Parents say NAACP leader passed herself as black for years

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Yet when she sued she became "White" for that occasion.

She didn't sue because she was White. She sued because she stated the school discriminated against her because THEY said she was White.

[ATG5]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

If you have proof of this, then I recommend you contact the relevant authorities and let them know so she can be prosecuted. Staging fake crime is illegal.

All detectives involved in these alleged race crimes she claimed concluded/suspended their investigations prior to this controversy due to the overwhelming lack of evidence.

Regarding the "hate mail" she received:

Also this week, Spokane police files on Dolezal’s report that she received a hate mail package and other mailing in late February and March were released. Police records say the initial package Dolezal reported receiving did not bear a date stamp or bar code, which Dolezal herself told police when she reported it. Investigators interviewed postal workers, who said it was either very unlikely or impossible that the package could have been processed through the post office, and that the only other alternative was that it had been put there by someone with a key.

Based on the mountain of deceit she built up over the years, it's not a very difficult conclusion to come to.

But please, by all means, keep going with your faux concern and endearment for this woman, it's quite entertaining.

[Vector1]

Originally Posted by kanhawk

Apologies if this has already been posted on this very long thread but here is the latest lunacy from this strange woman:
NAACP Imposter Sued School Over Race Claims | The Smoking Gun

FTA:The NAACP official who today resigned in the face of evidence that she masqueraded as black once sued Howard University for denying her teaching posts and a scholarship because she was a white woman, The Smoking Gun has learned.

So, she is white when it's convenient for her and black when it's convenient.

Actually I think you have it wrong. Few if any "discrimination cases" are successfully filed/won by white people. So that experience likely taught her she needed to be black to have any success in the racial grievance arena.

Heck I remember a white guy who applied as an "African-American" and was hired. When he showed up he was told he cannot keep the job because he was not black. In reality the guy was born in South Africa and later became an American citizen. So if anyone could legitimately use the hyphenated-American term from Africa, he certainly could, right?
Yet he quickly found out it really does not mean "African-American", it means a black person ( i.e. set aside based on race quota ).
How well do you think he did?

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by ATG5

But please, by all means, keep going with your faux concern and endearment for this woman, it's quite entertaining.

So you only point here is to make it about those you disagree with instead of topic.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

She didn't sue because she was White. She sued because she stated the school discriminated against her because THEY said she was White.

She sued when they took her art exhibits down and claimed they were favoring African American students over her.


Rachel Dolezal Lawsuit | The Smoking Gun

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

Do you ask the NAACP these questions too? They continue to stand by this lady. It is they after all most affected by her actions.

I thought you said they forced her resignation. How is forcing someone's resignation "continuing to stand by this lady?"

Why am I even responding to such inconsistent arguments?

[HappyTexan]

The woman led a secret life with lies and deceit.

She got outed and resigned. Happens all the time.

No different then someone making up stories about their past work history, college degrees, military experience, etc.
She used skin color.

[ATG5]

Originally Posted by WaldoKitty

So you only point here is to make it about those you disagree with instead of topic.

You've yet to explain what is "brave" about this woman.

I love how you just cut out and ignored the "proof" you asked for.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I thought you said they forced her resignation. How is forcing someone's resignation "continuing to stand by this lady?"

I still think this. But it doesn't mean they don't support her in regards to what I was actually responding to. i.e. That in handling NAACP business and money she was the utmost in integrity. The NAACP still continues to support her on this.

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Why am I even responding to such inconsistent arguments?

Since you asked, I think it's because you don't focus on the argument made and instead focus on proving assumptions about party making argument. This can indeed lead to such confusion.

[WaldoKitty]

Originally Posted by ATG5

You've let to explain what is "brave" about this woman. I love how you just cut out and ignored the "proof" you asked for.

Anyone who has endured what this woman has endured and now have every minute detail of her life turned over in a national witch hunt to discredit her, is quite brave in my book. Yet she stands by her convictions. That takes a lot of bravery. I'm surprised that question has to be asked.