NAACP: Unnecessary – for 30 years

What of merit has the NAACP accomplished in the last 10 years (and trying to present a person indicted in two states for child pornography with their image award doesn't count)? As a matter of fact, what signature accomplishment can they legitimately point to in the past 30 years?

The answer is: There is nothing they can point to. The Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 thanks to conservative Republicans, and because of Republican president Richard Nixon race-based affirmative action was passed in 1968. The schools have been integrated, blacks head Fortune 100 companies, blacks own sports teams, blacks are represented in every elected position nationwide, blacks are small-business owners and blacks suffer the same realities as other Americans, ad nauseam.

So, apart from serving as a bureau of agitprop, making an industry out of perceived complaint / invented complaint and serving as the dismal catacombs of the past striving for relevance today – what do they represent? What would be lost if they closed their doors and passed into history with dignity? What do we gain – what value does the NAACP's continued existence today contribute to its once-august history?

They are the personification of a human menhir of mendacious duplicity. And their latest attempt to brand the tea-party movement as racist and extreme proves my accusations.

The new report the NAACP is touting as proof of the tea-party movement's radicalism is rife with innuendo, hearsay and vacuous conjecture. The report, "Tea Party Nationalism," was created by the little-known fringe group – The Institute for Research and Education on Human Rights.

TRENDING: Ben Carson stands for Trump, blasts impeachment, censorship, swamp-creature GOP in bold interview

NAACP President Benjamin Todd Jealous said the report "exposes the links between certain tea-party factions and acknowledged racist hate groups in the United States."

Even if such a thing were true, and we know there is no truth to said allegations (a person here and a person there notwithstanding) – how does the NAACP reconcile its association with the New Black Panther Party? How do they reconcile their documented association with Louis Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, the disgraced former Obama green czar and self-avowed communist Van Jones? How do they reconcile their association with Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley, Jesse Jackson and Budweiser?

The so-called report takes offense with the often-used slogan "take our country back" – which has been used in various forms by liberals, such as former presidential candidate Howard Dean, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Nation magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel – as being "explicitly nationalist" when used by tea-party activists.

This is a dishonest and morally opprobrious assertion, but obviously not out of character for Jealous or the authors of the report. "Taking our country back" from the hands of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the Obama czars, activist judges and progressive socialists, who are committed to taking our country in a direction not provided for in the Constitution, is hardly "nationalist."

As a so-called civil-rights group, just whose civil rights has the NAACP showed an interest in? Did they come to the defense of the voters bullied and threatened by the New Black Panther Party? Have they come to the defense of grade-school children who are forced to learn about homosexuality and instructed not to tell their parents? Did they come to the defense of Juan Williams' civil rights? Have they come to the defense of the civil rights of children who are punished for quietly giving thanks for their food while at their schools?

On what basis does the NAACP and a virtually unknown institute assert that a movement that champions lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, smaller government and an adherence to the Constitution is nationalist and racist?

The tea-party movement has been under attack through infiltration by Alinskyan groups like "crashtheteaparty.org," whose stated mission is to infiltrate tea-party rallies and act in ways that are antithetical to what the tea party actually advocates.

However, no such surreptitious infiltration has taken place within the NAACP pursuant to the link that exists between its executive director, Ben Chavis, and the racial extremism of the Nation of Islam. There is no surreptitious infiltration between institute board member Gina Chiala and her years of advocating for a pardon of Leonard Peltier, the radical Indian-rights activist killer who was convicted of murdering two FBI agents. Their associations are openly encouraged and proudly heralded.

The tea-party movement is about self-sacrifice. We view it as a movement by the people, with a purpose greater and higher than ourselves. The NAACP is about themselves, private jets, huge salaries, haute couture and seats at the elitist tables. I ask you – which group truly has America's interest in mind? When you've honestly answered that question, ask yourself why we need the NAACP.