California puts legal racial and sexual discrimination on the ballot

California Proposition 209:

The ballot measure would repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which added the following provision to the California Constitution: “The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

Just to make this completely clear, from the same web page:

A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited the state from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

And from Steve Miller @SteveMillerOC:

The California legislature has now voted to strike these words from our state constitution:

“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

I’m speechless.

We live in interesting times.

6 thoughts on “California puts legal racial and sexual discrimination on the ballot

  1. Reading the endorsement of the Los Angeles Times tells you all you need to know about how this Amendment would be used:
    “We wish race didn’t matter in hiring and college admissions. We wish that everyone had an equal opportunity to access quality education and achieve economic prosperity. But they didn’t in 1996 and still don’t in 2020. Race and gender are still automatic disadvantages that are difficult to overcome. Helping to shrink the opportunity gap with a tiny leg up doesn’t give them an unfair advantage over those born already ahead, just a slightly better chance than they have now. That’s not discrimination. That’s justice. And it’s time Californians had another debate about how to achieve it.”

    White people are the target of this. We are to be their slaves.

    • The transitive property: if a=b, and b=c, then a=c.
      All whites are racists. You must be anti-racist. Therefore, you must be anti-white.
      Meanwhile, a prof is saying abolish whiteness and gets a promotions out of it, and the media ignores it.
      It’s a massive gaslighting / brainwashing / propaganda campaign.
      I’m more a cultural christian than a serious initium sapientiae timor domini sort of guy, but seeing how pervasive this stuff is, I’m starting to think Lyle might be right. Prince of Lies, and all the obvious corollaries.

  2. This isn’t rocket science. This amendment was “Good” in 1996 when blacks, latinos and insane leftists weren’t in full control of Kalifornia. Now that they ARE
    in control of everything they want this impediment to their agenda removed so they can do unto white people all the evil things they IMAGINED were being done to them in the past. You don’t need an IQ above warm toast to understand
    the reason behind this.

  3. So….how long before the various tribes acknowledge they’re in direct competition with each other and the self-alignment reaches full intensity? I think it’s a stunningly bad idea, but OK, if that’s the Way of The World now, or at least our little part of it, I guess we’ll see how it all works. Something tells me, though, that whatever the level of alignment intensity it won’t be “enough” and historical examples suggest the end result won’t be what was envisioned.

Comments are closed.