It’s a legitimate question. In fact, I wonder why the NAACP exists at all. It has wandered far from what was probably a noble and necessary purpose in its early years. A quick look at the NAACP’s agenda reveals the pressing issues being confronted by the organization:

• “Media Diversity:” The lack of black folk in TV advertising;
• “Federal Advocacy:” Reducing the federal sentence for possessing crack cocaine, calling the stiffer (than powder cocaine) penalty “racially discriminatory”;
• “Climate Change:” Eliminating coal-fired power plants because, according to the NAACP, “race… is the number one indicator for the placement of toxic facilities…” Climate change is also causing the oceans to rise, forcing black folk to move inland. (I guess white folk won’t have to move also… they can swim better?)
• “Health Programs:” Blaming cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity and HIV not on irresponsible lifestyles but “racial and ethnic disparities in our health care system…;”

I found nothing regarding personal responsibility. I found no program or plan to teach or encourage black women to quit killing their children through abortion (over 13 million since 1973; an average of 1,452 black babies a day); more than have died from AIDS, violent crimes, accidents, cancer and heart disease put together. [ Source ]

I found no discussion of promoting fidelity in marriage or strengthening the black family, the foundational steps to reducing the prevalence of AIDS or the number of black men and women becoming addicted to cocaine in any form.

It’s sad, because the NAACP will never truly contribute to the solution if it can’t even identify and acknowledge the problem.

The black leader of the local Tea Party movement apparently agrees with me:

“These are things the NAACP should be dealing with rather than running around covering up statues of dead white guys,” [Tea Party activist Lloyd] Marcus said.

I bet that George Washington Carver’s momma would take issue with the SC-NAACP’s disdain for her son’s namesake.

NAACP Draws Complaints for Covering George Washington Statue on Martin Luther King Day – FoxNews.com

Such was the case of Warner Robins City Councilmember John Williams, who is being castigated by the local NAACP, the Anti-Defamation League and Daron Lee, the black council member who was supposedly “disrespected.”

From the article:

The exchanged (sic) happened during an argument Monday between Councilman John Williams, who is white, and Daron Lee, who is black.

“I was disrespected last Monday,” Lee said in televised comments. “I’m getting tired of y’all talking to me any kind of way. I’m sorry, I’m not in a cotton field. OK?”

“You should be,” Williams replied.

Notice that it was Lee who brought race into the discussion. It was Lee who made the crass reference to working in a cotton field as black slaves did almost 150 years ago. It was Lee who claimed that he was being “disrespected” and that the “disrespect” (whatever the heck that is) happened because he was black.

No one (except me, I guess) is criticizing Lee for bringing race into the discussion when it was unjustified and unnecessary. Heck, I don’t really mind that he made the comment about the cotton fields. What I do mind is his thin-skinned reaction to Williams’ response.

So it’s okay for the black guy to invoke race… to bring race into the discussion, but it’s not okay for the white guy to respond? It was okay for Lee and the NAACP to judge what evil motive was in a white man’s heart, with absolutely no evidence of any impure motive?

Get over it, Daron Lee. Man up and prove to your constituents that it is possible for you to participate in a spirited discussion without playing the race card. Present arguments that stand on their own merit; arguments for which you don’t have to invoke race to bolster your position.

Daron Lee, you disrespect yourself.

Reference: CBSAtlanta story and video | Update: 10/22 2023

“There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs. Partly because they want sympathy, and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

“There is a certain class of race problem-solvers who don’t want the patient to get well, because as long as the disease holds out they have not only an easy means of making a living, but also an easy medium through which to make themselves prominent before the public.”

Booker T. Washington said this in 1911.

Ieshuh Griffin, of Milwaukee, is an independent running for the state Assembly. She contends free speech allows her to use the phrase, "NOT the ‘whiteman’s b—-.’"

CNSNews.com – Wisconsin Candidate Can’t Use Controversial Description

The incident was captured on video, which you can view here.

As a former law enforcement officer, I probably would have done the same thing or “worse.” In fact, I was trained to strike the offender in non-lethal areas with a metal baton when he/she could not be subdued by less violent means and use deadly force when justified. Think how that would have played out on Youtube!

Before you criticize the officer, consider the following:

1. There is ALWAYS a gun at the fight. Many police officers have been physically overcome, then shot with their own weapon. For that reason, an officer CANNOT afford to lose the fight and is justified, in a legal arrest, to use whatever force is necessary to complete it.

2. A female, even a teenager, is just as capable of causing physical harm, and even death, as a male. Women are just as capable of concealing a deadly weapon like a knife or box cutter. Personally, I would rather fight a man.

3. Two-on-one is never good, especially when one offender attacks from behind while the officer is occupied with the other. The officer is particularly at risk during an attack from the rear.

4. Every citizen has the right to resist an illegal arrest, even to the point of using deadly force. But, if the citizen resists, he/she takes full responsibility for the immediate consequences of his/her resistance. However petty you might consider the offense, jaywalking is apparently illegal in Seattle. (Incidentally, the law is intended to protect the pedestrian.)

5. A police officer is permitted to use only that level of force necessary to effect the arrest. Obviously, the two females did not respond to verbal commands.  The women resisted the initial physical effort to restrain them, even helping each other to escape the officer’s grasp. Given the options left to the officer, the teenager is lucky, frankly, that he only punched her.

6. All other considerations are irrelevant. Specifically, the color of the offender or the officer is not relevant when considering whether or not any involved party acted correctly.

Finally, some have said that the officer would have drawn his gun had he truly felt threatened. To the contrary, a weapon out of the holster is a serious and, sometimes, irreversible escalation of force. That the officer defended himself and continued the arrest by hand while facing multiple offenders, alone, in a hostile crowd, is evidence of great control and restraint. By leaving his weapon in its holster, the Seattle cop jeopardized his own welfare to protect the lives of the offenders and bystanders.