Category: politics

“For the children” of the day

Sometimes I stumble across things that make me upset, and I want to post about them, but then I find I find out that the news is months old. This is one of those times, but I’m going to post about it anyway because there was a recent update to the story. Take that, standards of relevance!

Today I found out that a singer named Evan Emory was facing jail time and the sex offender registry for a video he made and posted to Youtube. He was being charged with manufacturing child sexual abusive material, or in other words, making child porn. Today he made a plea deal for 60 days of jail time and two years probation.

But here’s the catch: his video was simply a video of him singing an explicit song on his guitar, spliced in with images of kids reacting to someone singing to them in a classroom. The children never heard the song – and this was explicitly mentioned in the video’s disclaimer.

So let’s think about this. What makes this so heinous? I obviously understand that it’s tasteless and crude, but is it criminal? Is it child pornography? Not remotely close.

There is certainly no drought of sexually explicit songs in the mainstream music industry. Any doubters may want to look up songs by Ludacris or Juvenile, among others. Or search for “Khia” for a Youtube hit even more explicit than Evan’s video – it has 4.5 million views.

So maybe it was the fact that it was set in a children’s classroom, or to the tune of a children’s song? Well we should lock up Gilda Radner, Steven Lynch, Katy Perry (and the SNL staff) and who knows how many thousands of Youtube comedians.

Okay so maybe it’s the illusion of having children react to inappropriate adult situations? Well then we’d best get Jimmy Kimmel and Dave Chappelle in cuffs.  Chappelle might have to serve life, since in his video, kids were actually present.

The only issue I see here is in his using footage of the children’s faces without permission – which is something the parents could certainly sue for, but isn’t a crime. This is just another example of the government exploiting its power, in the name of the children, to ignore the First Amendment and exercise a little of its muscle in the hopes of getting some votes. It’s disgusting and it’s wrong – far more repulsive than Mr. Emory’s video. And that’s saying something.

Redefining rape

No, readers, this isn’t some radical idea of mine. It’s a radical idea of John Boehners. Or the GOP’s. Or maybe it’s actually not an idea at all. No one seems to have the facts straight on this one.

The debate du jour surrounds the proposed the boldly – albeit inaccurately – named “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” that Boehner has said would be a top priority this session. Specifically section 309, which states:

The limitations established in sections 301, 302, 303, and 304 shall not apply to an abortion– (1) if the pregnancy occurred because the pregnant female was the subject of an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest; or (2) in the case where the pregnant female suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the pregnant female in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself.

I’ve emphasized the most talked about part, in case you couldn’t figure out what the hubbub was about. So the argument is, and what columnists and newsmen are whining about nationwide, is that “all rape is forcible!” “This bill takes us back to a time when just saying ‘no’ wasn’t enough to qualify as rape!” Neither, of course, is really true.

Rape is a violent word. A scary word. The origins of the word lie in the Latin word “rapio” – the concept of what you do to a city after you’ve destroyed its army and are looting it for slaves and spoils. To rape someone meant to strip them of their freedom and force them into enslavement – while this definition is rarely used today (at least knowingly), it is not an inappropriate metaphor for the damage a sexual rape causes its victim.

And it is a word that has been applied broadly to a number of crimes that may not really fall under its common understanding. For instance, if two consenting minors have sex, is that rape? Legally, yes. What about if a woman gets drunk, has sex with a man, then the next day claims she wouldn’t have if she was sober? Legally, that’s also rape. When you think of the word rape, are these what come to mind? Or is it the myriad of more violent, disgusting acts that have been more strongly associated with the word?

“Forcible rape,” the controversial term that everyone is crying over, is not a term defined by the legal code, unfortunately. Rather, it is used by the FBI to differentiate between the myriad of crimes that are called “rape” nowadays.  Let’s assume that this is the intended meaning, and use the following definition from the FBI:

Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.

Being as the government already limits is funding of abortion to cases of incest, rape, and when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. This means that the difference this bill makes is centered around that phrase “forcible rape.” Should the term be defined in the bill? Absolutely.

The biggest change that I see here is that statutory rape is out. If a man has consensual sex with an underage girl, which results in a pregnancy, that would no longer qualify for a government-sponsored abortion. It’s still a crime, however, this bill does nothing to change that. What this does is prevent every irresponsible teenage girl in America from getting a free abortion on demand simply for being under 18. Additionally, in the following clause, abortions for pregnancies out of incest are no longer funded unless the girl is a minor. In other words, this seems to be more about promoting individual responsibility than anything else. Taking away free abortions may be a horrific violation of womens’ rights in the eyes of the feminist movement; frankly, I couldn’t care less. If anything, this bill doesn’t go nearly far enough in its limitations. It should clearly define what “forcible rape” is, however, to avoid legal pandering and loopholes in the future – what if the woman were drugged, for instance, which removes the need for the use of physical force? Is that forced rape? It should be answered.

Notably, I doubt this will make a lot of practical difference. Medicaid funds VERY few abortions around the country as a percentage of the total. The most recent figures I could find, from 2006, showed only 191 Federally funded abortions nationwide that year, 54 of which fell under the restricted guidelines – the rest were court ordered (106) or “rare circumstances” (31). In contrast, States funded 177,213 abortions that year – the vast majority in California or New York.

However, there is a bright spot in this legislation. Section 308 interests me.

Nothing in this chapter or any other Federal law shall be construed to require any State or local government to provide or pay for any abortion or any health benefits coverage that includes coverage of any abortion.

Nothing in this chapter or any other Federal law? This bill will prevent any Federal law from requiring State and local governments from having to pay for abortions, or providing health coverage that includes abortion? Sign me up as a small step in the right direction…

Is our President engaging in an act of sedition?

My friend Scott pointed me to this today – we may have a legitimate Constitutional crisis unfolding in Washington, ladies and gentlemen.

To recap the story so far: The “Obamacare” health care bill that was passed mandates that individuals purchase health insurance. This is obviously and dramatically beyond the scope of government powers granted in the constitution. A Federal Judge ruled it unconstitutional for this reason – specifically stating that the declaratory judgement was equivalent to an injunction in this case (nothing new, this is based on precedent) – and because there is no severability clause in the bill, the entire bill is thus rendered moot.

This means that the Obama Administration has two options:

  1. Comply with the ruling, ceasing immediately all activity enforced or mandated by the bill, or
  2. Appeal and ask for a stay pending its hearing.

That’s it. Those are the only legal options. However, Obama’s never one to let the law stand in his way:

The White House officials said that the ruling would not have an impact on implementation of the law, which is being phased in gradually. (The individual mandate, for example, does not begin until 2014.) They said that states cannot use the ruling as a basis to delay implementation in part because the ruling does not rest on “anything like a conventional Constitutional analysis.” Twenty-six states were involved in the lawsuit.

In a blog post on the White House website, Assistant to the President and Deputy Senior Adviser Stephanie Cutter wrote that the case is “is a plain case of judicial overreaching.”

“We don’t believe this kind of judicial activism will be upheld and we are confident that the Affordable Care Act will ultimately be declared constitutional by the courts,” she added.

My favorite part is where Obama’s Administration calls it “judicial activism” – you know, the bread and butter they’ve subsisted on for years. So now we have an Administration that has come out and said plainly that they will ignore a Federal Judge’s declaratory judgement, simply because they don’t like what it says. Take a moment and ponder that. They have stated that they will intentionally disobey the law – and do so at this moment by enforcing its statutes and staffing up for further enforcement and implementation. Legally, when using force (such as, say, threat of imprisonment) to push back against enforcement of the law or of its authority, this is called seditious conspiracy:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

I find it difficult to believe anyone will bother trying to levy this charge against anyone in Obama’s Administration, but there the law stands. Regardless, it doesn’t effect the legality of what they are doing in any way. To quote my friend (emphasis in original):

Did you hear me? Obamacare is null and void. Today. Right now. And it will remain so unless and until the US Government appeals and Judge Vinson is overruled. The Appellate Court and/or the Supreme Court can agree to hear the case, but the Executive Branch can’t enforce it in any way unless a stay is granted. And if the higher court either upholds the lower court’s ruling or declines to take the case, then the only way to enact such a law is to pass a Constitutional Amendment.

That’s THE LAW. I don’t care if you like the law or don’t. I don’t care if you like Obama or Obamacare, or don’t. It is the system of rules by which every President and every Judge and Justice must play. If and when they step outside that system then they have no rightful authority and their actions against the system constitute insurrection, or conspiracy to same, which is called sedition. Any of these acts is grounds for impeachment.

There you have it, folks. How do you feel about the President baldly ignoring the Constitution of the United States, and then publicly stating he refuses to be held accountable by it? Do you care yet?

Tragedy in Tucson

I woke up today to hear that AZ Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot, along with Judge John Roll and many other bystanders. A psychopath went on this shooting spree at a Safeway down in Tucson at a small rally. Thankfully Rep. Giffords looks like she may pull through; Judge Roll and some of the others weren’t as lucky. What I hoped to see was a universal condemnation of the gunman as a lunatic and an outpouring of support for the families of those injured or killed. I hoped, but knew that it was too much. I knew I’d be disappointed, and I was right.

Not ten minutes after the shooting, people were already politicizing and pointing fingers. As Giffords is a Democrat, the fingers naturally all started pointing right – Palin seems to be the biggest target, because she said Giffords was a “target” in the election. Get that? Target! Like what you shoot at! She even put an image of crosshairs over AZ to illustrate this on her website! Obviously Palin called for her assassination! Obviously Tea Partiers are insane murderous psychopaths! Obviously people like that shouldn’t have guns! Oh, the humanity!

But wait. Markos from the Daily Kos ALSO referred to Giffords as a target with a bullseye over her district, with one of his co-bloggers saying she was “dead to me.“And Giffords is a blue dog Democrat, one that gets a lot of flak and anger from the far left for not being far enough left herself.

And wasn’t there a judge there too? Judge Roll? Didn’t he actually DIE in the attack? Why aren’t we hearing about him? The judge received death threats over his decision to certify a case where illegal immigrants sued an Arizona rancher for $32 million. He was under full-time police protection for a month.

And weren’t other people there too? A 9-year-old girl was killed too, with a confirmed death toll of 6 so far according to CNN and rising. What about them?

And who is the shooter? A quick look at his Youtube channel reveals that he’s a bit of an anarchist and an atheist, believes that money should go away, and that the government is trying to subject us all to mind control. He also lists the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf as his favorite books. Not quite your normal Tea Party set of beliefs. In fact, he sounds like a raving, rage-filled – and possibly schizophrenic – lunatic. Which he is.

And that’s the point of all this spinning and twisting, isn’t it? One guy goes nuts and shoots a bunch of people, including a vaunted, important, larger-than-life person in Congresswoman Giffords. It’s a scary thought to a lot of people, that one man could change things that much. And so, like all the great conspiracies, they try to latch it on to a bigger picture. If it’s Palin’s fault, then there’s another larger-than-life figure to blame, a movement to demonize, a conspiracy at work. It’s not just one man, it can’t be. It can’t be so seemingly meaningless as that. Life can’t be that fragile.

But it is.

So people latch on to the part that interests them – not the injured people, not the dead judge or little girl – and politicize it, spin it, and try to make it anything but what it is: a single, evil man doing something horrible. Because if that can happen, then it can happen to anyone, and that’s just too scary to think about for some people. Bill Whittle wrote brilliantly about this idea a few years ago.

So please: take a step back and see this for what it is:  a crime, a multiple murder, a tragedy. Don’t try to spin this to your political belief system or make this about you. The blame lies squarely at the feet of the shooter. Instead, ask yourself: what can the community do for those families who were hurt by this? What can I do?

When this is becomes the natural response, instead of a full day of blameshifting and namecalling, then we’ll finally be getting somewhere. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers go out to Giffords and the others injured, as well as the families of those killed.