Officer’s Tragic Death Leads To More Race Baiting
by Big Dog on Jun 1, 2009 at 05:30 Political
An off duty police officer was tragically killed in Harlem by another officer while chasing a would be criminal who the officer caught trying to break into his car. The off duty officer (a black man) was not in uniform and was displaying his weapon while chasing the suspect. He was ordered by a uniformed officer (who did not know he was a cop) to drop the weapon. He failed to do that and he did not identify himself as a police officer. He was shot and killed by the uniformed officer who is white.
This is a tragedy and the family of the dead officer as well as the officer who shot him will be traumatized by it for a very long time. What they do not need is a bunch of claims about racist cops and how it is dangerous to be black in America.
The officer was not in uniform and was running while brandishing a weapon. To anyone observing he would look like a criminal regardless of his color. Failure to obey the orders of a uniformed officer only made him look more like a criminal. He should have known to stop and identify himself and I am certain he would have expected the same thing had he been on duty and observed the same behavior.
The race baiters though, see it differently. Al Sharpton is calling for a federal investigation and tax cheat Charlie Rangel quipped that Barack Obama, who is in New York on a date with his wife (that no doubt cost taxpayers a fortune), better not go to Harlem without ID. The unspoken message is that it will be dangerous because white cops won’t recognize him, as if to say they all look alike. Maybe we can get Sharpton to run around without ID.
It is impossible for a police officer to know every other cop on the force. People somehow expect that they will but it is impossible. I can remember when I was in the Army people would say, oh do you know my brother So and So, he’s in the Army as if you know everyone in it. The New York cops don’t have as many members but they certainly have enough that one could not know them all.
But the race baiting community will make a big deal out of this and play the race card as long as they can. This is how they keep tensions high. It was a tragedy that the cop was killed and it will only be a bigger tragedy if they make this an issue about race. Here is how Rangel helped fuel the fire:
“Whether it’s me, whether it’s the [U.S.] attorney general, or indeed, whether it’s the President of the United States, running for a bus can jeopardize you – just because of your color – in a community like ours,” Rangel said. New York Daily News
Running for a bus can put you in jeopardy just because of your skin color? Rangel left out the very important part and that is running while brandishing a weapon is not how one tries to catch a bus. Running while brandishing a weapon will put anyone in jeopardy regardless of color though I am willing to bet that most crime in Harlem, whether it involves gun play or not, is committed by blacks.
And what does he mean “in a community like ours?” I thought there was no racism in the diverse Utopia known as Liberalism. Harlem is in no way , shape, or form, a conservative community. Harlem is an African American dominated area and the politicians are Democrats. Rangel represents the place so why would the shooting be racial?
In reality, there was no race component to it. An off duty cop who happened to be black was chasing a person while brandishing a weapon. He failed to identify himself and he failed to put the weapon down as instructed by a uniformed cop who happened to be white. He was then shot.
Tell the race baiters to leave and tell Rangel to spend more time working on his tax returns and less on on ginning up phony racism complaints.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: cop killer, harlem, Obama, race baiting, rangel, sharpton
It’s always a tragedy- we had the same thing happen in Houston- a Black man, a detective working plainclothes, heard of a chase for suspects, and thought he would join the pursuit. It became a foot chase, and because he was not part of the initial pursuit, the other officers didn’t know him- he was told to halt, and since he was holding a pistol, and didn’t obey, he was shot and killed. Not that the race should matter, but the officer who shot him was hispanic, so there was no Rangel or Sharpton down here rabble rousing. Thank God, because we have our own sorry rabble rousers here.
They ALWAYS take the side of the minority, and yet they say they are “concerned about ridding the world of racism” what a crock.
Without racism, they wouldn’t have a job, and they would be on welfare.
Funny, I have NEVER seen any of them help any white person- I think they are racist.
BLK: “Without racism, they [minorities] wouldn’t have a job, and they would be on welfare.”
DAR
Do you really believe it is [b]only[/b] white people who are good enough, capable enough to be worthy of being legitimately hired for a job?
You really believe that everyone else, except white people, are not hired on their own merit/value/skills as a human being and if it wasn’t for special treatment (what you call “racism”), “they would be on welfare?”
D.
—————–
ps. By current projections, whites will be a minority in the US by the mid 2040’s. I think whites are great, but am actually looking forward to it a little.
Darrel, can you read? “They” is a sarcastic reference to Rangel and Sharpton, not minorities.
I think you are right Mike. My boo. Thanks for watching these things carefully.
This is how the left handles all issues of race.
No, actually I believe that groups like NAACP, LULAC, the Black Panthers, Black Muslims, KKK, all are interested and even invested in PERPETUATING the perception of racism, for without that PERCEPTION, no one need give those racist organizations money, and then THEY will have to get a real job, instead of fanning the non existent flames of what they want people to perceive to be organized racism.
Darrel- there will always be racism in certain quarters- that’s just a fact both you and these organizations are going to have to live with.
As Ron White said, you can’t fix stupid,
Anyone, no matter their color, who falsely shouts “Racism” for money, should be noted as the scoundrel they are.
Do you , Darrel, believe Affirmative Action is Racism?
Think carefully now, as it DOES give “minorities” an advantage others do not have. It is only by constantly pointing out how “different” we are, that racism and the perception of it are continued. If we just used the term “people”, instead of African- American, Hispanic, Asian, etc. we wouldn’t be dividing ourselves so much.
I have worked alongside many others of different ethnicities and colors, but the only thing that ever concerned me was, Could they do their job well?
BLK: “Do you , Darrel, believe Affirmative Action is Racism?”>>
DAR
It certainly can be. I think it was a measure that has largely outlived it’s intended purpose and have thought that for some time. I am for merit based promotion/reward/hiring/enrollment etc.,.
BLK: “the only thing that ever concerned me was, Could they do their job well?”
DAR
Glad to hear it, and I agree.
Incidentally, I believe this was just an honest police action mistake. When people are running around excitedly with guns and shooting, people make mistakes and people get shot. Happens every day.
But then, I am pretty naive about these race issues. Like Colbert, I don’t see color.
Darrel, your original reply references an all too common relieve among liberals that conservatives are anti minority. Of course there are exceptions, but nothing is further from the truth. The fact of the matter is the better the standard of living for minorities the better the standard of living for everyone. The real disagreement between us is how to achieve it.
Frankly, I’m sick and tired of liberal rhetoric that decries conservative thinking as anti minority. The fact of the matter is liberal policy has failed miserably. Bringing the standard of living down at the top does not raise it at the bottom. It should not be class warfare. We believe the standard of living can be raised for all.
I fat fingered “relieve”. It should read “belief”.
My “original reply” was a misreading of Blake’s comment, as I acknowledged.
I rarely if ever call anyone racist, unless they embrace the title themselves or it’s really blatant. It’s a topic that doesn’t interest me much. Growing up in Canada there wasn’t all of this left/right chatter about it and I don’t pay much attention to it. I like the song “Everyone’s a little bit racist” from AvenueQ. You can hear the song here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbwNSNLPIfw
That said, one would have to be pretty oblivious to not see systemic instances of racism thriving in certain sections of republican/conservatism.
Two examples come to mind:
1) Bob Jones University expelling any students who date or marry interracially. Read the text here:
http://fayfreethinkers.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5837&p=19053&hilit=bob+jones#p18611
That was in the late eighties. Parents can sign off and allow it (!) now. Progress.
2) There are about 900 hate groups in America and almost without exception, they are very conservative. See:
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
We have 20 in my state. Nineteen are right-wing and Christian.
The idea that conservatives are anti-minority does not come out of thin air. Like most stereotypes, it has a basis in reality. Also, you might try compiling a complete list of black republican congress members, both houses, and note the result.
D.
There are more hate groups than that D- Don’t forget the Black Muslims, Black Panthers, La Raza, NAACP,LULAC, all these organizations foster racism and are thus by definition hate groups.
Nonsense. Show me a list of *active* hate groups, groups that foster *hate,* (which goes beyond being established to assist a minority or group, i.e, NAACP) that isn’t 90% rightwing (and usually Bible based).
Look at Texas for instance.
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp#s=TX
They have 66 hate groups, as defined by the normative standard of:
“groups [that] have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/map/hate.jsp
Of these 66 hate groups, 7 are black hate groups. The rest are rightwing and almost all Christian and Bible based.
Darrell- read this-
he KKK is a democrat hate group
The first Klan was founded in 1865 by Tennessee veterans of the Confederate Army. Groups spread throughout the South. Its purpose was to restore white supremacy in the aftermath of the American Civil War. The Klan resisted Reconstruction by assaulting, murdering and intimidating freedmen and white Republicans, who were suspected of being members of the abolitionist movement. The KKK quickly adopted violent methods. The increase in murders finally resulted in a backlash among Southern elites who viewed the Klan’s excesses as an excuse for federal troops to continue their occupation of the South.
Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.[17]
Darrel-
In the 60’s the Republicans supported civil rights and the Democrats dragged its heels.
The Black Panthers are not a racist organization?
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
Couple points:
Yes the New Black Panthers are a hate group and I specifically counted them as a hate group in the list of 7 out of 66 hate groups in Texas.
BLK: “The first Klan was founded in 1865 by…”
DAR
You should know that the repub/demo party affiliations/attitudes/behaviors/positions really don’t correlate well when you go back a 100 or 150 years. Don’t do that.
BLK: “In the 60’s the Republicans supported civil rights and the Democrats dragged its heels.”>>
DAR
I was awfully young in the 60’s but considering there was a Democratic president shepherding this through (and famously said “we have lost the south for a generation” because of the racists obviously), it strikes me as astonishingly false. Your numbers are not referenced and not really intelligible as you pasted them. Maybe I’ll see what I can find.
D.
LBJ said that we have lost the south for a generation, he was talking about the Democrats-the Dixiecrats specifically, who were holding back civil rights- you really need to actually read history more and get away from wikipedia.
BLK:”LBJ said that we have lost the south for a generation, he was talking about the Democrats-the Dixiecrats specifically…”
DAR
Obviously. And where did those racist Dixiecrats go Blake? He, the Demo’s, LBJ, “lost the southern” racists because they left his party and went… to yours. Duh.
Enjoy them. In our multicultural future, they are a millstone around the neck, as you are finding out.
D.
The Republican Party allows people to achieve while the Democrats keep people on plantations. How long have we had all the programs? Nothing has changed.
Nothing has changed? How soon we forget.
McGovern makes a good point here:
***
“I believe that the most practical and hopeful compass by which to guide the American ship of state is the philosophy of liberalism. Virtually every step forward in our history has been a liberal initiative taken over conservative opposition: civil rights, Social Security, Medicare, rural electrification, the establishment of a minimum wage, collective bargaining, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and federal aid to education, including the land-grant colleges, to name just a few.* (* Here are a few more: guaranteed bank deposits, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the National Park Service, the National School Lunch Program, the Voting Rights Act, and the graduated income tax.) Many of these innovations were eventually embraced by conservatives only after it became clear that they had overwhelming public approval for the simple reason that almost every American benefited from them. Every one of these liberal efforts strengthened our democracy and our quality of life. I challenge my conservative friends to name a single federal initiative now generally approved by both of our major parties that was not first put forward by liberals over the opposition of conservatives.
We need conservatives, of course, to challenge liberal ideas and proposals and to impel us to examine their soundness, but we cannot depend on conservatives to offer constructive new ideas of the sort that might bring about a more just and equitable society or a more peaceful and cooperative world. If we assume that Lincoln, the first Republican president, was a liberal (which he surely was), nothing inspiring has come out of the conservative mind since the age of John Adams.” –George McGovern
DAR
I finally got around to reading your “About” link at the top of your page on this site. There you say liberalism is like a “disease that eats away, like a cancer,” and we must “eradicate liberalism so we can prevent the next civil war” which “will start as an uprising to take the government…”
This shows an astonishing level of ignorance of American history and more than a little cultic devotion to the far right, even delusion. Such a statement makes any normal, informed person shake their head.
But you are not alone. I recognize that perhaps 15 to 20% of the population might agree with a lot of your bizarre and unsustainable beliefs. As you know, you even have your own TV network. It is not healthy for any country to have this heavy of a load of profoundly deluded folks (see Germany). Humans are very susceptible to cults, political or religious and that seems to be what’s going on here. You are in a political cult and follow it with a blind and irrational devotion that you cannot see, or defend when it is confronted with reason.
Oh well, one does what one can.
D.
——————-
“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them.”
–Baruch Spinoza
Of course McGovern was lying or misinformed about many items. Republicans did not oppose civil rights. Eisenhower introduced it and Democrats opposed it. SS was and is a bad idea. Government cannot invest properly and as we can see, it is running out of money. There will be a time when people say enough and take up arms. Graduated income tax allows those who pay nothing to live off those who do. McGovern had such great ideas he should have run for president. Wait, he did and got trounced…
Liberalism is a mental illness. It involves an inane idea that we must rape the wealthy to give to those who are not as fortunate. It is a philosophy that espouses genocide and that enslaves people by ensnaring them in government programs thus keeping them in poverty.
Liberalism (and now Socialism) will destroy us.
Yes, I hate liberalism and I prefer not to be around liberals except I get a strange amusement watching them play with their own feces.
BIGD: “Liberalism is a mental illness. It is a philosophy that espouses genocide…”
You’re not well in the head BigD. And that’s too bad.
BIGD: “I get a strange amusement watching them play with their own feces.>>
DAR
I agree that is strange. So now we know what kind of porn you are into, but what do you think about politics?
D.
It is amusing to see so many people who might actually be the missing link they so desperately look for.
I am not into porn, if I were would I see your mom? Just sayin…
No, she’s very religious and doesn’t approve of that sort of thing.
Can’t think of anything to throw at me, go after the mother. Classy.
D.
You call it a devotion to the far right. I call it patriotism. If we continue to have our rights eroded and have government intrusion then we will have a civil war. Liberals will be the first to go. Get rid of them and the country runs better.
In other words, Atlas will Shrug
BIGD: “You call it a devotion to the far right. I call it patriotism.”>>
DAR
The Nazis called it patriotism too.
BIGD: “Liberals will be the first to go. Get rid of them and the country runs better.”>>
DAR
Actually, it doesn’t run at all. But your zeal and devotion reminds me of someone:
***
“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,
God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
“In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.
“Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.
“As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…
“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as
a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at
the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.
“When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.”
–Adolph Hitler, in a speech delivered April 12, 1922 Published in “My New Order”
Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism, had similar zeal and devotion, and in the same direction:
“What shall we do with…the Jews?…set fire to their synagogues or schools and bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them.” –Martin Luther
Right wing hate groups are not conservative. They claim the Christian God or whatever deity best suits their needs to brainwash their followers. They are morally repugnant on so many levels. Please do not equate these idiots with conservatism.
Well it’s certainly fair to associate these rightwing idiots with the rightwing. Which is a pretty close bedfellow with conservationism.
Perhaps you can explain the difference between “conservative” and “rightwing?”
These are just guys that take rightwing conservationism and turn the volume up a louder than you like. There are nuts on the left and nuts on the right. These are your nuts. And they are nasty. And you have a bumper crop.
D.
Are the Nazis conservative, Darrel? Certainly not by our current definition, but they would be classed as Right- wing by most historians.
This would be akin to claiming that David Koresh and his followers were liberal, since they lived a communal life. Same faulty logic would apply.
I answer your questions directly. Don’t forget to address this one please:
***
Perhaps you can explain the difference between “conservative” and “rightwing?”
BLK: Are the Nazis conservative, Darrel?>>
DAR
Of course. And very Christian too. That topic happens to be a specialty of mine. Tread carefully.
BLK:
Certainly not by our current definition,>>
DAR
What “current definition?” There is a lot of disinformation about Hitler and his Christian Nazis. Here’s a little blurb on him which gives a nice summary. I have background information supporting each claim in this, if you want to go there:
***
“Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic, was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church and signed concordats with the Vatican, as Pulitzer-prize winning biographer John Toland and others have documented. Hitler’s religious conviction underpinned his obsession to exterminate those whom he believed “disobeyed the First Commandment.” Devout Catholic John Cornwell has chronicled the failure of Pope Pius XII to speak out against Hitler’s “Final Solution” in Hitler’s Pope.
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: “Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” His book is filled with scriptural references. Hitler also targeted the “godless,” as an Associated Press story of Feb. 23, 1933, noted: “A campaign against the ‘godless movement’ and an appeal for Catholic support were launched by Chancellor Adolf Hitler’s forces.” Hitler opposed “secular schools,” he criminalized abortion, and his soldiers wore belt buckles saying “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”). Far from “faithless,” Hitler committed his atrocities in the name of his faith.”
***
Sound conservative? Rightwing? Of course, he was also probably insane too.
David Koresh? Branch Davidian, definitely a conservative. Jesus, definitely a liberal progressive of his day, fighting against the conservative religious and political establishment. And he was a community organizer. Like Obama (praise be his name).
D.
Oh Jesus, here we go again with the bogus specialties- an atheist talking about Christianity is like a vegan describing the taste of meat.
Just because they use the trappings of the christians means little.
As for Nazis being Christians, saying you are a Christian and acting like one are two different things. Obama said he was a Christian but look at the Church he attended for 20 years. Now he is embracing his Muslim roots (the ones everyone said were bogus).
BLK: saying you are a Christian and acting like one are two different things.”>>
DAR
This begs the question by pretending *you* get to decide what action makes someone a Christian or not. It’s a favorite pastime of Christians to pretend some other sect is “not Christian” but that’s not how the game works. Germany was filled with sincere Bible believing Christians. Martin Luther was from there. He hated Jews too. Hitler liked him.
There is a great deal of evidence showing Hitler and his Nazis (and the Germany of his day) were Christian. There is no good evidence showing otherwise. None. Try some and see.
BLK: Obama said he was a Christian but look at the Church he attended for 20 years.”>>
DAR
Right. A Christian church.
D.
——————
“[The truth is that] six million Jews were targeted and systematically murdered in the heart of Christendom, by baptized Roman Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox who were never rebuked, let alone excommunicated.”
–Dr. Franklin Littell of Baylor University speaking at US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 12/8/93
Those organizations claim to be conservative but they do not practice conservatism.
Given that the racism in America is the product of the Democratic party and that slavery, the KKK, Jim Crow and the opposition to civil rights laws all belonged to or are attributed to them why do you suppose minorities still stay on the liberal Democratic plantation?
Yeah, that is bizarre. How could they not figure out that “racism in America is the product of the Democratic party?” How could so many millions be so completely, consistently, wrong about this?
I know. Maybe it’s you. Maybe you and the fourteen black folks in the republican party are the ones that are wrong about this. Could that possibly be it?
And the gay folks, why do they get this wrong too? All that gay love on the conservative side and yet they still tend toward the Demos. Why can’t these people see things as clearly as you?
D.
ps. There is one group that seems to be pulled toward the republican party and leadership in particular. Pedophiles. Check it out. Sixty examples last I checked:
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
Racism is racism, D- you know this- BD is right in that all he said emerged from the Democratic party from 1860 to at least 1964, when the influence of the “Dixiecrats”, or southern democrats began to wane. You can’t run from your history.
And as for pedophiles, on your side you have the Kennedys- I think we’re even.
The Dixiecrats began to wane? You mean they changed their name joined the republicans. You broadened the tent for them and took them with open arms. I think the blacks noticed that “southern strategy” trick, don’t ya think?
And that was 45 years ago. Which party was pushing for civil rights in the sixties and which was dragging it’s heels?
I give you a list of 60 republican pedophiles in leadership positions, and you give me the name of a family with no known pedophiles. And you call this even.
You’re not too good at math are you Blake?
D.
The Kennedys have no known pedophiles? What about Robert Jr. Who was diddling the babysitter, or Kennedy- Smith who was raping young women in Florida?
Aren’t the Black Panthers a Hate group?
It was the Republicans who pushed for equality, and the Democrats who dragged their heels- read the history of LBJ- his civil rights act almost tore the Democrat party in two.
La Raza literally means, “the Race”- rather racist, I think.
You’re not too good at history, are you D?
Oh Darrel, had such hope for you, but you keep referencing these loony sites that no one seriously believes.
BLK: “The Kennedys have no known pedophiles? What about… blah blah…>>
DAR
Make your case. My list of sixty referred specifically to republicans in leadership positions (not friends of the family) who had been charged with going after the kiddies. What have you got? I know you know how to make assertions, do you know how to make a case for something?
BLK: “Aren’t the Black Panthers a Hate group?”>>
DAR
Absolutely, and *I* listed them as such.
BLK: “La Raza literally means, “the Race”- rather racist, I think.”>>
DAR
This is a rightwing lie being passed around. Don’t fall for it. Here is the debunk:
***
The Translation of Our Name: National Council of La Raza
Many people incorrectly translate our name, “La Raza,” as “the race.” While it is true that one meaning of “raza” in Spanish is indeed “race,” in Spanish, as in English and any other language, words can and do have multiple meanings. As noted in several online dictionaries, “La Raza” means “the people” or “the community.” Translating our name as “the race” is not only inaccurate, it is factually incorrect. “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race. As anyone who has ever met a Dominican American, Mexican American, or Spanish American can attest, Hispanics can be and are members of any and all races.
The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
And this is not just NCLR’s interpretation. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, “La Raza” means:
“…Mexicans or Mexican Americans considered as a group, sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas.”
Furthermore, MSNBC’s online Spanish-English website, Encarta, translates the term this way:
“Hispanic Spanish-speakers in the Americas: Mexicans, Mexican Americans, or Spanish-speaking people of the Americas, considered as a group.”
The Free Dictionary, available online, similarly finds that the term “La Raza”:
“…embodies the notion that traditional, exclusive concepts of race and nationality can be transcended in the name of humanity’s common destiny.”
http://www.nclr.org/section/translation/
D.
I’m just confused on why it IS a race issue. Cop A shot Cop B because B did not ID himself while running down the street of Harlem carrying a gun in his hand. Cop A now feels terrible about it, as he should, but I just can’t seem to grasp why it’s all about race. Cop B was still a rookie but it should be a given to stop and ID himself. Cop A should be investigated to make sure that he still remembers his particular set of ROEs. It’s not like he thought, “There’s a black guy in Harlem with a gun, I gotta shoot him!” I feel terrible about what happened but everyone talking about it being race takes away from the fact that the NYPD lost a young member and his famliy lost a father/husband/son. The loss of any law enforcement officer is a tragedy. My prayers go out to everyone involved.
That’s just it, a mother, it SHOULDN’T be an issue, but certain interests make it so because they have a vested interest in whipping up racism perceptions in the community- it translates into money and notoriety for the people like Sharpton, Jackson, and Rangel.
It is crass commercialization of a tragedy, but they don’t care as long as it gives them headlines.
They are vultures.
Those numbers are easy to follow. The parentheses are the number of people voting (yes/no) and the percentage of the party voting.
Johnson was against civil rights until he became president and Eisenhower was the president who introduced civil rights. It took until 1965 to get it passed.
Look in Wikipedia for the vote totals.
The facts are quite clear. Democrats did not support civil rights, gave us the KKK (which has been reborn several times and each time with Democrats), Jim crow and all kinds of other racist things.
BIGD: Democrats did not support civil rights,>>
DAR
Which party president guided it through and signed it in? A Demo. McCain voted against it. I think papa Bush did too.
There is no question the Demos in the south *were* chock full of racists in the olden days. But they went away. To another party. Guess which one? Bingo! Some of the better ones apologized, changed their ways and stayed (i.e. Bird).
BIGD: [Demo’s] gave us the KKK (which has been reborn several times and each time with Democrats),>>
DAR
So if I go to a Klan meeting in Gravette Arkansas and take a poll, you are suggesting that I will find a majority of democrats at that meeting? I bet there wouldn’t be a single one. They’d all be republicans or worse. Why would you say something so foolish?
D.
What BULLS*** Darrel!
McCain voted against what? He was in the Armed forces at the time, fixing to go to Nam- I do not believe he could have voted for anything in either the House or Senate.
Just another example of your false “facts”, and to “assume” Bush 41 voted against it just makes you an ass.
If you go to a Klan meeting you will find bigots, D. they don’t have a bigot party that I am aware of- perhaps you can look that up with another of your specialties.
Regarding McCain, I got the wrong civil rights act. See:
“McCain Won’t Apologize For Vote Against Civil Rights Act”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11/mccains-other-controversi_n_96193.html
BLK: “to “assume” Bush 41 voted against it just makes you an ass.”>>
DAR
You break the irony meter here. You fill page after page with baseless unsupported and flatly false assumptions based upon your own profound lack of knowledge and than then chide me for saying “I think” papa Bush voted against it?
I hope folks are enjoying this.
And note:
“[papa Bush] opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in his right-wing campaign against Ralph Yarborough.”
http://www.enotalone.com/article/6739.html
D.
—————
“Boy, they were big on crematoriums, weren’t they?” –George Bush, tour of Auschwitz, Sept. 1987
Well, since Bush 41 was elected to Congress in 1967 and the Civil Rights act of 65 was already voted on it is safe to assume he did not vote on the matter. He did oppose one part of it:
Bush opposed the public accommodations contention in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and supported open-housing legislation, something generally unpopular in his district. Wikipedia
This is sourced to some other publishing company. But since the Act was in 65 and he was voted in in 67 it is hard to see how he any say in the matter as you assert.
The McCain issue was a benign Act of 1990 that made MLK’s birthday a federal holiday. I fail to see how this is voting against the civil rights act.
You’re right on both counts. While papa Bush campaigned against the ’64 civil rights act, he could not have voted for or against it because he wasn’t in a position to. And McCain couldn’t have either. I suppose I was remembering this headline which was referring to a different civil rights act.
D.
Everything is a specialty of your Darrel. You are full of crap. You are not that great and you don’t know everything. How many specialties do you have?
NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. Socialists are not conservative.
The Nazi party of today bastardize the Bible in order to spread hate. They are not Christian (claiming so does not make it true) and they are not conservative.
“How many specialties do you have?”>>
DAR
I don’t know. Quite a few I guess. I try not to think about it.
BIGD: NAZIs were SOCIALISTS. Socialists are not conservative.>>
DAR
This confuses the issue with an economic label. This shows the limits of labels. Nazis were pretty radical/crazy so they don’t correlate well to how we use these words today.
The Nazis were of course thoroughly founded in Christianity, top to bottom. Germany was the heart of Christianity at that time. Notice:
***
The 24th principle of the Nazi Party, from the infamous Twenty Five Points
(1920):
“We demand the freedom of religion in the Reich so long as they do not endanger the position of the state or adversely affect the moral standards of the German race. As such the Party represents a positively Christian position without binding itself to one particular faith. The Party opposes the
materialistic Jewish spirit within and beyond us and is convinced that a lasting
recovery of our people can only be achieved on the basis of common good before
personal gain.”
And from the 1933 Nazi Concordat with the Catholic Church: “Article 21. Catholic
religious instruction in elementary, senior, secondary and vocational schools
constitutes a regular portion of the curriculum, and is to be taught in
accordance with the principles of the Catholic Church. In religious instruction,
special care will be taken to inculcate patriotic, civic and social consciousness and sense of duty in the spirit of the Christian Faith and the moral code, precisely as in the case of other subjects.”
The Nazis knew the importance of religious upbringing and would not tolerate secular (read liberal) schools:
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith. . . we need believing people.”
(From Hitler’s speech, April 26, 1933, during negotiations which led to the Nazi-Vatican Concordat of 1933.)
BIGD: The Nazi party of today b******ize the Bible in order to spread hate.>>
DAR
Of course they did. But this hardly makes them special. Lots of Christian sects did this and still do. See the KKK and the neo-Nazis. I am sure they open their meetings with prayer and a good Bible verse. You don’t agree with their biblical interpretations but, with about 33,000 different groups of Christianity, there are a lot of groups you wouldn’t agree with. This hardly makes them “not Christian.”
Hitler wasn’t just born Catholic (he thought about becoming a priest) he was a lifelong Catholic, never renounced his faith, and apologized for not going to church enough.
He was a busy guy (unfortunately).
D.
———–
Wee bit more on Christian/Nazi Germany:
Friedrich Heer, Roman Catholic professor of history at Vienna University admits:
“In the cold facts of German history, the Cross and the swastika came ever closer together, until the swastika proclaimed the
message of victory from the towers of German cathedrals, swastika flags appeared round altars and Catholic and Protestant
theologians, pastors, churchmen and statesmen welcomed the alliance with Hitler.”
Again Professor Heer:
“Of about thirty-two Million German Catholics–fifteen and a half million of whom were men–only seven [individuals] openly refused military service. Six of these were Austrians.”
Paul Johnson’s “History of Christianity” says: “Of 17,000 Evangelical pastors, there were never more than fifty serving long
term [for not supporting the Nazi regime] at any one time.”
“Susannah Heschel, a professor of Judaic studies, uncovered church documents proving that the Lutheran clergy were willing, yes anxious, to support Hitler. She said they begged for the privilege of displaying the swastika in their churches. The overwhelming majority of clergymen were not coerced
collaborators, her research showed, but were enthusiastic supporters of Hitler and his Aryan ideals.”
Just because one writes a book does not make it right D- just look at your sources. And whether or not all of these people were or were not Christian is almost irrelevant, as the Communists were openly “Godless Atheists” and I do not believe that the German people would have or even could have safely professed something other than a belief in Christianity. That might lead to severe consequences in Nazi Germany.
I am seeing parallels here, now.
You are full of it Darrel. How you can draw conclusions from things not true. Jesus a liberal, pfft. He would never be one especially with what they believe.
Hitler was raised Catholic, so what? Catholics are not necessarily conservative, look how many voted for Obama.
Hitler was a Socialist. Look at what NAZI means.
Koresh was a liberal. Look at how he lived. He was like a 60s hippie living in a commune having sex at will. Definitely liberal.
Whether Nazis were “socialists”: yes, they were CONSERVATIVE socialists. Socialism is a form of government. Conservatism, if you refer to their family values (hating atheists, being against abortion, oppressing minorities) is perfectly compatible with conservatism.
And BigD asks if the Nazis were conservative…
Observe:
***
Hitler’s Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: “Gott mit uns” (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.
Hitler, like some of the today’s politicians and preachers, politicized “family values.” He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it. If past is prologue, we know what to expect if liberty becomes license.”
–Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 2.
La Raza would LIE about their name. Their goal is to take back part of the US. They are a hate group that has no respect for the law. They encourage people to break it and then help them after they do.
The Race, I don’t care what they say.
So the dictionaries are wrong too. Careful, your irrational dogmatism is showing.
I had lunch with two friends Saturday, both fluent in Spanish one a teacher of Spanish. This topic came up. They said your position is bunk (as my references already clearly showed).
Don’t peddle lies, admit the mistake.
D.
If you are using a dictionary that anyone can edit, then quite likely the dictionaries are wrong.
Of course they would say that.
Look up El Excelsior, the Mexico City newspaper- in 1983 they had an editorial where they said, plainly that they would take back the southwest by flooding the area with illegal immigrants.To quote, “We do not have the guns to do this, but we have the people.”
You keep clicking the trigger Blake, but your gun ain’t got no bullets.
Get some ammo boy.
Oh, and if you want to try some Ayn Rand, go ahead. Roasting objectivist cult members is a bit of a specialty of mine.