Ever Notice Its Racial Unless The Victims Are White?

There have been attacks on white people in Des Moines Iowa at the fairgrounds. Groups of young blacks are attacking white fair goers and reports indicate that they are calling it “beat whitey night.”

Rest assured that if a group of whites were beating blacks or Muslims and calling it beat the blacks night or beat the Muslims night, every race baiting group in the world would be up in arms. If one simply opposes a person who is not white then the racist label is hurled around. Oppose Obama, racist. Oppose a Mosque near Ground Zero, racist. Oppose illegal immigrants, racist.

There is never any other explanation except racism and the groups with agendas or who profit from race baiting are out in force.

But a politician in Iowa does not see it as race in the case of whites being beaten. Democrat State Representative Ako Abdul-Samad (you figure out where his loyalties lie) seems to think we should not jump the gun here:

State Rep. Ako Abdul-Samad, D-Des Moines, who has worked to fight gang-related violence, said he doesn’t have enough information to decide if the fights were racially motivated. He said police comments that race was involved could miss other factors, such as nonracial taunting. Des Moines Register

If one Muslim were beaten by whites this guy would would have enough information and be screaming about racist whites targeting Muslims. But in this case, we need to investigate to make sure.

I really don’t see how all this is an issue to begin with. There are a hell of a lot more whites than blacks in Des Moines. They should congregate at the fairgrounds and beat the hell out of any groups of blacks targeting people.

I bet Abdul-Samad would see racial attacks then…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog

Gunline

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.



Print This Post

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.

37 Responses to “Ever Notice Its Racial Unless The Victims Are White?”

  1. Adam says:

    Nice. The white wing internet is ablaze this week talking about how only whites were assaulted at the fair and only blacks did the assaulting. The investigation has determined neither to be true but of course you don’t want to miss a chance to holler about the imaginary discrepancy between white and black racism. Next you’ll be telling us again how there are no hate crimes against non-minorities. It’s all a load of bull.

    • Big Dog says:

      Whose investigation? The police there say that this happened and that it was racially motivated. As for credibility, you have none Adam. All of the evidence presented including 4 camera angles show that there was no spitting and no N word hurled the day of the Health Care Takeover taunt by the Democrats and yet you and your peeps claim that these honorable men would not lie.

      It has been shown to be untrue and yet you can’t grasp it.

      The other problem with you Adam is that you can’t understand the definition of race. Opposition to a mosque is not racism, Muslim is not a race. Neither is Mexican.

      You are confused about the issue. And no, you can’t find all these so called racists. You can find fabricated stories. Bush was compared to Hitler and burned in effigy. Do that to Obama and you are labeled racist.

      You can find examples of racism anywhere (Biden and Reid are but two examples) and you can start with people like Sharpton and Jackson. There is no defense of white bigots because there is no bigotry. But a number of Dems are opposing now so they must be bigots, by your definition.

      And yes Adam, people who oppose Obama’s policies are called racists. You do not have to look hard to find that. It is the game plan, you guys have decided to scream racism about everything in order to advance a political agenda. Your own side including the journolisters admitted to it.

      So you have no credibility in this. You guys are the boys who cried wolf one too many times.

      And oh yes, those offensive jokes. Both sides have them and none of it indicates they are racists. Off color jokes have been around for a long time. Listen to Richard Pryor and Chris Rock sometime. Whites take a beating as do blacks. Those kinds of jokes do not make one a racist. But while we are on the subject, you always dismiss the Dems as being tasteless or poorly worded. The right is automatically racist. Once again, the game plan and you have no credibility.

      As for who has been stirring the racist pot, you better look inward. It was the Democrats and the Hillary people who were throwing all that around. When Obama won the primary it was the race baiters like Sharpton who started throwing false accusations and it was a black guy who spoke at the inauguration who made racist comments about white people. Get it right Adam.

      And once again, you race over things that have nothing to do with race.

    • Blake says:

      It really doesn’t matter who was assaulted here- just that they were- but if the reports are correct, then we have a problem.
      In Texas, we have concealed carry, so that wouldn’t happen to me, or many of my friends.
      It would be determined by the people lying on the ground leaking, just who did what.

  2. Adam says:

    “If one simply opposes a person who is not white then the racist label is hurled around. Oppose Obama, racist. Oppose a Mosque near Ground Zero, racist. Oppose illegal immigrants, racist.”

    Oh please. You’ve said this a thousand times now and it’s still wrong. People are not racists simply because they oppose Obama. You can just find countless examples of people opposing Obama because they are racists. The same goes for Park51 and with illegal immigration. You confuse that difference because you’re stuck having to defend the white bigots on your side of the isle. That’s the crowd you hang out in though so you just have to deal with it.

  3. victoria says:

    No that is the crowd you hang out in, Adam.
    You know the old saying when you point a finger there is 3 pointing back at you… If you Dumocrats couldn’t divide the country into factions you wouldn’t even have a party.

    http://www.newsrealblog.com/2010/08/22/10-bigoted-remarks-made-by-the-tolerant-left-in-obamas-post-racial-america/

    • Adam says:

      Dumocrats? Original and about as childish as the 3 fingers pointing thing. Next you’ll be saying you’re rubber and I’m glue.

      Some of the 10 you post are actually offensive. Most of them are just stupid. I’ll take your 10 mostly weak examples of “progressive” bigotry and give you 15 incredibly offensive things actual Republicans have been caught saying about Obama.

      There’s always going to be examples of Democratic figures using racism or offensive stereotypes. Yet, minorities vote for Democrats typically for a reason and listing a few examples of liberal morons can’t erase a century of right wing intolerance and racism in America.

  4. victoria says:

    “accusations of “racist” and “racism” being thrown around, they are substitutes for thought and argument.”

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15893 “Racist Democrats versus Color Blind Republicans”

    Adam, everytime you holler “racist” on here because someone says something–well it is getting very old and predictable and shows how little you think and how much you just follow the edicts of your party and MSNBC et.al.

    • It’s very difficult to retire a tactic that’s worked that well for them in the past, Victoria. It will hang around until it becomes an inarguable detriment to them — which might be Real Soon Now.

      Grant that some on the left might have actual feelings for minorities who’ve been mistreated in the past. These merely need to look up and learn better. The tacticians, the vanguard types for whom everything is merely a means to greater power over the rest of us, will never change. These we can only outlive.

    • Adam says:

      I can’t remember the last time I watched MSNBC so I hardly follow their “edicts” as you call it.

      I don’t call people racist just because “someone says something” but rather because someone has said something racist. I know that won’t stop you from repeating this idea and ignoring the instances of racism from your side of the isle though.

      Conservatives have been stirring the race pot since Obama started running for president.

      Obama’s a secret Muslim! Lookout!

      Obama’s celebrating Ramadan and not the super holy National Day of Prayer! Boo!

      Black people bought houses they couldn’t afford and they ruined America for white people! Wake up!

      Illegals are taking our jobs, our resources, running over little old ladies, and killing kittens! Run!

      Terrorists are building mosques at ground zero! Oh no!

      On and on it goes. Your side can’t help it. They know they won’t get the black vote but they can solidify the white vote by making whites afraid of immigrants and Muslims and the black man in the White House.

      • Blake says:

        Owebamma’s “respect and observance” of Ramadan wouldn’t be viewed as offensive (after all, he just respected a major religion), but in context to how he DIDN’T observe the National Day of Prayer, he comes off as favoring islam over Christianity- and he is allegedly a “Christian”. I say allegedly, because he rarely attends services, and because of behavior like that above- I know- you are going to say that Reagan rarely attended church, but he didn’t bend over backwards to kiss muslim butt, either.
        You know how long after he was sworn in that the Iranians let our hostages go, don’t you?
        Twenty minutes- it took them that long to herd the hostages onto a plane and get them out of Iran.
        Would the Iranians be that scared of Barrie? No freakin’ way- they would laugh (do laugh) at him- because he is perceived as weak- heck even I think he is weak- and he is (supposed to be) my president.
        But why, oh why do I think he doesn’t have our backs?

  5. TeaPartyPatriot says:

    Adam, what have the dems done for this country other than ruin the black family unit, create slaves to the system and marginalize groups of people of color?
    I want to know how much you think you know.
    Me being a multi racial person, I am interested in how you will explain all this away. Being the party of the KKK and all.

    • Adam says:

      Sure. We can talk history. Party of the KKK? Yes, a century ago when the Democratic party platform was dominated by conservatives. Funny how all throughout time it’s conservatives on the wrong side of history most often.

      The modern Democratic party is much more in line with the progressive Republicans that worked to end slavery and lay the foundation for the civil rights movement. When things started changing during the civil rights era many southern Democrats left the party and became independents or segregationalists.

      After major civil rights legislation became the law of the land and segregation started going the way of the Dodo, the Republican party began to absorb many of the conservative segregationalists and the independents into their fold. The GOP then employed a Southern Strategy for decades to solidify their power with the white voting bloc.

      Unfortunately the GOP is still employing a form of the Southern Strategy even today.

      • TeaPartyPatriot says:

        Do you know what I find amazing about your remarks?
        When Clinton and every other Democrat wanted to explain away Robert Byrd and his past, they never state what you just said, they said that Robert Byrd only needed votes and that is why he belonged to the KKK.
        Hmmmmmmm as usual you are spewing liberal tripe that was probably passed on to you from your liberal professor/and or family.

        As for your comments about the GOP, prove it.

        • Adam says:

          I’m not sure which part you consider tripe.
          Everything I’ve said is easily verified and correct. Let me even quote from FoxNews for you on the subject of Strom Thurmond:

          By 1964, Thurmond had grown disillusioned with the direction of the Democratic Party. Though he had backed Lyndon Johnson for the Democratic nomination for the presidency in 1960, he refused to campaign for a John F. Kennedy/Johnson ticket. In 1964, he bolted the Democratic Party, and, backing Barry Goldwater for the presidency, joined the Republicans.

          The first major Southern political leader to switch from the Democrats to the GOP, his move signaled a significant shift in American politics. The GOP began to appeal to white, Southern conservatives, and a region that had once been exclusively Democratic began turning Republican.

          By the end of the 1960s, Thurmond was a force within the Republican Party. His influence helped Richard Nixon get the presidential nomination over Ronald Reagan. During the campaign, he inspired Nixon’s tactic of subtly appealing to the racial fears of Southern whites — a tactic that secured him the presidency.

          The year 1964 was a major point of realignment between the two parties and it would usher in an era of conservative domination of the Republican Party and Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

          Please tell me what you think is tripe.

          “As for your comments about the GOP, prove it.”

          Which comments are you having trouble with?

          • Big Dog says:

            Why was he disillusioned? Johnson was against the Civil Rights Act and it would not have passed if it had not been for the Republicans who supported by larger percentages than Democrats. Kennedy was against the Civil Rights Act and it was Ike who championed it. It was Ike who sent troops into Little Rock to let black kids go to school when the Democrats would not let them.

            This important point you try to make is moot since the Civil Rights Act passed after 1964. And was not the Southern Strategy a counter to the enslavement of blacks by the Democrats which started under Kennedy who pretended to be their friends but wiretapped MLK and worked against the blacks?

        • Blake says:

          What I find sad is the fact that Eisenhower wanted to have a civil rights act, because he so respected the Black men in uniform, and was sad that they were being denied rights at home, but ONE person- the Senate Majority Leader, blocked key provisions of the bill, watering it down until it would have been next to useless.
          That Senate Majority leader? LBJ-
          So it is truly ironic in a twisted, back-stabbing way, that LBJ gets credit for the civil rights act of 1964. You could even rightfully say that he stole it from Eisenhower in ’57.

  6. victoria says:

    FYI Adam, I am not white and I come from a Democrat family and I can see what the Democrats do and what you are doing.

  7. Adam says:

    “Why was he disillusioned?”

    Times had changed. The Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans had largely been able to derail or mutilate the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 but by 1964 the Northern Democrats and Northern Republicans had grown too strong. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed and signed into law by Johnson July 2, 1964. Thurmond, a Southern Democrat, would leave the party in September of that year.

    The election of 1964 began to realign the parties with many of the Southern Democrats losing their seats to Republicans in the South and the Democrats gaining seats throughout the North.

    It’s much easier to think of it as North and South. Yes, the Republican votes on Civil Rights were essential but they also were representative of their region more than their party. Until the parties realigned there were pro-civil rights and anti-civil rights factions in both.

    “This important point you try to make is moot since the Civil Rights Act passed after 1964.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by that. The most important was certainly the the 1964 version which passed in 1964 the same year that the parties began to realign.

    “And was not the Southern Strategy a counter to the enslavement of blacks by the Democrats which started under Kennedy who pretended to be their friends but wiretapped MLK and worked against the blacks?”

    It’s not like all of the sudden blacks only voted Democratic so Nixon had to come up with a new plan to unite the Whites. We’re talking about something that happened in stages and if anything blacks voting Democratic was a response to the Southern Strategy and not the other way around.

    • Big Dog says:

      No, blacks suddenly started voting Democrat because Kennedy agreed to work to get King out of jail and Nixon did not answer the request for help. This is well documented and is backed up by King’s niece.

      You paint the Southern Strategy in the wrong context and make it nefarious. It was not some racial problem that drove blacks away. The reality is, most voters from the Democrat stronghold of the south were white. Blacks did not or could not vote so it was whites who were targeted to elected Republicans. Not as anti-black as Nixon and Eisenhower had great civil rights records. The left has distorted this and pushed it aside to rewrite history (once again).

      Chairman Steele’s analysis of the so-called “southern strategy” is a bit too simplistic and could use some historical context. Since the end of Reconstruction the GOP scarcely existed in most of the South until the 1950s. In fact, in 1952 the Republican Party was so weak there that Dwight Eisenhower had to rely on “Veterans for Eisenhower” organizations to conduct much of his campaign in the region.

      So firm was the Democrat grip on the white southern vote that prior to Richard Nixon’s 1960 campaign, no Republican presidential candidate had ever done much campaigning in the South. That year he broke new ground by deciding to campaign in every state. Prior to legislative advances of the civil rights movement — initiated by the GOP’s 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts — few African-Americans could vote in the Democrat-controlled South. As a result, Nixon’s campaigning in southern states was perforce directed toward the people who could vote there, mostly the whites.

      Regarding his decision to campaign in the South as some kind of cynical ploy is to ignore Nixon’s civil rights achievements while serving as Eisenhower’s vice president. He was instrumental in breaking the Democrat filibuster against the 1957 Civil Rights Act and called for racial integration of public schools long before John Kennedy or Lyndon Johnson did.

      As I often say in my speeches, “The more we Republicans know about the history of our party, the more the Democrats will worry about the future of theirs.” See http://www.grandoldpartisan.com for more information.

      Link

  8. Adam says:

    “Whose investigation? The police there say that this happened and that it was racially motivated.”

    Did you read the article you cited yourself?

    “We don’t know if this was juveniles fighting or a group of kids singling out white citizens leaving the fairgrounds,” Sgt. Lori Lavorato said. “It’s all under investigation, but it’s very possible it has racial overtones.”

    I never said it did or did not happen, just that you were speaking with certainty about something not even the police in the article you cited were doing. And of course today a new article from the Register says this:

    Des Moines police investigators are unable to confirm that weekend violence outside the Iowa State Fairgrounds was racially motivated, officials said Wednesday – shifting away from written reports and public statements made by officers after the melee.

    • Big Dog says:

      No, I watched the news report and they reported that the police say that victims told them the hooligans were screaming that it was beat whitey night. What was reported closest to the event is probably the closest to the truth.

      I was speaking to certainty of the victims stating it. The police have to say it is under investigation (unless it is white on black then it is a race crime until otherwise proven) because they were not there.

      I have no reason to doubt the people who were there. I also know that the group of hooligans attacked the police so it is not like they were non violent.

      I take the word of the victims here until someone can show that it did not happen.

      Funny, you took the word of members of Congress over others about an N word and spitting incident even when it was “under investigation” (an investigation that proved it was a lie) but you think caution is due here.

      The victims said they were the victim of a race crime. That is the only perception we need. That is the standard we have thanks to the victim class on the left.

      • Adam says:

        “Funny, you took the word of members of Congress over others about an N word and spitting incident even when it was “under investigation” (an investigation that proved it was a lie) but you think caution is due here.”

        I can’t figure out why you keep accusing me of that. Please point out where I did such a thing.

  9. Big Dog says:

    Thurmond was a racist in his early career and life though he recanted many things later on saying it was his job to uphold law in his state and when the laws changed, he changed. He voted for the MLK holiday and hired blacks to work on his staff. If you can grant that Byrd changed why pick on Thurmond?

    The change of parties was blamed on him being continually at odds with the Democrats. No specific items are listed as the reasons though opposition to civil rights is always mentioned. However, he did some things that ticked off the Democrats and they stopped supporting him:

    “In 1952, Thurmond endorsed Republican Dwight Eisenhower for the Presidency, rather than Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson. This led state Democratic Party leaders to block Thurmond from receiving the nomination to the Senate in 1954, forcing him to run as a write-in candidate.”

    There are plenty of things at play here and to simplify them by implying he left because he was a racist in the non racist Democrat party is wrong.

  10. Big Dog says:

    I believe that you agreed with the people here who said it. Yes, you are one to point out that the TEA Party folks are racists and they must do these things.

    You continually give Dems a pass or accuse the right of what the left is actually doing…

    Don’t deflect. The issue is the racially motivated fight n Iowa. The people say it happened, what say you?

    • Big Dog says:

      So there were reports by those being attacked of a racial component and the police reported that before they were able to confirm. Funny how when it is white on black crime they assume racial components and go from there. Krauthammer said it all very well.

      The race card is a weaker attack and will get weaker as it and the other bigot labels are used without merit.

      • victoria says:

        My favorite part–“The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama overread his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.”

  11. Adam says:

    “There are plenty of things at play here and to simplify them by implying he left because he was a racist in the non racist Democrat party is wrong.”

    I don’t imply. I flat out suggest it. He left the Democratic party because he opposed desegregation and the majority of Democrats in Congress were now firmly behind the civil rights movement.

    “I believe that you agreed with the people here who said it. Yes, you are one to point out that the TEA Party folks are racists and they must do these things.”

    I don’t think you can find a statement where I said something other than I did not know enough about what happened to say. Do I think there are racists in the tea party movement? Yes I do. We’ve seen several leaders of the movement caught using racist language and many racist signs being displayed. I don’t believe the whole of the movement is racist of course, but I do believe the whole of the movement is just partisans in opposition of Obama and the Democrats and they’re passing themselves off as something new and patriotic and concerned. It’s the same old thing just repackaged.

    Krauthammer? Get real. I think Ben Cohen said it better: “Charles Krauthammer is Genuinely Stupid”

  12. TeaPartyPatriot says:

    (Krauthammer? Get real. I think Ben Cohen said it better: “Charles Krauthammer is Genuinely Stupid”)

    When confronted with your own truth Adam, you throw ad-hominem attacks.
    You learned your liberal strategy well.

    • victoria says:

      I was like, who the “—” is Ben Cohen and so I looked up Ben Cohen online. If it is the one wikipedia came up with, he is the co-founder of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. His support lies with the Democratic Party, however, and he especially supported Dennis Kucinich in 08 and he is a self-described “hippie.” The way I see it, you want to talk about shooting yourself in the foot as a business owner and he wants to call Charles Krauthammer stupid.

    • Adam says:

      If I had not responded to every comment you’ve made here with more statements to back up my claims then your suggestion of “ad-hominem attacks” would mean something. Krauthammer just really is THAT stupid.

      • Blake says:

        It takes a brain-dead person to say that Charles Krauthammer is stupid- I realize that much of what he says runs counter to your grain, but it’s truly hard for you to make the case that Krauthammer is less intelligent than you.

  13. victoria says:

    Here it is–I found it–He is another leftwing nutjob.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-
    cohen/charles-krauthammer-is-ge_b_149131.html