The Silence of the ‘Colored People’: NAACP says nothing about 3 conservative blacks in congress

Voters on Election Day chose Tim Scott as South Carolina’s U.S. senator. They also sent Utah’s Mia Love and Texas’s Will Hurd to the U.S. House of Representatives. Thus, the 114th Congress will include three black Republicans. This is a new high-water mark for black Americans.

Too bad the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People couldn’t care less. (America’s oldest civil-rights organization still plasters that retrograde expression all over its logo and website.)

NAACP has yet to congratulate, acknowledge, or even attack Scott, Love, and Hurd — now America’s three most powerful elected black Republicans. What you hear is the silence of the Colored People. Despite ten separate requests for comment on this “advancement of colored people,” I could not squeeze a consonant out of NAACP’s Baltimore headquarters, its Washington, D.C., office, or even its Hollywood bureau.

NAACP president Cornell William Brooks did say on November 5, “This election was not about who won but rather the citizens who lost the right to participate.” Despite complaints about malfunctioning polling machines and voters blocked for lack of photo ID, one wonders where NAACP is hiding these disenfranchised citizens. Why have we heard as much about them since November 5 as NAACP has said about Scott, Love, and Hurd?

NAACP did issue a November 14 press release expressing its “strong support of the new Qualified Residential Mortgage rule” under the behemoth Dodd-Frank financial-services law. The group praised the rejection of new down-payment rules for home loans. Who needs strong credit standards? What could go wrong?

NAACP has offered communiqués praising Obama’s new draconian carbon dioxide regulations and even applauding La June Montgomery Tabron for becoming president of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. As for three black Republicans getting elected to Congress? Crickets.

Tim Scott is the first black senator to rise from the South since Reconstruction. Democrats could have elected, nominated, or at least appointed to a vacancy a black man or woman between 1865 and 2014. Some way or another, the “party of the black people” plumb forgot to make that happen. Instead, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, a Republican of east-Indian ancestry, appointed Scott to fill the seat of former GOP senator Jim DeMint when he resigned to run the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Scott won the seat outright on November 4. He steamrolled his Democratic opponent 61 percent to 37 percent. In fact, according to Politico.com, Scott scored 749,266 votes while Republican Lindsay Graham won with only 665,605. Evidently, Scott persuaded more racist, white Republicans to support him than did Graham.

Liberals will have real trouble dismissing Scott as some sort of country-club creation. This former “boy in the hood” was raised in poverty by a single mother. He overcame early troubles, got focused, and now is one of the most influential men in America.

Meanwhile, the new representative of Utah’s fourth congressional district is a diversity officer’s dream come true. Mia Love is a black, female Mormon of Haitian descent. As the former mayor of Saratoga Springs, Utah, she also brings executive experience to the House. Washington needs more people in charge who actually have run something, as Love has. Despite her inheriting a $3.5 million budget shortfall in January 2010, the Salt Lake Tribune reports, “Saratoga Springs now has an AA+ bond rating, the highest possible for a city of its size.”

Will Hurd goes to Washington from Texas’s 23rd district. He defeated incumbent Democrat Pete Gallego in a 70 percent Hispanic district. Republicans can win Hispanic votes, when they try. As Hurd becomes a leading voice on national security, Democrats will tie themselves in knots trying to trivialize this former CIA officer, who happens to be black.

Actually, liberals probably will follow the NAACP’s playbook and pretend that these successful black Republicans do not exist. Luckily, America hears the Left’s silence.

— Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a media fellow with the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace at Stanford University.

...nor anything about The First Black President about to give millions of illegal immigrants work permits while Black unemployment is at record levels.

That Republicans do not pound away at this point, which properly enunciated is the key to unraveling the coalition that made Obama, Pelosi & Reid, possible, is the clearest de4monstration of political tactical incompetence in what has been labeled the "Republican Establishment."

But to better understand the NAACP, one needs to understand that it was formed in 1909, primarily by White Academic Radicals to undermine Booker T. Washington's constructive approach to race relations. The social damage to the American Negro as a result of the sea change that the NAACP finally set in motion, with the help of other White radicals after World War II, has been catastrophic. Just look at the increase in the crime rate, the deterioration in the family structure, the direct result of the confrontational mentality in places like Ferguson, and the very irrational approach to politics, which this thread addresses.

William Flax

Race	Estimate
Total population	745,786(+/- 9,564)
One race	727,679(+/- 9,816)
White	624,106(+/- 10,208)
Black or African American	12,444(+/- 2,740)
American Indian and Alaska Native	5,688(+/- 1,678)
Asian	22,347(+/- 2,877)
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	9,613(+/- 3,076)
Some other race	53,481(+/- 7,555)
Two or more races	18,107(+/- 2,999)

The media is disgusting.

You have used an ungrammatical usage, and there is a substantive reason for that. The statement in ungrammatical because of number disagreement between “media” (which is a plural noun) and “is” (which is the plural form of the verb “to be”). Substantively, your statement requires a singular noun because what you call “the media” actually functions as a single entity. I submit that although fictional movies and TV dramas certainly can have strong political overtones, nothing can or will be done to censor fiction. And therefore, it is irrelevant to refer, even obliquely, to fiction by choosing to refer to “the media.”
It is also true that nonfiction books, even those that have erroneous opinions in them, are simply not the problem ( leaving the issue of slanted “social studies” textbooks in public schools aside).
That leaves journalism. Newspapers have the First Amendment, and are rightly not subject to regulation. Except that they are subject, theoretically, to regulation via “campaign finance reform” laws. Those papers, actual and theoretical (i.e., newspapers that you or I have the constitutional right to create and produce, whether we have done that yet or not), have limitations if they criticize incumbents at inconvenient times unless they have a “license” in the sense that they are listed as exempt “free, objective presses” under McCain-Feingold.
And then there is broadcast and cable journalism. The FCC was created to enable and regulate broadcasting “in the public interest.” The trouble is that journalism is assumed, without proof, to be objective. Without the assumption of objectivity, the FCC has no rationale to even think about “equal time” and “fairness.” If the broadcast journalists aren’t objective, there is no standard for “fairness,” and journalism is a political free-for-all endeavor like newspapers were before the advent of the Associated Press (and other wire services) in the Civil War era. It is no accident, IMHO, that Fox News Channel does not exist in a broadcast network licensed by the FCC.
It is easy to show that journalism isn’t objective; any major news story that lasts for months will probably suffice. Certainly the innocence of George Zimmerman, as found by a jury - and the “guilt” of Mr. Zimmerman as bandied about as reality by journalism, shows that journalism is not - does not even try to be - objective. And yet it is unified. It is a singular entity, however many faces it presents to the public in the form of a variety of “different” newspapers and “different” broadcast networks. What has homogenized journalism? I submit that the answer is to be found in the following classic wisdom:
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations
The AP and any other wire service constitutes a continuous virtual meeting of journalism, not about “merriment or diversion but precisely about the content of the news. That meeting has been in process for a century and a half, and it produced “a conspiracy against the public” long before it was fifty years old.
A conspiracy to do what? I submit that the object of the conspiracy is to turn Theodore Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech on its head.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds
It is a conspiracy of critics against the public’s recognition that doers rather than critics deserve our respect, and deserve to own the products of their labors. The exact inverse of “the credit belongs to the doer” is, “You didn’t build that.” That is not respectable skepticism, that is despicable cynicism. It is assault on society’s memory of, and respect for, deeds accomplished. To accept that premise is to accept a kind of societal Alzheimers Disease.
The FCC - and the FEC as well - is an abject failure in promoting society’s interest. The best way to quantify that failure is to do a public opinion poll and find out how ignorant the broadcasters’ audience remains about basic civics, and about incontrovertible facts bearing on politics. I’m not aware of any comprehensive effort in that direction, but we hear from time to time that only a minority of Americans even can name the three basic branches of the federal government. Such a poll, if done systematically, would prove that FCC licensed broadcasting “informs” people of trivia and systematically avoids actually educating the electorate. And IMHO that would go for NPR and PBS as well, its upscale audience notwithstanding.
OTOH, conservative talk radio would almost certainly be found to be dramatically better informed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.