Democrat-controlled California legislature does it again
*"Celebrate gay Boy Scouts month"
*"Non-elite people should stop driving to stop global warming month"
*"This month's temperatures prove global warming is real and killing the planet" month;
*"America needs a female president month"; or
*"Muslim appreciation and awareness month."
Actually as nutty as politicians are, and Cali pols in particular, it's kinda hard to tell. But if you guessed "Muslim appreciation and awareness month" you're very perceptive.
What happened was the Muslim lobbying group CAIR pointed out that since the state's legislators had declared "appreciation months" for Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians and Jews, then simple equal treatment--not to mention that phrase in that Con-something that says government can't favor any one religion--demanded that the state dedicate a month to the appreciation of Muslims. 
What? Did someone say they didn't think California's Democrat-run legislature had resolved to give Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Jews or any other religion its own "appreciation month"??
But...but...the talking-point memo released by CAIR *said* "equality" was the most important principle in the U.S. But wait...If no other religion has an official "appreciation month" designated by the Cali legislature, what could CAIR have meant when they cited "equality" as having any bearing on the matter?
Wait, I know: The Democrat legislature wanted to "appreciate" Muslims because after the two "lone-wolf" murderers in San Bernardino killed 14 unarmed people in a government building--an act having nothing whatsoever to do with Islam--350 of the 500 mosques in the state pledged to help law enforcement identify any Muslims who might be planning "lone-wolf" attacks in the future before they could carry out those killings.
Oh, wait...you say that didn't happen either? But in that case, what in the world would impel the Dems in the legislature to declare "Muslim appreciation month?"
Okay, if you said "shameless political ploy to win Muslim votes" you win a margarita.
If you said "shameless attempt to appease people who have formally declared that their religion requires them to eventually kill or convert to their religion everyone who isn't a member of their religion" you win *two* margaritas.
And if you said "See if the Democrat legislator who introduced the resolution has made any large cash deposits in the last few weeks" you win *three* margaritas.
Democrats. Just when you think they couldn't get any more stupid, they surprise you.
1. Before my liberal attorney sister pounces, I'm well aware that the Constitution supposedly restricts the acts of the federal government only (or at least it used to). However, dozens (if not hundreds) of courts have ruled that any state law that restricts any federally recognized principle is null and void. It's how the feds can and do void state laws that want to make people who want to vote show photo ID proving they are who they claim to be--and thus arguably eligible to vote. The resolution by Cali Democrats would seem on its face to fail the "favor no religion" test.
2. It would be interesting to see how the empire would respond if a California resident were to file suit seeking to have the "resolution" thrown out on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional provision against government favoring one religion over another. Oh wait, I know: The courts would rule that the individual lacks "standing" to sue. It's the universal "shoo-fly" excuse if a court doesn't want to actually hear a lawsuit that might make things...um...difficult for the government.
Thus the courts have used this to argue that even a presidential candidate for a major party "lacks standing" to try to have the court examine whether another candidate is eligible to hold the office of president. True story.