The NAACP and a coalition of Far Left groups have joined forces to seek out and expose the "racism" and "extremism" within the Tea Party movement. They have created a new website called TeaPartyTracker.org. It carries the disturbing motto: A Watched Teapot Never Boils.

The strategy is to discredit the Tea Party as a force in mainstream politics by peppering Glenn Beck and conservatives with false charges of "racism." As we saw at the Restoring Honor rally, the definitive proof of Tea Party racism was White people having the audacity to defile the Lincoln Memorial by gathering on a spot which is "owned" by Black people.

The Lincoln Memorial was was dedicated on May 30, 1922: forty years before Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at that spot in 1963. It was built to honor Abraham Lincoln, a White man, and the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers, the vast majority of whom were White, who lost their lives in the Civil War.

It was their sacrifice in that military conflict that ended slavery in America. Did Glenn Beck and the Tea Party ever say that the Lincoln Memorial was "owned" by White people? History suggests they have the greater claim to it.

Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin said it belongs to all Americans. They invited all Americans, regardless of their race or religion, to join them at the Lincoln Memorial to celebrate uncontroversial things like patriotism, religion, and military service. Yet the spurious charges of "racism" continue to circulate around the internet.

The best TeaPartyTracker.org could produce was a man wearing a t-shirt at the Restoring Honor rally which said, "Blacks own slaves in Mauitania [sic], Sudan, Niger, and Haiti." Last time I checked, that was a true statement. Human rights organizations like Amnesty International have publicized the survival of slavery in Africa for years.

The photo of the man is saved under the file name "racism." According to the NAACP, it is now "racism" for a White man to point out that Blacks own slaves in Africa. That is grossly offensive to Black people. Under the deranged logic of political correctness and multiculturalism, White people are not allowed to oppose slavery anymore without permission.

Just the sight of hundreds of thousands of White people cheering for Martin Luther King, Jr. made Bob Herbert of The New York Times want to take a shower. 

Fear and loathing of White people - call it Europhobia - is the real issue here. The mainstream media is excited by the homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, nativism, and bigotry that it is constantly detecting in the ordinary American conservatives. They write diatribes about this behavior even when it is clear it doesn't exist.

It is merely the reflection of their own prejudice against Middle America. This is only the latest example.

The Congressional Black Caucus is now in meltdown mode.

Charles Rangel has lost his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee over ethics charges. President Obama has already thrown him to the wolves to contain the damage to his administration.

Maxine Waters is simultaneously facing ethics charges of her own. In fact, all eight congressmen under investigation by the House ethics committee are black Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

This has already prompted the usual cries of "racism": the magic word that shuts down all discussion; the magic word Democrats are using to avoid a frank discussion about joblessness and unsustainable entitlement spending.

Like a flickering light saber from Star Wars, the Democrats have played the race card so many times that it has lost its former credibility. No one seriously believes Nancy Pelosi's 111th Congress is launching a racist Inquisition against minorities.

In related news, the Connecticut shooter Omar Thornton has invoked non-existent "racism" to justify his shooting spree which claimed the lives of nine people in Manchester.

Maybe a serious public conversation is needed about spurious charges of racism seeing as how the NAACP's overuse of the term has created such a dangerous political environment and led to the reelection of corrupt public officials.

The Obama administration got its way this afternoon: a federal judge in Phoenix blocked key portions of Arizona's SB 1070. The law has been gutted. 

The federal government has sent a message to the American people. Washington refuses to secure the Mexican border and will fight all attempts on the state level to do so.

Americans no longer have the right to make their own laws. Laws will now be made by federal judges and progressive bureaucrats. Illegal aliens will be coddled. Taxpayers will be demonized as "racists" and "bigots" and fleeced to promote diversity and subsidize criminals.

Arizona is sued for enforcing federal law. "Sanctuary cities" can ignore federal law without having to deal with lawsuits.

It shouldn't come as a surprise that 11% of Americans have "a great deal" or "a lot" of trust in Congress. 50% have no trust in Congress at all. 76% of Americans trust the military.

The legal fight over SB 1070 won't end today. Instead, there will be a protracted, bloody legal struggle that will eventually work its way up to the Supreme Court where the conservative majority will reverse the decision.

This is the best of all possible scenarios. 

The Obama administration will now get a "conversation about race" and illegal immigration - one that it will lose, one that will alienate even more independent voters - that will last into the midterm elections and far beyond.

In drinking from the divisive cup of racial politics, Barack Obama discredited his own message of a "post-racial" and "post-partisan" America. Having sold Americans on a bill of goods, the Democrats can now sit back and wait for the electoral avalanche in November.

The Virginia NAACP vehemently disagrees with Jim Webb's article on "Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege." 

What a shocker: the NAACP believes that Asian, Hispanic, and African immigrants (read: their political allies) whose ancestors were never enslaved or experienced discrimination in the United States should benefit from affirmative action over native born White Americans. The NAACP clearly believes that racial discrimination against Whites is justified to promote "diversity" and fight "white privilege."

We've clearly come a long way from JFK's "Address on Civil Rights" on June 11, 1963:

In the speech above, JFK justified civil rights reform on the basis of equality and colorblindness. He said that new laws were needed. He said all Americans should have equal rights and equal opportunities. He said that we should treat other Americans as we would want to be treated.

Couldn't we all just forget about race, abolish discriminatory laws, and identify solely with our nation? Eventually, the vast majority of White Americans came around to that point of view, and those who disagreed were marginalized on the fringes of society.

This is the consensus that prevails in the Tea Party and the conservative movement. If you fall afoul of that consensus, you are treated as an outcast. The NAACP and the Far Left have departed from that consensus. They don't believe in equality and colorblindness anymore.

Like the segregationists of the Jim Crow South, the NAACP believes in promoting black racial consciousness, blacks voting as a racial bloc, defending black institutions, a black national anthem, black empowerment, racial discrimination in government, housing, and employment that works to the advantage of blacks.

The NAACP even supports racial discrimination against Whites when there is no historical injustice to remedy. Out of racial spite, these "civil rights icons" like Charles Sherrod (see below) do it purely to stick to the White man.

When attention is drawn to their outrageous hypocrisy, the NAACP (a race-based organization) accuses conservatives, and now even some Democrats, of pandering to the divisive elements in our society.

The NAACP and National Council of La Raza (read: "the race") accusing others of divisiveness. The so-called "One Nation" these groups stand for is the one where they rule and everyone else submits and pays tribute.

What would happen to America if everyone started to think along the same tribal lines?

Here's Charles Sherrod, the husband of Shirley Sherrod, speaking in January 2010. The Left has assured us that Shirley Sherrod is an innocent woman who overcame her racial prejudice against White people long ago.

"Firmly, we must stop the White man and his Uncle Toms from stealing our elections. We must not be afraid to vote black. We must not be afraid to turn a black out who votes against our interests. . . . And tell white folk, all over, wherever we are running somebody for an office ... that blacks are going to TAKE that office over. And thousands are coming to the polls. And you gotta get it."

If you want to know where the Sherrods stand on race, consider the fact that they named their children "Russia" and "Kenyatta." Russia, of course, is a reference to the Soviet Union. "Kenyatta" refers to Jomo Kenyatta, a black nationalist, and the first president of Kenya.

In this video, Charles Sherrod bemoans that the money of blacks ends up in the pockets of the White man, and asks when shall we trust our own.

In a recent interview, Charles Sherrod claimed that "racists" still "control our economy" and "much of the cultural development in our country." Keep in mind that Shirley Sherrod has accused FOX News of "racism" and Andrew Breitbart of wanting to restore slavery.

Charles Sherrod is considered a "civil rights icon": a man who advocates voting on the basis of the race and telling "white folk" that blacks are going to "take over."

But no, the real story, you see, is that the Tea Party is racist and that Shirley Sherrod is an innocent black woman who was persecuted by evil White racists like Andrew Breitbart.

The news of the day: Andrew Breitbart duped the NAACP and White House into believing that Shirley Sherrod was a racist with a heavily edited video. The NAACP and White House have apologized to Sherrod and efforts are underway to give her job back.

The Left is screaming that the Breitbart video dropped the indispensable context of Shirley Sherrod's story of race and redemption. That's the narrative that is being played out on television right now.

But imagine for a second if the reverse were true: a White man who works for the USDA under the Bush administration speaks before the National Association for the Advancement of White People and says that he didn't give black farmers the "full force of what he could do." Instead, he took the black farmer to "one of his own kind" who he thought could help him, but later realized after the fact that he wanted to help all the poor folks and not merely his co-ethnics.

Suppose for a moment this hypothetical White man was a member of the Tea Party or an elected Republican official. He could easily be, say, Rand Paul whom the Left has repeatedly accused of "racism" for taking his libertarian beliefs to their logical conclusion on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

He could be Trent Lott who lost his position as Senate Majority Leader in 2002 after indulging Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday. Then there was George Allen whose political career was ruined after calling a leftist agitator "macaca." The Allen campaign had nicknamed the man "mohawk" on account of his funny looking haircut, but this was construed into a racial slur because George Allen's mother was of Tunisian ancestry.

What about the time Rush Limbaugh was accused of racism and wanting segregated buses for making a sarcastic comment about the Belleville bus beating? The Left dishonestly twisted Rush's facetious comment into a literal endorsement of segregation.

The NAACP's definitive proof of the existence of racism in the Tea Party is the famous sign held by Dale Robertson of TeaParty.org which said, “Congress = Slaveowner, Taxpayer = Niggar.” Robertson wasn't even using the term "niggar" as a racial slur against minorities. He was calling himself a "niggar" or tax slave of the federal government.

If the shoe was on the other foot, the NAACP would be screaming racism and demanding a public apology. They would demand the firing of any White USDA official who even entertained the thought of discriminating against blacks.

The NAACP and the Obama administration don't care about the context of the Shirley Sherrod video. They are only interested in accumulating as much power unto themselves as possible and rewarding their followers with patronage. To the end, they will continue to cynically play the race card whenever the occasion arises.

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.

Over in Britain, The Sunday Telegraph has obtained London's official violent crime statistics from the Metropolitan Police. The results will probably come as a shock to YWC readers: 54% of street crimes, 67% of gun crimes, and 59% of robberies in London are committed by blacks from the "Afro-Caribbean" community.

As for sex offenses, 32% of detained suspects were black and 40% were white; 69% of London residents are white, 12% are black. Thus, whites are underrepresented among violent criminals and blacks are drastically overrepresented. 

The Sunday Telegraph obtained these statistics to disprove Ron Liddle's incendiary claim in The Spectator that “the overwhelming majority of street crime, knife crime, gun crime, robbery and crimes of sexual violence in London is carried out by young men from the African-Caribbean community."

It turns out that Liddle was right on most of his points. After being denounced as a "racist," Liddle responded by saying, “I cannot think of anything more vile than racism. The issue here is not racism, it is one of multiculturalism.”

The real issue is multiculturalism, political correctness, and immigration.

If Britain had never opened its borders, London would not have imported a criminal underclass from the Third World. If Britain had never swallowed the suicide pill of multiculturalism, it would not have opened its borders. If Britain was not under the heel of political correctness, these issues could be openly discussed and grievances could be aired.

Richard Garside, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King’s College London, explains: “Given Britain’s long history of racism and imperialism it should not greatly surprise us that black and minority ethnic groups are disproportionately members of social classes that have tended to experience greater victimisation and to be the subject of police attention."

Mugged in the street? Raped at knife point? Beaten nearly to death? These are just the legitimate frustrations of an oppressed people lashing out against Britain's sordid history of "racism and imperialism."

The people who say things like that should be laughed at. They are beyond the reach of reason. Unfortunately, the fools are navigating the British ship of state.

President Obama is keeping his ear to the ground.

Recently, he invited a race-based coalition of bloggers, "Blogging While Brown," to meet with Corey Ealons, the White House director of "African-American Media," at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. The White House meeting was about ""letting them know we are open and available for conversation -- a two-way conversation."

I can't help but scratch my chin and wonder: would President Obama be willing to have a similar "two-way conversation" with an alliance of bloggers called "Blogging While White" and respond to the concerns of the White community? Maybe he could chat with the leading voices of the White community about their concerns about, hell, I don't know ...

... the evacuation of the Gulf States?

It would certainly be smart politics. 91% of black voters support the Obama administration. In 2008, Obama lost the White vote, and that was before Obamacare, the Gulf Oil Spill, the Wall Street bailouts, and the Tea Party took their toll on his popularity.

To be sure, "structural racism" exists in America: blacks can organize as blacks and advocate black interests while getting invited to the White House by the President of the United States himself. On the other hand, the Tea Party is demonized by the Left and charged with "racism" for no other reason than being appealing to Whites.

Am I the only one who notices this?