From the National Black Conservative press conference in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 4:

Hard to believe, but true: the network actually presented both sides of the story, instead of the usual sob-sister boo-hoo about the “plight” of illegal “immigrants” who know that — thanks to a willful misrepresentation of the meaning of the 14th Amendment by the left–  if they can just stagger across the finish line, a new life in el Norte awaits.

Of course, this was in 2008, before the Era of Obama. This is what is happening today.

Just for fun, here’s the actual text of the 14th Amendment. Section One is the operative statement:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

(more…)

Maybe I’m deaf and blind, but two weeks after a voting records examination report showed Minnesota Senator Al Franken was probably elected by felons who were illegally voting in that state’s 2008 general election, I’ve yet to come across even one mention of that story in the agenda-setting media.

An actual Minnesota ballot that counted for Franken

Yesterday, I kept an eye on CNN’s Rick Sanchez, Wolf Blitzer, HN’s headline hammerers, and MSNBC’s Obama cheer leading squads. It’s too early for the “prestige” glamour anchor news shows on NBC, CBS, and ABC as I write this so maybe the story will be on later… Psyche! — as “New” Black Panther chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz likes to say.

Denial of the vote to convicted felons is a big deal to the Panthers as well as many other black groups that want nothing to do with the Shabazz crew because most now affected are black and vote Democrat- the very reason conservatives like Alabama Republican Party Chairman Marty Connors say, “We’re opposed to [restoring voting rights to them] because felons don’t tend to vote Republican.” Yep, around 90% of the time they don’t. (more…)

The debate over same-sex marriage has cooled in many parts of the country. People have turned their attention to the healthcare bill and the new possibility of being blown up by guys with explosives strapped to their underpants.

In reality, however, the same-sex marriage fight is now being joined in earnest. Opponents of California’s Proposition 8, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in California, have sued in federal court. The plaintiffs—Kristin Perry, Sandra Stier, Paul Katami, and Jeffrey Zarillo—allege that defining marriage as a monogamous union of opposite-sex couples violates the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14^th Amendment.

The case is currently at trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but it is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision regarding Prop. 8’s constitutionality likely will, for all intents and purposes, permanently determine whether states can limit marriage to its traditional meaning. Of course, it is theoretically possible to amend the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in the U.S., but practically speaking it’s almost impossible. (more…)