Quote of the Day
What’s the process by which we can turn states into territories again?
Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X February 7, 2024
Read the entire thread for a fisking of The Hawaii Supreme Court in State of Hawai’i, v. Christopher L. Wilson.
I would like to suggest taking it even further and turning them back into their own nation again. Then applying sanctions for their human rights violations.
California, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York could use some tough love as well. Or, we could just prosecute the criminals.
I’ve been reading various takes on this wild ruling and almost all have been aghast at the brazen defiance of SCOTUS and invocation of Aloha spirit to justify their decision.
Almost all. There is one article, A State Supreme Court Just Issued Another Devastating Rebuke of the U.S. Supreme Court, which claims:
It’s an amazing case because the Hawaii Constitution has a provision that is the same as the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It literally uses the exact same words as the Second Amendment. And Justice Eddins said: Even though the provisions are the same, we will not interpret them the same way, because we think the U.S. Supreme Court clearly got it wrong in Heller when it said the Second Amendment creates an individual right to bear arms.
…
I feel like these state judges are in conversation with each other about developing an alternate vision of the law that can thrive in state judiciaries. As SCOTUS moves in the wrong direction, they’re showing us what the right direction might be, and giving us a little hope for the future.
I find it very telling this court and these opinion writers believe they have a better take on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment than SCOTUS, when all nine justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. They are lying, profoundly ignorant, and/or delusional.
Wow, wouldn’t it be fun to slap huge tariffs on anything and everything going in and out of their new “territory”.
But as you say Joe. Much easier to just prosecute the black robed criminals.
Hilarious, if it doesn’t fit our ideology, were just going to read it so it does.
Were just going to interpret it the way we want.
Merriam-Webster are spinning in their graves. Along with Mr. Black, and most legal scholars here to for passed.
That member of SCOTUS that said years ago. “The constitution says what I say it says.” I knew they should have publicly hung that guy.
Cause it’s biting Hawaii in the ass now. And telling the rest of us, hang’em, and hang’em high, there ain’t no other justice to be had in the courts.
And that’s bad for everyone. Especially criminals.
I don’t think it has to be as drastic as all that. Just let them become the Kingdom of Hawai’i again, then let them foot the bill for everything that implies. Our strategic interests in the Pacific are probably already protected by having Guam, and we’re probably good with renting out Pearl Harbor-Hickam. If they’re not good with the arrangement, we can pull all our stuff out, and they can figure out their own security.
Maybe they find themselves as a Chinese “protectorate” or something, but that might be more to their liking anyway.
“They are lying, profoundly ignorant, and/or delusional.”
The “profoundly ignorant, and/or delusional” part is problematic. It would have to assume that, were they to learn the truth, and understand it, they’d apologize, change their minds, repent (reverse their behavior), speak out against their former behavior in an attempt to alert others who’ve been similarly deceived, and stay on the path of truth, becoming staunch allies of the cause of liberty and justice in the world.
It’s been known to happen, rarely, with individuals, but the group will never change. They have other plans, and support, and commitment, and a whole infrastructure.
In short, such terminology as calling the leftists “stupid”, “delusional”, “ignorant”, et al, forgets that there are people in this world who are simply enemies of truth, of liberty and of justice. Thus, oftentimes, they are liars only. Some of them may be quite intelligent and knowledgeable, but simply hate the truth, hate justice (as we see it) and hate liberty. The things we cherish, they (the Romish left) hate because the ideals of liberty stand in the way of their arrogant and presumptuous ambitions, and of their greed and covetousness. And they don’t care how much destruction and death it takes to get what they want. They’ve got it figured out.
I am here to tell you that, in the end, there will be (and there are some now) people who are fully informed of the morals, doctrines, histories, and general consequences of both sides’ belief systems, and yet are bonded with the side of tyranny. They are neither ignorant nor delusional, per se, but are simply enemies. In the end, the enemy will understand fully that we cannot, nor do we want to, live in a world with them, and that they cannot, nor will they ever want to, live in a world with us.
A society which holds the Judaeo-Christian principles of liberty (Galatians 5:1,13, John 8:32,36, Jeremiah 34:8, 2 Corinthians 3:17, James 1:25 & 2:12, etc., etc., etc.) will prosper, and will be more peaceful, and more tolerant (within reason), BUT those who oppose that paradigm feel that they are living in “occupied territory” because of us, and that such a condition, even our very existence, is “unbearable”. I recently heard Obama use those exact words in reference to Hamas having to live on the same continent with Israelis, and it’s the EXACT SAME attitude that many Americans have toward our (purported) founding principles. In short, It’s Critical Theory, and those who designed it and teach it are of the enemy, by their choice.
And Critical Theory is nothing more than a weapon or war in the arsenal of the left. If you refute them to the maximum in public, and embarrass them, they will not change their minds, because their mind is to end you, and to end “your truth”. They’ll simply retreat temporarily, re-group and re-plan, and attack again later, twice as hard, on some other front. You’re never going to teach them (“them” as a group or institution), anything, no matter how precious or obvious the things are that you wish to teach, because their mission is to either “teach” YOU or get rid of you altogether, thus ending their unbearable suffering due to the fact that you exist.
The very best you can ever do is pick off a few of their lieutenants here and there, convincing them to convert into allies of truth, and thereby make things more hellish for the staunch allies of evil. But getting one man can take years of effort.
There is no legal method for peacefully turning a state back into a territory.
There is of course secession and the resulting violence that would bring.
But the nasty reality we face is that the system is broken. Irredeemably broken
beyond any possibility of repair. The corruption and evil is simply too deep, too endemic, too pervasive, to ever return to the system that once existed and actually functioned.
This is what I wrote over on Arfcom’s YouTube channel, where they were discussing this case;
“At this point, regarding people like the HI Supreme Court, we can no longer simply declare them ignorant and in need of education. Nor are they mentally deficient. They know exactly what they’re doing, and that means they are enemies. And so the only remaining question is, What do we do about enemies occupying positions of influence and authority in our own country?”
Secession doesn’t have to equal war. That was a choice that Lincoln made. George III made the same choice so that interpretation is fixed in American minds but there have been plenty of cases of secession without war. Most of the decolonization movements ended that way. Czechoslovakia managed it too as did Belgium (mostly).
Actually, as I recall the Confederacy fired the first shot, something that Harry Turtledove in his alternate history novels described as a strategic blunder.
And yes, splitting up has been done elsewhere in the world. Sometimes peacefully, sometimes not. It seems to be 50/50 at best. Peaceful: Norway/Sweden, Czech/Slovak, much of the USSR, much of Yugoslavia. Not so peaceful: Holland/Belgium, Serbia/Kosovo, Sudan/South Sudan, Ethiopia/Eritrea, Indonesia/East Timor. Those are just a bunch I can think of from 1900 onwards; going back you can find many more and I suspect most of those involved war (like Holland/Spain, which was a source of learning and inspiration to the Founding Fathers in various ways).
The Confederacy fired on Ft. Sumpter to prevent Lincoln from reinforcing and resupplying it. The ground on which it stood had been conveyed from the State of South Carolina to the Feds for the purpose of building a fort to protect Charleston harbor, not to blockade it which was the point of the reinforcement. Not really sure what choice the Confederacy had given Lincoln’s pursuit of forcible reunion.
Pretty much all of the British colonies except for US, Israel and Ireland had peaceful secessions. India was a mess but that was on the Indians, not the Brits. Brits fought major wars preventing secession in Malaya and South Africa but after that arranged for a peaceful separation. France had big wars in Vietnam and Algeria but the other colonies were peaceful. People had to fight for secession from Spain (and still do) but they mostly won due to Spanish shortcomings. Same with Portugal. Everything the Ottomans did involved war. Secession was often accomplished by foreign intervention. They did let much of N. Africa defacto secede as long as the locals pretended to be part of the Empire.