Oregon Sued For Awarding Aid Money Based on Race

 

“The pandemic’s harm to Great Northern should qualify it to compete in any government-aid program for businesses that have been affected by Covid-19. And yet the company is ineligible to receive a grant from the Fund because its owner is not Black,” the company wrote in its complaint, which was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Portland.

Conservative legal strategist Edward Blum, who has led high-profile challenges to the federal Voting Rights Act and to racial considerations in college admissions, said his organization is funding Great Northern’s lawsuit. The suit does not name the logging company’s owners, but Blum said they are white.

“This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts. It names the Oregon Department of Administrative Services as a defendant. The department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 14 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    Complaint:

    https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/GreatNorthernResourcesOregon-COMPLAINT.pdf

    • #1
  2. ctlaw Coolidge
    ctlaw
    @ctlaw

    From the complaint:

    18. As part of the application process, individuals, families, and businesses seeking grants from the Fund must state whether they “identify” as Black – and funding decisions are based on whether applicants satisfy this threshold criteria.

    • #2
  3. Clifford A. Brown Contributor
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    From the complaint:

    18. As part of the application process, individuals, families, and businesses seeking grants from the Fund must state whether they “identify” as Black – and funding decisions are based on whether applicants satisfy this threshold criteria.

    No competent staff lawyer could have signed off on this. These socialists just don’t care.

    • #3
  4. Retail Lawyer Inactive
    Retail Lawyer
    @RetailLawyer

    I wrote about a similarly discriminatory policy in San Francisco, the Black Supremacy there being a policy involving free money for pregnant Black and Pacific Islanders.

    https://ricochet.com/803900/san-francisco-blatantly-ignores-the-equal-protection-clause-why/?load-more=true&pid=803900&_ajax_nonce=975017e153

    There were many insightful comments.  People often suggested it was subject to challenge by any SF pregnant woman not of the preferred race.  I think not, because pregnancy makes one busy and vulnerable, and the woke little fascists of SF will see to it that any plaintiff is evicted, fired, cancelled, vandalized, and or beaten.  Or all of them.  A lumber company!  That is a whole other matter . . .

    I asked Ricochet why SF was doing this.  I eventually came to believe it was done for revolutionary reasons, to declare independence from the US Constitution.  Maybe a first step.  It is quite a bit more obvious and in-you-face than sanctuary cities or our diverse AG who spends his tenure “resisting”.  

     

    • #4
  5. kedavis Member
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I wrote about a similarly discriminatory policy in San Francisco, the Black Supremacy there being a policy involving free money for pregnant Black and Pacific Islanders.

    https://ricochet.com/803900/san-francisco-blatantly-ignores-the-equal-protection-clause-why/?load-more=true&pid=803900&_ajax_nonce=975017e153

    There were many insightful comments. People often suggested it was subject to challenge by any SF pregnant woman not of the preferred race. I think not, because pregnancy makes one busy and vulnerable, and the woke little fascists of SF will see to it that any plaintiff is evicted, fired, cancelled, vandalized, and or beaten. Or all of them. A lumber company! That is a whole other matter . . .

    I asked Ricochet why SF was doing this. I eventually came to believe it was done for revolutionary reasons, to declare independence from the US Constitution. Maybe a first step. It is quite a bit more obvious and in-you-face than sanctuary cities or our diverse AG who spends his tenure “resisting”.

     

    Does all of this nonsense stop if Biden is elected?  After all, they won’t need to “resist” any more.

    • #5
  6. Ontheleftcoast Member
    Ontheleftcoast
    @Ontheleftcoast

    From Sometimes a Great Notion, a movie about a small family logging firm up against a union on strike. It’s a good movie, couldn’t get it to clip just what I wanted so the whole thing is linked.

    Paul Newman plays Henry Fonda’s son; Fonda loses his arm in a horrible logging accident which ultimately kills him but has the last word at 1:52:35

    • #6
  7. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Ontheleftcoast (View Comment):

    From Sometimes a Great Notion, a movie about a small family logging firm up against a union on strike. It’s a good movie, couldn’t get it to clip just what I wanted so the whole thing is linked.

    Paul Newman plays Henry Fonda’s son; Fonda loses his arm in a horrible logging accident which ultimately kills him but has the last word at 1:52:3

    The first time I saw that movie it was called Never Give an Inch.  Sometimes a Great Notion is a pretty good novel, too.

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I wrote about a similarly discriminatory policy in San Francisco, the Black Supremacy there being a policy involving free money for pregnant Black and Pacific Islanders.

    https://ricochet.com/803900/san-francisco-blatantly-ignores-the-equal-protection-clause-why/?load-more=true&pid=803900&_ajax_nonce=975017e153

    There were many insightful comments. People often suggested it was subject to challenge by any SF pregnant woman not of the preferred race. I think not, because pregnancy makes one busy and vulnerable, and the woke little fascists of SF will see to it that any plaintiff is evicted, fired, cancelled, vandalized, and or beaten. Or all of them. A lumber company! That is a whole other matter . . .

    I asked Ricochet why SF was doing this. I eventually came to believe it was done for revolutionary reasons, to declare independence from the US Constitution. Maybe a first step. It is quite a bit more obvious and in-you-face than sanctuary cities or our diverse AG who spends his tenure “resisting”.

     

    Does all of this nonsense stop if Biden is elected? After all, they won’t need to “resist” any more.

    Robert Reich says we’ll need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is how it would work. 

    • #8
  9. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    This country has always been a hateful nation. 

    Currently it hates Catholics and whites and is currently designing laws and customs to that effect.  

    • #9
  10. JoelB Member
    JoelB
    @JoelB

    “This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts.

    This discrimination is merely a logical extension of affirmative action and the whole minority business enterprise concept. It is not unprecedented. It is unconstitutional, but has not been deemed so for years by the PTB.

    • #10
  11. CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Thread Hijacker
    @CarolJoy

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Retail Lawyer (View Comment):

    I wrote about a similarly discriminatory policy in San Francisco, the Black Supremacy there being a policy involving free money for pregnant Black and Pacific Islanders.

    https://ricochet.com/803900/san-francisco-blatantly-ignores-the-equal-protection-clause-why/?load-more=true&pid=803900&_ajax_nonce=975017e153

    There were many insightful comments. People often suggested it was subject to challenge by any SF pregnant woman not of the preferred race. I think not, because pregnancy makes one busy and vulnerable, and the woke little fascists of SF will see to it that any plaintiff is evicted, fired, cancelled, vandalized, and or beaten. Or all of them. A lumber company! That is a whole other matter . . .

    I asked Ricochet why SF was doing this. I eventually came to believe it was done for revolutionary reasons, to declare independence from the US Constitution. Maybe a first step. It is quite a bit more obvious and in-you-face than sanctuary cities or our diverse AG who spends his tenure “resisting”.

     

    Does all of this nonsense stop if Biden is elected? After all, they won’t need to “resist” any more.

    Robert Reich says we’ll need a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This is how it would work.

    Ouch!

    • #11
  12. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    JoelB (View Comment):

    “This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts.

    This discrimination is merely a logical extension of affirmative action and the whole minority business enterprise concept. It is not unprecedented. It is unconstitutional, but has not been deemed so for years by the PTB.

    SCOTUS hasn’t had a problem with affirmative action yet; a clearly unconstitutional policy.

     

    • #12
  13. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    “This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts.

    This discrimination is merely a logical extension of affirmative action and the whole minority business enterprise concept. It is not unprecedented. It is unconstitutional, but has not been deemed so for years by the PTB.

    SCOTUS hasn’t had a problem with affirmative action yet; a clearly unconstitutional policy.

     

    It is not a logical extension of “affirmative action.” It is the exact same thing. It is open race discrimination. So-called “affirmative action” has always been open anti-white race discrimination.

    I think that it is very important to reject the propaganda terms used by the Left.

    • #13
  14. Fake John/Jane Galt Coolidge
    Fake John/Jane Galt
    @FakeJohnJaneGalt

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    JoelB (View Comment):

    “This express use of race in distributing government money is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional,” the complaint asserts.

    This discrimination is merely a logical extension of affirmative action and the whole minority business enterprise concept. It is not unprecedented. It is unconstitutional, but has not been deemed so for years by the PTB.

    SCOTUS hasn’t had a problem with affirmative action yet; a clearly unconstitutional policy.

     

    This country has no problem with discrimination as long as those in power are the ones doing the discrimination and writing the laws to do so.  

    • #14