization which ousted its previous president, Kwesi Mfume, when he called for dialogue with the White House.

The President was greeted warmly, no one called Bush a terrorist, a Nazi or a Klansman, as has been asserted by NAACP representatives on occasions too numerous to count. Bush told the convention that he was committed to civil rights and equal opportunity. The president acknowledged that racism still existed in America (as if hate could ever truly be abolished) and he recognized that the GOP and the NAACP have not always seen eye to eye. The president’s message in many respects fell on deaf ears, though many embraced the president’s call to work together.

Judging by the response from Boston Globe columnist Derrick Jackson, there will continue to be a disconnect between the NAACP and other organizations and individuals who differ on addressing matters of race, with those differing simply being dismissed as Nazis.
The fact remains that organizations like the NAACP oppose genuine reform that renders genuine results. Most anyone can attest that the fastest route to success in America is through education, yet the NAACP opposes vouchers, charter schools and other efforts which give parents and their children a voice in education. The NAACP, instead, rejects any and all solutions that diverge from the tired government-centric public school model, rejecting competition and the premise that parents should have an opportunity to provide their children with the very best, rather than the very mediocre. The NAACP, like the NEA, rejects teacher accountability and instead yells for more money. The US already spends more money on education than most every other industrialized country in the world with little to show for it.

Derrick Jackson, like his contemporaries in the NAACP, also re-asserts the tired and baseless accusations that the 2000 election was rigged, claiming that, among all things Blacks were disenfranchised. The essential retort to such a ridiculous claim is where and when. There isn’t so much as a single shred of proof that even one Black person was “disenfranchised.” In truth the one individual who sought to gain office through fraud was Al Gore, through his surreptitious efforts to selectively count certain ballots that yielded the desired result (i.e., a vote for Al Gore)
NAACP convention attendees complained of disparities in health care coverage and a decline in manufacturing jobs, none of which is the responsibility of the president, having more to do with those who gambled poorly in the game of life. Are there those in America who remain in the grip of poverty? Yes, most certainly, this however is not racism. The state is not the cause of an individual’s lack of income, it is the decisions of that individual which have lead to their poor station in life. Poverty is a direct result of sloth and poor decision making, not racism, not the president and not the bogeyman.

In the past, segregation insofar as it relates to education, employment, housing and access to public services have contributed to high levels of poverty amongst minority groups, but those days have long faded and such factors no longer account for poverty today. Today, with a few exceptions, there simply is no rational basis for poverty in the United States. America’s poor are so because they are content to be so. The poor are lazy (yes LAZY) and refuse to take the steps necessary to find gainful employment. They disregard educational opportunities and continue to have child after child, having no ability to care for the first one, much less the third or the forth. Is it racism or even classism that causes some people to engage in casual sex, resulting in a new mouth to feed? Are the carnal pleasures of intercourse so important as to cast responsibility to the wind? Regardless of race, anyone in this country has an opportunity to succeed or fail.

A public education is available for those who seek it. Indeed, it isn’t the schools themselves that are the problem. Quite a number of children have received a well-rounded education in many of our country’s public schools. The deficiency emerges from the fact that so few place a value in their education and parents are unwilling to make sacrifices for their children. Parents are more concerned with how well their child does on the football and basketball team, than they are with academics. If a parent wants their child to succeed then they must take a direct role in that child’s education. According to officials, in response to the Brookings study, people don’t have access to jobs and education. Well if you are poor and for some reason choose to have kids (and that’s exactly what it is, a choice), then you have responsibility to provide for that child, before your own needs, even if it means working 10hrs a day at McDonalds, then that’s what must be done. There are plenty of jobs available for those who are willing to work, how else do we explain the steady flow of illegals into this country and the speed with which they are able to find employment? If an illegal, who isn’t familiar with the country and often unable to speak the language, can find employment, what excuse does an American have? Some people see certain jobs as beneath them and would rather subsist on welfare rather than perform an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay.

Another gripe is that post-secondary education (i.e., college) isn’t available for the poor. This too is absolutely preposterous and just an excuse for sloth and failure. Anyone, and that’s anyone, can receive a student loan for vocational schools, junior college or university. In fact many junior colleges and vocational school don’t even require an entrance exam, such as the SAT or ACT. This country is filled with examples of people who have succeeded against all odds. Why? Because they persevere, they aren’t content with their station in life. They want something better for their children and they don’t have an expectation that someone else is going to provide for them. The left in this country has perpetuated the belief that it is the role of the state to care for the poor, to provide jobs, to feed and cloth them. Meanwhile, these dredges of society become nothing more than wards of the state, incapable of making decisions for themselves or even providing for their basic needs. Poverty is a direct byproduct of attitude. Those who have the right attitude, those who desire for success, those who aren’t content to subsist will and do succeed.
http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/10/why-is-johnny-so-poor-report-on.html

America is a great nation that holds vast opportunities for millions of people each and every day, sadly, for every success story there are those too slothful to give a damn, too lazy to try, too willing too look to others in expectation of handouts. Such people come in all shapes and sizes. There are just as many Whites as there are Blacks or Hispanics who cling to the entitlement mentality. While it is quite possible that many members of the NAACP embrace the philosophy of self motivation and individual responsibility, it is clear that many others are of the opinion that it is the duty of the state to guide them and provide for them.

In recent years the NAACP has increasingly called for state centric programs and state control. Such efforts succeed only in binding people to the state, inhibiting their ability (and desire) to succeed based on their own merits. Characters like Julian Bond have embraced a philosophy which entrenches racism and stereotypes. A philosophy of paternalism, which treats Blacks and other minorities as wards of the state, incapable of making decisions for themselves, forever tied to their political backers who, in exchange for a steady stream of handouts, provide a steady stream of unquestioning political supporters and votes.
http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/07/26jackson_edit.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-07-20-bush-naacp_x.htm



Recent Posts:

http://www.thephalanx.com/2005/12/bbc-says-equality-lacking-in-america.html

http://www.thephalanx.com/2006/02/gop-like-nazis-says-naacp-chairman.html