Majority Muslim Nations Where Homosexuality Is Legal

I wrote this to respond to a facebook comment that read in part;

Homosexualiy is not legal in the Muslim world. I don't know where you make this stuff up. Ask ISIS about it.

Well, I found 20 majority Muslim countries, out of 51[1], where homosexuality is legal.

1. Albania, Europe

Not only are same-sex relationships legal in Albania, they amended their constitution to strictly punish a crime when it is “related to gender, race, colour, ethnicity, language, gender identity, sexual orientation, political opinions, religious or philosophical beliefs, health status, genetic predisposition, or disability.” In addition to this hate crimes legislation, they have hate speech legislation as well. The Albanian parliament amended its Criminal Code: “Providing to the public or distribution of deliberate materials containing racist, homophobic or xenophobic content, through the communication and information technology, is punishable by a fine or imprisonment up to two years.”[2][3]

2. Azerbaijan, Europe

Same-sex relationships are legal in Azerbaijan with no separate age of consent.[3]

3. Bahrain, Asia

Same-sex relationships were legalized in Bahrain in 1976 though the age of consent for such acts is still 21.[3]

4. Burkina Faso, Africa

Same-sex relationships were never criminalized in Burkina Faso. However there is a separate age of consent.[3]

5. Chad, Africa

Same-sex relationships were definitely legal in Chad until 2014. However they attempted to pass new legislation. Huffpost has homosexuality as illegal[4]. However the 2015 reports from ilga and Amnesty International have it as legal.[3][5]

6. Djibouti, Africa

In Djibouti same-sex relationships are legal.[3]

7. Guinea-Bissau, Africa

In Guinea-Bissau same-sex relationships are legal.[3]

8. Indonesia

Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim country, has given two provinces the right to govern by Sharia law as long as the law only applies to Muslims. However homosexuality is legal throughout the rest of the nation and if you are not a Muslim in those two provinces.[3]

9. Iraq, Asia

ILGA previously listed Iraq as unclear, but have since changed it to illegal. After the 2003 US invasion the 1969 penal code was implemented. This code did not outlaw homosexuality. However ILGA says it is illegal for three reasons.

1. Even though Iraqi law does not allow for a civil judge to refer to a sharia court, some do. 
2. They do not view ISIS as a separate state. 
3. Also police regularly target homosexuals.

Still, it is on this list, because technically throughout non-ISIS controlled Iraq, homosexuality is legal.[3]

10. Jordan, Asia

When Jordan abandoned the British penal code in 1951, it adopted its own code which does not outlaw homosexuality.[3]

11. Kazakhstan, Asia

Homosexuality is legal in Kazakhstan, however their close relationship with Russia has brought forth anti-homosexual propaganda laws. Still none have passed.[3]

12. Kosovo, Europe

Homosexual acts are legal in Kosovo and they forbid employer discrimination based on sexual orientation. Still the age of consent is different.[3]

13. Kyrgyzstan, Asia

Like with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan also has calls for anti-homosexual propaganda laws, but homosexuality is still legal there.[3]

14. Lebanon, Asia

In Lebanon, lesbianism is legal, but possibly not male same-sex behavior (punishable by one year in prison). Outlawed by the French penal code since 1943, in recent times, there were seldom arrests made for male same-sex behavior. In 2012, the police started to clamp down. In 2014, a judge seemed to overturn the law by allowing a transwoman to marry a cisman. However later that year, 27 men were arrested for homosexual behavior in a Turkish bath. Still they were never formally charged. ILGA says that it is illegal, but not everyone interprets the judge’s ruling that way.[3][6]

15. Mali, Africa

Homosexuality has never been illegal in Mali.[3]

16. Niger, Africa

Homosexuality has never been illegal in Niger.[3]

17. Palestine

In 1858, the Ottomans legalized homosexuality, but when the British took over after World War I, they enforced a penal code where male homosexuality was illegal. When Israel declared their independence in 1948, the British Penal Code that outlawed male homosexuality was still in place. Gaza was seized by Egypt which left the British code in place. The West Bank was seized by Jordan which changed its penal code to allow for all homosexuality in 1951.


So in 1967 when Israel acquired Gaza and the West Bank; they acquire one territory that banned male homosexuality and one that did not. In 1977, Israel replaced the British code with their own, but they still outlawed male homosexual acts. They later legalized them in 1988, three decades after the West Bank.


Gaza still operates under the British code where male homosexuality is punishable by 10 years. However Hamas is writing a harsher law that might go into effect in 2016 where male homosexuality is punishable by "100 lashes and up to five (5) years in prison, and execution if such behaviour happens three times."[3]

18. Tajikistan, Asia

Homosexual acts have been legal in Tajikistan since 1998.[3]

19. Turkey

As the former head of the last major caliphate, the Ottoman Empire, in 1858, Turkey legalized same-sex behavior throughout the empire. Homosexuality has been legal in Turkey longer than slavery has been outlawed in the USA.[3]

20. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

In 2014, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus voted to legalize homosexuality.[3]

One Maniac

This meme prompted a fair amount of research today, so I think it deserves a blog post. June 17, 2015, a white supremacist killed 9 people in a historic black church in South Carolina.

TV shows are cancelled

TV Land pulled the Dukes of Hazard (1979-85) from their line up.  First, was there any other show that was pulled? I could only find the one.  Second, technically the Dukes of Hazard was cancelled 20 years ago.  It was just pulled from syndication.

Historical statues are vandalized

This is one of two points that the meme gets absolutely correct.  Confederate monuments have been vandalized and they continue to be vandalized.  So far the only comparative event in response has been the placing of rebel flags at Martin Luther King's Georgia church.

Confederate merchandise banned

"Ban" is even the word that the ebay spokesperson even used.  Amazon, Walmart, Sears, and ebay have all decided to no longer sale rebel flag merchandise.

Unprecedented attack on Southern heritage

Growing up in Georgia, there was an important part left out of the Southern heritage argument.  The rebel flag was added to the Georgia flag in 1956 to oppose race mixing.  In 1961, South Carolina raised the rebel flag above their legislature to oppose race mixing.  While the Confederate flag does not have a well known segregationist past, the rebel flag does.  Honestly the rebel flag deserves to be attacked given the fact that two state governments used rebel flags in opposition to race mixing and did not remove them until the 21st century when even Bob Jones had to remove their opposition to race mixing.  Doesn't this Southern heritage deserve attack?

Race relations set back 40 years

By what criteria?  We just celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act.  Why not 50 years?  Why not 20 years?  This is arbitrary.

DOJ donated millions to victims families

This is the research that prompted this blog.  According to Newsweek and Reuters the Department of Justice fast tracked 29 million dollars from the Crime Victim Assistance Formula Grant program for the victims of the Charleston shooting.

First, let's provide some background.  In 1984, Congress passed the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA).

The federal government passed the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA) to provide financial support to state compensation programs that were unable to cover victims of federal crimes. VOCA also led to the development of victim compensation programs in the 14 states that lacked compensation programs at the time VOVA was enacted (S. Derene, personal communication, May 21, 2014). VOCA established the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), a federal source of funding that reimburses out-of-pocket expenses and funds services for victims and survivors of crime. The Department of Justice administers these funds, which come from offenders convicted of federal crimes in the form of criminal fines, penalties for criminal convictions, forfeited bail bonds, forfeitures of profits from crime, and charges for convictions that range from $25 for misdemeanors to $400 for felonies (Office for Victims of Crime 2013a).

In 2001 the Patriot Act amended the CVF making possible for private donations to be made to the CVF.  These payouts are not lump sums.

Crime victim compensation is a direct reimbursement to or on behalf of a crime victim for the following statutorily identified crime-related expenses:

• Medical costs.

• Funeral and burial costs.

• Mental health counseling.

• Lost wages or loss of support.

Other compensable expenses may include the replacement or repair of eyeglasses or other corrective lenses, dental services and devices, prosthetic devices, crime scene cleanup, and forensic sexual assault exams. However, property damage and loss are not covered.

 Congress has placed a number of restrictions on how CVF can operate.  From 1984 to 1999, the CVF would payout everything that it took in.  In 2000, in response to fluctuating income, Congress started to limit the payouts to build up a rainy day fund.

Starting in 2000, in response to large fluctuations in deposits, Congress placed a cap on funds available for distribution. These annual caps were intended to maintain the Fund as a stable source of support for future victim services. From 2000 to 2012, the amount of the annual cap varied from $500 million to $705 million. In FY 2013, the cap was set at $730 million.

The plan worked. By 2013, the CVF had amassed 9 billion.  VOCA has become a vital part of how our nation responds to tragedy.  Over 4,400 agencies rely on VOCA and they serve over 3 million victims annually.  In response to the financial downturn, Congress cut VOCA's budget by 65 million. The 2009 Stimulus bill provided 100 million to VOCA and expanded the CVF with Crime Victim Assistance Grants.  As best I can tell, this was mainly a rebranding.  The grants have all the restrictions as the regular CVF payouts.

Now that the background has been established so that we even know what we are talking about, the DOJ says that Reuters and Newsweek were wrong.  They misunderstood that the 29 million grant was not for the Charleston shooting only, but for South Carolina as a whole to help with all "the sexual assault victims, spousal abuse victims, child abuse and neglect victims, and previously underserved victims of violent crime."  The 29 million probably did not go far enough.

Nothing

The meme posts the ISIS flag, but to date there has been no firm connection of the shooter to ISIS which is composed of only about 200,000 people.  Still, let's use ISIS as a comparison.

• There are no ISIS shows to cancel.  There is no show where the heroes fly ISIS flag.
• There was vandalism of mosques in response to the Chattanooga shooting.
• You cannot buy the ISIS flag on Amazon either.
• ISIS is almost universally hated and deserves to be attacked.  Still Muslims as a whole have been attacked.  Franklin Graham proposed issuing a ban on Muslim immigration similar to the ban on Asian immigration from 1924-1965.

Now to the VOCA response to the Chattanooga shooting; the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), that administers VOCA payouts, posted a page dedicated to the Chattanooga shooting.  (Here is the page for the Charleston shooting.) They provided information on how to be at least partially reimbursed for "the financial burden of funeral, mental health, medical, and other expenses related to the shootings".  The OVC provided links to charities that can also help.  There was mental health information including on "coping after terrorism".  Clearly this is more than nothing.

I am getting tired of these conservatives spreading false information and poisoning conservatism. Everything that I have written is publicly available. I will admit that there was a bit of a learning curve trying to understand VOCA.  Even the great Reuters misunderstood the details.  Still, nothing I have done on this blog post is anything that Uncle Sam's Misguided Children could not have also done.

Answering a facebook question

source

Here is the short answer. It was not always so. Even in Exodus 21:22-23, feticide is not necessarily a capital crime and Exodus is full of capital offenses like murder.

Following tradition, including contemporary Biblical interpretation, English common law came up with the "born alive rule".

If a woman be quick with child [five months pregnant], and by a Potion or otherwise killeth it in her womb; or if a man beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child, this is a great [misdemeanor], and no murder: but if the child be born alive, and dieth of the Potion, Battery or other cause, this is murder: for in Law it is accounted a reasonable creature, in rerum natura [in existence], when it is born alive.

Common Law thought that pregnancy was a dichotomy; the vessel started growing months before the soul was implanted. There was no punishment for killing a souless vessel, but if there was a soul, the crime was a misdemeanor unless the child was born outside the womb alive.

In 1984, the Massachusetts Supreme Court argued that medical science had outdated the "born alive rule" and "“infliction of prenatal injuries resulting in the death of a viable fetus, before or after it is born, is homicide.” Since then at least 38 states have updated their laws accordingly.[1]

PS - 1984 is the same year that New York overturned the common law tradition that said it was not rape if a husband forced his wife to have sex even under threat of death.

What is he talking about?

Last July, the Boy Scouts of America ended a ban on homosexual scout leaders.  In response, John Hawkins sent out the following tweet.

The following day he wrote the blog, Gay Scoutmasters Will Lead The Boy Scouts On A March Into Oblivion.  August 2, it became a meme for his Right Wing News that has been in my facebook newsfeed a number of times. He tweeted later that day that the meme had already become very popular.

As of the writing of this blog post the meme has 83,000+ likes and 31,000+ shares.   With the background in place let's get into the blog where Hawkins was able to flesh out his idea in more than 140 characters would allow.  Again the full blog is available here.

The parents of Boy Scouts across the country may be too cowed by political correctness to say it, but the chances that teen Scouts are going to be bad-touched in the woods by Scoutmasters just shot through the roof. That shouldn’t be a shocking statement; it’s just common sense. Sending gay men into the woods with teenage boys is just as stupid and irresponsible as sending straight men into the woods with teenage girls.

Let me note at this point that some people may say, “You’re claiming gay men are all pedophiles.”

Not at all.

For example, we’ve seen lots of stories lately about adult female teachers having sex with their teen-age students. Most of these women could be better described as sexual predators than pedophiles because they’re not targeting young children, they’re targeting teens. Are most gay Scoutmasters going to be sexually attracted to a 10 year old boy? Probably not. Are they going to be sexually attracted to a good-looking 16 year old Scout? Yes, they are and that will be an issue for the parents of many of those Scouts.

While Hawkins focuses on allowing gay men "into the woods" he ignores several realities about the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

First, the Boy Scouts' homosexual ban was also against lesbian women.  Homosexuals were banned outright whether or not they were male or female.  

Second, closely tied to lesbian scout leaders, heterosexual women have been scout leaders for years.  The Boy Scouts have put in place policies reflecting this reality.

Adult Supervision/Coed Activities

Male and female adult leaders must be present for all overnight coed Scouting trips and outings, even those including a parent and child. Both male and female adult leaders must be 21 years of age or older, and one must be a registered member of the BSA.

As a precaution, one on one interaction is prohibited.  A scout leader, male or female, is never to be alone with a scout or even privately text a scout.

One-on-one contact between adults and youth members is prohibited. In situations requiring a personal conference, such as a Scoutmaster’s conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth.

The policy of two-deep leadership and no one-on-one contact between adults and youth members includes digital communication. Leaders may not have one-on-one private online communication or engage one-on-one in other digital activities (games, social media) with youth members. Leaders should copy a parent and another leader in digital and online communication, ensuring no one-on-one contact exists in text, social media, or other forms of online or digital communication.

What about this "in the woods" problem?  How does the Boy Scouts deal with males and females needing to change clothes and shower?  Well, the scouts are given privacy except when health and safety must be protected.  Adults, male or female, are not allowed to watch scouts change, shower, or use the restroom.

Privacy of youth is respected. Adult leaders and youth must respect each other’s privacy, especially in situations such as changing clothes and taking showers at camp. Adults may enter youth changing or showering areas only to the extent that health and safety requires. Adults must protect their own privacy in similar situations.

Inappropriate use of smart phones, cameras, imaging, or digital devices is prohibited. Although most Scouts and leaders use cameras and other imaging devices responsibly, it is easy to intentionally or inadvertently invade the privacy of other individuals with those devices. The use of any device capable of recording or transmitting visual images in or near shower houses, restrooms, or other areas where privacy is expected is inappropriate.

The showers are segregated into scout, adult male, adult female sections.

Shower Facilities

Whenever possible, separate shower and latrine facilities should be provided for adults, youth, and females. If separate facilities are not available, separate shower times for adults, youth, and females should be scheduled and posted.

They have to be posted so no potential predator can try to excuse his behavior by saying he did not know.

Further, adults are only allowed to sleep with scouts if they are a parent or a guardian.

Tenting

When camping, no one is permitted to sleep with a person of the opposite sex or in the tent of an adult other than his or her own spouse, parent, or guardian. Assigning youth members more than two years apart in age to sleep in the same tent should be avoided unless the youth are relatives.

Could predatory men and women violate these standards? Sure, but they could before the ban was lifted as well.

Also, guess what?  The Girl Scouts have coed chaperons as well.

Q. Can men be Girl Scout troop leaders?

A. Absolutely! Every Girl Scout troop requires two or more adults (minimum one unrelated female) with one adult designated as the leader.

While their policy is not as stringent as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts also segregate the sexes.

3. Within a camp or overnight setting, males must not share sleeping, dressing, or restroom facilities with non-related females.

4. Troops may from time to time designate an activity as an all-female activity (i.e. a mother/daughter event), as long as this arrangement does not exclude any girl from participation, e.g. a daughter whose father has full or shared custody. The proper girl/adult ratio designated in Volunteer Essentials must be maintained for all activities.

5. During father/daughter overnight events, the male participants will stay in units separated from the girls/females. Female adult volunteers will be available to provide overnight supervision of girls housed in separate units from males. Male participants who wish to stay with their daughters may do so in a designated camping area provided that the Council receives notification signed by the girl’s legal guardian.

At least one Girl Scout group also places restrictions on unrelated females sharing a sleeping space with the scouts.

It is not mandatory that an adult sleep in the tent or cabin with the girls. If an adult female does share the sleeping area, there should always be two unrelated adult females present.

Coed volunteers is just the reality of the world that we live in.  Sometimes, Dad has to work so Mom comes or vice versa.  Groups generally take all qualified volunteers that they can find.  If Hawkins had bothered to google the Boy Scout or Girl Scout volunteer policy he would have known that both organizations have been using coed volunteers for a long time.

The Numbers Don't Lie

One of the things that I do on this blog is critique things that wind up in my facebook feed.  First, I am pro-life. This is why I despise bad pro-life arguments.  I think that when you mislead people to the point that they cannot tell fact from fiction then you wind up with a guy like Donald Trump running for the White House.  This is why I was disappointed when this June 24, 2014 post by the National Pro-Life Alliance showed up in my feed.

"The numbers don't lie. 

Abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States every year."

I dealt with this last December in Do these statistics bother you?.  Someone reminded me then that the post did not say that abortion was the leading cause, but it was one of many leading causes.  Also the numbers were more fuzzy since I could not fact check how many deaths could be attributed to each leading cause since 1973.  This post by NPLA gives easily fact checkable numbers and states that "abortion is the leading cause of death in the United States every year".

First let's check their numbers.  According to the CDC they are correct about heart disease and cancer.  Again citing the CDC, they are also correct about accidents.  However the abortion number is 150% higher than the actual number.  150% is not mere rounding so let's look at the actual numbers.  According to Guttmacher, there were 1.06 million abortions in the United States during the year 2011 which was down 13% from the 1.21 million in year 2008.  1.6 million is even 133% higher than the 2008 number.  In fact, 1.6 million is higher than the annual number for Mexico, Canada, and the United States combined from 1995-2008.

The NPLA is claiming that hundreds of thousands more abortions are occurring in the US than actually are.

As I mentioned last December, the miscarriage rate is higher than the abortion rate, especially if you believe, as I do, that life begins at conception.  Among women that know they are pregnant, the NIH places the rate between 15-20%. However a woman can be pregnant before she knows that she is.  If you monitor a woman's hormone levels, we discover that the rate is actually around 31% , because embryos commonly miscarry before a woman knows that she is pregnant.  

The 2011 abortion rate was 16.9%, the lowest since the 1973 rate of 16.3%.  A miscarriage rate of 31% is 180% higher than the abortion rate.  Even ignoring failed implantation, ectopic pregnancies, and twinning; the miscarriage rate is substantially higher.  If we consider the unborn, abortion is not the leading cause of death in the United States, miscarriage is. The fact that pro-life organizations ignore or minimize miscarriage to get at abortion is not appropriate.

Like last December, let's fix their chart by fixing the inflated abortion numbers and adding miscarriage.  Using the most recent abortion numbers of 1.06 million X 180% = 1.9 million miscarriages.

If life begins at conception and you include the unborn then miscarriage is the leading cause of death in the United States.

Do not believe all the youtube captions

Warning the video is graphic: I found this video in my news feed with the following caption.

A suicide Bomber was shot dead by Israeli forces, Muslims took up his body and started protesting and these Dumbos did not know that that suicide belt was still tied to the bomber body they were carrying.. what happened next .is in the video.

This video was originally released June 30, 2012.  The funeral is for Syrian opposition leader, Abdul Hadi al-Halabi.  The location of the funeral is a suburb of Damascus,  Zamalka.  According to anti-Assad activists al-Halabi had been killed by a government sniper.  During his funeral, according to these activists, a car bomb went off killing 20-50 people.  Those flags are the "Independence Flag", the flag of the some of the Syrian opposition forces.

Feel free to learn more from my sources.

Watching Syria’s War

Talks Come Up With Plan for Syria, but Not for Assad’s Exit

Viral video and apples to apples

This September 5, 2014 video of President Obama and President Reagan has been in my news feed as of late so I decided to blog about it.

First, the video starts with a heavily edited couple of clips from Obama's August 28, 2014 press briefing.  The author makes a number of dishonest edits.

• He edits out the question that Obama was answering, 
• He makes an edit mid-sentence
• He leaves out most of the answer to the question.  

A heavily edited Obama is only given about 26 seconds to make his case.  The highlighted portions are what the author left in.

Q Do you need Congress’s approval to go into Syria?

THE PRESIDENT: I have consulted with Congress throughout this process. I am confident that as Commander-in-Chief I have the authorities to engage in the acts that we are conducting currently. As our strategy develops, we will continue to consult with Congress. And I do think that it will be important for Congress to weigh in, or that our consultations with Congress continue to develop so that the American people are part of the debate.

But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet. I think what I’ve seen in some of the news reports suggests that folks are getting a little further ahead of where we’re at than we currently are. And I think that’s not just my assessment, but the assessment of our military as well. We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress and make sure that their voices are heard. But there’s no point in me asking for action on the part of Congress before I know exactly what it is that is going to be required for us to get the job done.

Cutting off a person in the middle of a sentence is really dishonest.  The person does not get to express their complete idea.  Further the author had to have known what he was doing since he made the edits.  Second, in an internet age, sourcing is easy.  They could have easily provided unedited sources, like I am, but then they would have been caught breaking a sentence in half.

He then provides a clip of Reagan that has parts edited out that he does not think are important.  The heavily edited Reagan section is from his April 14, 1986 address on Libya.

My fellow Americans, at 7 o'clock this evening Eastern time, air and naval forces of the United States launched a series of strikes against the headquarters, terrorist facilities and military assets that support Muammar Qaddafi's subversive activities.

The attacks were concentrated and carefully targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people, with whom we have no quarrel.

From initial reports, our forces have succeeded in their mission. Several weeks ago, in New Orleans, I warned Colonel Qaddafi we would hold his regime accountable for any new terrorist attacks launched against American citizens. More recently, I made it clear we would respond as soon as we determined conclusively who was responsible for such attacks.

On April 5 in West Berlin a terrorist bomb exploded in a nightclub frequented by American servicemen. Sgt. Kenneth Ford and a young Turkish woman were killed and 230 others were wounded, among them some 50 American military personnel. Evidence Is Now Conclusive

This monstrous brutality is but the latest act in Colonel Qaddafi's reign of terror. The evidence is now conclusive that the terrorist bombing of La Belle discotheque was planned and executed under the direct orders of the Libyan regime.

On March 25, more than a week before the attack, orders were sent from Tripoli to the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin to conduct a terrorist attack against Americans, to cause maximum and indiscriminate casualties. Libya's agents then planted the bomb.

On April 4, the People's Bureau alerted Tripoli that the attack would be carried out the following morning. The next day they reported back to Tripoli on the great success of their mission.

Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable. We have solid evidence about other attacks Qaddafi has planned against the United States' installations and diplomats and even American tourists. Other Attacks Prevented

Thanks to close cooperation with our friends, some of these have been prevented. With the help of French authorities, we recently aborted one such attack: a planned massacre using grenades and small arms of civilians waiting in lines for visas at an American Embassy.

Colonel Qaddafi is not only an enemy of the United States. His record of subversion and aggression against the neighboring states in Africa is well documented and well known. He has ordered the murder of fellow Libyans in countless countries. He has sanctioned acts of terror in Africa, Europe and the Middle East, as well as the Western Hemisphere. Today we have done what we had to do. If necessary, we shall do it again. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and I wish it were otherwise. Before Qaddafi seized power in 1969, the people of Libya had been friends of the United States, and I'm sure that today most Libyans are ashamed and disgusted that this man has made their country a synonym for barbarism around the world.

The Libyan people are a decent people caught in the grip of a tyrant. Actions Can't Be Ignored

To our friends and allies in Europe who cooperated in today's mission, I would only say you have the primary gratitude of the American people. Europeans who remember history understand better than most that there is no security, no safety, in the appeasement of evil. It must be the core of Western policy that there be no sanctuary for terror, and to sustain such a policy, free men and free nations must unite and work together.

Sometimes it is said that by imposing sanctions against Colonel Qaddafi or by striking at his terrorist installations, we only magnify the man's importance - that the proper way to deal with him is to ignore him. I do not agree. Long before I came into this office, Colonel Qaddafi had engaged in acts of international terror - acts that put him outside the company of civilized men. For years, however, he suffered no economic, or political or military sanction, and the atrocities mounted in number, as did the innocent dead and wounded.

And for us to ignore, by inaction, the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers, whether in nightclubs or airline terminals, is simply not in the American tradition. When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, on the direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond, so long as I'm in this Oval Office. Self-defense is not only our right, it is our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission undertaken tonight - a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Secure World Is Nearer

We believe that this pre-emptive action against his terrorist installations will not only diminish Colonel Qaddafi's capacity to export terror -it will provide him with incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior. I have no illusion that tonight's action will bring down the curtain on Qaddafi's reign of terror, but this mission, violent though it was, can bring closer a safer and more secure world for decent men and women. We will persevere.

This afternoon we consulted with the leaders of Congress regarding what we were about to do and why. Tonight, I salute the skill and professionalism of the men and women of our armed forces who carried out this mission. It's an honor to be your Commander in Chief.

We Americans are slow to anger. We always seek peaceful avenues before resorting to the use of force, and we did. We tried quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions and demonstrations of military force - none succeeded. Despite our repeated warnings, Qaddafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his relentless pursuit of terror.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong. I warned that there should be no place on earth where terrorists can rest and train and practice their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others if possible and alone if necessary to insure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere.

Tonight we have. Thank you, and God bless you.

So what words of Reagan did the author not find important? The author leaves out the parts about minimizing civilian casualties

The attacks were concentrated and carefully targeted to minimize casualties among the Libyan people, with whom we have no quarrel.

He leaves out the part about several weeks of warning and investigation.

Several weeks ago, in New Orleans, I warned Colonel Qaddafi we would hold his regime accountable for any new terrorist attacks launched against American citizens. More recently, I made it clear we would respond as soon as we determined conclusively who was responsible for such attacks. 

 He leaves out the part about Reagan explaining step by step how they knew Qaddafi was the culprit.

• March 25, 1986, Tripoli sent orders to the Libyan People's Bureau in East Berlin
• April 4, 1986 The Libyan People's Bureau alerted Tripoli

Reagan did not spring into action.  It took him weeks to build a case.  As Reagan put it.

Our evidence is direct, it is precise, it is irrefutable. We have solid evidence about other attacks Qaddafi has planned against the United States' installations and diplomats and even American tourists.

The author leaves out the part where Reagan says he will most likely not defeat Qaddafi.  If Obama had done such a thing, you can imagine the outrage.  No wonder he left it out.

We believe that this pre-emptive action against his terrorist installations will not only diminish Colonel Qaddafi's capacity to export terror -it will provide him with incentives and reasons to alter his criminal behavior. I have no illusion that tonight's action will bring down the curtain on Qaddafi's reign of terror, but this mission, violent though it was, can bring closer a safer and more secure world for decent men and women. We will persevere. 

Perhaps most telling, the author omits all references to diplomacy.

 We Americans are slow to anger. We always seek peaceful avenues before resorting to the use of force, and we did. We tried quiet diplomacy, public condemnation, economic sanctions and demonstrations of military force - none succeeded. Despite our repeated warnings, Qaddafi continued his reckless policy of intimidation, his relentless pursuit of terror.

A video like the one this author produced is not designed to prove anything.  Actually proving things requires evidence and this author leaves out large chunks of evidence.

He could have compared apples to apples. Instead of comparing an off the cuff answer to a reporter, he could have given one of Obama's prepared addresses on Qaddafi.  Obama had at least three.

Remarks by the President on the Situation in Libya - March 18, 2011

Statement by the President on Libya - August 22, 2011

Remarks by the President on the Death of Muammar Qaddafi - October 20, 2011

He could have even  pulled other examples from that particular August briefing, but all these suggestions of what he could have done; imply a level of veracity that the author really does not have.

I could not find an example of Reagan answering a reporter on Congressional approval.  It is worth noting that since the question was about Congressional authorization for Obama's war with ISIS, Obama originally tried to go it alone.  After political pressure, Obama went to Congress for authorization, February 11, 2015.  As of this blog post, it has been 23 weeks and three days since the President asked for Congressional authorization.  

PS - In fairness, since the original video was likely posted September 5, 2014 to facebook, he did not have access to the President's briefing on attacking ISIS given five days later.

Statement by the President on ISIL - September 10, 2014

Trump and a coffee cup

Donald Trump has made a lot of news lately with immigration.  Like a lot of his ilk, he tells half truths and then falls back on the truth to back up his half-truth.  Before I go into Trump's accusations, I'll use this coffee cup meme as an example of what I mean.  

Every year on average, 35,000 white women are raped by black men, while under 10 black women are raped by white men.  Source US Justice Dept
#racetogether

This meme is a half-truth.  There are some truths in it, but there is a enough falsehood and lack of context in the meme to make it only half true.

First, this is the data that the meme is referring to from the US Justice Department.

Chart edited to show only data relevant to the discussion

Here we come to the first blatant falsehood in this meme. The chart says 16.4% of 117,640 rape/sexual assaults of white victims are committed by black offenders.  The data does not give information for rape alone.  The second blatant falsehood has to do with the meme's lack of Junior High math skills.   16.4% of 117,640 is 19,293, not 35,000.  Even allowing for the rape/sexual assault error, the real number is only 54% of what the meme claims. Later, we will get into how Trump inflates his numbers as well to exaggerate a problem.

Still, one might respond, "It is still a disparity, 0% of black women had rape/sexual assaults from white offenders".  With two falsehoods down, now we get into the misrepresentation of the context of the data.  In this chart the asterisk are important.

Crime (particularly sex crime) is under reported. The purpose of this report is for the Justice Department to make competent projections about the total number of crimes. Interracial sex crime is so rare that there are 10 or fewer sample cases for this report to speculate from.  All of the follow have 10 or fewer sample cases.

• Black on white
• Other on white
• Not known or not available on white
• White on black
• Black on black
• Other on black
• Not known or not available on black

The data is not that great.  Given this context any speculations are very, very tentative.  

Finally who is most likely to rape/sexually assault white women?  Almost 75% of the offenders were white; 88,112 compared to 19,293.  The overwhelming danger to white women is not from black men, but from white men.  This last bit of context destroys the implication of the meme.  

In summary

1. It is rape/sexual assault not rape.
2. It is about 19,000 not 35,000 (a 54% difference).
3. The data is based on 10 or fewer samples.
4. White women are far more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted by white men.

Sure, someone could cite case after case of black men raping/sexually assaulting white women. There should be thousands of them. They could say, "See black men do rape white women, just like I said."  However what they actually said was grossly exaggerated and stripped from context.  There are thousands of black on white cases, but there are tens of thousands of white on white cases.

Trump said that illegal immigrants were rapists and murders with the implication being that there is a large amount of crime committed by illegal immigrants.  When challenged, he sought to prove that some illegal immigrants were rapists. Yes that's true, some illegal immigrants are rapists, as are some Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Irish, Italian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc...  Still accusing a particular group of being rapists has the implication that they are more rapey than others and this has not been demonstrated to be the case.  In fact when illegal immigration peaked crime rates continued to decline.  

Trump also speculates, with no real evidence, that the number of illegal immigrants is 34 million, more than three times the actual rate.  The actual number is is about 11 million.  He also claims that the rate of illegal immigration is increasing and there are more illegal immigrants than ever before.  As mentioned above the rate is declining.  

If you challenge Trump, he will fall back to the facts to defend his half-truths.  There are illegal immigrants who rape and murder.  However as Trump surely knows that is by far not most of them.

Trump's strategy of stereotyping illegal immigrants as rapists and murderers could be applied to legal immigrants or any sizable group in the country. There is no real evidence that illegal immigrants rape or murder more than the population as a whole. However, there are groups that do disproportionally rape and murder who are trying to fight stereotyping their whole group.

PS

John Nolte at Breitbart says he does not care if illegal immigrants commit crimes at higher or lower rates.  The point he argues is they never should have been around to commit the crime to begin with.

Trump needs to get these numbers out there and remind America’s Anderson Coopers and Chuck Todds that it doesn’t matter how these numbers compare to similar offenses committed by Americans and legal immigrants. The fact that more than a thousand children have been sexually assaulted by illegals — people who never should have been able to get in the country to begin with — is unconscionable and unacceptable.

These children are victims of our feckless government and the media the covers for them.
Democrats and the media aren’t willing to secure the border to save one child from sexual assault, much less near a thousand.

Who are the real monsters here?

The media will cover shark attacks, but not near a thousand children sexually assaulted by illegals?

In fairness the media also will not cover the amount of children sexually assaulted by non-illegals which is orders of magnitude higher.  Still, to Nolte, the point is that these are preventable crimes. 

Coups and Civil War

September 2009, Obama had been President for less than a year, when John L. Perry wrote his piece about the military taking down the President with a "bloodless coup".

Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.

Newsmax took down the commentary so that it would not be "misinterpreted".  According to them Perry was not advocating for a "bloodless coup", but merely describing that scenario.

Fast forward to 2013, World Net Daily writes about a rising star in the Tea Party movement, retired Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely who wants to make citizen's arrests of the President and members of Congress.  A couple of days ago in my news feed, a post by Conservative Tribune came up, SPREAD THIS: U.S. General Calls for Immediate Arrest of Barack H. Obama for ‘Treasonous Activities’.



This time Vallely says that Republicans will not arrest Obama, because they are afraid of a "black uprising".  He claims that Obama is trying to form his own police force and could enforce marshal law anytime.  He agrees with the host that the lower ranks in the military will rise up if Obama tries to shoot civilians.

The writer at Conservative Tribune interprets the general's remarks in a more extreme fashion.

Failing that, Vallely essentially recommended a military coup d’état, which is probably only justified in the most extreme circumstances.

But the general passionately believes that these are extreme circumstances because Obama is a traitor. Given that scenario, jail time for the president would be appropriate.

Moving from military coups, Allen West is warning the left that Christians may rise up and revolt in a civil war, Why the Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage could lead to civil war.

I know there are folks on the liberal progressive left who frequent this website. So here is my message. The Christian church community is a lot bigger and more powerful than you think — they kept a Republican from winning the White House. And these aren’t just old white men – there’s a growing young Christian constituency. You can criticize the Christian right all you want, but surrendering one’s faith principle for political gain is not a viable proposition. And in the case of prosecution of the Christian church, there could be a rallying of churches, regardless of race, the likes of which this nation has not seen.

The SCOTUS decision on same-sex marriage is not about the issue itself — it is about individual religious freedom and the imposition of the State’s will against faith. After all, it is the original reason why the Pilgrims fled England. And since there is no place for men and women of faith to retreat — they will make a stand. This ain’t first century Rome.

I just wanted to document this, in case anyone accuses me of making up the fact that there is talk on the conservative side about over throwing the government.

ICR uses a fifteen year old article against Jurassic World

ICR put out, What Would Need to Change for a Dinosaur to Evolve into a Bird?, in response to Jurassic World.  It was lacking.

"Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin."

Who is still advancing the idea of frayed scales evolving into feathers?

"Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones."

Not all dinosaurs had solid bones.

"Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals."

Unidirectional breathing has been discovered in crocodiles.

"A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird."

Which one? Without citing which dinosaur mummy this argument is meaningless, especially when crocodiles are proving more bird-like.

Citation at the bottom of the article

I noticed this article was written in 2000. We know in 2015 that some dinosaurs had hollow bones and another archosaur, ie crocodile, has unidirectional breathing. Especially since the discovery of unidirectional breathing in crocodiles, I have been extremely frustrated in the reluctance of creationists to update their media. Why knowingly share fifteen year old outdated incorrect info?

Times are changing...

The Texas Republican Party platform of 2010 included the following line.

Texas Sodomy Statutes – We oppose the legalization of sodomy. We demand that Congress exercise its authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

The 2014 platform however has no mention of "sodomy" and replaced the arrest the homosexual portion with a line about reparation therapy.

Reparative Therapy- We recognize the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle. No laws or executive orders shall be imposed to limit or restrict access to this type of therapy.

 There is no scientific data promoting the efficacy of reparative therapy.  A small minority of those that identify as homosexual will identify later as heterosexual whether they attend therapy or not.  There is no reliable evidence that reparative therapy is the cause.  The vast majority of people who attend reparative therapy continue in their orientation.

It took the Texas GOP just four years to give up on arresting homosexuals.  Hopefully in four years they will either produce studies that reparative therapy works or abandon it as well.

What Robert Jeffress wants us to forget

In 2011, Robert Jeffress preached that the word "religion" in the First Amendment only applied to Christians. He has taken down both his sermon video on the subject and his blog from his Twilight Last Gleaming series.  However he did not delete his book or it's forward by Mike Huckabee.

 Given his recent Nazi comments, it is interesting that he specifically writes about Judaism by name as a faith that is not a constitutionally a  "religion" according to his interpretation.  Below are the comments that he made on Hannity.

I want to remind people that the Nazis weren't able to take the Jews to the crematoriums immediately. The German people wouldn't have allowed for it. Instead, the Nazis had to change public opinion. They marginalized the Jewish people, disparaged them, and made them objects of contempt.

Basically his argument in his book rests on the idea that contextually the word "religion" would have meant only Christianity to the Founding Fathers.

Jeffress argues that Freedom of Religion only applies to Christians, because the Founding Fathers only meant Christianity by the word "religion".  I dealt somewhat with this argument in a blog I wrote in 2011, Need help convincing your friends that Islam is a religion?  I gave examples of the Founding Fathers who used "religion" to refer to the non-Christian faith of Islam.  Perhaps the most concise take down of this position was done by the American Family Association (also in 2011) to counter their spokesman, Bryan Fischer, making the same argument that Jeffress makes.  Even though the AFA has increased their opposition to their own employee both in writing and by removing him as spokesman, they have strangely deleted their epic take down.  It has however been preserved by Rightwingwatch.

Pertinent to the topic of  "marginalized the Jewish people", Jeffress specifically mentions Judaism and Islam as his two examples of non-Christian religions OK to be excluded by the state, because they are not legally "equally valid as Christianity". 

There is no mandate in the Constitution that requires the government to prohibit expressions of the Christian faith in the public square.  In fact, as I have demonstrated in several examples, the First Amendment does not even require that the government treat all faiths equally.  Although the Constitution demands that the government allow expressions of all faiths, the government can (and for more than 150 years did) show a preference for the Christian faith.  A high school principal does not have to have both a Christian and a Muslim student offer a prayer at graduation.  A city mayor is not obligated to balance a nativity scene in the town square with a Jewish menorah.  True tolerance allows for preferences by individuals.

Jeffress believes that schools should be engaged in daily leading prayer for their students.  Given this background, he specifically argues that a Muslim student does not have to be allowed to lead prayer at a graduation.  He is using Muslim and Jewish interchangeably here so my hypothetical scenario that I wrote in 2011 is not too far off what he has already said. 

Pastor Jeffress believes that the First Amendment says that a teacher can select a 6 year old Christian boy to lead his public school first grade class in prayer. However, when the boy's practicing Jewish best friend volunteers to lead the following day, the teacher can say, "I am sorry Ben you can't, because you are a Jew."

He specifically even says that a mayor would be within his rights to ban a Jewish menorah from the town square.

There is no secret that Jeffress preaches that Christians should usually vote for Christians.  In 2011, he endorse Rick Perry over Mitt Romney because Perry was "born again". Electing a Mormon was to invite the judgment of God on America.  Apparently God changed his mind when Romney won the primary. Jeffress doubled back arguing that Romney was preferable to Obama who had his "Fist in the Face of God"

Sadly this evangelical idea about not voting for Jews became tragic when a Missouri Republican Party chairman started a whisper campaign to suggest that one of the primary candidates for Governor was actually Jewish instead of Christian.

You know where Judaism not having full religious rights and not voting for Jews, does not play well? Israel.  Fischer was ultimately fired from his job as spokesman for this and other views.  (The AFA sent the Southern Poverty Law Center a list.)  Still Jeffress has never repudiated his same views. He just stopped talking about them.  How can he go around from show to show and never get asked about this portion of his book?

As mentioned, Huckabee wrote the forward.

Huckabee is running for President again.  How can he avoid questions about Jeffress' view on how Judaism should be treated under the law?

Kirby Delauter is no fan of freedom of the press.

The First Amendment wins again over "conservative" opposition. 

• Last year, a Georgia Baptist College President argued in court that only "people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere" were allowed to use fair use to criticize him. (This was after he tried to get a six year old, five year old, and a four year old to sign non-disparagements.) He lost. 
• The then Senate Minority Leader argued that a blogger could not use fair use criticism to point out his mistake. He lost. 

This year, a Maryland Republican is threatening to sue his local paper if they even mention his name. The paper's response is priceless.  Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter, Kirby Delauter

Blanks? Sure, we sometimes use hyphens in the case of expletives. Perhaps we could do that: "K---- D-------." Or, perhaps, "Councilman [Unauthorized]." We giggled a bit more than we should have when we came up with "the Councilman Formerly Known as Commissioner Kirby Delauter," which doesn't seem as funny written down in black and white and includes his name, which defeats the point. Maybe we should just put his initials, "KD," with an asterisk to a footnote (KD*), or refer to him as GLAT, the acronym for his campaign: "Govern Like A Taxpayer." We could even make it sound a little hip-hop with a well-placed hyphen: G-Lat. Speaking of, could we get away with "K-Del"? Or we could simply go with the Harry Potter-esque "He Who Shall Not be Named." (Cue the lightning strike and peal of thunder.)