William L. Houston

In the New York Times, which has repeatedly condemned the "racism" of the Tea Party and Arizona's SB 1070, John McWhorter and Richard Ford casually debate the merits of segregation. Just imagine a school with no White kids. Wouldn't that be great? Doesn't an all-black school have a certain resonance? Doesn't it encourage a positive and uplifting sense of racial pride?

I'm hard pressed to think of a better recent example of America's racial double standards and the logic of political correctness in the mainstream media. Imagine for a moment a nostalgic roundtable discussion about the merits of segregation between White conservative columnists from National Review and scholars from The Heritage Foundation. 

Imagine the uproar that would have ensued if Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh had said that all White schools served White students well and that it was really a shame that such institutions had to be dismantled in the wake of the Brown decision. What if Ann Coulter had made the observation that the segregated all-White schools of the 1960s had higher average test scores, less violence, and lower rates of teen pregnancy?

The only reason John McWhorter and Richard Ford are allowed to have this discussion in the New York Times is because they are black. It is implicitly understood in the mainstream media that blacks are entitled to a positive sense of racial identity and the right to organize to advance their interests on the basis of race.

On the other hand, Whites can be attacked and slandered as racists even as they explicitly disavow having any sense of racial identity, much less a desire to advance a racial agenda in our political system. Just having a disproportionate number of White people in the same room can be cited as proof of "racism" and "hatred" of minorities.

When these race-based groups with their racial grievances and race-based agendas accuse the Tea Party of "racism," why does anyone take these hypocrites seriously? I can't figure it out.

Andrew Breitbart deserves a big round of applause for daring to fight back against the NAACP and its smears. Far too often, the charge of "racism" by race-based grievance groups is sufficient to induce a total collapse of the spinal column among weak kneed conservatives. 

Breitbart has produced a video of a black USDA official speaking before a receptive NAACP audience about how she used her position to discriminate against White farmers:

Shirley Sherrod resigned this afternoon.

During the healthcare debate, Breitbart challenged the NAACP to produce video evidence to support their wild accusation that Tea Party protestors spit on black congressmen and yelled racial epithets at them. The Left was backed into a corner and lost the debate.

Pat Buchanan goes even further. He points out the very name of the NAACP illustrates that it is a race-based organization dedicated to advancing the interests of "people of color." Any similar form of race-based advocacy among Whites is proscribed as "racism."

Who are these people to accuse the Tea Party of racism? That is the real question we should be asking. The NAACP believes in organizing and promoting people solely on the basis of their skin color.

It is about time someone had the guts to call them on it.

I have some pleasant news to report: 32% of American voters support affirmative action, but 46% are opposed. When affirmative action is combined with government programs, 55% of Americans are opposed and only 29% approve.

Blacks are twice as likely to support affirmative action as Whites. When support for affirmative action is broken down along gender lines, there is little difference of opinion between men and women, which is counterintuitive as women tend to benefit from preferential hiring.

Far from being extremists, the issues we support here at YWC have broad mainstream appeal. Americans dislike affirmative action. They dislike illegal immigration. They dislike political correctness and anti-Western multiculturalism.

America's liberal and conservative elites feel otherwise.

In a candid article, Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post acknowledges that President Obama and the Democrats have a problem with White voters. The gulf between Obama and Middle America has grown to the point where it threatens to consume the Democratic Congress in the 2010 midterm elections.

As everyone knows, it is usually the other way around: liberal journalists chide Republicans for their lack of fidelity to "diversity" and routinely warn of impending electoral doom for conservatives who fail to court growing Hispanic vote.

Reality seems to be sinking in.

Just 40% of Whites approve of Obama's job performance. 43% of Whites "strongly disapprove"; 19% "strongly approve." Only 1 in 3 Whites approve of Obama's handling of the economy. 48% of Whites "strongly disapprove" of Obama on the economy. 

While the Hispanic vote is growing, it isn't growing at nearly the rate necessary to offset an energized White conservative base, huge Democratic losses among White independents, or the growing alienation between Obama and blue collar White Democrats.

Obama's appeal to Whites has sunk to such a low that he is even losing Whites with a college education and White women. His advisors are telling him to write off White voters and pander even harder to illegal aliens. 

This will only accelerate the decline of the pivotal White column in the Democratic coalition. For months, I've remained skeptical of the momentum behind the Tea Party. There was always the off chance that Obama might shelve a nasty amnesty fight or the economy might turn around.

That seems unlikely this late in the summer. A historic Democratic wipeout (worse than the Republicans in 2006) increasingly looks like a safe bet.

The Obama administration's inept attempt to crush Arizona in the federal courts is stirring resistance across the Union.

Mike Cox, the Michigan Attorney General, plans to file a legal brief supporting Arizona's SB 1070. He has requested other state attorneys general follow suit. J.B. Van Hollen, the Wisconsin Attorney General, requested permission from Governor Jim Doyle to support Arizona but his attempt was blocked.

South Dakota has joined the Michigan led effort. Other states are likely to follow before the deadline tomorrow. Twenty other states are planning to ratify Arizona-style immigration reform. South Carolina and Minnesota have already introduced legislation.

Meanwhile, CBS News is reporting that President Obama is facing a "summer of discontent." 57% of Americans believe Arizona "has it about right" in dealing with illegal immigration. The CBS poll is consistent with the Gallup, Rasmussen, New York Times and Washington Post numbers.

Insurgent candidates are running against the Obama administration on immigration across America. In the Georgia Governor's race, candidate Nathan Deal has said that the Obama administration "can sue us too." In the Florida Governor's race, Rick Scott (the Republican frontrunner) is campaigning on a promise to bring Arizona's SB 1070 to Florida.

Democratic Governors are running scared that a nasty immigration debate will cost them reelection. In Tennessee, Democratic candidates are "disavowing" the federal lawsuit. In Arizona, several Democrats have already repudiated the Obama administration.

The death of a single rancher in Arizona at the hands of illegal aliens has sown this national political whirlwind. The more Americans are reminded of illegal immigration; the angrier they tend to get about it.

A long drawn out public debate over illegal immigration (one that we will likely win) will prove a boon to the immigration reform movement.