Saturday, April 16, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Short Documentary On Patriot Guard Riders Drowning Out Westboro Baptist Church Protesters Of A Soldier's Funeral
The above says that the case is still being adjudicated, but of course the Supreme Court in Snyder v. Phelps (2011) ruled that the intentional infliction of emotional distress award to the father of a fallen soldier violated the First Amendment.
Tweet
Al-Arabiya: "Egyptians Alarmed Over Rise In Influence Of Salafis In Post-Mubarak Era" In Imposing Sharia Law
Abeer Tayel for Al-Arabiya reports:
Acts of hard-line vigilantism committed recently in Egypt are fuelling debate and concerns over the role Islamists could play after the departure of President Hosni Mubarak, who suppressed Islamist groups which he saw as a threat to his rule, analysts said.TweetSalafis were tolerated as a religious group under the former president as a counterweight his top foe, the Muslim Brotherhood group. But they appear to be playing a more political role in the country after the January 25 revolution.
That has alarmed many of the secular and liberal forces in Egypt because of the group's extremist discourse and imposition of sharia (Islamic law.)
Reports of some acts of hard-line vigilantism, which lately dominated the news in Egypt, include an arson attack on the home of a woman deemed of "ill-repute," and a punishment attack which involved a man's ear being cut off.
According to police, one villager was killed and eight others were injured in Fayoum province after fighting broke out when Salafi followers ordered the owner of a liquor store to close. The Salafis have been trying to forcibly impose their strict interpretation of Islam by banning consumption of alcohol.
In the Upper Egypt town of Qalyoub, residents were angered when arsonists set fire to a shrine, widening the scope of a campaign that has echoes of Pakistan. Sunni hardliners have blown up shrines there.
Gaza Jihadists Murder Italian Useful Idiot "Peace" Activist
The Guardian reported on April 15:
An Italian peace activist has become the second non-Palestinian to be murdered in just over a week in the occupied territories.TweetVittorio Arrigoni was murdered by the Tawheed and Jihad group, one of several extremist Islamic groups that operate in the Gaza Strip in opposition to the Hamas government. The group abducted Arrigoni in an attempt to force Hamas to release its leader, who was arrested last month.
Arrigoni's death comes just over a week after a gunman shot dead Juliano Mer-Khamis, an Israeli actor who ran a theatre in the West Bank city of Jenin. It is not clear why Mer-Khamis was shot but his views about freedom of expression had generated some opposition in Jenin.
Arrigoni, known as Vik, lived in an apartment that he rented separately from his fellow volunteers for the International Solidarity Movement (ISM). The first anyone knew of his abduction was when video was posted on YouTube in which Arrigoni appeared blindfolded with a bruised face.
The accompanying Arabic text said: "The Italian hostage entered our land only to spread corruption." It described Italy as "the infidel state."
Pakistani Muslim Burns The Bible To "Avenge" Koran Burning; Christian Response Of...Absolutely Nothing
"Muslim Desecrates Bible in Pakistan to 'Avenge' Quran Burning," by Asher John for the Christan Post, April 9:
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan – A 24-year-old Muslim man desecrated the Bible at the gates of Saint Anthony’s Catholic Church in Lahore on Friday in order to “avenge” extremist American preacher Terry Jones’ desecration of the Quran in Florida last month.
Police arrested the man, identified as Akhtar Hussain, a resident of the neighboring district of Kasur, and registered a case against him under Section 295-A of the Pakistan Penal Code.
Section 295-A states: “Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the 'religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.”
According to police sources, Hussain had first tried to force entry into the church where a large number of Christians were attending a special mass, whereupon security guards at the gates stopped him and asked for identification.
The sources told The Christian Post that the guards denied Hussain entry into the church when he told them his name, and the church administration asked him why he wanted to go into the church. Hussain told them that he wanted to burn the Bible in the church just as Terry Jones and his fellow preacher Wayne Sapp had conducted a trial of the Quran in their church. The Muslim man then suddenly took out the Christian holy book he had hidden inside his clothes and proceeded to tear it apart.
The guards captured Hussain and called the police, who arrested him along with the evidence. Senior police official Umer Saeed said the man was in stable mental condition and had told police investigators he was “taking revenge” from the Christians for setting the Koran on fire. He said he had been “very tense” since he heard the news of the sacrilege and wanted to do something to get even.
Talking to The Christian Post about the incident, Christian leaders and civil society activists condemned the incident, urging tolerance, respect and acceptance for people belonging to all faiths.
Asif Aqeel, director of Lahore-based Christian non-government organization Community Development Initiative, said, “Christians are told to turn the other cheek. They are also told not to take revenge rather pray for their enemies. The act of burning the Quran by Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp has no biblical basis and does not represent the teachings of the Christian faith. The Christians of Pakistan are facing the repercussions of their heinous act.”
He said that Muslims should realize that the act of two individuals should not be considered a collective act of all Christians. “At the same time we would say that no civilized person can imagine to repay these so-called preachers by burning the Bible… we condemn this act as uncivilized and similarly devoid of respect of others,” he said.
Napolean Qayyum, leader of the minorities’ wing of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, voiced similar sentiments.
“We strongly condemn this incident but we are not going to hold all Muslims responsible for the desecration of our holy book…Christianity preaches forgiveness and love. We are hurt but we will not respond in kind,” he said, adding that he hoped that the effects of the violence in Afghanistan over the Quran burning incident would not spill over into Pakistan.
Dr. Tahira Saleem, chairperson of Shekinah Ministries Pakistan, said Pakistan was increasingly becoming an intolerant society. “We don’t know why our countrymen hold Christians responsible for every action taken in the West,” she said, adding that the entire Christian community had voiced their protest against the incident in Florida “but Friday’s incident shows the resentment in the Muslims.”Tweet
Mika Brzezinski: Obama Is "Courageous" For Calling Paul Ryan "Unamerican" To His Face
According to Brzezinski, I am sure Congressman Joe Wilson is a hero for calling President Obama a liar to his face during a State of the Union address as well.
Tweet
Thursday, April 14, 2011
If Governor Jerry Brown Signs Ridiculous Bill, California Will Be First State To Mandate Teaching Of "Gay History" In Schools
The AP reports that "gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people would be added to the lengthy list of social and ethnic groups that public schools must include in social studies lessons under a landmark bill passed Thursday by the California Senate. If the bill is adopted by the state Assembly and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state to require the teaching of gay history... [The bill] would prohibit districts and the California Board of Education from using textbooks or other instructional materials that reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans."
This is a ridiculous bill which is the first step in an open agenda to infiltrate the schools with teachings about homosexuality at a very young age despite the legitimate objections of many parents and the inappropriateness of making sexuality a topic at all. Children should not be taught about issues that conflict with the deeply held beliefs regarding sexual morality of many parents. It is not the government's job to introduce children to sexually related material, even if it is a subset of history. Further, the idea that teachers will be talking with students not only about gays and bisexuals, but even about "transgender people" is absolutely ludicrous. It's political correctness to the extreme that has the government usurping the role of parents in order to replace the values that some parents may want their children to have with those that some politicians in Sacramento believe in. I agree that textbooks or other instructional materials should not reflect adversely on gay, bisexual and transgender Americans. And you know how you can easily accomplish that? By not having school textbooks for what are still children or even young teenagers in their formative years "reflect" on those issues at all.
California schools are failing miserably and yet "gay history" is the agenda for education reform in Sacramento? California ranks near the bottom of all states in the number of students reaching their educational goals. Is telling students about homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgenders going to improve the education of California schools? Of course not. But no matter, because that is the top misplaced priority for California.
It should be noted that California law already requires schools to cover the contributions to the state and nation of women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. Having this kind of ridiculous politically correct multicultural nonsensical list is in and of itself very idiotic. First, is this list even complete? What about the contributions to the state or nation of Jewish Americans? What about the contributions to the state and nation of Christianity? Certainly Judeo-Christian values have had an impact on American society and especially the American founding, so why not mandate teaching about this? What about teaching about the contributions to the state and nation of the United States military? If I spent enough time, I am sure I can come up with all sorts of groups or topics that are left off that list because they don't matter in the eyes of political leftist hacks in Sacramento that divide everyone up into these divisions and classifications for political purposes. In fact, I've pointed to a few topics already that are conspicuously left off the list and are enough to expose the list for what it really is: political hackery. These politicans may pretend it is all about "diversity" or "tolerance," but I don't believe it. It's not really about that at all, it must be agenda driven or else someone should explain to me the rational process by which a group, and even a topic, is made a part of that legislative list and why certain others are very noticeably missing. There is no rational process, it's politically driven drivel.
7th Circuit Vacates Lower District Court Decision That Had Declared The National Day Of Prayer Unconstitutional
The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals just vacated the district court decision that held that the federal statute requiring the President to declare a National Day of Prayer violates the Establishment Clause. Tweet
Virginia Attorney General: Personal Protection Is “Good And Sufficient Reason” For Carrying Gun To Church
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh reports that "Va. Stat. § 18.2–283 makes it a misdemeanor to 'carry any gun, pistol, bowie knife, dagger or other dangerous weapon, without good and sufficient reason, to a place of worship while a meeting for religious purposes.' Virginia Attorney General Cuccinelli has just issued an opinion concluding that 'carrying a weapon for personal protection constitutes a good and sufficient reason' for purposes of the statute. The opinion also notes that the church, as property owner, may bar people from carrying weapons onto its property, but that’s a separate legal question." Tweet
Virginia State Board Proposes Forcing Jewish/Christian Adoption Agencies To Adopt To Gay Couples, AG Cuccinelli Opposes
The Washington Post reports that "Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II has advised a state board that it cannot impose new regulations that some argue would for the first time allow gay couples to adopt children in Virginia... Currently, only married couples and single men and women — regardless of sexual orientation — can adopt in Virginia. Proposed changes would require private and faith-based groups, such as Catholic Charities or Jewish Family Services, to allow gay parents to adopt or foster children." The Washington Post further reported that "there’s disagreement between lawmakers and activists about whether the proposed regulations would allow other classes, including unmarried couples — heterosexual or homosexual — to adopt."
Cuccinelli’s office said in a memo dated Tuesday that the proposal to be considered by the State Board of Social Services as early as next week “does not comport with applicable state law and public policy.”
“Therefore the State Board lacks the authority to adopt this proposed language,’’ wrote Allen Wilson, senior assistant attorney general.
Tweet
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Why CA Federal District Case Of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States (2010) Was Wrong About Unconstitutionality Of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Ask About The Soundness Of The Policy, But Don’t Tell Me It's Unconstitutional
The fact is that aside from the one federal district court case in 2010 of Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, 716 F. Supp. 2d 884 (C.D. Cal 2010) from Judge Phillips declaring in California that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) was unconstitutional, at least four other federal Courts of Appeals had upheld DADT as Constitutional. In Richenberg v. Perry, 97 F.3d 256 (8th Cir. 1996), the court held that under a rational basis analysis, the policy was reasonably related to legitimate governmental interests, such as unit cohesion, and was, thus, constitutionally valid. In Thomasson v. Perry, 80 F.3d 915 (4th Cir. 1996) the Court found the means of DADT were rationally related to a legitimate legislative end that the military should be free of sexual pressure. In Able v. United States, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998) the Court held that DADT promoted unit cohesion, enhanced privacy, reduced sexual tension, was a legitimate military interest, and that the code section bore a rational relationship to that interest. These cases also did not accept free speech or equal protection arguments.
Of course all the previous cases just cited were before the landmark foolhardy Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) (overturning the Texas sodomy law). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seems to maintain that Lawrence requires a heightened judicial scrutiny of statutes beyond the lowest standard of review that is rational basis. Judge Phillips argues that this therefore is a game changer requiring laws like DADT to be struck down. Relying on that assumption, this lower court federal judge argued that DADT could not survive a heightened level of scrutiny. However, many Circuits still maintain a rational basis review is appropriate (the form of judicial review that is theoretically most deferential to Congress) even after Lawrence and therefore there would be no reason for overturning those aforementioned rulings that preceded Lawrence. I don’t think there is a good reason to believe that Lawrence demands a form of heightened scrutiny as I find it hard to believe the five Supreme Court Justices were saying the sodomy law in question could survive even rational basis. But even if some form of heightened scrutiny were appropriate, one need look no further than Cook v. Gates, 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008). In this case, a number of years after Lawerence, the Court applying a heightened form of scrutiny still ruled that DADT did not violate the serviceman's right to "substantive due process" on its face or as applied saying that “Congress has articulated a substantial government interest for a law, and where the challenges in question implicate that interest, judicial intrusion is simply not warranted." The same Court said the equal protection and freedom of speech arguments were insufficient to declare DADT unconstitutional. Judge Phillips in ostensibly following the Ninth Circuit's precedent, as is all too often the case with the Circuit most overturned by the Supreme Court, handed down a decision that was an aberration among the federal courts, including the Courts of Appeals, as to the analysis and the outcome, and in some respects as to the standard of review or "scrutiny" used.
I also simply find it hard to believe that Lawrence extends the “autonomy of self” to those within the military. The military is a context in which one clearly does not have the same “autonomy of self” as a civilian in their own home. A soldier must follow a strict hierarchy of command in every respect. Watch any video of what goes on during basic training, and it should be fairly easy to recognize that there is no “autonomy of self” once you are in the military.
Further, Congress is given in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution the power to raise and support armies. Judge Phillips would have you believe that Congress does not have the power to enact DADT because it implicates the amorphous right to "autonomy of self." But that is in fact not the issue at hand. The issue is the right of serving in the armed forces. One can be an open homosexual in civilian life without a problem. The fact of the matter is that there is not a Constitutional right of any sort to serve in the military. That is why the elderly, the disabled, the overweight, and whoever else Congress deems would be detrimental to the military as a fighting force can be prevented from serving no matter how much they want to. The purpose of the armed forces is to be prepared for and prevail in combat. Given that military life is by definition different than civilian life, that Congress has express Constitutional legislative control over regulation of the military, that Congress specifically enacted DADT in order to maintain unit cohesion, there is very little reason to believe that DADT was unconstitutional.
It also well worth noting, as UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler points out, that before he joined the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy (who authored the majority opinion in Lawrence) was a judge on the Ninth Circuit where he directly addressed the conflict between gay rights and military deference. Ruling on the pre-Clinton policy of simply banning homosexuals from the military, Kennedy voted to uphold the complete ban on gays in the military because "constitutional rights must be viewed in light of the special circumstances and needs of the armed forces... In view of the importance of the military's role, the special need for discipline and order in the service," Kennedy explained, the ban on homosexuals in the military was justifiable.
The case itself seems to me evidently biased. Where this stood out to me most was the judge citing President Obama being against DADT as if that really proves anything at all about DADT’s Constitutionality. How can that even be a serious point? And granted that Admiral Mike Mullen came out in favor of repeal and apparently was on twitter about it, Judge Phillips conspicuously fails to mention that the heads of the US Army, Marines, and Air Force recommended against repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy (See http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/1203/Not-so-fast-on-don-t-ask-don-t-tell-repeal-say-top-Pentagon-brass). There was still a strongly held view among top brass of the military on down within the most important military branches and units that repeal could have negative impacts that the judge simply ignores and fails to even give notice to. Judges should generally not be in the business of second-guessing military judgments, in this case and others, of very many military commanders. The Congress only recently repealed DADT, and if repeal was to take place that was definitely the legitimate venue for the change in the policy. That change can now take place appropriately with repeal legislation enacted allowing for a slower and outlined process of transformation of military policy, rather than one judge declaring by fiat without basis in the Constitution that the military must change its policy overnight during wartime.
The First Amendment Free Speech challenge seems weak if the underlying policy of DADT is to be considered Constitutional. If discharge is Constitutional, then utilizing the serviceman’s speech as evidence of violating a Constitutional discharge should not be a problem. Speech should be allowed to be used for evidentiary purposes if towards an end that is enforcing a legitimate policy that is Constitutional. As the Court stated in Cook v. Gates, “the Act's purpose is not to restrict military members from expressing their sexual orientation. Its purpose is to identify those who have engaged in or are likely to engage in a homosexual act. The fact that the Act may, in operation, have the effect of chilling speech does not change the analysis. Ultimately, the Act is justified on a content-neutral, nonspeech basis; specifically, maintaining the military's effectiveness as a fighting force.”
Though a case that dealt with a different clause within the First Amendment which guarantees the freedom of religion, this decision is worth comparing to the Supreme Court decision of Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503 (1986) in which a Jewish Air Force officer was denied the right to wear a yarmulke (Jewish skull cap) when in uniform on a military base on the grounds that the Free Exercise of Religion Clause applies less strictly to the military than to ordinary citizens. The justification for this according to the Supreme Court which upheld the ban was a need to "foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps." It seems to me that if the military is allowed to outlaw certain forms religious expression of officers not even in the field of combat, then the military should have no less of a power to ban expression regarding sexual orientation to foster the very same unity and discipline. This is a matter not to be left with one federal judge in California, but with military commanders and members of Congress who these commanders report to on the usefulness of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
TweetTuesday, April 12, 2011
Democrat Attorney General Joins Lawsuit Against ObamaCare
Missouri's Democrat Attorney General Chris Koster has joined Florida and other states in a lawsuit against ObamaCare, according to LegalNewsline.com.
"Upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a legitimate exercise of congressional power under the Commerce Clause would imbue Congress with police powers rejected by the Founding Fathers and never before permitted by the Supreme Court," Koster wrote.
"Within the health care arena, the power to penalize one's decision not to purchase health insurance is indistinguishable from granting Congress the power to penalize individuals for not obtaining an annual check-up or prostate exam, for not vaccinating one's children, or for not maintaining a specific body-mass.
"Outside the health care arena, granting Congress such new power would... allow Congress not only the authority to penalize a farmer's planting of wheat, but also grant Congress the power to penalize a farmer's decision not to plant wheat."
Tweet
RSS Feed (xml)