Saturday, May 14, 2011
Friday, May 13, 2011
Are Children Born To And Raised By Lesbians More Likely To Engage In Homosexual Activity?
UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh reports on the results of a new study: There’s long been something of a debate about this question, and I thought I’d note an interesting and apparently quite credible article touching on it, Nanette K. Gartrell, Henny M. W. Bos & Naomi G. Goldberg, Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure, Archives of Sexual Behavior (2010). (I learned of it because one of the coauthors is affiliated with the Williams Institute for sexual orientation and the law here at UCLA School of Law.) The study was part of an ongoing study that, at this stage, involved 77 families, “31 continuously-coupled, 40 separated-mother, and six single-mother families,” and 78 17-year-old children (one family had twins). Of the girls, nearly 50% described themselves as at least partly homosexual in orientation, though 30% out of that 50% were “predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual.” (None of the girls, though, identified themselves as predominantly or exclusively lesbian.) Of the boys, a bit over 20% described themselves as at least partly homosexual in orientation, though 13% out of that 20% described themselves as “predominantly heterosexual, incidentally homosexual.” (Two of the boys identified themselves as predominantly or exclusively gay.) “The ... Kinsey self-identifications [of the girls in the study] and lifetime sexual experiences were consistent with Stacey and Biblarz’s (2001) and Biblarz and Stacey’s (2010) theory that the offspring of lesbian and gay parents might be more open to homoerotic exploration and same-sex orientation.” As to actual sexual behavior, 15% of the girls had had sex with other girls, compared to 5% in a sample of 17-year-old girls at large; 54% of the girls had had sex with boys, compared to 63% in a sample of 17-year-old girls at large. The boys showed no greater participation in homosexual sex compared to the sample of 17-year-old boys at large, but showed a markedly lesser participation in heterosexual sex (38% as opposed to 59%). For both the boys and girls who had had sex, the age of first sexual contact was about a year later than in the samples of 17-year-olds at large. All these differences are statistically significant. The study has obvious limitations: It’s fairly small (though large enough for the authors to get statistically significant findings). It might be subject to various confounding factors; the families in the study and the comparison families from the population at large “were neither matched nor controlled for socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, or region of residence.” It doesn’t speak to children of gay men, including children raised by the men either alone or with male partners. It doesn’t tell us what will happen to the 17-year-olds in the future (though a planned follow-up will interview the children when they are 25). It doesn’t tell us whether the greater propensity to same-sex attraction and behavior among the girls stems from genetics, upbringing, or a mix of both. And even if future studies suggest that the propensity does stem largely from upbringing, that wouldn’t affect my judgment on policy matters (such as whether the parents’ sexual orientations should affect child custody decisions, whether same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt, and so on): I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a child’s having a greater likelihood of growing up to be lesbian or gay, or experimenting with same-sex sexual behavior.
Visit http://www.stevelackner.com/2011/05/two-parents-claim-to-be-traditonal.html for an analysis of the related Nebraska Court of Appeals case of Hassenstab v. Hassenstab entitled "Two Parents Claim To Be Traditional Religious Christians, One Has Had A Gay Relationship, How Should This Effect Custodial Rights Over Their Child?"
Tweet
U.S. Officials: “Fairly Extensive” Porn Stash Found In Bin Laden’s Compound
. TweetThe pornography recovered in bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.
The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.
Reports from Abbottabad have said that bin Laden’s compound was cut off from the Internet or other hard-wired communications networks. It is unclear how compound residents would have acquired the pornography.
The Repeal Amendment Introduced In The House And Senate
Here is the official press release:
TweetRep. Bishop and Senator Enzi Introduce Repeal Amendment
Resolution Restores Balance of Power Between Federal Government and StatesWASHINGTON–Congressman Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) today unveiled the Repeal Amendment, a joint resolution that would amend the U.S. Constitution to provide states with the authority to repeal any federal law or regulation if two-thirds of the States are in agreement.
“When the Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution they never intended for the federal government to usurp the power and responsibilities designed for the states and for the people. Unfortunately, Washington has steadily acquired power to the point that today’s system is completely out of balance. As a result, Washington has grown too intrusive, reaching into just about every aspect of our lives—this transcends party lines and impedes on the liberties of all Americans,” said Congressman Bishop.
At present, the only way for states to contest a federal law, regulation or mandate is to bring a constitutional challenge in federal court or to seek an amendment to the Constitution. The Repeal Amendment will enhance the states’ ability to protect the powers “reserved to the states” as noted in the Tenth Amendment.
Text of the Repeal Amendment:
“Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed.”“The Repeal Amendment would provide states with a powerful tool to return power and rights back to the states and to the people respectively, just as our Founding Fathers intended,” Bishop added. “It is my hope that this joint resolution will inspire a new way of thinking in Washington, serving as a reminder to lawmakers and bureaucrats that policies that reflect the will of the people most often originate at the local and state levels, and not in Washington, D.C.”
The following Senators and Representatives are co-sponsors of the resolution:
Senators John Barrasso (R-WY), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and James Risch (R-ID) as well as Representatives Paul Broun (R-GA), John Campbell (R-CA), Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Jeff Duncan (R-SC), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Graves (R-GA), H. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Doug Lamborn (R-CO), Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), Tom McClintock (R-CA), Don Manzullo (R-IL), Tim Walberg (R-MI) and Joe Walsh (R-IL).
Wall Street Journal Law Blog: Retired Supreme Court John Paul Stevens Says Killing Bin Laden Was Legal
On the WSJ Law Blog, Jess Bravin reports that retired Justice John Paul Stevens thinks killing Osama Bin Laden was legal.
Tweet“It was not merely to do justice and avenge Sept. 11,” but “to remove an enemy who had been trying every day to attack the United States,” Justice Stevens said at a dinner in Chicago, according to former Stevens law clerk Diane Amann, a University of Georgia professor who attended the dinner, which capped a Northwestern University symposium on the justice’s jurisprudence.
In 2004 and 2006, Justice Stevens wrote Supreme Court opinions holding that Guantanamo prisoners could challenge their detention before neutral judges, and that while in custody were entitled to the minimal protections of the Geneva Conventions. His rulings stressed that the laws of war—of which the Geneva Conventions, ratified by the U.S., form a principal part—cannot be ignored simply because the government found it “convenient” to do so.
But on Thursday, Justice Stevens indicated that those same laws of war permit the armed forces to kill an enemy commander who remains engaged in active hostilities against the U.S., as Navy Seals did on their May 2 operation inside Pakistan. “I have not the slightest doubt that it was entirely appropriate for U.S. forces to do,” Justice Stevens said, according to Ms. Amann’s account.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Biblical Parallel: What The Bible In Judges 11 Can Teach Us Today About The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
There is one chapter of the Bible whose contemporary relevance to Israel's war with Palestinian terror is astounding. The lessons about waging a just war are also important. The parallels between the story told in this chapter and the current Middle East conflict is worthy of looking to for those that think important lessons can be gleamed from Biblical text. This is not to say that all modern Israeli policy is or even should be based in the Bible when engaging in a current war. But it is only to say that perhaps something important can be learned from a Biblical event of years past.
Judges chapter 11 tells the story of the leader of the Israelites Jephthah the Gileadite and his confrontation with the Children of Ammon. Jephthah was the outcast as the son of a concubine that is recruited by the elders of Gilead to help the nation when they are confronted with the hostility of Ammon who "made war with Israel" (Judges 11:4). Jephthah is perhaps more famous for his unfortunate oath, which if you know nothing about you can learn about by reading the chapter in its entirety. I shall instead focus on the earlier part of the chapter that directly deals with the war with Ammon.
Jephthah begins by sending "emissaries to the king of the Children of Ammon, saying, 'What is there between you and me that you have come to me to make war in my land?'" (Judges 11:12) Before commencing any hostilities in response to threats of war from Ammon, Jephthah first wants to know the reasons that Ammon is hellbent on waging a war with Israel in the first place. Jephthah seeking to understand the reason for Ammon doing so sends an important message to any nation making a decision about whether to go to war. Before a leader makes the difficult call to put men in harm's way and lives at stake to defeat an enemy, it is indeed first important to see if the enemy is one who can be negotiated with. If peace is possible without arms, then peace should of course be pursued.
So "the king of the children of Ammon answered unto the messengers of Jephthah: 'Because Israel took away my land, when he came up out of Egypt... now therefore restore those cities peaceably'" (Judges 11:13). The claim of Ammon is very similar to those claims made by many Palestinians and the haters of Israel. They claim that Israel "stole land," be it in 1948 or 1967 or whenever it is at the given moment that they happen to wish to revise history. The truth is that modern Israel "stole" nothing. Like Ammon before, in our times there have been those that believe Israel must exchange "land for peace."
Now Jephtah understood what he was dealing with and it is important to understand his response. He begins with a refusal to accept historical lies and demands that Ammon accept historical truth. He justifies his own position against the ludicrous claims of Ammon. He refuses the offers of "land for peace." He instead responds to Ammon, "Thus said Jephthah: Israel took not away the land of Moab, nor the land of the children of Ammon" (Judges 11:15). He begins to retell the true story of Israel's conquest of the land Canaan. He concludes his responsive message by declaring, "I therefore have not sinned against you, but you do me wrong to war against me; the Lord, the Judge, be judge this day between the children of Israel and the children of Ammon" (Judges 11:27). The response of the king of the children of Ammon was to not "hearken unto the words of Jephthah which he sent him" (Judges 11:28). In other words, because of the nature of the claims of Ammon and the falsehoods they were perpetuating as a cause for waging their own war, in addition to their outright refusal to accept the historical truth, Jephthah realized this was an enemy that could not be reckoned with. He certainly did not consider concessions to Ammon under the false hope that they would respond with peace.
What follows is "the spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah" (Judges 11:29) and "Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon to fight against them; and the Lord delivered them into his hand... So the children of Ammon were subdued before the children of Israel" (11:32-33). Jephthah did not initiate a peace process with Ammon to begin the process of continuing concessions from the people of Israel in order to placate their foe. He attempted to reason with his enemy, and when he realized his enemy was not amenable to reason, he began a victory process instead. He fought his enemy until they were subdued and defeated.
Today false claims are still being levied against Israel, and pressures continue for Israel to negotiate and make further concessions to an enemy bent on her total destruction. The Hamas charter openly declares, "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it." Israel's modern enemy not only makes claims to land, but openly declares and promises, based on a warped Islamist fanaticism, that their goal is the obliteration of Israel, to wipe Israel off the map. Perhaps Israel could learn a lesson from Jephthah in years past. Instead of appeasing this enemy or the international community, it must be made clear that Israel is no thief of land and that Israel faces an implacable foe. It must be made clear that Israel will not allow threats of annihilation to be constantly made and mounted without a response. If the Palestinian enemy refuses to hearken to this truth, then it is incumbent upon Israel in self-defense to fight the war that is being brought against her and achieve a true victory. That, at least, is the lesson one can learn from Judges chapter 11.
Tweet
California Agency Rejects Veterans Memorial Over American Flag
Men who served in our armed forces which defends the flag cannot set up a veterans memorial because of the flag. The California Department of Transportation is absolutely disgusting:
Tweet
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Two Parents Claim To Be Traditional Religious Christians, One Has Had A Gay Relationship, How Should This Effect Custodial Rights Over Their Child?
The Nebraska Court of Appeals in Hassenstab v. Hassenstab (1997) dealt with a petition by Thomas Hassenstab to modify custody of his daughter Jacqueline Hassenstab away from her mother Carol Hassenstab. The Court addressed in part what effect the father's concerns over the effect the mother's homosexuality had on their daughter and whether this should translate into a modification of custody. The two parents in the case identified themselves as Catholic. The majority of the Court noted that "the Nebraska Supreme Court has repeatedly held, albeit not in the context of a homosexual relationship, that a parent's sexual activity is insufficient to establish a material change in circumstances justifying a change in custody absent a showing that the minor child or children were exposed to such activity or were adversely affected or damaged by reason of such activity.... [A]lthough there was evidence that Carol and her partner would engage in sexual activity at times when Jacqueline was in Carol's residence and that Jacqueline was generally aware of her mother's homosexual relationship, there was no showing that the daughter was directly exposed to the sexual activity or that she was in any way harmed by the homosexual relationship between Carol and her partner... [T]he evidence does not establish that Jacqueline's best interests require a change of custody." For the majority of the Court, therefore, if a parent were to engage in lesbian acts in front of the child it would clearly be grounds for removing custody from that lesbian parent. According to the ruling it is exposure to sexual acts that gives rise to a custodial challenge, not homosexuality itself or the mere knowledge of such a relationship existing. There needs to be a showing of harm caused by the homosexual relationship or a material change of circumstances above and beyond this.
However, two other judicial opinions were filed in the case. The dissenting opinion of Judge Hannon would have modified custody in the father's favor. The judge framed the issue as clearly focusing "on the question of the effect the establishment of a homosexual relationship by a custodial parent should have upon child custody when that activity is recognized by the people involved as a serious moral wrong." The judge wrote in his opinion that "I am convinced that parents can teach their moral code to their children only by quietly living that code in front of them, not by preaching at them or sending them to be formally instructed in it. With regard to this family's moral code, Carol has obviously set a horrible example. When young people raised with a moral code similar to that which the parties to this action apparently subscribe are confronted with natural sexual yearnings, they are usually fortified by moral education and by their observation of the monogamous, heterosexual relationship of their parents. I am convinced that a child's observation of his or her parent's conduct which is at odds with the family moral code seriously affects the child's reaction to his or her sexual yearnings during the formative years. If a parent commits serious and prolonged moral indiscretions in such a way that his or her child will learn of them, it is foolish to think the moral education of that child will not be seriously damaged. I think the record shows Carol's conduct will necessarily impair Jacqueline's moral training; therefore, it is in Jacqueline's best interests that custody be modified." Judge Mues wrote a concurrence which simply wanted to make the point that it agreed with the dissenting opinion insofar as "a child's exposure to parental conduct which is at odds with the family moral code impairs that child's moral training, including his or her reactions to sexual yearnings. While I pretend no psychological expertise, common sense and experience suggest that is true. And I believe it to be true whether the conduct in question is an indiscreet heterosexual or homosexual extramarital relationship."
I think the most controversial part of this case would be the dissenting opinion that states that being raised by a parent engaging in homosexuality in violation of the family religious moral code will effect sexual yearnings of a child. However, even the concurrence says this is a matter of “common sense.” The emphasis seems to be on the confusion that will confront the child as a parent disobeys religious beliefs and that this confusion may lead to sexual yearnings being affected. But is it a matter of the conflict with the religious moral code alone, or is the implication even further that “common sense” indicates that even having a gay parent or adopted gay parents, even when not in conflict with any “family moral code,” will affect “sexual yearnings”? On this question there is a clear divergence of opinions. The American Psychological Association, which represents the conventional wisdom and the majority view today, says that “there is no basis on which to assume that a parental homosexual orientation will increase likelihood of or induce a homosexual orientation.” On the other hand there are studies from USC professors that indicate that “a greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex.” . A “small minority [still] maintain that being raised in a lesbian or gay household subjects children to increased risks in a number of areas.” And of course there are those that point out that all the studies are not even reliable, that more needs to be done, and that such studies often and too easily “reek of bias.”
Then again, does any of this really matter anyway to a case like Hassenstab? Is it the job of the courts in custody proceedings to protect the development of a child’s sexual yearnings to begin with? Removing custody from a mother is indeed a big deal and the evidence necessary should therefore be substantial. Therefore, this is not a case where I am deeply troubled by the outcome. However, the whole debate about whether it is custodial rights or the subjective religious beliefs of both parents that is of a higher value in such decisions is rather interesting. Though I think subjective religious beliefs of both parents are important and should be recognized as such, it does seem hard to imagine courts in a sense enforcing those subjective religious beliefs by choosing the environment to raise a child that is most conducive to that end.
IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS, FEEL FREE TO LEAVE A COMMENT
Tweet
Seven Suspected Islamist Jihad Terrorists Arrested In Paris
Tweet
French police captured seven suspected Islamist militants in raids in Paris and its suburbs, officials said on Tuesday, as France tightened security in the wake of the death of Osama bin Laden.Six suspects were detained on Monday but the main target of the operation, an Indian national who recently arrived from Algeria, was taken on Tuesday, according to officials close to the inquiry....
Record Sale Of Osama Bin Laden Posters In Pakistan, More Than 100,000 Since Osama's Death
There has been a record sale of posters of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan after the al-Qaida leader was gunned down in a daring US commando raid May 2 in the country, a media report said on Tuesday.TweetMore than 100,000 posters of Osama Bin Laden have been sold since his death, the Online news agency reported citing the print industry. It added that the volume of sale is increasing daily....
Prager University: How the Vietnam War Was Won And Lost
Bruce Herschensohn explains how the U.S. Congress turned victory in the Vietnam War into defeat.
Tweet
Casino Ejects Woman In Muslim Garb
How are they supposed to enforce laws allowing only those above the legal age to gamble if a woman is dressed so that the casino security could only see her eyes? If she does not cover her face at her job, why does she need to cover it at a casino?
Tweet
California Supreme Court Case Of People v. Freeman: Is Prostitution Really Different From Pornography?
How Does The First Amendment Protect Pornographers But Not Prostitutes? The Absurd Answer Of The CA Supreme Court
The Atlantic's socially liberal Andrew Sullivan asked in March 2008 two very interesting questions: "1. Why is it illegal for me to pay a prostitute for sex, but it’s NOT illegal for a film director to pay two people to have sex in front of a camera and then make money for his product in the form of a DVD or an online download? 2. As a corollary: Why are a prostitute and her john held in such contempt by the media and the public, but Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are treated as rock stars on both cable and network television? Are they not prostitutes? They were, in actuality, paid for sex. No?" The questions clearly answer themselves. The obvious answer to these questions is that Sullivan had pounced upon a legal contradiction that makes absolutely no sense. As a matter of consistency in the law alone, either both should be illegal or both should be legal.
I recently read the 1988 California Supreme Court opinion of People v. Freeman. It is an interesting case in that it dealt with a law against prostitution being used by the government to prosecute a pornographer who paid others to engage in ultimate sex acts such as sodomy and more. The pornographer was convicted for violating State statutes criminalizing prostitution. The Court had to accept that such a pornographer is no different than prostitution, or else explain the difference. In other words, the sole ruling of the Court was dedicated to answering precisely the sort of thoughtful questions posed by Andrew Sullivan and should have any legal theorist scratching their head.
If you expected an answer from this high court that was on par in profundity with the questions posed, you will be sorely disappointed. My first reaction to People v. Freeman is that the First Amendment "obscenity" doctrines created by the judiciary and United States Supreme Court are completely nonsensical (see http://www.stevelackner.com/2011/05/right-constitutional-approach-to-first.html for an explanation of why pornography and sexually explicit material should not be considered protected First Amendment speech in the first place). The linchpin of the entire case in People v. Freeman is faulty, the reasoning laying on shaky ground at the outset. The Court states that the “film was not determined to be obscene and for purposes of this review must be deemed to be not obscene. Thus the prosecution of defendant under the pandering statute must be viewed as a somewhat transparent attempt at an ‘end run’ around the First Amendment and the state obscenity laws. Landmark decisions of this court and the United States Supreme Court compel us to reject such an effort.” All this proves is that landmark decisions of the California and United States Supreme Court have been foolish and have themselves made a mockery of the First Amendment. No end running should be needed, the prosecutor should be able to run head on without First Amendment worry. The idea that as a matter of law decided by a few judges this is not an obscene film, despite the fact that the jury in the case felt it was worthy of prosecution under a prostitution statute, is an absurdity. I take very serious issue with the line of reasoning of this Court that states “since the acts involved here have not been adjudged obscene, they are within the protection of the First Amendment.” They should indeed be considered obscene as judged by those who prosecuted and convicted the pornographer, and they should not therefore be within the protection of the First Amendment. This faulty reasoning is so pervasive in this case that it makes the Court completely unable to accept or even respond to the government’s reasonable constitutional arguments.
The Court said that the State of California argued it was prosecuting criminal “conduct, not speech.” The First Amendment only protects against government "abridging the freedom of speech," and the Supreme Court has rightly long recognized that there is an obvious difference between Constitutionally protected speech and unprotected conduct. In response to this argument, once again the California Supreme Court mindlessly repeats that the actions of the pornographer cannot be considered within the constitutional power of the government to criminalize to begin with because his product is not “obscene.” In the mind of the Court, it is sufficient to rule simply that the pornographer's activities are not within the power of government because the film is nonobscene, and therefore it is not conduct that the government can regulate. But that line of reasoning is a restatement of the absurd "obscenity" rule as seen in case law, not an actual response to the fact that what is being targeted is clearly conduct. Anyone watching the film would realize right away that conduct is taking place, not speech. Otherwise, no one would watch the film and the pornographer would not profit from it. In the case, a pornographer was paying individuals to engage in acts of intercourse and sodomy. If sodomy is not "conduct," the word "conduct" has lost all meaning. Even if one were to accept that a film depicting sodomy is not obscene, that does not magically transform what is taking place on screen into any sort of "speech." Ultimate sex acts performed in front of a camera is undoubtedly conduct that happens to be performed in front of a camera.
Because of the judiciary's wrongheaded obscenity precedents, the government was forced to try to come up with alternative reasons for the prosecution that it should not have had to. The Court explained the government justifications for the conviction were “the prevention of profiteering from prostitution, and second is a public health purpose.” Again, repetition of “this is not obscene” is all the Court needed to declare in response. The Court arrogantly declared that “punishment of a motion picture producer for the making of a nonobscene film, however, has little if anything to do with the purpose of combating prostitution.” This is utter madness. If combating prostitution is defined as targeting for criminal prosecution those who pay for sex, then it of course has everything to do with combating prostitution. There is clearly profiteering from paying for sex acts to take place. Pray tell, if the client of an actual prostitute were to demand that all services be performed in front of a camera, would it now transform into a “nonobscene” “non-conduct” First Amendment right? The fact that it is being filmed would of course no longer transform this from an act of prostitution into an act of First Amendment protected speech.
The Supreme Court of California then further writes that these government interests “not only directly involve the suppression of free expression but are, in the context of a pandering prosecution for the making of a nonobscene motion picture, not credible.” Does that really in any way even attempt to respond to the public health justification? Not even slightly. The absurdity of legal precedents concerning obscenity is on full display in this case. It makes the California Supreme Court not even have to respond to basic points being made by the side from which it has chosen to ignore. All that needs to be done is continuously parroting the line in response to whatever the government says that is “this is not obscene and therefore First Amendment protected speech” no matter the argument made.
This Court seems to assume that a commercial pornographer is not a form of prostitution because a third party is paying others to have sex. If that is the case, such an assumption makes little sense. Prostitution itself would then be completely legal so long as a third party pays for the service. Yet I do not think any Court would extend this reasoning to an actual case of prostitution.
The Court then states that this case is incomparable to filming a murder or robbery because “considered aside from the payment of the acting fees, itself fully lawful otherwise, the sexual acts depicted in the motion picture here were completely lawful.” Are you kidding me? This is astounding. Could this exact line not be transferred to prostitution itself? Aside from the payment of service fees, itself fully lawful otherwise, the sexual acts of a prostitute are completely lawful. As George Carlin joked about prostitution itself, “One thing I don't understand is sex is legal and selling things is legal, but selling sex is illegal." It is flabbergasting that the California Supreme Court would attempt to make such an asinine distinction.
Whether paying for porn actors to perform sex acts on film should be a criminal act is not the issue. That is a policy question for the legislature and jury to decide upon, and the absolutely feeble attempts to distinguish it from prostitution coming from the California Supreme Court in and of itself demonstrates that it is not a constitutional or judicial one. This conviction should have been upheld. The perverse "obscenity" precedents that are so strongly relied upon for such results need also be abandoned to return some basic Constitutional sanity in the First Amendment.
Tweet
John Yoo In USA Today: "Tough Interrogations Worked"
UC Berkeley Law Professor and former Bush administration lawyer took the position in favor of enhanced interrogation in opposition to the USA Today editors in the pages of the USA Today:
We should praise the Obama administration, the CIA and especially our armed forces for the operation that killed Osama bin Laden. But we should not forget what made the operation possible: President Bush's counterterrorism policies. Obama administration sources confirm that the coercive interrogation of three al-Qaeda leaders identified the courier who led the CIA to bin Laden.TweetUSA TODAY's editorial page and other critics of enhanced interrogation do not understand the nature of intelligence operations, which aim solely to prevent attacks on the U.S.
Under Bush, the CIA subjected 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two other al-Qaeda commanders, Abu Faraj al-Libi and Hassan Ghul, to coercive interrogation methods. Just because Mohammed and al-Libi tried to deflect attention from the courier doesn't undermine the success of interrogation. Their efforts to mislead, when compared with other interrogations, raised red flags. Information from all sources, when pulled together into a mosaic of intelligence, can snap the right targets into focus. In the days after 9/11, no president could afford to foreswear methods that were legal, even though tough, on the mistaken belief that anything beyond questioning amounts to "torture."
Bin Laden would remain on the loose today without this information. But critics of enhanced interrogation would be content to leave bin Laden alive in Abbottabad, Pakistan, planning more attacks on the U.S., so that Mohammed and other al-Qaeda commanders could stay comfortable in U.S. prisons. Why? Because they worry about America's standing in the world.
But neither the Guantanamo prison camp nor harsh interrogations has inspired allies to leave our side, businesses to stop trading and investing here or immigrants to leave our shores. Foreign governments are all too happy to criticize in public, while privately supporting our efforts, which only protect their security, too.
Past U.S. presidents rightly didn't allow foreign opinion to dissuade them from using the most effective means to victory. Harry Truman dropped the bomb on Japan to end World War II; Abraham Lincoln allowed Sherman's destructive march through the South. Appeasing foreign opinion is no substitute for the need to make the tough decisions that will defeat a determined enemy. Even if USA TODAY has yet to learn this lesson, may our newest president soon begin.
Former Attorney General Mike Mukasey: "The Waterboarding Trail To Bin Laden"
Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.Tweet
That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. “Do this for all the brothers,” he advised his interrogators. …
[T]he techniques were entirely lawful as the law stood at the time the memos were written, and the disclosures they elicited were enormously important. …
Acknowledging and meeting the need for an effective and lawful interrogation program, which we once had, and freeing CIA operatives and others to administer it under congressional oversight, would be a fitting way to mark the demise of Osama bin Laden.
Mark Levin: Abortion, Privacy, And The Courts
An excerpt from the wonderful book Men in Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America is available on National Review Online. It is well worth reading in its entirety, as is the book itself even though some portions of it are outdated such as discussions of campaign financing which came before the Citizens United decision. The excerpt above provided by NRO discusses abortion and the Supreme Court, death by privacy, penumbras and emanations, and bad law. Tweet
Yemeni Man Attempts To Storm Cockpit On Flight To San Francisco Yelling "Allahu Akbar"
The passengers sat stunned as they watched a man walk quickly toward the front of American Airlines Flight 1561 as it was descending toward San Francisco. He was screaming and then began pounding on the cockpit door.
“I kept saying to myself: ‘What’s he doing? Does he have a bomb? Is he armed?’” passenger Angelina Marty said.
Within moments Sunday, a flight attendant tackled Rageh Almurisi. Authorities do not yet have a motive.
While authorities said that Almurisi, 28, of Vallejo, Calif., has no clear or known ties to terrorism, the incident underscored fears that extremists may try to mount attacks to retaliate for the death of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden last week.
Federal agents are investigating Almurisi’s background. He was carrying a Yemeni passport and a California identification card, authorities said.
Tweet
Monday, May 9, 2011
Israeli Independence Day 2011: Celebrating Israel's 63rd Birthday
Prime Minister Netanyahu's greeting for Yom Ha'Atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day:
Israel "Defying All Odds" video:
Tweet
64% Of Palestinians Would Not Object To Bin Laden Burial In "Palestine"
Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik report for Palestinian Media Watch:
A Palestinian polling institute surveyed Palestinians in the first week of May 2011, apparently before it was known among Palestinians that Bin Laden's body had been buried at sea, and found that: "64% of respondents stated that they would not object to Bin Laden being buried in Palestine, were such a possibility raised."Tweet
Zhudi Jasser And Robert Spencer Debate Islamic Reform
Andrew McCarthy, author of the must-read book Willful Blindness, is moderating. Tweet
Wall Street Journal: From Noam Chomsky To Osama Bin Laden
Stephens writes in the Wall Street Journal about the condemnation of the killing of Osama Bin Laden from leftist Noam Chomsky. His commentary is well worth reading. Visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576312923866840988.html to read the full article. Tweet
Muslims In Egypt Injure And Kill Dozens Of Christians, Burn Down Churches, Yet The New York Times Reports As "Sectarian Tensions"
NPR's headline declares that "After Deadly Clashes, Egypt's Christians On Edge." (See http://www.npr.org/2011/05
"Sectarian tensions" is the New York Times's phrase for increased violence by Muslims against Christians in Egypt. Of course if a Christian burned down a Mosque or attacked Muslims in the West like Muslims just did against Christians in Egypt, I doubt that it would be reported as "sectarian tensions." This is the bigotry of low expectations when it comes to the goings on in the Muslim world at its finest.
It is worth noting how this violence started according the New York Times itself: "Like many recent episodes of Muslim-Christian violence here, the strife started with rumors about an interfaith romance and a woman’s abduction. According to a police report, a Muslim named Yassim Thaabet Anwar from a city up the Nile had come to Imbaba looking for his wife. He said she was a former Christian from the neighborhood who had converted to Islam in 2010 but had recently disappeared. And he asserted she had been kidnapped and held in the Church of St. Mina against her will — a pattern of allegations that has recurred in several recent high-profile episodes of sectarian conflict. Christians in the neighborhood said that there was no such woman in the church, and, by Sunday night, the local police and government officials agreed. " So Muslims start blowing up Churches and killing and injuring dozens of Christians based on a disgusting libel, and that's the context for what the New York Times reports as "sectarian tensions"? That is nothing short of perverse and obscene mainstream media reporting.
Meanwhile, the American Jewish Committee "called on the Egyptian government to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety of Christians Copts and their religious institutions, after two Cairo churches were burned last night." I think it is wonderful to see Jews alarmed at the treatment of Christians and taking notice. I would hope some Christian groups are keeping as close an eye.
Maybe this kind of a story could be the precise call to action for Christians that Jewish nationally syndicated talk show host Dennis Prager recently wrote about. Prager wrote that "aside from the pope and some activist groups, the Christian world is as silent today [regarding persecution of Christians in the Middle East] as it was when Christians were imprisoned and killed in the Soviet Union. It is time to change this pattern. Christians should organize an international day or week of solidarity for persecuted Christians in the Muslim world. And not only Christians should attend these hopefully large events. Jews and Muslims should also be in attendance, and their representatives should speak. Jews should because it is right and because of all Christians did for Soviet Jewry and do for Israel; and Muslims should because it is right and because nothing would protect the good name of Muslims like joining non-Muslims in voicing solidarity with the many Christian victims of persecution in Muslim countries."
Tweet
The Bible View: Is Attacking, Killing, And Then Celebrating Success In Killing Osama Bin Laden Appropriate? Should We Have Prayed For This Moment?
There are many people who following the death of Osama Bin Laden proclaimed that no one should rejoice in the death of even someone like Bin Laden. Others rejoiced openly and said there should be only jubilation. Still others said it was possible and critical to strike some sort of middle ground. In recent days, there have been religious clergy and laymen of all sorts citing a verse here and a verse there from the Bible, or putting out statements about the Biblical and religious approach to the death of Bin Laden. Some of what I have heard has been sensible, other ideas have bordered on completely ridiculous sentiments that ignore straightforward Biblical text. The Associated Press even reported that "[f]or...religious leaders, it was sometimes hard to know just what to say." It is only because of this that I have therefore attempted to put forth a Biblical answer to the important and timely question of how to respond to the death of Bin Laden.
The first issue that must be addressed is whether a Biblical view allows for confronting and defeating evil in the first place, or instead demands passivity and acquiescence and if need be martyrdom at the hands of evildoers. The latter is a terribly immoral view because it allows evil to grow and spread. It allows evil to go completely unchallenged. This only leads to more atrocities and wrongdoing. The Bible specifically orders men in Leviticus 19:16 to take action against the murder of innocents, saying "thou shall not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor." I have heard religious people claim that a man should willingly walk like Daniel into the lion's den rather than fighting back against his persecutor. This is an absurd lesson to learn from the story of Daniel which is an example of standing by faith even in the most extreme circumstances. In the case of Daniel, how exactly could he have resisted the decree that he go to the lion's den? The fact is that when there is a capability to stand up to and defeat true evil the Bible would never declare doing so immoral. In fact, a failure to act is all too often what is immoral. There are historical examples of nations standing idly by taking no action even as genocide took place, and there is nothing more shameful than this ignoble history. There are many examples in the Bible that can be cited to demonstrate the necessity and propriety of standing up to evil, but I shall cite only a few.
The truth is that God in Exodus has no problem with actually sending a man to stand up to the mightiest Pharaoh. It was "the spirit of the Lord [that] came mightily upon" Samson and let him find "a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand" and take it against his Phillistine persecutors and smite "a thousand men therewith" in Judges 15. There is nothing wrong with a David in 1 Samuel 17 standing up to a Goliath and declaring, "What shall be done to the man that kills this Philistine, and takes away the taunt from Israel? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should have taunted the armies of the living God?" Did the Prophet Elijah have a problem standing up to rulers like Ahab and telling him in Kings 18 that "you have forsaken the commandments of the Lord" and challenging the followers of Ba'al to meet him on Mount Carmel? Did he have a problem defying the word of Queen Jezebel as she slaughtered Prophets? Of course not. The Bible does not demand passivity and acceptance of terrible evils rather than standing up for what is right and if need be when possible fighting those that would defy the ways of right and good by persecuting you or others in the most grave fashion. Of course it is a matter of context and your ability to confront and defeat evil. Standing up to evil from a position of weakness is not necessarily a Godly, let alone smart, thing to do. But when evildoers bring their ways and tyrannies upon you, even shedding the blood of the innocent, and there is a way to confront and defeat it, I don't see how it cannot be seen as imperative to do so. Therefore, it should be clear that confronting and crushing someone like Osama Bin Laden, a great evildoer and symbol of immense wickedness, was not only the right thing to do, it was a moral imperative of the United States and an act of moral goodness. King David wrote in Psalm 144:1, "Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle." Man has a duty to train his hands for war and fingers for battle because the real haters of peace will continue to nefariously plot and plan whether good men are ready to defend themselves or not. The forces of evil will not suffer from some inner guilt but will have no problem committing the most barbaric acts to further their larger unholy atrocious goals. In order for those on the side of goodness to maintain peace, there must be constant vigilance, including readiness for war.
The next question that must be addressed is the proper approach to evil to begin with. Ecclesiastes 3:8 rightly declares, there is "a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." The short answer is that the Bible is clear that the the righteous must love good, but also hate evil. This is clear to those that follow the words of Isiah 5:20, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil." In terms of how one should view Bin Laden, confusing good with evil should not be a problem. The Prophet Micah 6:7-8 declared, "Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousands of rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?' It has been told to you, O man, what is good, and what the Lord does require of you: only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." It is all too easy to realize that Osama Bin Laden did not do justly, did not love mercy, and walked with a monstrosity of a deity that he believed commanded his abominable holy war and the slaughter of innocents. Since there are moral absolutes such as good and evil it is actually critical to hate true evil. This is expressly stated in scripture. Psalm 97:10 states, "O ye that love the Lord, hate evil." Proverbs 8:13 states, "Fear of the Lord is to hate evil." In Amos 8:15 it is written, "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish justice in the gate." One might argue that all these sorts of verses only relate to hating the concept of evil in the abstract, but not to hating actual evildoers. King David would disagree. He wrote in Psalm 139:21-22, "Do not I hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee? And do not I strive with those that rise up against Thee? I hate them with utmost hatred; I count them mine enemies." The purveyors of grievous evils are certainly worthy of hatred. So the fact is that one should hate evil, and that real evildoers like Osama Bin Laden are deserving of the hatred as well.
Is it proper to pray for the destruction of someone like Osama Bin Laden and praise and thank God for his demise? After a military victory against an enemy and their king, the Song of Deborah was sang in praise to the Lord for allowing for the success. This song of victory over the enemies also ended with a final line in Judges 5:31 where Deborah prays, "So may all your enemies be destroyed, O God! And let those who love Him be like the powerfully rising sun." After crossing the Red Sea and the waters engulf the Egyptians, the response of Moses and the Children of Israel in Exodus 15 starting with the first verse is to "sing to God for he is exalted above the arrogant." Clearly there is a proper place for praying for the enemy's downfall and singing to and praising God for the destruction of the enemy. David composed a hundred and three chapters of Psalms, and he did not use the word "Hallelujah" until he saw the downfall of the wicked, as it says in Psalm 104:35, "Let sinners cease out of the earth, and let the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul. Hallelujah."
What is it then exactly that should and is to be celebrated when the evil enemy is destroyed? It is true that there are verses such as Ezekiel 18:23 which states, "Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord God; and not rather that he should return from his ways, and live?" But with the likes of evil such as Bin Laden, it is clear that he reached the point of no return and there is no way that he deserved the right to continue to live. With certain sins committed against fellow men such as murder on a massive scale, a sin which results in so many victims around the world being no longer around to forgive their persecutor or for their persecutor to seek their forgiveness, God will not allow for someone to simply return from his ways and live. Nor would any sensible system of justice.
On the one hand we can read in Proverbs 24:17 the verse declaring, "Rejoice not when your enemy falls, and let not your heart be glad when he stumbles." But in the same book a number of chapters earlier a different verse sends a different message. Proverbs 11:10 states that "when the wicked perish, there is joy." How does one reconcile these two verses? There is no contradiction. A powerful message is being sent about the proper response to military victories against the enemy. First, if you rejoice because he is your enemy and have achieved a personal victory it is pointless. It is then a celebration of personal triumph and an act of arrogance rather than an expression of the necessary hatred of evil and its destruction. On the other hand, if you rejoice at the diminishment of evil and that justice has been done that is not only expected, but moral. Deuteronomy 9:4-6 makes this clear when God tells the Israelite people in the desert who are about to conquer the land of Canaan, "Not for your righteousness, or for the uprightness of your heart, do you go in to possess their land; but for the wickedness of these nations the Lord your God does drive them out from before you, and that He may establish the word which the Lord swore unto your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." God does not approve of victorious acts of war leading to false arrogance, but focuses on the wickedness of the enemies and that such victories serve to humble the faithful. Second, there is at best a mix of emotions, we do not rejoice that we live in a world where man must use targeted assassinations against his fellow man, but there is no reason not to be joyful when a great evildoer meets his maker because of our successful operation at bringing about justice and diminishing evil. I don't agree with those who claim that that some element of joy should be either unexpected or considered wrong at all if one truly hates evil, because to pretend to have no joy at all seems far too apathetic toward that evil. In fact, King David goes so far as to declare in Psalm 58:11-12 that "[t]he righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance; he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. And men shall say: 'Verily there is a reward for the righteous; verily there is a God that judges in the earth.'" One can clearly rejoice over the death of the wicked if that celebration is the expression of the fact that justice has been done and recognized on the earth.
There are those that take issue with the New York Daily News putting a picture of Osama Bin Laden on the front page, with the words "Rot In Hell" also emblazoned on the cover. In response to Bin Laden's death, Mike Huckabee released a statement that said "welcome to hell." Some thought this rhetoric goes over the line. But there is no reason to think Osama is not receiving divine justice, as Proverbs says in verse 24:20, "There will be no future to the evil man, the lamp of the wicked shall be put out." He is the God of not only mercy, but also of justice. Ultimately God is the ultimate judge who will and can balance the two, but in Bin Laden's case I don't doubt that he will be light on mercy and heavy on justice. That's a God that is very much worthy of our praise.
Tweet
27 US Senators Appealed To Obama To Halt Funding To A Unified Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority Government
The Jerusalem Post reports that "twenty-seven US Senators appealed on Friday to President Barack Obama to halt funding to a unified Fatah-Hamas government that refuses to renounce terrorism or recognize Israel... The letter, signed by mostly Democratic senators, was organized by Senators Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Robert Casey of Pennsylvania... Leading members of the House of Representatives, such as Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Florida), chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, have similarly spoken out. But the Obama administration has taken no action on the matter to date."
“It is imperative for you to make clear to [Palestinian Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas that Palestinian Authority participation in a unity government with an unreformed Hamas will jeopardize its relationship with the United States, including its receipt of US aid,” the senators said in a letter they sent to Obama.
“As you are aware, US law prohibited aid from being provided to a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless the government and all its members have publicly committed to the Quartet principles,” the senators wrote.
Tweet
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Media Research Center Celebrates Best/Worst In Media Bias In MRC Gala Awards 2011
Brent Bozell opening remarks:
Obamagasm Award:
Tea Party from Hell Award:
The William F. Buckley Award:
The Quote of the Year:
Keith Olbermann compilation introduced by Andrew Klavan:
Tweet
Islam Needs Reformists, Not "Moderates"
To read this article in the Wall Street Journal visit http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576305412360432744.html?mod=wsj_share_twitter Tweet
Six Years Later, Jordan Readies To Try Danish Mohammed Cartoonist In Abstentia
The Jerusalem Post reports that "almost six years after a series of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammad were published by a Danish newspaper, a Jordanian court is taking upon itself to try in absentia cartoonist Kurt Westergaard and 19 other journalists and editors. In a trial scheduled to get underway, they are charged with publishing offensive material against the Prophet... critics say the legal proceedings are a propaganda exercise and a way for the government to polish its image among certain groups as Jordan’s King Abdullah grapples with demands for democratic and other reforms. The case was initiated in 2005 by a group of Jordanian intellectuals and journalists, not long after the cartoons were published. But it lay dormant for years, collecting dust in drawers of the court ever since. Last month, in the midst of a regional turmoil that plagued the region, the sensitive file was resurrected by an Amman prosecutor-general and the trial is back under the spotlight. The 12 cartoons depicting Muhammad commissioned by the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 sparked protests across the Muslim world resulting in a total of more than 100 reported deaths as well as arson attacks on Danish embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Ironically, the Danish newspaper had hoped the cartoon would contribute to the debate over freedom to criticize Islam."
Tweet
Thousands Attend Bin Laden "Funeral" In Istanbul, Turkey: Mourners Chant "US, UK, Israel Murdered A Martyr"
Thousands participated in a funeral ceremony for assassinated al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in Istanbul on Friday, following Muslim burial rites but not including an actual burial.Tweet
Bin Laden was taken out by Navy SEAL troops last week and was subsequently buried at sea.
"The US, UK and Israel are the murderers of the martyr," the participants chanted. "The US is the terrorist, bin Laden is the warrior."
The mourners carried pictures of bin Laden and signs condemning his assassination, and called the man who planned the September 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans "a beautiful, wise man, a warrior for Islam."
The mourners, who gathered near Istanbul's Fatih Mosque, which is located in the area that is considered Turkey's epicenter of Islamic extremism, burned Israeli, American and British flags, and prayed facing a stone bench that traditionally holds the body of the deceased.
RSS Feed (xml)