American Thinker Blog: While Hollywood sang Obama’s praises.
Obama’s fault.
American Thinker: The Crisis of the Disappearing Educated Male.
Affirmative action for minority males, anyone?
Exercise not likely to rev up your metabolism – Smart Fitness- msnbc.com.
Theory, meet reality.
Anyone who would imply that sex or racial background would lead to “better conclusions” is racist, and Gingrich (as vile as some of his personal history is) hits the nail on the head.
Commentary: Sotomayor pick not based on merit – CNN.com.
The pernicious  poison of identity politics rears its head again.
Seeing that the California Supreme Court has established that the right of marriage may be removed from any given group and arbitrarily restricted to a specific definition simply by ballot initiative, I propose two possible propositions for the next ballot:
Proposition 8-a
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a man is valid or recognized in California. |
Proposition 8-b
| This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage Protection Act.” SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a 3 foot man and a 9 foot woman is valid or recognized in California. |
Prop. 8: The California high court upholds a ban on gay marriages – Los Angeles Times.
Bah humbug. I lost my $10 bet.
These justices were simply ducking their responsibility to uphold the constitutional protections which should be afforded to all of us. The idea that there are now 36,000 “special” gay people in California that get to be treated as heteros, and all the other gays need to suck wind, is ludicrous.
Epic fail.
It seems that the matter is rather cut and dried -> in 1959 there was an election, 94% voted in favor of statehood, and the U.N. correctly recognized the plebiscite as binding and removed Hawaii from the non-self governing territories list. To imply some sort of conspiracy, however lightly the implication is made, is a disservice to the native Hawaiians who fought long and hard for Statehood. Prince Kuhio, who fought in the failed 1895 counter-revolution against the Republic of Hawaii, someone who could be truly called a patriotic subject of the Kingdom of Hawaii, someone who risked life and limb for his convictions, saw Statehood as a prime goal of his political career in the Territory of Hawaii. Although there were certainly fringe voices in the community in 1959 that decried statehood, the vast majority, as evidenced by the representative ballot (note, we don’t live in a direct democracy, we have a republic with some democratic traditions), were strongly in favor of statehood…and had been for over 60 years.
As a State of the Union, from 1959 on we have had universal suffrage for everyone 18 and over, and if there was any real political impulse on the part of the people of Hawaii to secede, it would have presented itself through the electorate. This is simply not the case, of course.
I guess the real question is this -> take the conspiracy at face value, let us imagine for a moment that there was some back door deal at the U.N. -> what possible remedy could anyone suggest? The people of the State of Hawaii are the same people who were a part of the Territory of Hawaii, and the same people who were part of the Republic of Hawaii, and the Kingdom of Hawaii before that. Would we have another referendum, to dot the legal i’s and cross the legal t’s? Or do the people framing these questions believe that the sovereignty of the multi-racial citizens of the State of Hawaii should be subject to the whims of radical royalists and race-based sovereignty activists?
Certainly interesting history, but I wonder what the ulterior motive is.
I wonder what Hitler had for lunch on January 20th, 1939. Was it cooked by a college graduate, or did that person only have trade skills? What price was paid for that lunch? Was it a fair price? What if some person of German ancestry wanted a refund for that lunch? What if the Statehood vote of 1959 was rigged and the UN was conned into taking Hawaii off the list of non-self-governing territories?
These are all interesting questions, but they really don’t lead to any answers.
It is patently evident that Hawaii is a self-governing State. We have our own judiciary, legislative and executive branches. The citizens of the State of Hawaii have universal suffrage for all people 18 and over, regardless of race, creed or color. Even when it comes to federal law, we have three congress critters, and now, the President himself. One might have made the case that the Territory of Hawaii was not self-governing, since the executive was appointed, and although we had a congressional representative they were non-voting. But upon Statehood? Clearly, we were a self-governing territory and no longer belonged on any UN list of non-self-governing territories.
The question as to whether or not the UN correctly removed Hawaii from the list of non-self-governing territories has a clear answer -> they correctly removed Hawaii, since it was in 1959, and has been ever since, self-governed. Nobody could plausibly make the claim that elections in Hawaii are rigged by mainland interests, or that somehow Hawaii does not have a voice in the federal government.
It may be that in 1959 someone had a drink with someone, and gave them a nudge in one direction or another. But any rational examination of the situation would have led to the proper conclusion that the people of Hawaii were determining their own destiny, and they chose to become a State of the Union. Statehood was a dream of even the most die-hard ex-royalists – Prince Kuhio, a member of the royal family of the Kingdom of Hawaii, and a warrior in the 1895 counter-revolution that failed against the Republic of Hawaii, was our second congressional representative of the Territory of Hawaii, and fought for Statehood during his entire tenure.
I suspect that this analysis has some end in mind, some unspoken consequence of the legal ambiguity they seek to impose upon a clear cut situation. I suspect that perhaps their answer to the question of relevance probably doesn’t involve a new referendum to clear the air, but some sort of “undo†that would place power into the hands of race-based sovereignty activists.
I also suspect that if a person of German ancestry tried to get a refund for an overcharged salad eaten by Hitler on January 20th, 1939, they’d find little satisfaction.
Ho’opunipuni: Myth of Statehood pt.1 –.
The Fact of Statehood is quite clear, and evidenced by an electorate which votes, pays taxes, obeys laws, and has organized and lived by this system of government for nearly 50 years now. Calling it a “myth†is wishful thinking at best, and cynical manipulation of the gullible at worst.
We could have the same detailed, legalistic discussion of the unification of the Hawaiian Islands in 1810. We could call it the “Myth of Kingdomhood.†We could analyze the various illegalities (as we claimed them, not adjudicated by anyone but ourselves), point out the poor treatment of the maka’ainana, and the imported slave labor from China, Japan, Portugal and the Philippines. We could delve into the corruption of Kalakaua and Liliuokalani, and rail against the injustice of it all. But then what?
My question to these panelists, and to anyone who truly believes that statehood is a myth, is what next? Do we ethnically cleanse Hawaii so that we can have a direct democracy that gives these people the voting results we want? It’s obvious that if a Statehood plebiscite was given today, it would be overwhelmingly in favor – but die-hard racial sovereignty activists will dispute the rights of suffrage to anyone who would not vote “properly.â€
Hawaii is governed by the consent of the people, for the people, regardless of race, creed, color, or political history view of 1893. Unless someone can suggest a better form of government than being a highly influential part of the last remaining superpower on earth with a constitution that has lasted over 200 years, there really isn’t much substance to the argument.
My fear is that this kind of legalese is used to pursue political power on the basis of identity politics, and the poisonous politics of racial categorization. Hawaii is a place, not a race, and anyone who is telling you that on the basis of bloodline, you should have special privileges, is doing grave harm.
He Hawaii au; he mau Hawaii kakou a pau. I am Hawaiian. We are all Hawaiians.
Home prices plunge almost 20% – May. 26, 2009.
Obama’s fault.
The Great Ethanol Scam – BusinessWeek.
Obama’s fault.
DayOfDecision.com – Celebration OR Protest on the California Supreme Court DAY OF DECISION on Prop 8.
I’ve got a bet for $10 going with my gay best man -> if they uphold prop. 8, I pay him $10, if they overturn it, he pays me $10. Either way, he wins, but I’m hoping he wins by losing the bet.
American Thinker Blog: Obama: ‘We’re out of money’.
Obama’s fault.