No, no, no...a thousand times, no!
I will give my charitable donations, as much as, and to whom, I please! And they will be to those whom I feel are in need, regardless of race, ethnicity, color, or any other thing they can think of--but it will be MY choice! If I don't get a tax deduction for it, then so be it!
"Nonprofit leaders are reeling from the recent news that President Barack Obama's proposed budget would limit tax deductions on charitable contributions from wealthy Americans. But now the philanthropic world has something else to worry about. Today the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP), a research and advocacy group, will release a report offering "benchmarks to assess foundation performance." Its real aim is to push philanthropic organizations into ignoring donor intent and instead giving grants based on political considerations.
The committee is part of a rising tide of politicians and activists who are working to change the face of American philanthropy -- and not for the better.
The report, titled "Criteria for Philanthropy at its Best," advises foundations to "provide at least 50 percent of grant dollars to benefit lower-income communities, communities of color, and other marginalized groups, broadly defined." The committee looked at 809 of the largest foundations in the country, whose combined three-year grants totaled almost $15 billion, and concluded that the majority of foundations are "eschewing the needs of the most vulnerable in our society" by neglecting "marginalized groups."
Two years ago, an advocacy group in San Francisco called Greenlining began releasing similar reports. Greenlining's aim then was to pass legislation in California mandating that foundations report to the public the percentage of their dollars given to "minority-led" organizations and the percentage of their boards and staffs made up by racial and ethnic minorities. The legislation was dropped when several foundations promised to donate money to causes Greenlining favored."
Read the rest of this nonsense here.
What, you may ask, has that to do with anything? Well, a lot, when you consider Obama's mind-set concerning reparations:
Prior to his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004 Obama opposed reparations for slavery. After his election, Obama subtly changed his view, stating he was against "just signing over checks to African-Americans," leaving open the possibility of other forms of reparations would be acceptable to him (Chicago Tribune 11/14/2004).
I'm beginning to think that Obama has found his 'possibility of other forms of reparations' that are 'acceptable to him.' I guess we will see the other acceptable forms as we go along..after all, something new pops up every day.
Lest you think that I am implying that he is catering to the Black minority only, it will be well to remember that while he was campaigning for the presidency, in order to garner votes, he made a lot of promises to a lot of different groups of people.
The worst part of all of this is, that it is not only about reparation, or handing out money to certain, select groups, but about a very complex, convoluted, agenda that is just mind-boggling!
So much for "transparency."
It's about as transparent as muddy water.
