Naked Royal Flush

The biggest story this week, if the British Press is to be believe, is that Italian and French gossip magazines are running naked pictures of Kate Middleton, who is apparently married to some dude with a famous mother. While I’m indifferent to celebrities/royalties, this does raise an interesting question. Should the press be allowed to print naked pictures of famous people?

Click Here To Read Article/Comments at CommentaramaPolitics

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Wall Comes A'Tumbling Down

At last, we have a major liberal declaring that the wall of separation between church and state is a misreading of the Constitution and historically incorrect. Following in the footsteps of Chief Justice Roberts who declared a mandate a tax, this constitutional liberal scholar declares that political issues are moral issues. And where better to look for moral guidance than the churches? She even said so from the pulpit. And who is this mystery liberal? None other than First Lady Michelle Obama.

Appearing in the role of lay pastor at the African Methodist Episcopal Church's forty-ninth general conference in Memphis, Michelle told the gathering: “To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about political issues, you tell them there is no place better—no place better. Because ultimately, these are not just political issues, they are moral issues.”

Aside from specifically endorsing political candidates or ballot measures, many of us conservatives have been saying the same thing for decades. We have been called “religious zealots” and “fascists” for doing so. But when Michelle speaks, the sheeple listen. And let's face it, Michelle wasn't talking about moral issues, she was talking about following Barack Hussein Obama, the self-appointed messiah. That takes the moral ground out from under her argument and turns it into the very politicization of religion that the Founders actually intended to prevent when they instituted both secular government and freedom of religion.

Says Bill Donahue of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights: “Michelle Obama followed in the footsteps of her husband yesterday when she called for the politicization of religion.” In the spirit of “if you can't lick 'em, join 'em,” Donahue went on to say: “Since the Obamas have taken the gloves off—in effect calling for Americans not to be restrained by separation of church and state legalisms—others should follow suit. I hope that the bishops, priests, evangelical ministers, and the orthodox members of all religions are taking note.” Amen, Brother!

Neither Donahue nor I call for the pulpits to become political forums. But quite simply, religion has a major role in our political lives. It was the churches of the 1800s that led the people toward the eradication of that great stain on American freedom—slavery. It was the churches of the mid-1900s that fostered the Civil Rights movement, eliminating de jure segregation of the races and culminating in the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education. We are simply saying that for most Americans, moral and religious issues are intertwined, and speaking of them in church is a perfectly valid constitutional exercise. If an issue which contains moral and religious ramifications is preached from the pulpit seems to favor or disfavor a candidate or party, so be it.

Obamacare is a perfect example of what we mean, and what Michelle doesn't mean. The Catholic Church (and my own Missouri Synod Lutheran Church) have declared the mandate/tax/penalty which requires religious institutions to participate in birth control measures such as abortifacients to be an absolute violation of religious freedom. Though it has not yet come to it, they are suggesting future civil disobedience, just as their predecessors did with slavery and segregation. They would be crossing the line by saying “defeat Obama” or "vote for Candidate X because he will vote against Obamacare.” But raising the issue is a religious imperative that leaves the congregants to draw their own conclusions using their own individual consciences.

What Michelle wants from the pulpit is “Vote for my husband. He's black, he's beautiful, and he knows what's best for you because he is in personal contact with the deity. Do this in remembrance of him, and ye shall be saved.” Of course there's that little matter of the Obamas' marriage and twenty years of faithful attendance at a church where Barack's pastor and mentor boomed from the pulpit: “No, no, no. God damn America.” Somehow, I don't think that Michelle's understanding of religion and politics is the same as mine. How about you?

I'll be around during the Fourth of July week holding down the fort while Andrew takes a mini-vacation. When you're not too full of hot dogs and hamburgers, and after your barbecue fire has safely died down, come and join me.


[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Not All Speech Should Be Protected

I love the internet. It’s provided me with hours of entertainment, it’s let me sell a book, and it’s let me meet all of you. That’s pretty darn cool. But the internet does have a downside. Specifically, it lets the most hateful turds do their best to intimidate those they don’t like. We need a law, dammit!! Actually, we don’t.

It really is undeniable that the internet can be a problem, particularly when it comes to “hate speech.” Indeed, some corners of the internet are a seething cauldron of hate and idiocy. But here’s the thing, we don’t need laws to stop hate or idiocy. For one thing, hate and idiocy don’t actually harm us. Sticks and stones, my friends. So why do we need more laws to stop things that don’t really harm us? Isn’t that just using the power of government to force your pet peeves on people?

Not to mention, letting people speak their minds and expose their twisted views is an incredibly useful tool for discovering who you shouldn’t trust. Would you rather know that the normal looking guy in the bowtie thinks Jews are evil creatures, or would you rather only know that he smiles a lot?

Equally problematic is the idea of how we define hate. One person’s hate is another person’s truth. So whose opinion is right, and where will the government draw the line? Moreover, how do you keep the hypersensitive from getting their views imposed through the government? They are the most likely to make such an attempt after all. Do we really trust that the government won’t start declaring things like Christianity “hate speech” merely because it argues that certain acts are immoral? Many liberals already make that argument.

Let’s face it, there are very strong reasons to allow hate speech and there really aren’t any valid ones which justify banning it except that some people don't like it.

But there is another angle to this. Sometimes people hide behind the First Amendment to do more than just spew hate and stupidity. Indeed, they cross over that line and advocate violence. Now that, is a real problem.

And that brings me to Jesse Morton, the founder of a militant Muslim website “Revolution Muslim.” Jesse just got sentenced to 11.5 years for making threats against the creators of South Park because of their episode featuring Mohammed in a bear suit. He also admitted to conspiring to solicit the murder of Seattle cartoonist Molly Norris, who drew Mohammed as part of a protest against the intimidation of Danish cartoonists.

Jesse’s conviction is exactly how “hate” speech needs to be curtailed. Rather than trying to ban people from spewing idiotic opinions, we should only punish those cross the line into advocating illegality. Jesse made threats and conspired to make threats involving the injury or murder of other individuals. That is not some nebulous hateful opinion, it is in fact a crime, and has always has been recognized as such since the foundations of our justice system were laid. When he crossed the line from giving opinion to soliciting crimes, he needed to be punished.

In fact, the same thing needs to be done to the army of idiots who are taking to Twitter to issue their own death threats. If you tweet that you will kill someone or rape them or their children, that is a threat and you should be locked up, whether your target is a public figure or not. If you ask someone to kill someone else, then you have solicited murder. If you suggest that it would please you if someone died or was raped, or you simply hope they are killed or raped, that is solicitation. Those are crimes.

The internet is indeed out of control, but it’s not the handful of lunatics whining about racial purity or how everyone else is evil that are the problem. The problem is this group of supposedly normal people who now think it’s acceptable to make threats or solicit crimes against political opponents they don’t like. It’s time these people got rounded up and sent to jail, just like Jesse Morton, so that people stop doing this. If something isn’t done soon, this will spin out of control, if it hasn’t already.

Thoughts?

P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Sister Nancy Explains It All

Well, it’s Sunday, and time for our Catholic instruction from Sister Nancy Pelosi. You see, forty-three Catholic institutions, including several Catholic bishops and archdioceses are suing the Obama administration over its mandate covering sterilization, contraception and abortifacients. But they are wrong, and Sister Nancy explains why.

Speaking of the Pope, cardinals, archbishops and dioceses, Sister Nancy says: “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church. Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.” The best she could come up with for why all the Catholic bishops weren’t involved was “and there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature.” Well, we know she certainly thinks so, and no doubt there are other Catholics equally hesitant. She didn’t name the bishops who agree with her.

Technically, of course, she is correct. Ex cathedra refers to matters of faith and morals which the Pope has spoken on directly. The rest of the Catholic clergy may pass this message on, but it does derive from the Pope alone. However, Sister Nancy fails to notice that Popes don’t involve themselves in American lawsuits or directly address American law.

The Catholic clergy and laymen involved in the lawsuits are concerned with the law and the Constitution (neither of which Sister Nancy has read). But they did not come at this on their own. Catholic doctrine, as announced by the Pope is that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally and theologically wrong. The Catholic clergy and laymen who have filed the suits are doing nothing more than addressing American law as it affects Catholic religious doctrine and First Amendment religious protections. The Pope didn’t tell them to file lawsuits, but he did tell them what Catholics should see as right or wrong.

So after telling the world that the cardinals, archbishops, and bishops are wrong on theology (no trifling matter for a practicing Catholic), Sister Nancy then went on to tell reporters asking her pointed questions: “You know what? I do my religion on Sunday in church, and I try to go other days of the week, I don’t do it at this press conference.” Then why did you call the conference, Sister? It seems that the adorable Sister Nancy thinks press conferences are designed for her to make ex cathedra announcements without having to explain anything to anyone.

I know I’m treading on thin ice here, but as a Lutheran, I still think the proper understanding of Catholic doctrine is that the Pope is infallible on decisions of faith and morals. Sister Nancy is not, and therefore has some ‘splaining to do.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

My Advice To Social Conservatives

I said last week that social conservatives have not done a great job winning over the public on social issues. There are some minor advances here and there, but for every advance there is full retreat in some other area. I think a change of strategy is called for on all fronts.

Let me start with three broad principles:

● Principle One: It’s time to get rational about the goals social conservatives want to achieve and how to achieve them. This means putting an end to pie-in-the-sky ideas like constitutional amendments to force change. Not only is that easily lampooned in light of the conservative claim to states’ rights, but it’s pointless because there is simply no way to get any constitutional amendment through the Congress and then passed by enough states. It is impossible, and talking about it wastes time and diverts resources from better causes. Moreover, talking about changing the constitution, scares the public, who will automatically see this as extreme and dangerous. So drop the idea of trying to solve everything with one shot and learn the art of incrementalism, i.e. achieving your goal little by little. This isn’t sexy, but it’s the only effective way to achieve controversial goals under our system.

● Principle Two: Drop the harsh rhetoric. The fiery pulpit speeches may work well in church, but the public sees them differently. To the public, they are evidence that social conservatives are hateful people who can’t deal with the modern world and who want to judge everyone else. This is a self-inflicted wound.

● Principle Three: You can’t win with religion-based arguments. Those simply don’t work with the modern public because the vast majority of the public doesn’t see the Bible as the thing which runs their day-to-day lives. Indeed, while 90% of the public claims to believe in God, only 40% claim to go to church “regularly” (there is reason to believe the real number is closer to 20%). And even of those who go, there is a disconnect between what the churches teach and how people live their lives -- the classic example of this are Catholics, who love the Pope, but ignore his rules. And even then, different denominations and different religions have different views about what their religion tells them, e.g. some accept gay marriage, some don’t. So premising arguments on religion is a bad start because you lose most of your audience. Moreover, in making these arguments, social conservatives end up bypassing the stronger arguments they should be making.

Ok, now let’s look at specific policies.

● Abortion: Abortion is an area where social conservatives are largely doing it right because they’ve adopted incrementalism. In the 1980s and early 1990s, abortion opponents kept looking for the home run, and it never came. It wasn’t until they learned to take the issue step by step that they began to make progress. The goal right now should be to entirely eliminate public funding, which is what keeps the abortion lobby alive, and to impose restrictions which the public will find reasonable.

One thing that needs to be dropped is this ridiculous idea of extending 14th Amendment rights to fetuses. Not only does this scare people, and thus is counterproductive, but it cannot pass, and it is almost the classic example of unintended consequences. Give fetuses rights and they can sue pregnant women if they don’t stop smoking or drinking or otherwise fail to follow doctor’s orders. This is a Pandora’s box of legal insanity which liberal interest groups will gleefully use to invade families. Think twice people.

● Gays: The gay marriage battle is lost. Yes, it won’t gain any more support in conservative states for the moment, but this issue is inevitable because the younger public really doesn’t see gays as a threat. Indeed, gays have pretty much proven there is nothing to fear from gay marriage. So so-cons better find proof fast to refute this.

A better strategy would be to switch over to a religious freedom argument. Right now, social conservatives have let themselves by placed on the wrong side of the gay marriage debate because gays have argued they are the ones seeking “freedom.” The reality is they have freedom and they are really seeking to use government power to impose their beliefs on others. But so-cons aren’t arguing that. Instead, they talk about “morality,” which is a loser. What they need to do is argue the religious freedom aspect, i.e. that gays are seeking to take away freedom by forcing others to accept them. Americans always vote for whoever is offering the greater freedom, so-cons need to learn to explain this better.

I also recommend giving serious thought to getting the government out of the marriage business entirely, as I discussed HERE.

● Drugs: Social conservatives are losing the drug war, particularly marijuana, because they’ve adopted the wrong argument. They’re arguing that drugs are bad for you/society. But that’s a nanny state argument. And indeed, the pro-pot people have merely had to argue that pot isn’t that bad to slowly win over a near-majority. The better argument involves civil freedoms. If we allow people to take drugs, then we either need to change negligence laws dramatically (in ways people really won’t like), or we will end up imposing huge costs on employers, employees and the economy because of the need for widespread drug testing. Why? Because any company that makes any product or provides any service which can injury someone (i.e. any company) will need to take steps to ensure that their workers are not high when they are working. That means widespread drug testing of everyone with a job. Right now the argument is “should the government be allowed to stop Person X from smoking pot at home.” But the argument should be, “are YOU willing to undergo constant drug testing to protect your employer from lawsuits just because the government decides to legalize drugs for the few who want it?” That’s a very different matter. I’ve discussed this HERE.

● Religious Freedom: This one’s a can of worms. A lot of social conservatives are going down a very dangerous path with the idea of religious freedom laws. Specifically, they are pushing bills which prohibit employers from stopping employees from engaging in religious practices or wearing religious items, e.g. crucifixes. This should send up huge red flags for conservatives. For one thing, conservatives have opposed employment-discrimination-based lawsuits almost across the board when it comes to gays, blacks, women and disability. Why make an exception for religion? Shouldn’t a private employer be entitled to impose whatever restrictions they want on the people they pay to be their employees? Can’t the employees just go elsewhere if they don’t like it?

Further, there is an obvious flaw here which social conservatives are overlooking because they tend to equate the word “religion” with their brand of Christianity: our Constitution doesn’t allow discrimination amongst religions. Thus, if you give people absolute power to act out their religious beliefs at work, that would include things like the wearing of the Islamic veil or separation of men and women, the handling of snakes, the smoking of peyote and whatever other crazy ideas these fringe religions can dream up.

This also applies to things like prayer in schools. If you seek legislation to allow that nice Protestant Principal to say a prayer each morning, except that your kids may also find themselves forced to sit through an Islamic prayer or Buddhist ritual or even an atheist’s speech. Unless you want other religions forced upon you and your children, it is best to always keep in mind that any new power you give yourself can be used by others as well.

Frankly, the best bet here is to vote with your feet and your wallets. Don’t support businesses which are hostile to your religious beliefs. Do support friendly ones. Stop seeing movies, watching television shows, or buy videogames with bad messages in them. Use the power of boycott. Send your kids to religious schools and volunteer to make sure those schools are the best (a shining example). In this regard, support legislation which lets federal money follow the students to whatever schools they choose -- trust people to make the right choices rather than trying to use the government to force the right choices upon them. Remember, you have to win people over, you can’t force them to believe what you want them to believe.

The big takeaway here is that social conservatives need to learn to speak to people who don’t share their religious beliefs -- framing things in religious terms simply will not work for anyone who doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs. They need to learn that a thousand small victories are better than the false hopes of complete victory in fell swoop. And they need to think more about the unintended consequences of the policies they propose and they need to realize that others will get to use the same powers they create in the law.

Thoughts?


P.S. Don't forget, it's Star Trek Tuesday at the film site.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Where’s Howard Beale When We Need Him?

ABC, CBS, and NBC all recently had breathless stories about Mitt Romney performing an unwanted haircut on a boy forty-seven years ago. There were “news” stories galore on the nets and their affiliates, and a few editorial comments besides. But when forty-three Catholic dioceses filed lawsuits against Obamacare on May 21, the silence was deafening.

After months of pleas, negotiations, meetings and conferences, the Catholic Church got absolutely no cooperation from the Obama administration on religious exemptions from Obamacare for religious institutions which oppose abortion and birth control. Unless an Obamacrat is passing out condoms during mass or performing an abortion on the altar, the administration’s position is that the government’s activity cannot be thwarted by the First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom.

Religious hospitals, church-sponsored insurance companies (there are more than you might think), homeless and women’s shelters (even on church grounds) and church schools are not religious activities which should be allowed exemptions from the Obamacare mandates, according to the administration. The official position of the Catholic Church is, and has long been, that artificial birth control violates church doctrine. Along with that, traditional Catholics and a great many Protestants oppose abortion in any form, including abortifacients.

Nevertheless, the administration says that only sermons and activities within the church worship facilities are proper subjects for exemption. No matter how intimately the church-sponsored activity is tied to its religious base, if it takes place outside the sanctuary, it is not a religious activity. This leaves the church hospital, for instance with two options—either cure all disease through Vatican-sanctioned exorcism, or participate in the government’s insurance program. The third option is to seek redress in court, which is the actual subject of this article.

Regardless of which side a news reporter might come down on, it is still extremely big news when forty-three Catholic dioceses file suit in federal courts on the same day. But when big news conflicts with the networks’ officially unofficial love affair with Barack Obama, out come the blinders. On the night that the lawsuits were filed, ABC and NBC made zero comment about them during their national news segments. CBS gave the subject nineteen seconds. And in that brief nineteen seconds, CBS framed the issue as a “contraception lawsuit” with no mention of either religious conscience objections or the First Amendment right of the free exercise of religion.

It should also be noted that leading clerics in the Catholic Church, along with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and some evangelical leaders have declared that they will go to jail rather than comply with the birth control/abortifacient mandates of Obamacare. These lawsuits reflect a much deeper commitment to religious belief than the birth-control and abortion zealots in the Obama administration were expecting. These are not nuisance suits that can be dealt with by a quick payoff or a federal jobs program. The nets would like to report that they are nuisance suits, but then they would be required to discuss the actual issue, which might get their viewers thinking. Better to ignore it.

So what was more interesting than the church lawsuits that would require spiking the religious news in favor of something “more important?” ABC gave three and a half minutes to the sentencing of the Rutgers student who posted photos of his unsuspecting roommate having gay sex, which resulted in a suicide. CBS and NBC both ran lengthy stories about prostate cancer screening, including the reasons why Medicare shouldn’t routinely cover the screening. NBC did a big feature piece on the “ring of fire” solar eclipse.

Fortunately, the big three networks are fading as fast as their counterparts in the print media. Dan Rather’s “fake but true” story about George W. Bush was probably the swan song for network news anchors. People who were once considered nearly sacrosanct are now regularly taken with a grain of salt by a doubting public that has access to cable news and the internet. People watching the national network portion of the news are outnumbered by those who wait for the late affiliate news to see what’s going on locally.

I wish the Catholic Church every success in court, and I pray for a really hot place in hell for the Obama News Corps (that’s pronounced “core” even though network news is pretty close to being a corpse).

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Pelosi Praises Phony Witness

The House Committee which was investigating the Obamacare mandate in relation to religious freedom completed its taking of testimony last week. Nine experts in two sessions (including two invisible women) stated their case. But one flaky witness was excluded. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a special session to listen to what this visible woman had to say.

The Congressional hearings on mandating religious organization participation in birth control and abortifacient insurance wasn't intended to be a discussion of medical procedures. Therefore, the majority voted to exclude testimony about experiences with birth control in order to concentrate on the religious issue. That meant that Pelosi's primary sob-story witness didn't get to pluck the harp strings and derail the actual purpose of the hearings. But San Fran Nan isn't anything if not annoyingly persistent. So Pelosi put on the dog and pony show at the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee instead.

Pelosi trotted out Georgetown Law School student Sandra Fluke. She hasn't apparently taken the evidence course yet, because Fluke's first sob story was: "Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn't fit it into their budget anymore." Objection, hearsay! But it's not only hearsay, it's utter nonsense. Then this future Democratic operative testified that "poor women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice as her anonymous fellow student."

She and her fellow student can afford Georgetown Law School, and probably a pretty good bottle of wine to go with dinner. But even if they couldn't, how much truth is there to her boo-hoo testimony? Next to none. There are three federally funded Planned Parenthood clinics near the Georgetown campus, none farther than 3.2 miles from the law school. Checking with Planned Parenthood's website, you find that condoms cost about $1.00 each, and if you can't afford that, you can get them for free.

Says Fluke: "Some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that's just not true." Well, the ones who respond that way are those armed with facts instead of sob-stories. In fact, it is true. Planned Parenthood is just one of multiple organizations which run free clinics, particularly in urban centers. Whether federally-funded, funded by private charity, or a combination of both, birth control is readily and cheaply available to the poor as well as to affluent law students who can't get their priorities straight.

Not only did Fluke's testimony entirely sidestep the religious issue, but it was lacking in facts, logic and supporting evidence. But it was a really good story. I've gone through an entire box of Kleenex over it.

I'll be out of town on business for most of the day. But I'd love to see what you think about this reprehensible attempt to replace good government with low drama and the First Amendment with secular mandates. I promise I'll respond to your comments as soon as I get home.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Nancy Goes Blind Over Religious Rights

It's Sunday, so I'll be mercifully brief today. On Thursday, the House Committee hearing on religious liberty involved two panels of religious experts, each panel comprised of people discussing why the Obamacare mandate for religious institutions to provide free birth control and abortifacients should be tossed out. Following the lead of committee member Carolyn Maloney (D-New York), San Fran Nan looked at the panels and asked "where are the women?"

At least she didn't sing "where have all the women gone, long time passing." But there is a small problem with the question. It seems Pelosi and Maloney share the same optometrist. Somehow they couldn't see that Dr. Allison Dabbs Garrett of Oklahoma Christian University and Laura Champion MD from Calvin College Health Services were both on the panels and both testified. Yessir, they are both bona fide women--ladies, even.

It's not too difficult to figure out that the Democrats want to make this issue about "women's rights," while the actual subject is religious freedom protected by the First Amendment. And by their measure, it would be mighty convenient to attack the panel as unfriendly to women by the lack of women testifying. Men are by biological imperative unable to understand or properly discuss women's rights.

Whined Pelosi: "Where are the women women on that panel? Imagine, they are having a panel on women's health and they don't have any women on the panel." That proves that Pelosi is at least partially-blind both literally and metaphorically. She couldn't see the two women panelists, and she couldn't see that the entire committee hearing was about religious freedom, not women's rights.

Never daunted, the botox queen went on to ask the queston: "What is it that men don't understand about women's health, that how central the issue of family planning is to that? Not just if you're having families (well if you're not, you don't need to plan), but if you need those kinds of prescription drugs for your general health, which was the testimony they would have heard this morning if they had allowed a woman on the panel (emphasis added)." Maybe she's deaf, too.

And if you didn't get the message yet, she said: "I think it's really curiouser and curioser that as we get further into this debate the Republican leadership of this Congress thinks it's appropriate to have a hearing on a subject of women's health and purposefully exclude women from the panel." Perhaps she actually did see the women, but has the leftist view that conservative religious women are not really female. Just like black conservatives are not authentically black. So they don't count.

All of the panelists, including the women, were asked if they would risk going to jail for refusing to follow the Obama mandate. Each answered in turn, "I would." But they aren't willing to go to jail over an issue of women's rights. They are willing to go to jail to defend their religious beliefs from government interference. They have a lot of history to go with their bravery, from the Christian martyrs of Rome to the American Founders who considered religious freedom so important that they wrote it into the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Of course it could just be that Pelosi is simply like the theater critic who leaves the show during the intermission and writes a review centering on the finale.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Look Into My Eyes And Believe

This past week, Attorney General Eric Holder appeared again before the House Oversight Committee. During that hearing, he attempted to hypnotize the Republican majority members into ignoring the 500 pound gorilla in the room (Operation Fast and Furious) and instead to concentrate on Holder’s many accomplishments in office.

This was a new tactic for Holder, since mounting evidence seemed to disprove his claim that he knew nothing about the operation. Apparently, Republicans are not highly-susceptible to the new Mesmer’s intense gaze. Rep. Ann Buerdle (R-New York) chose instead to produce a video of the earlier testimony of the family of murdered Border Agent Brian Terry. Terry was shot down by Mexican cartel members using weapons purchased during the Fast and Furious fiasco.

Buerdle simply couldn’t be charmed by Holder’s hypnotic eyes and sleep-inducing voice. After showing the video, she asked Holder: “How many more Border Patrol agents would have to die as a part of Operation Fast and Furious for you to take responsibility?”

Holder was unable to dodge the question entirely, but continued his previous pattern of refusing to use Brian Terry’s name, preferring to refer to him as “the Border Agent” or “that Agent” so he didn’t have to admit that a real human being had been brutally murdered as a result of Holder’s negligence and incompetence.

Having failed to hypnotize the Republicans, he did seem to have hypnotized himself. Never mind “that agent.” The real victim of Fast and Furious is Holder himself, with Republicans unfairly piling on. The Democrats pleaded with him not to answer Buerdle’s questions. He even ignored the sage wisdom of the Al Gore defense: “I didn’t do it, and I’ll never do it again.” Holder simply launched into a tear-jerking “poor me” performance.

Says Holder: “You know I should be held accountable for certainly my role in whatever I did or didn’t do in connection with the supervision of Fast and Furious. But, yeah, I’m Attorney General of the United States, and I should also be held accountable and perhaps even given some credit—imagine that—given some credit for the things this Justice Department has done under my leadership whether it deals with national security, revitalizing antitrust, revitalizing civil rights enforcement efforts, so one has to balance all of these things.”

OK, Mr. Attorney General, let’s look at a few of your accomplishments. In the voting rights arena, you dismissed already-proven charges against Black Panthers who intimidated white voters at the polls in Philadelphia. But on the other hand, you have used your power under the Voting Rights Act to quash redistricting in North Carolina and Texas because it might favor Republicans. In at least one of those cases, under an Act of Congress designed solely to eliminate racial discrimination, the vast majority of the voters are black in the district in question. You chose to prevent the redistricting because the locals wanted to make partisan Democratic offices into nonpartisan offices.

As for religious freedom, you have thrown your full support behind the HHS Secretary’s requirement that Catholic institutions provide free birth control and abortifacient drugs despite the strong objection of the Catholic Church. And that is merely one facet of your perpetual defenses of the unconstitutional mandates of Obamacare. In your pursuit of legalization of unconstitutional power-grabs by the Obama executive branch and its monomaniacal czars, you have written Article One and the Tenth Amendment out of the Constitution entirely.

There are even indications, unproven so far, that Fast and Furious was expanded on your watch to accomplish the goal in which it did ultimately succeed. You forgot the likely and foreseeable but unintended consequences. The indication is that you approved the operation for the purpose of getting weapons into the hands of criminals so you could then pass massive gun-control legislation to stop the sales of weapons that you and your boss don’t want in the hands of mere American citizens. Even I don’t believe that you intended for “that agent” to be murdered, but that was the result nevertheless.

Here is more of Holder’s “poor me” recitation: “I’m not claiming to be a perfect person or a perfect attorney general. I get up every day and try to do the best job that I can. I have faith in the people that work in the department, and you know that kind of question [referring to Buerkle’s grilling], I think is frankly, and again respectfully, I think that’s beneath a member of Congress.”

And so you see, dear reader, that the real villain here is Buerkle (and her Republican colleagues). After all, the AG was just doing his job and was only following orders. Seems we’ve heard that somewhere before. I should also add that Eric Holder is the last person on earth who should be deciding what is “beneath” a member of Congress. His standards are not those of a decent and fair-minded official of the law, but rather the street thuggishness of a Chicago South Side politician who will attempt to achieve his agenda by any means necessary.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Occupy Oakland Fails To Occupy

While some of the other Occupy movements seem to be losing steam, the same cannot be said of the Occupy Oakland stalwarts. If anything, the numbers and strength of the Occupiers are growing. Taking time out from the usual random acts of violence which are daily events in the town that is San Francisco's poor relation, the crypto-anarchists have found common cause.

Contrary to the mainstream media's portrayal of the Occupy movement as "spontaneous," these demonstrations are carefully planned and widely publicized. In fact, as shown in the accompanying illustration, they've now become so orchestrated that the planners send out formal invitations. Behind the nebulous term "occupy" in Oakland is the serious intention to forcibly take over and occupy public and private property. Yesterday (Saturday), the movement moved. After a big rally near city hall, the Occupiers moved on to their intended target of occupation--the unused Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center near Lake Merritt in the heart of the city.

Making sure not to get shot by mistake by gang-bangers, a large number of the marchers covered their faces with black bandannas rather than the more dangerous red or blue. The crowd was estimated to exceed 1000, ranging from the homeless with nothing better to do to young mothers wheeling baby strollers who should know better. Rioting in Oakland is about as rare as cockroaches in San Francisco or rats in New York City. But this is something unseen in Oakland since the antiwar demonstrations of the 60s. Know-nothings gathering together to support a cause they don't know anything about.

The police had been tipped off that the demonstrators intended to take over a building somewhere near Lake Merritt, but the organizers had kept the actual location secret until the last minute. But it still raises the question about why the demonstrators have become so bold in this particular town. And that's easy. Mayor Jean Quan has praised the goals of the Occupy movement since the beginning, and any serious public criticism she has offered has always involved the "overreactions" of the police, never the criminal actions of the Occupiers.

Some of the demonstrators seemed mystified that the police actually prevented them from occupying the Kaiser Center. They had every reason to believe the police would threaten, the Mayor would cluck-cluck, and the Occupiers would be in like Flynn. By afternoon, the ever-honest San Francisco Chronicle had headlined stories of innocent Occupy bystanders being manhandled by fascist police. The DailyKos used the lede: "Updated: With Police Attack Video-Occupy Oakland." The blog also said: "Smoke bombs, tear gas, flash bangs, rubber bullets, and bean bag rounds were used on protesters that never got within 50-100 feet of police lines." Q.E.D.

What young Kos is not telling you is that those things happened only after police had earlier been physically attacked, including tossed chunks of concrete. The police very sensibly withdrew to a reasonable distance and re-formed, "50-100 feet" from the crowd before launching crowd control measures. They had first frequently announced over bullhorns that this was an unlawful assembly, and gave the crowd plenty of time to disperse peacefully. The demonstrators chose not to leave, and began to advance on the police lines.

One of the organizers and fomentors of this unlawful assembly egged the crowd on. She is Roxanne Dunbar Ortiz, a former professor at California State University, East Bay. Her words were designed to encourage a riot, promote an occupation of private property, and dispel any mistaken public perception that these marchers are peaceful. "Passionate, organized hatred is the element missing in all that we do to try to change the world. Now is the time to spread hate, hatred for the rich." Not exactly the "love children" of the 60s, huh?

The police were successful in preventing the occupation, but they failed to disperse many of the demonstrators who continue to hang around, waiting for the opportunity to slip past the police lines and occupy the intended target or another alternate building. I'm quite sure the police would have loved to push the demonstrators entirely out of the area and arrest anyone who refused to leave. But then they would have to face the Mayor's wrath for using "excessive force" to remove "peaceful demonstrators."

Sunday Update: After this post was written, a large cadre of demonstrators, frustrated by their lack of success in occupying the Kaiser Center, broke off from the main group and headed to City Hall. The government center was vandalized, rocks, bottles and flares were thrown at the police, and three policemen were injured. Naturally, the San Francisco Chronicle barely mentioned the destruction and vandalism, and headlined: "Oakland police use tear gas, flash grenades and rubber bullets to break up demonstration."
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Score One For The Christians

I figured that Sunday was a good day to celebrate one small but significant victory for Christianity (and all religions) in the ongoing government war against faith. And maybe the victory wasn't so small. In a 9-0 decision, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of religious institutions to determine whether a minister's services should be terminated without being trumped by employment discrimination law.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had used the Americans with Disabilities Act to require Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church to re-hire a former church school teacher. When originally filed with the lower court (during the Bush administration), the court held that it had no jurisdiction over such religious matters, and dismissed the case. The EEOC appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The lower court decision was reversed, and the EEOC demanded the employee be re-hired. The church appealed to the Supreme Court. The Holder Department of Justice enthusiastically pursued the interests of the EEOC.

I'll keep the facts as simple as possible. The employee, Cheryl Perich, was hired as a "called" church school teacher. Most Christian denominations have the same or a similar designation for teachers who have completed training in church doctrine and have agreed to teach according to those principles. They are distinguished from "lay" teachers who are free to teach their subjects but are not required to insert church doctrine into the class curriculum. A very long line of court cases below the Supreme Court level, in nearly every federal appellate district, has included "called" teachers under the "ministerial exception" exempting religious trainers from general employment law.

Perich had developed a debilitating case of narcolepsy. Her doctors advised the school that she would be ready to come back to work after therapy and medications some time in late 2005. The school advised Perich that she should go on disability leave for the 2004-2005 school year, they would pay her medical insurance premiums, and when she was well enough to return for the 2005-2006 school year, she would have her job back.

But Perich decided on her own that she was well enough to return for the 2004-2005 term, and showed up for work. The school refused to replace the lay teacher who had taken over her duties on the grounds that Perich had not been properly medically released and that she could not at that time perform her proper "called" (religious) teacher's duties.

Perich then filed a complaint with the EEOC, after threatening the school with a lawsuit. The school responded by terminating her "ministry" because the church determined that her threats and the EEOC complaint were inconsistent with church doctrine and policy. They further noted that if she had been a lay teacher, they might still have refused to allow her to return for the 2004-2005 school year, but would not necessarily have felt it their religious duty to terminate her services for the following school year.

Many fair-minded people might think that the EEOC and Perich should have won. After all, that's what the ADA was designed to protect against, and the termination does seem a bit unfair and perhaps even retaliatory. But that's not the issue, and the Supreme Court got it exactly right. The question that had to be answered was "does the Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion override statutory labor and discrimination law?" The high court answered "yes." And it did so unanimously.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty took the case originally, recognizing that this was one small employment issue at one small Michigan church which contained huge implications for religious freedom nationwide. It was a David vs. Goliath battle between one congregation and the secular federal bureaucracy. And David won. The principle established is that if a religious institution makes a decision based on a religious belief that it has the right to control its own ministry, then civil anti-discrimination law cannot interfere unless there is an even stronger fundamental constitutional right which clearly conflicts with the First Amendment. The Supreme Court found no such conflicting right.

Had Perich been a janitor or a lay teacher, the result would likely have gone the other way. But God love the Supremes. They found that even if the termination violated secular statutes, the religious element outweighed the civil interest. And so said they all.

Douglas Laycock, a law professor, argued the case for the church and the Becket Fund. He summed up the Supreme Court decision this way: "This is a huge win for religious liberty. The Court has unanimously confirmed the right of churches to select their own ministers and religious leaders." This is a landmark decision that the average layman may not be aware of in the future, and its announcement was made right in the middle of the returns from the New Hampshire primary, thereby producing zero mainstream media coverage.

This may all sound a little obscure, with no implications for future litigation. But is it really? The Supreme Court may very well have fired a shot across the secularist bow with this decision which will be reflected later in a much more public and contentious issue working its way to the high court. If the Supreme Court were to decide that gay marriage is a valid exercise in government power and that state or federal government cannot forbid it, this present decision would go a long way toward allaying the fears of those who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds (myself included).

Despite promises to the contrary, the states supporting gay marriage will be very likely to attempt to impose anti-discrimination statutes on religious organizations which preach against gay marriage and/or refuse to perform them. Even if they don't, the ACLU will surely find some gay couple that wishes to challenge the churches on gay marriage using existing anti-discrimination law. This case holds that religious institutions have a near-absolute right to determine their own doctrine and how it is to be implemented.

So when Pastor John preaches that homosexuality is a sin, Father James condemns sexual relationships outside traditional one man-one woman marriage, and Rabbi Joe refuses to perform a gay marriage, they cannot be persecuted a la Canada. No labor or anti-discrimination statute can force a conservative religious institution to ignore its own doctrines or force it to hire clerics who oppose the church's religious beliefs. They are now also free to fire any holder of the pulpit who has some sort of secular epiphany and decides he or she is in favor of gay marriage after all.

That's how the legal mind works. And it's how a small employment case in Michigan could conceivably affect a hotly-contested national issue despite the case's seeming dissimilarities with that national issue. This case will undoubtedly be cited as precedent the very first time some state or federal authority attempts to punish a church or synagogue for violating anti-discrimination law by refusing to perform or condone gay marriage. And any lawyer worth his salt will point out that the Supreme Court decision was unanimous, including the concurring opinions of four very liberal Justices.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Barack Obama And The Free Speech Folks

Pictured are three "Friends of Obama" enforcers of free speech on loan from the United Nations. Following the UN Durbin conference on destroying racist Zionism and keeping women barefoot and pregnant, President Barack Hussein Obama invited the Organization of Islamic Cooperation ("OIC") to the White House to discuss implementation of the UN's resolution condemning religious intolerance.

It was vitally important that he do so. With growing Islamophobia in America, including the cold-blooded murder of thousands of Muslims for their religious beliefs in Rhode Island and the mass deportation of Muslims from Iowa, it has become a priority item with the Obama administration. Obama is barely holding the fort against the forces of evil in America. He has pleaded with Americans to reject voter ID since it discriminates against blacks, the poor, the lame, the meek, the mentally-defective, the young, and, oh yes, Muslims.

So what could be wrong with the administration's invite to the OIC? To start with, the organization hardly represents the pinnacle of free speech and religious tolerance. It is certainly not the only world religious organization. Its fifty-seven members don't represent even a majority of the United Nations membership. He invited the group to his palace because there are so many hurt feelings in the Muslim world over intolerance toward Islam. No other religion has ever even been spoken ill of, while Islam suffers daily from the brickbats of bigots and those who question the religion of peace.

The second reason for inviting the OIC is that Islamic rights at the UN are slipping away. For years they have been able to get resolutions passed against defamation of Islam, then defamation of religions, and then vilification of religions. As you can see, a conspiracy of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists has slowly but surely been chipping away at Islam's status as sole sufferer.

The OIC couldn't even get "defamation of religions" passed as it was blocked by those religious oppressors at the Sixteenth Session of the UN Human Rights Commission back in March. They fared no better at the current Durban Conference. That might seem like a victory for the other side, but it ain't over 'til it's over. The OIC has informed Obama that they intend to reintroduce a specific resolution against defamation of religions as soon as feasible.

For now, they've settled for a less specific freedom of speech resolution, though as recently as August the Islamic News Agency (an arm of the OIC) said that the meeting at the White House would be about implementing the religious aspects of Resolution 16-18. That resolution purports to criminalize incitement of "imminent violence based on religions or belief." That sounds very similar to our very own "clear and present danger" test. But then the wording gets muddier in 16-20, sounding more like the plethora of European-style "hate statutes" that are also being enacted in the U.S. "We hereby condemn any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence."

"Any advocacy." That wouldn't survive a Constitutional test in the United States. The expression is "vague and overbroad." What is advocacy? With the wording of this part of the resolution, criticism is easily elevated to the level of incitement. "I don't like the violent portions of the Koran" becomes "I don't like Muslims," becomes "Let's go out and kill Muslims." Even advocacy of violence is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. It is a long-established precedent that even advocating the overthrow of the government by force and violence is protected speech unless the threat is real and has a reasonable chance of being carried out immediately. This is why we can't censor communist drivel.

16-20 was just too much even for the American negotiators. The government, led by Obama and Hillary Clinton signed onto the resolution, but added a reservation to any attempt to enforce the provision relating to "advocacy." In a written statement that sounds a lot like "but we're only fooling," the US government clarified its position for the White House gathering: "The US will work with the UN and OIC in urging states (nations) to take effective measures as set forth in Resolution 16, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents." In other words, every nation should quash any advocacy or harsh language as it relates to religion (read: Islam).

What the OIC and the UN are doing with the assistance of The One is to bring in through the back door what it couldn't bring through the front. In fact, Hillary Clinton's State Department says the administration's cooperation is based on the need to denounce and criminalize offensive speech. That's even broader than "defamation of religions." Her department also says it is dedicated to upholding the God-given right to free expression. I don't know what logic classes they have at Yale, but I don't see any way those two concepts can be reconciled.

Of all the religious and/or political organizations he could have chosen to invite to the White House, Obama invited the representatives of nations which call any criticism of Islam blasphemy, punishable by sanctions up to death by beheading. Nations which almost casually murder Christians and Jews while burning down churches and synagogues. Nations which consider apostasy a capital offense. Nations whose populations have massive rallies declaring "free speech is the enemy of Islam." Nations whose people declare "all infidels who defame Islam must die."

Somehow I don't think that group is going to come up with any good contributions to freedom of speech, religion, or expression. But since that's an American First Amendment issue, and since Obama has never read the Constitution, it's understandable why he would invite the OIC. As for Resolution 16, all that has been done is scramble and soften the words of prior resolutions without making any substantive changes. Same crap, different package.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

God Allowed Back At Military Funerals

After facing multiple lawsuits, the Obama Department of Veterans Affairs has entered into a consent decree whereby it must abandon its ban on prayers and references to God at funerals conducted at national cemeteries. God and His servants are now allowed back at military funerals.

The atheists and secularists in the Obama administration had drafted an entire funeral manual which specifically took all religious expression out of military funerals, even from a non-military pastor or the fallen warrior's family. Though there had been some confrontations at several national cemeteries nationwide, the real battle to bring back tradition as old as the United States itself took place not a a funeral but at a privately-hosted Memorial Day ceremony on military property. Houston National Cemetery Director Arleen Ocasio told Pastor Scott Rainey that all references to God or Jesus must be stricken from his invocation. Without those, exactly whom or what did Ocasio think Rainey was invoking?

For Rainey, this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Ocasio had redesignated the cemetery chapel as a "meeting facility" which she closed to anything but official [secular] business. Since the chapel had first been built, the chapel bells had rung out twice every day, and more often for special occasions. After silencing the bells, Ocasio also removed the Bibles and cross from the chapel. The seating space for congregants, celebrants and mourners was cut drastically as Ocasio filled the back pews with old storage boxes.

Military-related organizations such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion were told that if they provided honor guards at funerals, they must not include prayer or religious speech in the burial rites. The only possible exception was if the family itself submitted the proposed prayer to Ocasio, in advance, for her approval or disapproval. Sounds a lot like freedom of religion in China.

A solemn tradition among those having VFW ceremonies was the gathering of the brass casings from the military salute, placing them in a pouch, and handing the pouch to a family member with the words "I present you with these shell cases from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy and peace." Way too much for Ocasio. Banned! As were the place cards from the National Memorial Ladies which read "God bless you." How dare they?

Ocasio and her fellow-travelers claimed that their purpose was not to ban religion but rather to guarantee that the funeral services would be "inclusive." How lame is that? The only people who would be "excluded" would be those who didn't know the fallen warrior or those who had no respect for the deceased's beliefs and family. But even at that, there would be no formal exclusion. It would be self-exclusion. In reality, Jewish people often attend Christian funerals and vice-versa. Catholics attend Protestant funerals, Protestants attend Catholic funerals, and atheists of the non-militant kind attend them all. Somehow, nobody feels "excluded" by the mention of God or Jesus.

So several supporters of religion and ancient tradition filed suit against Ocasio and the Department of Veteran Affairs for interference with freedom of religion and freedom of expression. They also had the support of Texas Republican House Member John Culberson. Earlier, he had attended a veteran's funeral anonymously and quietly, and personally witnessed Ocasio hectoring VFW volunteers, demanding that they comply with her secularist orders or leave. The court granted Pastor Rainey a temporary restraining order, but prior to the court granting a permanent injunction against Ocasio's interference with religious ceremonies, the Department entered into the consent decree.

The Obama administration reluctantly gave up its attack on Christianity (and to a certain extent, Judaism). The chapel has been reopened, the cross has been returned to its rightful place, the bells ring again, and the trash in the back pews has been removed. Memos have gone out to other military districts to cool the censorship. Ocasio is still on the job, but is keeping a low profile. Aside from having her metaphorical teeth handed to her, the arrogant woman has something else to worry about. Rep. Culberson is working behind the scenes to see if he can find a way to reduce her salary to zero.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Papist Oppressors Strike Again

I'm just curious. What part of Catholic University did they not understand? Basking in the glory of his earlier complaint against Catholic University of America for sexual discrimination after the school banned co-ed dormitories, vexatious litigator John Banzhaf filed a complaint with the Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights on behalf of Muslim students offended by crucifixes and statues of Jesus and Mary.

For those of you not conversant in Latin, the school's emblem (shown) reads: "Keep those Muslims down," or something like that. Banzhaf is a lawyer and a law instructor at neighboring George Washington University Law School. It's unclear what his beef is with Catholic University, but he seems to prefer it as a target of his wrath. It is also unclear whether or not he represents any actual Muslims attending Catholic University. In a real lawsuit, he could not file on his own behalf, but the bureaucratic meanderings of "human rights" commissions are not saddled with any such restrictions. As a human being, he automatically has standing to file a complaint.

Banzhaf claims that the Muslim students are offended because they have to meditate in the school's chapel, and at the cathedral that shines over the entire campus. That cathedral is the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. "It shouldn't be too difficult somewhere on the campus for the university to set aside a small room where Muslims can pray without having to stare up and be looked down upon by a cross of Jesus," says Banzhaf. Gee, it also shouldn't be difficult for Muslims to find other universities which don't have "Catholic" in their name.

I sent my younger daughter to California Lutheran University, largely because it had a good curriculum, was semi-affordable and local, and, well, Lutheran. Had she chosen Catholic University, I would have expected her not to be offended by Catholic iconography. Even less would I have expected her to nail 95 Theses on the door of the cathedral. We already did that, we made our point, and besides, it would be just plain rude. I would also think it rude of her to demand that a special place be set aside on campus for her and her fellow religionists to contemplate Luther's sermon on grace or recite Luther's small catechism sans crucifixes.

But somehow Banzhaf thinks that Catholic University should strip the walls of Catholic iconography, cover up the crosses which adorn the larger buildings, and set up special rooms with footbaths and alcoves to worship Allah. At least he didn't object to the crescent moon embedded in the university's coat of arms. Never mind that there are three Muslim centers within two miles of the university. Banzhaf wants Catholic University to be more like Harvard, where secularism reins supreme. Of course he knows that Harvard was founded originally to train Anglican pastors and missionaries. And he also knows that if you work hard enough at it, you can alter the very foundations of a university.

It is important to note that Catholic University is a private school. How a private school can be regulated by state school standards is anyone's guess. The only argument that holds any water at all is that the school, like almost every other major private university in the nation, seeks and accepts funding from multiple sources including the federal government. So what? It doesn't impose religious demands on people who could choose hundreds of other schools to attend. Planned Parenthood finessed that issue fairly successfully by claiming any federal funds received are used for purposes other than abortion. Catholic University has the same argument available to it: Federal funds are used only for secular instruction, and the religious portions are funded by private and Church resources.

The federal funds argument doesn't work very well for Banzhaf. He doesn't want religion removed from the school, he simply wants a Catholic university to impose special privileges and spaces for a different religion. He appears to want to use secular reasoning and secular institutions to advance religion. Or so it seems. In actuality, he simply wants to harm a school dedicated to the Christian faith by using Muslims as his stalking-horses. The ultimate goal is to get God out of the universities entirely, or alternatively to impose Islam as a co-equal religion in private religious institutions.

Catholic University has so far avoided the full-blown secularization of some other Catholic universities such as Notre Dame, or Protestant schools such as Wesleyan. The school accepts qualified students with little consideration of their religion (it does give preference for those planning to enter the Catholic priesthood). More importantly, it does not refuse admission to anyone based on religion. The school clearly has a religious flavor throughout the campus, but it's hard to see how Muslims should be any more offended by the atmosphere than I would be during a visit to the Vatican.

At least one Muslim student at the university doesn't think that Banzhaf speaks for him. Wiaam Al Salmi praises the school for its diversity and tolerance, saying: "The community here is very respectful of other religions and I feel free to openly practice mine. Even though it's a Catholic school, a lot of its teachings are very similar to Islam. It teaches respect, community service, love worship, etc. which are things that Islam also teaches." I'm guessing that Banzhaf (and more than a few ayatollahs and imams) would say that Al Salmi is living proof that Catholicism is already working its nefarious plot on him.

I'm guessing that most of you reading this article are asking yourselves "is this complaint ridiculous or what?" I'm also willing to bet you came to that conclusion in about thirty seconds without a lot of agonizing over subtleties. But you and I are not dealing with the D.C. Office of Human Rights. Rather than simply rejecting the complaint on its face as it should have, the office has taken the complaint seriously and says it needs at least sixty days to think the whole thing over. I am praying (yes, praying) that for once a school will stand its ground and take this issue all the way to the Supreme Court if the idiots at the Human Rights office make a finding in favor of Banzhaf and his Judas goats.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

"Free Speech" Stops San Francisco Trains

I often wonder what San Francisco would be like if it didn't have its large community of wingnuts wildly indignant about nearly everything. For one thing, rush hour commutes would be a lot faster and a great deal safer. Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), which daily transports thousands of working people to and from their employment in The City, has been crippled at rush hour twice in the past week.

First, the background. A few weeks back, BART police shot and killed a knife-wielding man in one of the BART underground stations. That would have been good for a one column news report. But the knife-wielder was black. That immediately resulted in the "no justice, no peace" crowd demanding the heads of the BART officers involved in the shooting. Street demonstrations began to build amidst the usual cries of police brutality and racism. But when BART officials heard that the phenomenon of "flash mobs" was about to close the downtown stations, they turned off the grid that allowed cell communications in the BART underground stations.

The word to the potential mobs had partially gotten out before the cell communications shutdown, but the number of potential demonstrators was cut considerably, resulting in a fizzled first demonstration. BART had successfully thwarted a major demonstration which in its smaller manifestation had already started to turn violent. This initial "no justice, no peace" demonstration concentrated on the shooting incident, comparing it (entirely untruthfully) to the shooting of an unarmed and subdued young criminal on the Oakland side of the Bay over a year ago.

Recognizing that even San Franciscans, for all their pathological liberal guilt were not buying this "innocent victim" agenda to support rioting, the troublemakers and their allies decided to take a new tack. Where the first demonstration was designed to stir up racial resentment and anti-law enforcement hatred, the second and much larger demonstration on Monday revolved around BART's supposed suppression of free speech when it shut down the cell phone service. Interestingly, on the day of the second, bigger mob activity, BART did not shut down the underground cell grid. This was a result of all the hysterical negative publicity it received over the prior shutdown fomented by leftist organizations and the ubiquitous ACLU. Needless to say, the demonstrators drew a moral equivalence between BART's action and the complete communications shutdown used by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to squelch criticism of and demonstrations against his government.

The left must keep hatred alive, so when the "innocent victim" trope petered out, they had to find another cause to disrupt normal activity and set citizen against citizen. Knowing that most San Franciscans and all liberals are incapable of distinguishing between free speech and free rioting, they organized their functionally-illiterate gangs to trot out the First Amendment.

Did BART shut down cell communications which said "we must stop police brutality?" No. Did it shut down communications which said "we must convince our public officials that black victims are being killed because of their race?" No. Did it shut down communications which said "organize now to get your elected officials to change the murderous policies of the BART police?" No. They shut down communications when they said: "No justice, no peace. We are going to shut down the BART trains at rush hour, and stop the police and the white power structure from ignoring racism and violence against black folks. Join us in bringing the system to a crashing halt at the following BART stations this afternoon. Be prepared to push a few people around."

That is not a call for free speech or peaceable assembly. It's a call to disrupt civil law and order, prevent non-participants from going about their daily lives, shutting down a major public operation, with a strong hint of potential violence and harm to innocent bystanders. BART did exactly what it needed to do to keep the call to civil disturbance from going any farther. It turned off the grid.

Of course by the time of the Monday demonstrations, there was no need for the agitators to use the underground cell grid. They had a week to organize above-ground to get their mobs into the BART underground stations. And they succeeded rather well. Thousands of hard-working commuters who just wanted to get home to their families were prevented from doing so by walls of angry "free speech advocates." Holding up a sign promoting free speech is, indeed, free speech. Holding up that same sign while aggressively standing shoulder-to-shoulder with a mob while blocking train platforms is not free speech.

The whole mob was quite well-organized by this time. They first gathered at the Civic Center station, and effectively shut its operation down. Sensing the growing potential violence, the police (BART and SFPD) removed the demonstrators who then gathered outside. That meant one important hub was already unable to load and unload passengers. Once the station was effectively shut down, the growing mob then marched down east on Market Street, leaving skeleton demonstrations at Civic Center so it wouldn't re-open. By the time they were done, they had stopped all trains from picking up passengers at the four busiest downtown stations.

Shouting "no justice, no peace" and flashing the black power salute, the mob intimidated those who would have attempted to cross their lines and enter the stations. That inevitably led to the police blocking the entrances to the stations in order to prevent violence down in the four underground stations. But don't forget, the Monday demonstration was only tangentially about the alleged unjustified shooting. By now, it was about free speech. If you believe that, I have this really big orange bridge located in the same city that I'm wiling to sell you, cheap.

For the safety of the public, demonstrations are forbidden by law on platforms and trains in the underground portions of the BART system (which is a level below the MUNI underground city trains). If they follow simple rules for public demonstrations, these demonstrators are allowed absolute free speech rights on the surface, including each and every BART station.

The spokesman for the ACLU came up with this spurious logic: "Governments don't have to build parks, but once they do, they can't lock out speech they disagree with." Yeah, but if the demonstrators block access to the park, or prevent people from the use and enjoyment of the park, they can be removed. It's about the activity, not the speech. And there is still the issue of obtaining a pro forma demonstration permit. Individuals can do their thing as they choose, but groups must obtain the permit for the sake of the public. The permit cannot regulate the speech or its content, but it can determine the reasonableness of the time, place and manner of the demonstration. That is a rule which has consistently been upheld by the US Supreme Court.

In the case of "spontaneous demonstrations" in the underground stations, there has been a longstanding prohibition based on public safety. The cell phone cutoff did not interfere with the demonstrators' free speech rights, it merely inconvenienced them by requiring that they go outside to organize their permitless protests. The government has the right to limit free speech when the accompanying activity could reasonably be considered dangerous to the public ("compelling state interest" test).

BART's fear was not unfounded. A few years back, demonstrators in the underground clashed with counter-demonstrators, and a bystander was shoved onto the tracks of an oncoming train. No serious injury occurred, but it was narrowly avoided by quick BART personnel action. Flash mobs, regardless of their purpose, are not exempt from rules protecting the health and safety of other citizens. If you want to use your cell phone and social networking, don't expect to be able to use them to flout the law and create an inherently dangerous situation.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Video Game Violence: What About The Parents?!

Being a huge proponent of freedom of speech AND a believer that videogames, television, advertising and films can negatively distort people’s perceptions of reality, you would think I would be torn about yesterday’s 7-2 decision by the Supreme Court striking down a law that prevents minors from buying violent videogames. But I’m not. The court got it wrong, pure and simple.

The issue before the Supreme Court was a California law that makes it illegal for retailers to sell violent videogames to minors. The law defines “violent” as games that depict the “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.” It carried fines up to a $1,000.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia struck down the law, saying that the First Amendment applies to “entertainment,” and thus, videogames are afforded the same degree of protection as books and movies. He conceded that states do have a legitimate interested in protecting children, but he held that “does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.” And since “disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression,” the law had to be struck down. Indeed, by way of comparison, he noted that television and children’s books throughout history have depicted violence:

“Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore. Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed.”

If we were talking about adults, then I would agree with the court. Free speech is one of our most vital freedoms. It is the way we determine which ideas have value and which don’t. It is how we test our beliefs. And our society is more than strong enough to allow idiots to present stupid, disgusting or wrong ideas without fear that our country will collapse.

But we’re not talking about adults, and that’s where the court went wrong.

The court should have upheld the law for one simple reason: children do not have freedom of speech rights. If they did, then public education would be virtually impossible as children would have a right to decide which ideas they wanted to be exposed to and which they didn’t. Similarly, parenting would become impossible whenever the state got involved, for example at a child custody hearing, as children would have all the rights of adults.

Justice Thomas made this point in his dissent where he noted that the First Amendment does not “include a right to speak to minors without going through the minors’ parents or guardians.” In other words, children's rights get exercised through their guardians, and the state is well within its rights to say that children may not engage in free speech, or commerce, or gun ownership or anything else without the approval of those guardians.

Putting this another way, the court’s question of whether disgust is a significant enough basis to restrict the child’s freedom of speech rights is a false premise because the child has no such rights in the first place. Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer (the other dissenter) backed this point when he noted that the state was not trying to bar the minor having such material, it only required the approval of a guardian:

“The statute prevents no one from playing a video game, it prevents no adult from buying a video game, and it prevents no child or adolescent from obtaining a game provided a parent is willing to help.”

Breyer also made the less principled, but quite logical point that since the court still forbids children from buying pornography, the court has created an incredible hypocrisy here:

“What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”

The dissent is correct. This was a mistake.

And let me be clear, I’m not siding with the “what about the children” crowd. That’s sophist nonsense used to hide true motivations and is usually advanced by busybodies who want to rule over others lives. What I’m talking about here is respecting the right of parents/guardians to make decisions regarding their children. If this law had tried to ban children from being given such material, then I would have supported the court’s decision. But it didn’t. All it did instead was try to prevent retailers from circumventing the rights of guardians/parents to make decisions for their children. That is well within the constitution and no rights are violated by such a statute.

How can we legitimately tell parents that raising kids is their responsibility when we take away the state’s power to help parents enforce those decisions.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Osama Bin Laden Round Up Post

Osama bin Laden continues to dominate the news cycle, though the enthusiasm for discussing the goat-molester seems to be fading quickly. Hence, we are now in the end game where political theater and side-issues dominate the discussion. So let’s round up all the remaining issues related to Osama and be done with him.

1. Obama the (In)Action Hero: The Democrats are trying VERY hard to turn this Osama death into the moment that saved Obama’s sinking presidency. In fact, they are calling it Obama’s “Defining Moment.” This is pretty funny since he’s already had “Defining Moments” (1) when he spoke in Denver, (2) when he signed the doomed stimulus, (3) when he passed the disastrous ObamaCare, (4) when he failed at Copenhagen, (5) when he made his decision in Afghanistan to announce that we would fight until we would quit, (6) when he finally got around to asking whose ass to kick in the BP incident, (8) when he passed financial (non)regulation, (9) when he wiped out don’t ask don’t tell, (9) when he gave his meandering and pointless State of the Union speech . . . the trains! the trains!, (9) when he signed the new START missile treaty (yawn), and (10) when he let the British and French invade Libya without even mentioning the fact to Congress. Are you seeing a pattern?

To make this one stick, the Democrats are hailing his bravery for giving an order that was suggested to him by the military (seriously, find the leader in the photo above). In fact, if you think about it, this is a pretty silly “defining moment” as all he did was step out of the way and let the professionals do their job.

In any event, this is a futile effort. Depending on the poll, the bounce he’s gotten from this event is around 0% because all the bounces have been within the margin of error. That’s pretty sad, but it’s not unexpected. How exactly does Obama deserve the credit for this? He did nothing more than say, "duh, ok." And in truth, what credit is there anyway? It’s nice that bin Laden is dead, but it really doesn’t change anything as he hasn’t been relevant to Islamic terrorism for a long time now. That's hardly an event to define a presidency.

2. Afghanistan Is Won? Really?: Several articles appeared yesterday where liberal journalists claimed that the death of Osama meant the end of the road in Afghanistan. Apparently, al Qaeda will now be demoralized and quit. Really? And what planet are you idiots from? The Taliban are not al Qaeda, and as anyone who has read the history of the region knows, the Taliban and al Qaeda barely even get along. Why should the death of the bankrupt Osama bin Laden, who had becoming nothing more than a figurehead, lead them to surrender their own country. . . a country they still largely control despite the best efforts of NATO over the past eleven years? Moreover, al Qaeda isn’t the problem in the rest of the Middle East either. Libya = Qaddafi. . . Egypt = the Muslim Brotherhood. . . Saudi Arabia = Wahhabism. . . Palestine = Hamas. . . Iraq = civil war. . . Syria = the Baathist. . . and everywhere equals Iran. The death of bin Laden is viscerally nice, but changes nothing.

3. Twitter For Dummies: Twitter is fast becoming the tool of choice for idiots to expose themselves. The latest is Pittsburgh Steeler Rashard Mendenhall, who exposed himself as a Truther and condemned the people who were celebrating Osama’s death. He specifically claimed that we are acting prematurely because we only know one side of the whole 9/11 story. . . he apparently forget that bin Laden claimed credit for it.

People are now calling for the Steelers to cut Mendenhall. Others are whining that this would violate both his rights of free speech and his (and Osama’s) right of the presumption of innocence. Sigh. Don’t they teach the basics of the constitution anymore? The right to free speech and right to a presumption of innocence are rights you possess vis-à-vis the government. . . not the public. We have every right to fire you, demand your termination, ridicule you and conclude that you are guilty as heck. So please stop complaining that the backlash against your stupidity is somehow a violation of your rights.

4. There’s No Moral Equivalence: Many leftists, like Slate magazine are whining about people celebrating bin Laden’s death and they are equating that with Arabs dancing through the streets when the Twin Towers went down. Give me a break. Anyone equating these two is an idiot, and there is no nicer way to say it. To equate a brief outpouring of joy at the death of a tyrant and murderer with a mass (violent) rally reveling in the murder of 3,000 innocent civilians shows that these commentators simply have no moral compass that lets them judge events with any level of reason. What makes this worse is that these idiots actually think they are morally superior, when the truth is they are morally vacant, bereft of the careful debate of thousands of years of human thinking on morality and ethics.

5. No, There’s Nothing Wrong With Killing Osama: Many leftists, especially pacifists like the Germans, are now worrying that the killing of Osama might not have been legal. On the one hand, I love this because the same monster the Democrats have been feeding for a generation is now eating them. On the other hand, I feel like flying to Germany and slapping these purse-carrying Eurotrash effeteists. Again, what makes this all the more annoying is that they think they’re the ones being morally superior. Yet, their sicko views result in tyranny because they argue against good men and women standing up to tyrants. And their views result in all out war because you can’t kill the handful of tyrants at the top who are calling the shots. So how moral is it to advocate policies that lead to the deaths of millions of people to avoid the shooting of a handful of monsters?

6. Stop Worrying About Inflaming Muslims: Finally, stop worrying about angering Muslims. Muslims respect one principle: might makes right. It’s everywhere in their culture. By kowtowing to their feelings, you are simply showing yourselves to be weak. Secondly, Islamic terror groups will lie no matter what you do, so this idea of being cautious to avoid inflaming the Arab street is pointless. This is like refusing to say anything nasty about Hitler for fear of angering other Nazis. It’s stupid. And finally, stop denying yourself the best weapons in the arsenal -- the ability to exploit their superstitions to terrify them if they choose to take up arms. So you'd rather kill them on the battlefield than scare them away from fighting. How does that make sense?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Baseball - The Greatest Steal Ever!

For baseball fans, this week marked the 30th Anniversary of one of THE greatest steals in American baseball history. It was April 25, 1976 at Dodger Stadium top of the 4th inning...well just watch the video.

With all of the media attention on Barry Bond's recent conviction for perjury, Darryl Strawberry's drug problems, and Pete Rose, it's nice to know that there was a time when baseball players were worthy of being called "Heroes" with a capital "H". So, let me repeat just one more time - Rick Monday, center fielder for the Chicago Cubs and a real American Hero.

The floor is now open...
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Speak Ill Of Islam--Go To Jail

Or to hell, as demonstrated by the signs held by the English-as-a-second-language students of Osama bin Laden University in Dearborn, Michigan (I made that last part up). The publicity-hungry Pastor Terry Jones of Florida Koran-burning fame decided to take his act on the road. And he headed straight for one of the largest Muslim enclaves in the United States.

Jones was arrested by the Dearborn police and jailed for planning to go ahead with a demonstration outside the Dearborn Islamic Center of America without paying a peace bond to cover the costs of police protection for the demonstration. At first blush, this might seem to be a clear violation of the First Amendment, but it's not nearly that simple.

The government is entitled to regulate the time, place and manner of political protests so long as the regulations serve a compelling state interest and do not directly thwart the free speech of the participants. Keeping people from being maimed or killed is arguably a compelling state interest. But since the reasons the Supreme Court has allowed regulation of demonstrations relate to preserving the peace and avoiding injury, it becomes critical to know the reasons offered in the affidavit in support of the imposition of the restraints. And that's where Dearborn may have gone wrong.

The authorities argued that Jones's intended speech would be of such an inflammatory nature as to incite violence. So in fact, the authorities were imposing onerous restrictions on the proposed demonstration based on the alleged content of Jones's speech (and perhaps his actions). Content is the one thing that the First Amendment specifically protects, and can't be the grounds for squelching speech. Theoretically, at least, it wouldn't matter what time, place or manner of exercising his free speech Jones chose, the content of what he intended would produce civil unrest (or so it's alleged).

There is no indication that either Jones or his supporters would commit any violence. So who are the authorities actually going to be required to restrain? That was of course a rhetorical question. We know who. The Islamofascists who refuse to allow a single discouraging word to be spoken of Islam or Islamic activities. Jones should not be required to post an expensive bond, or be arrested and jailed for failing to do so because followers of the fundamentalist version of Islam would commit mayhem.

The affidavit cited previous activities of Jones's, including the Koran-burning that resulted in American deaths in Afghanistan. But that still takes us back to the content. Where Dearborn went wrong was disallowing the protest without the peace bond rather than doing what it was entitled to do--set a time, place, and manner which does not step on other constitutional rights such as the right of association and the rights of private property owners. The other edge of this double-edged sword is that it must also allow a time, place and manner which does not unnecessarily inhibit the right of the speaker to get his message across (e.g., the demonstration may be held at the train yard between midnight and 1 AM, but only on a day on which there are no scheduled trains arriving or departing).

Think of it this way. Most of us are horrified and infuriated by the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church members who desecrate military funerals with their anti-gay, anti-American protests. The Supreme Court held that however loathsome the content of those protests, it must be allowed. But at the same time the Court made it clear that while the content could not be regulated, it reiterated that the time, place and manner could be. Military authorities immediately went to work on drafting statutes that would comply with the ruling, including restrictions that would keep the demonstrators off cemetery grounds and limit any interference or direct contact with the grieving families as they proceed to the burial site.

Likewise, most of us don't much care for the recent leftist and union strongarm tactic of demonstrating outside the homes of bank officials. We know that the demonstrators have the right to express their political opinion, but it's dubious that they have an absolute right to do it in quiet neighborhoods. The litigation in this area is only beginning. But the right of free speech comes up against the rights of property ownership, rights of privacy, and rights to peace and quiet. Even in more public spaces, the authorities have the ability to restrict some speech activities if they unnecessarily burden lawful businesses.

So I come down on the right of Jones to do his thing however much it might upset easily-provoked Muslims. On the other hand, had Dearborn based its decision on the fact that the proposed protest would be at the wrong time and the wrong place (and probably the wrong manner), it could simply have said that the location would produce unacceptable inhibitions on ingress and egress. Or more on point, it could have said that the demonstrations to be held directly in front of a place of religious worship and study were an intrusion on freedom of religion and granted the permit for a location not in direct conflict with the activities of the Islamic Center.

The Muslims are going to get furious and probably violent anyway, but two or three blocks down the street, the freedom of speech would trump the nonexistent right not to be offended. The burden of preventing violence would shift to the Muslims and the responsibility for maintaining peace and good order would not fall on the person exercising his right to free speech. But Dearborn determined that the speech itself had to be regulated, and where it was done was of no import to them so long as it wasn't in Dearborn.

Dearborn can't prevent violence committed by furious Muslims overseas. Perhaps it can't even prevent it in Dearborn. But to impose burdensome restrictions on freedom of speech within an American city plays right into the hands of the international Islamists. The First Amendment was not designed to protect happy-happy don't-we-all- agree speech. It was designed to protect unpopular and contrarian speech, most specifically religious and political speech. I am one of the minority who thinks it should even protect "hate" speech. But it wasn't designed to protect all speech, at all times, in all places and in all manners.

Frankly, I don't find any completely right or completely wrong side in this debacle. Jones should understand that even the Bible says that there is a time and a place for everything under Heaven. Maybe Mohammed-bashing and Koran-burning don't belong in front of an Islamic center. Muslims need to learn that in a civilized society, we don't behead people who "defame Islam." And Dearborn needs to learn that you can do the right thing the wrong way (or alternatively, the wrong thing the right way). Even that which is constitutional can be done in an unconstitutional manner.
[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...