« 25% of Brits Don't Know Churchill Was Real | Main | Crucial Naval Exercises Sacrificed to Enviromoonbattery »
February 4, 2008
California Regulates the Ethnicity of Philanthropies
The categorization of everyone and everything according to politically correct special interest groups has taken another step toward totalitarianism in the Land of Fruits and Nuts, where the California Assembly has passed a bill requiring foundations to disclose the race, gender and sexual orientation of trustees, staff and even grantees.
According to the Berkeley-based Greenlining Institute, racial minorities are not sufficiently represented in state policy debates. Therefore the ethnicity of think tanks and charities must be regulated by the State. Per Greenlining, both board and staff must be more than 50% "minority" to qualify for privileged status — and no, heterosexual white guys who don't have their heads screwed on backwards don't count as a minority, even in California, where they ought to be placed on the Endangered Species list.
The Wall Street Journal comments:
This certainly takes the spoils system of racial preferences to a whole new level. Heretofore the government has tried to enforce a pigmentation principle in government jobs and contracts, and in private employment through the threat of lawsuits. But this is about telling private citizens how to give their own money away.
Once this gets through the California Senate and the moonbat Governator inevitably signs it, Greenlining will move on to Washington, where it is already lobbying Charlie Rangel for Congressional hearings. A racist demagogue like Rangel is sure to love the idea that foundations and charities should be forced to apportion donations according to skin color.
It won't be long before you'll have to provide your demographic data to buy a can of Coke from a soda machine. If you're a second-class citizen — i.e., not black or homosexual — the machine will make you pay extra.
On a tip from teqjack.
Posted by Van Helsing at February 4, 2008 8:12 PM
Comments
According to the Berkeley-based...
That's how far I read before the story lost all credibility.
Posted by: Jimbo at February 4, 2008 8:39 PM
further adding to the errosion of credibility:
Per Greenlining, both board and staff must be more than 50% "minority" to qualify for privileged status...
But... if the minority is more than 50% doesn't that then make them the majority and as such can no longer participate?
'Tis a tangled web the moonbats weave.
Posted by: Jimbo at February 4, 2008 8:52 PM
Only a liberal would try to fight perceived racism with actual racism.
Posted by: Smoke TNT at February 4, 2008 9:07 PM
Where are the latest resident fools - seems like they'd be weighing in on this - first with profanity laced tyrades, followed by copious misrepresentation of true history, and sewing things up with true life examples.
I mean - don't they believe the world can't rotate without rainbow (less white) diversity? At least that's what they keep telling us.
Time to defend your ideology, fools. You out there????
Posted by: Jimbo at February 4, 2008 10:32 PM
Liberals don't give to charity... so they intend to steal them.
Posted by: DANEgerus at February 4, 2008 10:36 PM
Liberals do a good job sucking up to Homosexuals, Blacks, and Hispanics. But I hear they're not that nice to Asians or Orientals, who only make up around 5% of the US population. Appartenly, if you really are a minority, and can't offer any real votes, the Libs walk right pass you without batting an eye. Now thats racism.
Not that asians need liberal help, seeing how their one of the most successful minority groups in the country. Must be why libs hate them so much.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2008 6:24 AM
SAT question of the future:
If a foundation's board has seven members, and one is a heterosexual woman, while another is a 1/2 black male, one is 3/4 American Indian, and one is a lesbian but who has since converted to hetereosexuality, should the foundation be allowed to make donations to fight cancer?
Posted by: mega at February 5, 2008 7:18 AM
SAT question of the future:
If a foundation's board has seven members, and one is a heterosexual woman, while another is a 1/2 black male, one is 3/4 American Indian, and one is a lesbian but who has since converted to hetereosexuality, should the foundation be allowed to make donations to fight cancer?
Posted by: mega at February 5, 2008 7:20 AM
actually I take that back.
SAT question of the future:
The foundations board in the photograph below has several members, including a woman, a black man, and a gay white couple. Circle the black man.
Posted by: mega at February 5, 2008 7:21 AM
Are heterosexual Albinos considered a minority even though they are WHITE?
Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2008 7:25 AM
SAT Questions circa 2012.
Which of these historical leaders would you consider a War Criminal?
A) George Washington
B) Abraham Lincoln
C) Harry S Truman
D) Winston Churchill
E) George W Bush
F) All of the Above
G) None of the Above
Which of the following historical figures are widely considered as War Heroes?
A) Saddam Hussein
B) Pol Pot
C) Fidel Castro
D) Che Guevara
E) Joseph Stalin
F) All of the Above
G) None of the Above
True or False. The movie WATERWORLD represents a very real future Earth if CO2 emissions are not cut 90% immediately.
Calculate the Carbon Footprint of this person given the following information:
Occupation: EXXON CEO.
House: 10,000 sq. ft.
Cars: 2008 Cadillac, H1 Hummer, Ford F150
Meals: 6 ounces of meat 3 times a day, 7 days per week.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 5, 2008 7:44 AM
Anon, I LOVE your SAT questions. Too bad they are probably too close to being true for comfort.
Posted by: Pam at February 5, 2008 9:07 AM
"Pam at February 5, 2008 9:07 AM"
Ditto!
It's called TOKENISM, Liberals!
Posted by: KHarn at February 5, 2008 5:47 PM
