Racism Versus Demographics

On this day that the leading race advocacy group with the racist name made an announcement that pushes them towards the brink of either ignobility or irrelavence, there are a few thoughts that come to mind.

First, I think to myself about the apparent whiteness of the Tea Party movement in question.

I am quite sure there are many other-than-whites within the movement and that coverage of the movement is largely deliberately selective. There are, of course, a shockingly large amount of "colored people" in the Tea Party movement. One need only search YouTube for a minute or two for the shock to wear off. The fact yet remains that the public gatherings are comprised obviously of a large majority of white people.

Of course, if this were a Kenyan tea party movement, the National Association for the Advancement of Noncolored People (the fictional race advocacy group headquartered in Nairobi) might make a proclamation which brings into question the seeming racist nature of such a movement. Why else would the Kenyan tea part movement be so unilaterally dark-skinned if they were not racist? I might point out that 75% of the US population is other-than-hispanic white/caucasian, but that would be racist, so I won't. Further, among the 12% of us who are "colored," 90% of them tend to vote for Democrats and DNC agenda, which always stand against and mock the platform of liberty upon which the Tea Party movement (the real one in America) stands.

So, of course they are seemingly few and far between, but it's not because they are being systematically liquidated, I promise. That would be the Progressives' bailiwick. (And, boy, did it realy take off in another national socialist movement across the pond!)

Further illustrating the point is a question we have been asking for a decade now: If Islam is fundamentally a peaceful religion, why do we not see more a defense of this claim from the mainstream Muslim laity? Can it be that the answer to that question is similar to that when asked why there are so few "colored" people at Tea Party assemblies?

And now, a bit of therapeutic nit-picking on my part...

"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate. "We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations," he said.

Really? To which deocracy do you refer? We are not yet a democracy, Mr. Jealous.

If there are there Black Panthers in your own party that you similarly appear to tolerate, you'll let me know and remedy the situation, I'm sure.

Lastly, to say that you have an issue with the tea party's "acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists" is to say that I don't approve of tigersharks because they smoke weed all the time. That would be propaganda built upon a lie. You really should know better, Mr. Jealous.

Dunlap Broadside

This is Yale's copy of the Dunlap Broadside. Can't read it? Okay, here it is again, at least the first quarter or so of it:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

We must ask ourselves, Why do we celebrate Independence Day? A question that must follow is, Why do we celebrate it on July 4? The answer to that question is a dangerous one, because the Declaration is the answer.

"Well, Junior, it's because that's when the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence."

Dangerous, because the question that must follow is, "What does that Declaration say?"

To answer to THAT question is to shine a light of illumination into the darkness toward the mind's ultimate freedom. For this preable is the most consice and profound statement of Natural Law the world has ever seen.

Dangerous, because The enemy of Natural Law must necessarily be evil; evil because he goes against the Creator mentioned here--whether He be an entity, or it be an accident (I have heard "First Cause" used as a universal name for the Creator)--and indeed sleeplessly works to usurp the authority of Natural Law.

The answer to that third question, "What does the Declaration of Independence say?" is what the Enemy does not want us to hear.

We know it was dangerous for the signers.

Would you sign it today?