By Katy Grimes

Too much liberal drivel in today’s newspapers passes for news as well as journalism. Gone is most of the hard news, replaced by front page human-interest stories and social welfare issues.

This prattle is written by pushover cream puffs, who want everyone to feel the pain and agony that comes with being as enlightened as they are.

I didn’t think that Sacramento Bee writer Marcos Breton could write any more twaddle than what prompted my last story about what a tool he was over the failed Kings arena deal. But in Sunday’s Bee, Breton managed to blubber on while simultaneously beating himself up about his past denial of his Hispanic roots.

In a column titled, “Census has shifted, but we’re all one,” Breton wrote, “The U. S. Census Bureaus says I won’t be a minority in California within three years, if not sooner. It also said last week that for the first time in American history, minority births have surpassed white births.”

“I’ve been waiting for this day for years,” Breton said. “I turned my back on the ‘minority’ distinction a long time ago and buried years of negative emotion in the process.”

And then Breton put on the hairshirt of shame and recounted television shows which did not use minority actors for ethnic roles. He spoke of being called a “minority hire,” and of affirmative action policies when he was in college.

Breton attacked Propositions 187 and 209, “which attacked undocumented immigrants and affirmative action, respectively.” Proposition 187, the ban to deny benefits to illegal immigrants, and Prop 209, the ban against preferences based on race, color, sex, ethnicity and national origin, primarily focused on Hispanics and blacks, and ignored the many different Asian cultures and other ethic groups, which also migrated to California.

He failed to note that both initiatives were voted on and passed by the citizens of California for a reason, which had very little to do with racial bias. The votes for measures were driven largely by economics — affirmative action has grossly expanded the public higher education system, and the children and families of illegal immigrants rely heavily on state-funded social services, and healthcare which has also been expanded exponentially.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the number of children in immigrant families has risen nearly 10 times faster than the number in U.S.-born families. They are more likely than those with U.S.-born parents to live in poverty, and are less likely to have health insurance and to receive medical care.

“The Urban Institute finds that the share of children enrolled in kindergarten through 12th grade that is composed of children of immigrants (including both foreign-born children and U.S.-born children with foreign-born parents) more than tripled from 6 to 20 percent between 1970 and 2000,” the NCSL found. “By 2015, if current immigration levels continue, children of immigrants will constitute 30 percent of the nation’s school population.”

Instead of acknowledging that the use of race and ethnicity in college admissions is unconstitutional, offensive, and even considered morally wrong, Breton also failed to recognize the damage done to all ethnic minorities by assuming they were educationally inferior, and needed to have the standards lowered in order to get into college and gain employment.

Despite the mess affirmative action has made for Hispanics and Blacks, Asians, excluded from Affirmative Action, have continued to excel educationally, and have very low unemployment as a culture.

As a white female who also entered college during affirmative action, I was on the other end, denied access to some schools because my name was too Anglo. Despite my high GPA, I watched as masses of unqualified students filled up state college classes, only to drop out shortly thereafter.

Despite skin color or ethnicity, the students who made it past the first few weeks proved they had what was required, and were disciplined enough to do the work. And that’s all that should matter.

Affirmative action set people of color up to fail, and was often more of a Scarlet Letter than unpreparedness, or the sometimes lack of language skills.

For those many black and Hispanic students who had the grades and qualified on their own for college, they spoke of how offensive it was to be labeled an Affirmative Action student. Success is now their best revenge.

Breton got one thing right when he shared his anger about being called a “minority hire,” but he missed the point. He blamed racism instead of the ridiculous and damaging liberal policies, which try to make everyone the same. And because that’s not possible, liberals tried to level the playing field by promoting race over achievement, skill, talent and hard work.

Regardless of color or background, those who want to play the victim and whine for a living can always find a cause. Others will study hard, work hard, and get ahead through sheer determination… the old-fashioned way.

We are not all one, and I don’t know anyone who thinks that’s a good idea. But in the liberal utopia, no one can stand out, achievements are a threat to others, and excellence must be quashed.

I voted against Proposition 215, the so-called Compassionate Use Act, which legalized marijuana use here in the nation’s largest pot-growing state for — wink, wink, nod, nod — “medicinal purposes.”

That’s why it is rather ironic that I find myself compelled to come to the defense of the 1996 law, which the California Supreme Court’s seven justices this week unanimously agreed to review.

It’s not that I have changed my mind about Prop. 215 over the past 16 years.

I still believe it was a Trojan Horse sponsored by all-too-clever interests whose ultimate aim is to decriminalize use of not only cannabis, but also cocaine, heroin, crystal meth and every other currently illegal drug. I also remain troubled that the Compassionate Use Act brazenly contravenes longstanding federal drug law.

So why am I defending Prop. 215? Because it was approved by 56 percent of California voters. Because I think it a mockery of the democratic process when judges overturn the results of a public plebiscite.

The temptation for the 44 percent of us who voted against Prop. 215 is to applaud the state’s highest court for addressing itself to the continuing controversy the law precipitated.

To urge the justices to allow local governments throughout the state to ban marijuana dispensaries if they see fit. To strike down the Compassionate Use Act altogether on grounds that it violates federal law.

But the time for the courts to strike down Prop. 215 was back in 1996, before the measure actually made the state ballot. Not after the measure was approved by the voters. Not 16 years after the fact.

If the forthcoming court review of Prop. 215 was an aberration, perhaps it would not so offend my democratic (small d) sensibilities. But California judges and courts have been notorious over the years in nullifying the expressed will of the state’s electorate.

Other Initiatives

In 1994, Proposition 187 was approved by 59 percent of California voters. The Save our State initiative would have prohibited illegal aliens from receiving public education, health care and other taxpayer-funded entitlements.

However, it was declared unconstitutional by federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer, a liberal judicial activist appointed by President Jimmy Carter. When Gray Davis became governor, he decided not to appeal, effectively killing the law.

Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, was approved by 54 percent of voters in 1996, the same year Prop. 215 won passage. It prohibited the state from considering race, sex or ethnicity in public employment, public contracting and public education.

It was initially stuck down as unconstitutional by federal judge Thelton Henderson, yet another liberal judicial activist appointed by Carter. However, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the law.

Props. 22 and 8

In 2000, Proposition 22 was approved by an overwhelming 61 percent of California voters. The Knight Initiative, as it was known, specified that only marriages between a man and woman would be lawfully recognized in the Golden State. Eight years later, the California Supreme Court struck down Prop. 22 as unconstitutional.

The court’s action led, in turn, to Proposition 8, the California Marriage Protection Act. That 2008 constitutional amendment, which prohibited same-sex marriages, was approved by 52 percent of the electorate.

Prop. 8 was overturned in 2010 by federal judge Vaughn Walker, who retired not long after his ruling and announced that he was in a long term same-sex relationship. His ruling was stayed and the fate of the voter-approved law may ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

California’s initiative system, which worked just fine for much of the past 101 years, has in recent decades become a democratic bait-and-switch. The people of the state are supposed to have the power to enact law at the ballot box, but the reality is that judges and courts — all too often politically motivated — decide what voter-approved propositions may and may not become state law.

That’s why initiative system needs a fix. The suggestion here is a judicial tribunal that previews proposed propositions before they reach the ballot. Before millions of dollars are spent for and against the measure. And before — rather than after — the measure is approved by the state electorate.

Such judicial preview will not all together prevent the courthouse assault on direct democracy we’ve witnessed over the past couple decades. But it will raise the bar considerably for judges and courts that presume to thwart the will of the electorate.

— Joseph Perkins