Monday, March 18, 2013

The Racists are Coming to Kansas City

Image courtesy of: tonyskansascity.com
Mark your calendars now folks, the pro-amnesty, racists at La Raza are making their way to Kansas City to hold their 2015 annual conference.  Back in 2007, La Raza, or The Race, for our non-Spanish speaking friends, had canceled their planned annual conference which was to be held in KC because Mayor Funkhouser nominated a nice, little old, white lady to the Parks Board and she also happened to be a member of the minutemen group, a pro-boarder security organization.
“NCLR is a tremendous civil rights and advocacy organization that does great things across the country,” said Mayor Sly James.  “I’m thrilled to welcome the group back to Kansas City, Missouri and look forward to a long-standing relationship with NCLR leadership, Affiliates, and supporters.  The fact that NCLR is headed back to Kansas City shows that we are a diverse, inclusive community that values people of all backgrounds.”
The event is expected to draw tens of thousands members of "the race" to Kansas City.  According to  Janet MurguĂ­a, Kansas City native and president of La Raza, “There’s going to be something for everybody.”

With events like the following, it's tough to argue with those sentiments:
    • Latina Wisdom at Work:  Stepping into Our Power as Leaders

      Attendees will not only be provided with ample studies to fuel their claims of racism, but they will come away feeling "empowered to step more fully into your leadership potential with greater awareness of your cultural strengths."
    • Is Washington Delivering on Latino Priorities this Election Year?

      Here attendees will "Learn about health, economic mobility, education, and immigration policy issues" and La Raza's public policy priorities.
    • Unbanked by Choice?  New Findings on Hispanic Money Matters

      Curious how American banks are catering to America's growing illegal immigrant population?  Have no fear, here one can expect to learn about "New research from NCLR shows the range of financial needs and solutions within the Latino community... we will share the results of a survey on financial access which NCLR conducted in California, paying particular attention to the needs of immigrants"
    • Your Time Is Now:  Keys to Latino Leadership Success

      And what more to we need to say about this wonderful workshop, "As an emerging majority in the United States, Latinos have an opportunity to take on leadership roles in their communities."

    8 comments:

    Hmmm... said...

    Nothing like candy-coating an invasion of the U.S. by aggressors and thieves.

    UBU said...

    HA, HA! President Obama won a second term because the GOP let the racist minutemen/TeaBaggers lead their party to a massive failure!
    Suck on that for the next Four Years!

    Byron Funkhouser said...

    "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us."

    Think for a while about all of the cities in America with Spanish names. How did that come to be? If I have to speak English, then why isn't it Saint Francis, instead of San Francisco, Saint Anthony, instead of San Antonio, etc. How do the Mexican haters explain this?

    theKansasCitian said...
    This comment has been removed by the author.
    theKansasCitian said...

    And here I thought conquistadors from Spain brought Spanish to the new world... turns out Mexico was already here first, founding cities and states in the U.S.

    To answer your questions, San Francisco got its name in 1776 when colonists from Spain named it after Saint Francis of Assisi.

    As for San Antonio, in 1691 a group of Spanish explorers setup camp near an Indian village. Damien Massanet suggested they name the place San Antonio because they arrived on the day of the feast of St. Anthony.

    I suppose Florida is thanks Mexico too? After all, Spanish explorer Ponce de Leon named it Florida because they arrived on what the believed was an island on Pasqua de Flores, otherwise known as Easter.

    But why let facts get in the way of your rhetoric, right?

    theKansasCitian said...

    As for the border crossing you, now that is one hilarious revisionist view of history. Correct me if I am wrong, but "Mexico" didn't win its independence from Spain until 1810. Then, unable to defend itself, Comanche and Navaho indians raided settlements in what is modern day northern Mexico and Texas.

    The Mexican government, unable to defend its territory invited Anglo settlers in hoping they would settle west and act as a buffer against the Indian raiders.

    By 1829, there were more Anglos in Texas than Spanish speakers, most of home were of Spanish decent, not Aztec/Mexica/Maya.

    In 1834, Santa Anna became the dictator of fledgling Mexico. A couple years later Stephen Austin called Texans, made up of Anglos and Mexican business owners upset with Santa Annas taxes, to arms to fight for independence. The Texan army defeated Santa Anna and Texas became an independent nation.

    It wasn't until 1845 that the United States allowed Texas to become a state.

    As for California, wasn't it Mexico's own politicians that decided to sell it to settle the nation's debts? Oh yea, they did. Huh...

    But, why let facts get in the way of your nice little slogan?

    Anonymous said...

    My point was why haven't the names been changed to English names?

    theKansasCitian said...

    Why should they change the names?

    Look at Louisiana where many cities still bear the French name: Baton Rouge, Broussard, Butte La Rose, Chataignier.

    Or how about cities in the midwest with Indian names: Kalamazoo, Chattabooga, Oshkosh, Peoria.

    Or how about these with Greek names: Attica, Athens, Apollo, amazonia, Arcadia.

    Or how about these with Italian names: Florence, Lodi, Montebello, Palermo, Paola, Milan, Genoa.

    Or how about these with Russian names: Kiev, Lugov, Kaza, Tolstoy.

    Just a cities with Spanish names, founded by people from Spain still carry their name, so do cities from other explorers and immigrants still bear the names from their home countries. None of which prescribes any unwritten claim to the land by those home country.

    The 2 nations controlling the American southwest the longest were Spain and the United States. Yet, you and those like you portend we are supposed to recognize that rightful ownership of the region belongs to the inept country that claimed the region for barely over a decade and lacked the means to defend it against Indian raids, forcing the inhabitants, mostly Anglo, to seek independence...