Right Side of the Rainbow

The evangelicals are right. God didn’t make you gay. Your brothers did:

A study released this week tracing some instances of male homosexuality to the “older brother effect” is more than another entrant in the race to find the biological roots of sexual orientation. The mechanism it points to fits with emerging research on the powerful effects of conditions in the womb.

[…]

The theory dates to 1996, when scientists reported an odd correlation. For each additional older brother that a boy has, his chance of growing up to be gay increases by one-third.

Source: “A new look at link between being gay and having brothers,” Wall Street Journal

Posted by Paul at 8:11 PM | Permalink

So I learned today, via Napster, that the members of Rascal Flatts are male. I had just always assumed, having never seen their picture, that they were girls. Their voices sounded female to me. And, “You don’t look a day over fast cars and freedom” is the kind of thing a girl (or a bottom boi¹) says to a guy, isn’t it?

Anyway, enjoy Fast Cars And Freedom by Rascal Flatts. (Free Napster account req’d.)

¹Which I assume they’re not.

Posted by Paul at 4:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Bloomberg:

Registered voters favor Democrats over Republicans in contests in their congressional districts by 49 percent to 35 percent, a Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll finds.

[…]

Republicans seem to be in worse shape now than Democrats were at a similar point in 1994 going into an election that cost them control of Congress. A July 1994 Los Angeles Times poll found 44 percent of registered voters favored having Democrats control Congress, compared with 42 percent who felt the Republicans should take over. (Link)

Of course, the Republicans had then something the Democrats don’t have now: an agenda.

ADDED —

THE PARTY OF THE ASS: Do Democrats really plan to campaign on the rights of let-me-hack-off-your-head-with-a-rusty-scythe terrorists? Does Karl Rove pay for this stuff, or what?

Thanks to Political Wire.

Posted by Paul at 1:19 PM | Permalink

Israel has sealed Gaza’s borders, and her bombing of a power plant there has left hundreds of thousands without electricity or water. But, says Israel to the Palestinians, if you return our soldier to us, we will stop jacking you up:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert held off on a planned incursion into the northern Gaza Strip Thursday night, ordering the military to suspend its plans to take over the Kassam launch sites and to give diplomatic efforts one last chance to retrieve kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Hosni Mubarak, the president of Egypt, says “Palestinian kidnappers of Cpl. Gilad Shalit have agreed to his conditional release …”

Israel rightly demands, of course, that Gilad’s release be unconditional.

ADDED —

Hamas, you want to make a trade? You want a quid pro quo? Okay, here’s the deal, from Amir Peretz, Israel’s defense minister:

If the soldier will be returned and the Qassam fire will be halted we will also return our soldiers to their bases …

Got that? You give back the boy you kidnapped and the Israelis will stop hunting you like wild game:

[Palestinian Prime Minister] Haniyeh and nearly all the members of his Hamas-led Cabinet have not been seen since Shalit’s kidnapping, fearing they could be killed or arrested. Israel arrested 64 Hamas officials in the West Bank on Thursday, including eight Cabinet members.

Source: “Israeli jets pound Gaza,” MSNBC

Posted by Paul at 7:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Despite hyperventilation by some of our brethern on the Right, today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Hamdan does not present the Nation with a “full on Constitutional crisis.” In fact, the decision changes precious little, and gives the detainees at Guantanamo nothing to cheer about.

In brief, here are upshots of the Court’s ruling:

• The military commission convened by the president lacks the power to try Hamdan — and, by extension, others similarly situated — because its “structure and procedures” are inconsistent with both federal statutory law and the Geneva Conventions.

• The president may detain Hamdan indefinitely and without trial. (To be precise, the Court said the president may hold Hamdan “for the duration of active hostilities.” I read that to mean indefinitely. But in any case, Hamdan’s release is not imminent.)

• Or the president may subject Hamdan and the other detainees to a court martial constituted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

• Or the president may ask Congress for authority to try Hamdan and the others in a new forum.

If, as the Washington Post asserts, today’s decision was a “setback” for the White House, then it’s that rare species of setback that involves no movement.

Posted by Paul at 10:35 PM | Permalink

Gilad, they’re looking for you:

Israeli forces arrested the deputy prime minister of the Hamas government, two other Cabinet ministers and four lawmakers in a raid on a complex of buildings in the West Bank city of Ramallah, Palestinian security officials said. Israeli forces also arrested Labor Minister Mohammed Barghouti. All those arrested were from Hamas.

Earlier Wednesday, air strikes and sonic booms shook Gaza as Israeli troops backed by tanks penetrated the impoverished coastal strip in a massive show of might designed to force Islamic militants to free a soldier whose fate has jolted Mideast politics.

In a bold warning to the country that shelters the political leader of the Islamic Hamas group, Israeli warplanes buzzed the home of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Palestinians filled up on basic supplies after war planes knocked out electricity, raising the specter of a humanitarian crisis. The Hamas-led government’s information ministry warned of “epidemics and health disasters” because of damaged water pipes feeding central Gaza.

Witnesses reported heavy shelling around Gaza’s long-closed airport, and Israeli missiles hit two empty Hamas training camps and a rocket-building factory. Warplanes flew low over the strip, rocking it with sonic booms and shattering windows. Troops in Israel backed up the assault with artillery fire. (Link)

Posted by Paul at 12:05 AM | Permalink

“Thompson took the stand in his own defense:” No, no! One pump meant the motion was sustained and two pumps meant the motion was denied!

A former judge is on trial for pumping his penis in the courtroom …

Posted by Paul at 7:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Umm, hmm:

KENNEDY, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts II–A and III, in which STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, AND BREYER, JJ., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts I and IV, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined, an opinion with respect to Parts II–B and II–C, and an opinion with respect to Part II–D, in which SOUTER and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined as to Parts I and II. SOUTER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which GINSBURG, J., joined. BREYER, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. ROBERTS, C. J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which ALITO, J., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which THOMAS, J., joined, and in which ROBERTS, C. J., and ALITO, J., joined as to Part III.

Posted by Paul at 7:23 PM | Permalink

Low-altitude diplomacy:

Israeli warplanes buzzed the summer residence of Syrian President Bashar Assad early Wednesday, military officials said, in a message aimed at pressuring the Syrian leader to win the release of a captured Israeli soldier.

The officials said on condition of anonymity that the fighter jets flew over Assad’s palace in a low-altitude overnight raid near the Mediterranean port city of Latakia in northwestern Syria. Israeli television reports said four planes were involved, and Assad was home at the time.

[…]

The officials said Assad was targeted because of the “direct link” between Syria and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group holding Cpl. Gilad Shalit, 19, in the Gaza Strip. Syria hosts Khaled Meshaal, Hamas’ exiled supreme leader.

Posted by Paul at 7:12 PM | Permalink

U.S. Rep. Chris Cannon, UT-3, defeated political novice John Jacob in yesterday’s Republican primary. With all precincts reporting, Cannon had 56% of the vote to Jacob’s 44%.

As you may recall, I supported Jacob and made a contribution to his campaign. I wanted to send our Republican representatives a message about the political hazards of backing amnesty for illegals. And although I’m disappointed that Jacob lost, I’m gratified that he took more than two-fifths of the vote. John Hawkins, another supporter of Jacob, explains:

No offense to John Jacob, because I did prefer him as a candidate, but from what I’ve seen of the race, if he’d had exactly the same position as Cannon on illegal immigration, he’d have been lucky to get into double digits at the polls.

In Chris Cannon, you basically had a candidate who the voters in the primary found acceptable in almost every way, except for his position on illegal immigration. Yet, that was such a big deal that 44% of the voters were willing to defect to another candidate because of that one issue. That suggests to me that, at least for this election cycle, being for the Senate’s immigration plan could be just as deadly for a Republican as being pro-abortion or pro-gun control.

That’s exactly right. In a more competitive district — Utah 3 is strongly Republican — you wouldn’t want to head into November as the GOP nominee having lost 44% of the primary vote largely over a single issue.

Posted by Paul at 5:42 PM | Permalink

UPDATE: Delayed. But you can still get the code for the final release candidate.

Be among the first to get MT 3.3. It will be out tonight.

Posted by Paul at 4:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Israelis are going to the mat for one of their boys, Gilad Shalit, 19, an IDF corporal abducted Sunday by Palestinian militants:

Before Wednesday’s incursion began, two rounds of Israeli airstrikes knocked out a power plant in Gaza City, cutting power to most of the territory. Video from the Palestinian Ramattan news agency showed fires burning at the site.

Two bridges in central Gaza were hit in order to restrict the movement of the militants holding Shalit, said Capt. Jacob Dallal, a military spokesman.

“We are trying to make it clear to the Palestinian Authority and to the terror organizations that we will take the necessary steps to secure his safe return,” Dallal said.

[…]

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his parliament Tuesday to expect “an extended campaign against the Palestinian Authority” unless Shalit was released.

“All targets” would be considered for possible action, Olmert said the day after ruling out any deals with militants for Shalit’s release.

According to Andrew Cochran at the Counterterrorism Blog, “This operation will be extensive and could mean the complete end of the Hamas government.” (Link)

Posted by Paul at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

From the editors of National Review, a splendid idea for punishing the New York Times:

Every passing week, it becomes more apparent that disgruntled leftists in the intelligence community and antiwar crusaders in the mainstream media, annealed in their disdain for the Bush administration, are undermining our ability to win the War on Terror. Their latest body blow to the war effort is the exposure, principally by the New York Times, of the Treasury Department’s top-secret program to monitor terror funding.

President Bush, who said on Monday morning that the exposure “does great harm to the United States of America,” must demand that the New York Times pay a price for its costly, arrogant defiance. The administration should withdraw the newspaper’s White House press credentials because this privilege has been so egregiously abused, and an aggressive investigation should be undertaken to identify and prosecute, at a minimum, the government officials who have leaked national-defense information. (Link)

Whether or not the Times has a constitutional right to publish classified information, it most certainly does not have a constitutional right to White House press credentials, especially when the paper has repeatedly demonstrated indifference, if not hostility, to the Nation’s security interests.

The president should expand upon National Review’s suggestion and also boot the Times from the Pentagon’s credentialed press.

Posted by Paul at 7:05 PM | Permalink

Associated Press:

Warning that the nation’s largest prison system is dangerously overcrowded, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday summoned lawmakers into a special session to decide whether to build two new prisons and adopt other relief measures.

The special legislative session will start on Tuesday.

In a speech to the California District Attorneys Association, Schwarzenegger said a system designed for 100,000 inmates had nearly 172,000 as of last week.

“Our prisons are at a crisis point right now because the state of California has not planned adequately for our future,” Schwarzenegger said. “We are at an all-time high right now, and we are rapidly running out of space.”

One of the reasons state prisons are overcrowded is that 21% of their inmates are drug war prisoners, which is to say people who’ve harmed nobody but themselves.

Posted by Paul at 6:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Umm, hmm:

BREYER, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which ROBERTS, C. J., joined, and in which ALITO, J., joined as to all but Parts II–B–1 and II–B–2. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SCALIA, J., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, J., joined, and in which STEVENS, J., joined as to Parts II and III.

Posted by Paul at 4:10 PM | Permalink

• Andrew Sullivan: the incredible shrinking man?
• Dick Morris says Lieberman should depart Democratic Party
• Four dancers, five rapists, whatever
• Hudson-SWAT-raids roundup
• Idiots with guns #36
• Kosola hits the big time
• Murtha: U.S. more dangerous than N. Korea, Iran
• New York Times prints more classified information helpful to the terrorists
• Rep. Peter King: charge the New York Times
• U.S. population to hit 300 million in 2006

Posted by Paul at 9:21 PM | Permalink

The Republican Internet, reloaded.

Posted by Paul at 7:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Who said that? Answer below the jump.

Playwright and AIDS activist Larry Kramer.

Posted by Paul at 7:11 PM | Permalink

I’m still screwing around with content delivery formats. This one is, I think, better quality, although it’s the same crappy editing — mine — you’ll find below.

The fault does not lie with your set. Please bear with me, as nothing engages my “type A personality” faster than a technical challenge.

P.S. FYI: I prepared this clip using Hipcast.

Posted by Paul at 3:16 PM | Permalink

Newt Gingrich:

I think the Republican Party has few allies more effective than the Daily Kos. (Link)

Posted by Paul at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The GOP plays for keeps:

The results in the 50th Congressional District did not merely illustrate the potential inadequacy of the Democratic strategy for the November elections; they foreshadowed a much bigger and more startling story line: That even in the face of Republican scandals, sour approval ratings, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and growing public rejection of President Bush’s policies in Iraq, the Republican Party still holds the lead in the art and science of obtaining power — and keeping it.

Among other things, Republicans have become the unsurpassed master of retail politics:

In Cleveland, Republicans in 2004 compiled a list of Russian-speaking Jewish immigrants who they knew backed Bush’s stance against Islamic terrorism, then organized a rally entirely in Russian on the Sunday before the election.

Fascinating.

Posted by Paul at 10:32 AM | Permalink

Mr. Bush issued an executive order Friday that ostensibly strengthens “the rights of the American people against the taking of their private property.” But Ilya Somin of The Volokh Conspiracy argues persuasively that the order does no such thing:

Read carefully, the order does not in fact bar condemnations that transfer property to other private parties for economic development. Instead, it permits them to continue so long as they are “for the purpose of benefiting the general public and not merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken.”

Unfortunately, this language validates virtually any economic development condemnation that the feds might want to pursue. Officials can (and do) always claim that the goal of a taking is to benefit “the general public” and not “merely” the new owners.

Posted by Paul at 10:06 AM | Permalink

The clip below includes video and still images from yesterday’s Houston Gay Pride Parade. This is my first effort at video blogging and it shows. Which is to say it’s not good. But at least the closing shot is kind of nice …

If you’re wondering why it’s dark, it’s because Houston is the only city in North America — and maybe in the world — with a nighttime gay pride parade. We learned a few years ago to come in from the heat.

FYI, in case of you’re of a mind to try it yourself, this video was edited and prepared for the Web using Ulead VideoStudio 10 Plus. (Degradation of video quality is not the fault of the software.)

Posted by Paul at 12:50 AM | Permalink

Culled from the 167 blogs I track …

• A peek into North Korea
• Bill Keller is not my president
• Bush order would limit property seizures
• Bush quietly creeping up in the polls
• Conservative bloggers vote for worst person in America
• New illustration of the folly of the minimum wage
• New York Times aids al Qaeda
• Notes from the Clownhouse
• Parental notificaton measure returns to California ballot
• Patterico cancels his subscription to the L.A. Times
• Saddam ends hunger strike after missing one meal
• The enemy within
• The origins of blogofacism

Posted by Paul at 4:19 PM | Permalink

Herald-Sun:

… the News and Observer Publishing Co. moved Wednesday to make public certain documents — reportedly pertaining to the alleged rape victim’s medical records — that were filed by defense lawyers under seal.

“In this case, the fact that there are charges of sexual assault is unfortunate and controversial — either because a woman has been sexually violated or because the defendants have been wrongfully accused — but neither is a justification for sealing a court proceeding,” a lawyer for the newspaper wrote.

The lawyer, Hugh Stevens, also said the sealed documents raised questions about [District Attorney Mike] Nifong’s handling of the case. He said that when the conduct of public officials is at issue, it is an added reason for making the pertinent files public.

Meanwhile, several defense lawyers predicted Wednesday that Nifong’s latest 300-plus pages of documentation would do little to help him, since earlier paperwork — in their view — was more beneficial to the defense than the prosecution.

For example, attorneys Joe Cheshire and Brad Bannon have said the earlier documents showed a “very significant and disturbing deficiency” in Nifong’s evidence.

Specifically, there were indications that Nifong began making public statements about the accuser’s medical records even before they were in his possession, according to the two lawyers, who represent Evans.

Cheshire and Bannon said the District Attorney’s Office subpoenaed the accuser’s medical files from Duke Hospital on March 20 — six days after the alleged rape.

However, the files were not printed out in compliance with the subpoena until March 30, and Police Investigator Benjamin Himan didn’t pick them up until April 5, Cheshire and Bannon wrote in court paperwork last week.

But the lawyers said Nifong told a local television station on March 27 that he had no doubt the exotic dancer was raped, based on a “personal review” of her medical records. They quoted the district attorney as saying, “My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place.”

Citing the 1,298 pages of documentation given them by Nifong earlier, various defense lawyers also have contended there were numerous inconsistencies in the accuser’s version of events, along with unacceptable omissions in a sworn affidavit prepared by police. The affidavit was used by Himan to obtain judicial permission for his evidence-gathering efforts.

Among other things, Himan failed to mention that a co-dancer had described the rape allegation as “a crock,” even though she was with the accuser for all but about five minutes on the night in question, according to defense lawyers. (Link)

By the way, Nifong, where’s the toxicology report? The one that shows the “victim” was given a date rape drug? You indicated to Newsweek that you had one, so where is it?

Posted by Paul at 9:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

William F. Buckley:

“In 1970,” Frum writes, “only 25.7 percent of immigrants who had lived in the U.S. for 10 to 20 years were poor, compared with 35.1 percent of natives. By 2000, 41.4 percent of long-settled immigrants were poor, compared with 28.8 percent of natives.”

The Mexican immigrant population has not been attracted to radical politics, by and large. But bear it always in mind that socialism offers a means of acquiring wealth by political rather than economic exertion. If a minority deems itself stuck under the present system, the temptation is to listen to those who advance the proposition that the poor are served by subtracting from what the rich accumulate, and doling it out to the poor. To do that is to put the machine that generates wealth into progressive atrophy. (Link)

We on the Right say often that we oppose citizenship for illegal aliens because we don’t want to reward unlawful behavior. And while that is true, it’s only half the truth. The other half is that we do not want to infuse an electorate already equally divided between Democrats and Republicans with millions of new and likely Democratic voters. In other words, we do not want to expose our income to plundering by the masses. If we don’t usually say that, it’s only because it’s hard to find a way to say it politely.

Posted by Paul at 5:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Jurist:

The US District Court for the District of Arizona has rejected a bid by Latino and voter-advocacy groups to temporarily halt a requirement that voters show government-issued identification to prove that they are US citizens when they register to vote. The measure, which was approved in 2004 in an effort to stop voter fraud, is part of Arizona’s Proposition 200, which also denies some state public benefits to illegal immigrants …

Judge Roslyn Silver sided with the government, writing that “determining whether an individual is a United States citizen is of paramount importance when determining his or her eligibility to vote.”

Several advocacy groups, including the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project and Valle Del Sol, had argued that requiring identification effectively creates a poll tax on Arizona residents that cannot afford proper identification.

The argument of the advocacy groups is bogus on its face. What does a driver’s license or state-issued ID typically cost? $20 every four years? Are we supposed to believe people can’t afford that but they can afford a newspaper subscription or Internet connection? Or is it quaint to think voters should at least in theory have the opportunity to be, you know, informed?

Posted by Paul at 7:19 PM | Permalink

UPDATE: It’s Murphy’s Law. Within minutes of uploading this post, One True Media’s server appears to have crashed. This is why, for now, there’s a big white gap where my video should be. Putting content on somebody else’s server is always risky.

In anticipation of video blogging the 2006 Houston Gay Pride Parade, I’ve been fiddling around with video editing packages. I haven’t yet settled on a product, but for sheer ease of use I don’t think anything can beat this.

I made the video below — using random junk from One True Media’s stock — in about 10 minutes. I post it here not for the quality of the content — as I say, it’s junk, and there’s no relationship between the montage title, the video and the music — but as a demonstration of what you can now do easily. It’s pretty amazing.

This is the digital camcorder I bought. If you have any feedback about it, let me know. And if you use video editing software that you really like, please tell me what it is and why you like it. I’d appreciate it.

Posted by Paul at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Houston is offline.

Posted by Paul at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Culled from the 167 blogs I track …

• U.S. forces seek 2 soldiers apparently captured in Iraq
• Do Lieberman’s troubles spell doom for McCain ‘08?
• How an Al-Qaeda cell planned a poison gas attack on the N.Y. subway
• LA Times gone wild: ‘Wrong to blame Katrina victims for spending irresponsibly’
• Natalie Maines is worthless scum
• People in Toronto soon to be treated to a breast milk bar
• The problem with emergency rooms
• How you can cash in on new illegal alien legislation
• The purple state dream
• US within range of North Korean missiles
• Whole Foods won’t sell live lobsters anymore, citing animal cruelty

Posted by Paul at 5:26 PM | Permalink

Charlie Cook:

Given the fickleness of public opinion, it’s probably risky to say this, but it looks like President Bush’s free fall has bottomed out, as have other key indicators that were trending against Republicans. Combined with last week’s Republican victory in the special election in California’s 50th Congressional District (an almost near-death experience for the GOP), the improving poll numbers for Bush and his party should give Democrats reason to pause and Republicans reason to get out of bed in the morning. (Link)

Relatedly:

… in a generic 2006 congressional ballot, 45% of respondents prefer Democrats, while 38% chose Republicans. This lead represents a seven-point drop in support for Democrats since May. (Link)

Posted by Paul at 1:42 PM | Permalink

The war on drugs, indisputably elective and fought in our neighborhoods, is undermining our liberty:

In Hudson v. Michigan, handed down Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out yet another “drug war exception” to the Fourth Amendment, which was written to protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons and homes. Unfortunately, the ruling is likely to lead to more military-style no-knock raids of people’s homes and businesses, which will mean some innocent people’s homes will be raided, and a few people are likely to be killed.

[…]

Neither the buyer nor the seller of drugs is likely to complain to the police, even if a transaction goes sour. A user of illicit drugs is unlikely to call the police and say, “Hey, there are illicit drugs in my apartment.” To get evidence to prosecute these laws increasingly intrusive methods of getting into otherwise private places and surprising people are necessary. Therefore the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures must be and has been progressively weakened.

Among the methods increasingly employed are undercover operatives and informants, “no-knock” warrants, in which a judge can authorize serving a warrant without the police knocking and announcing, and military-style SWAT team invasions. These tactics can put police at risk if a person is confused and thinks criminals are breaking down his door, and they have led to “wrong-door” raids where innocent citizens have been killed by the police.

[…]

The decision could mean, in effect, that every search warrant becomes a “no-knock” warrant.

No-knock entry is largely a feature of the drug war. The Court didn’t launch the drug war. And its decision in Hudson tells us only what the police can do without invoking application of the exclusionary rule. The decision doesn’t tell us what the police have to do; it doesn’t tell us what our elected representatives must permit them to do. The politicians could, if they wished, restrict the use of no-knock entry, or expose the police to substantial liability for violation of the knock-and-announce rule.

So where are the Democratic politicians? The ones who worry for the privacy of U.S. residents making international calls to al-Qaeda? The president’s insistence upon monitoring these calls has led some Democrats to talk of his impeachment. But what of police who unannouncedly bust into the homes of the innocent, in some cases killing them? Are we to have any talk about that?

And where are the Republican politicians? The ones who inform us that our boys are dying to secure to the Iraqis the liberty we supposedly enjoy here? We are, they say, “struggl[ing] to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.” Is it not terrifying when innocent people have their “door beaten down in the middle of the night by armed, masked men”?

If the police are failing to knock-and-announce, it’s not because the Court said they must. It’s because city governments, more often than not controlled by Democrats, allow it. It’s because Congress and the state legislatures, more often than not controlled by Republicans, allow it. It is, in other words, because we allow it.

We can blame the Court for not saving us from ourselves. Or we can we reexamine the notion that it’s possible to station drug war troops in our midst without danger to our safety and freedom:

It is certain, that all parts of Europe which are enslaved, have been enslaved by armies; and it is absolutely impossible, that any nation which keeps them amongst themselves can long preserve their liberties; nor can any nation perfectly lose their liberties who are without such guests: And yet, though all men see this, and at times confess it, yet all have joined in their turns, to bring this heavy evil upon themselves and their country.

Posted by Paul at 12:00 PM | Permalink

One hundred forty-nine House Democrats — three-quarters of them — voted against this:

(7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.

So here’s the situation: on the one hand, the Republicans have effectively abandoned any commitment to their core values of fiscal restraint, federalism and limited government. Because I believe this apostasy should not go unpunished, I’ve repeatedly stated my intention to refrain — for the first time in my life — from voting Republican in this fall’s election.

On the other hand, the Democrats are insane, morally corrupt surrender monkeys who, among other things, cannot distinguish between the imperfections of democracy and the systematic evil of tyranny. Accordingly, they must not be allowed to govern.

Someone tell me please: what are sensible people to do? I can’t be the only one who feels trapped between the unprincipled and the psychotic.

Posted by Paul at 4:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

“Top court upholds no-knock police search” (Link)

• When executing even a valid search warrant on a home, Supreme Court precedent ordinarily requires the police to knock on the door and announce their presence before entering. Exactly how long the police must wait between announcement and entry is a fact-intensive and case-specific question, and there are times when the police need not announce themselves at all. But the general rule is they must knock and announce.

• The knock-and-announce rule serves three interests:

1. “… the protection of human life and limb, because an unannounced entry may provoke violence in supposed self-defense by the surprised resident.”
2. “… the protection of property. Breaking a house (as the old cases typically put it) absent an announcement would penalize someone who ‘did not know of the process, of which, if he had notice, it is to be presumed that he would obey it …’”
3. “… those elements of privacy and dignity that can be destroyed by a sudden entrance. It gives residents the ‘opportunity to prepare themselves for’ the entry of the police.”

• In Hudson v. Michigan, decided today by a 5-4 vote, the state did not dispute that its officers had violated the knock-and-announce rule. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority: “From the trial level onward, Michigan has conceded that the entry was a knock-and-announce violation. The issue here is remedy. [We have previously] declined to decide whether the exclusionary rule is appropriate for violation of the knock-and-announce requirement. That question is squarely before us now.” [Emphasis added; citations omitted.]

• The exclusionary rule provides “that evidence secured by illegal means and in bad faith cannot be introduced in a criminal trial. The technical term is that it is “excluded” upon a motion to suppress made by the lawyer for the accused. It is based on the constitutional requirement that “…no [person] can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.”

• In Hudson, the Court had to decide “whether violation of the ‘knock-and-announce’ rule require[d] the suppression of all evidence found in the search” of Booker Hudson’s home.

• The backstory:

Police obtained a warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker Hudson. They discovered both. Large quantities of drugs were found, including cocaine rocks in Hudson’s pocket. A loaded gun was lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession.

This case is before us only because of the method of entry into the house. When the police arrived to execute the warrant, they announced their presence, but waited only a short time — perhaps “three to five seconds” — before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson’s home. Hudson moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence, arguing that the premature entry violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

• The trial court granted Hudson’s motion to suppress, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed and the Michigan Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and today affirmed the judgment the Michigan appeals court.

• Justice Scalia:

In Weeks v. United States, we adopted the federal exclusionary rule for evidence that was unlawfully seized from a home without a warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We began applying the same rule to the States, through the Fourteenth Amendment, in Mapp v. Ohio.

Suppression of evidence, however, has always been our last resort, not our first impulse. The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large. We have therefore been ‘cautio[us] against expanding’ it, and ‘have repeatedly emphasized that the rule’s ‘costly toll’ upon truth-seeking and law enforcement objectives presents a high obstacle for those urging [its] application.’ [Citations omitted.]

[…]

[Whether or not they followed the knock-and-announce rule] the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house.

What the knock-and-announce rule has never protected … is one’s interest in preventing the government from seeing or taking evidence described in a warrant. Since the interests that were violated in this case have nothing to do with the seizure of the evidence, the exclusionary rule is inapplicable.

• Justice Scalia goes on to suggest that the remedy when police violate the knock-and-announce rule is not application of the exclusionary rule. The remedy, he says, is to sue the police.

• Justice Breyer, who was joined in dissent by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg:

In Wilson v. Arkansas, a unanimous Court held that the Fourth Amendment normally requires law enforcement officers to knock and announce their presence before entering a dwelling. Today’s opinion holds that evidence seized from a home following a violation of this requirement need not be suppressed.

As a result, the Court destroys the strongest legal incentive to comply with the Constitution’s knock-and-announce requirement.

• Elsewhere —

Radley Balko:

Because of qualified and sovereign immunity, which effectively bar both officers and the state from civil suits in these cases, there is now no effective penalty for police who conduct illegal no-knock raids.

Orin Kerr:

One of the debates between Justice Scalia’s majority opinion and Justice Breyer’s dissenting opinion in the new knock-and-announce decision, Hudson v. Michigan, is which opinion is more consistent with the Court’s Fourth Amendment precedents. According to Scalia, automatic suppression for a knock-and-announce violation is inconsisent with precedent; according to Breyer, precedents strong[ly] support such a rule. Which side is right?

As a doctrinal matter, it seems to me that Justice Scalia’s majority opinion has it basically right.

CNN:

Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O’Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant.

But she retired before a decision was issued and, under court rules, her vote did not count. That left a 4-4 tie, prompting the court to rehear the arguments.

Hudson was a drug war case. And although it seems to me that Scalia has the better argument here, the whole business of no-knock entry would be rendered largely moot were it not for the drug war. If the police are anxious to enter a home, it’s not because they think the murderer inside is about to flush a body. It’s because they think the junkie inside is about to flush a rock. Of course, if the police happen to kick in the door of the wrong house, viz your house, you can either resist and die in the ensuing firefight or submit and live to commence a decade or more of litigation.

If we’re alarmed by the expansion of police power, maybe we should remove the expansion’s predicate.

Posted by Paul at 10:22 PM | Permalink

Victor Davis Hanson:

The alien from Mexico chooses which American laws he finds convenient. He wants our border police to leave him alone — until he becomes lost in the desert or is attacked by robbers.

The employer expects trespassing laws to be enforced to keep vagrants off his premises, but then assumes that the same vigilant police will ignore the illegal status of his cheap labor force.

And does the city council that orders its policemen not to turn over arrested illegal aliens to the border patrol similarly allow townspeople to ignore their municipal tax bills?

When thousands operate cars without state-mandated licenses and car insurance, why should other drivers bother to purchase them? If police pull over motorists and do not verify the legal status of aliens, why do they check for outstanding arrest warrants of citizens?

[…]

… once we as a nation choose to ignore our keystone laws of sovereignty and citizenship, the entire edifice of a once unimpeachable legal system will collapse. Ironically, we would then become no different from those nations whose citizens are now fleeing to our own shores to escape the wages of lawlessness. (Link)

Posted by Paul at 4:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Although hedging his bets — “it’s too soon to tell” — political guru Dick Morris puts his credibility on the line today with a prediction of coming disaster for Republicans:

Current surveys show a tendency toward the Democrats but do not show a rout as of yet. But any Republican strategists who take comfort from that did not live through 1986 or 1994, the two most recent years when a party trend swept through Congress like a plague, killing the deserving and the undeserving alike.

In both of those years, the trend toward the party that eventually won manifested itself only in the last week of polling and really only in the last few days. So it will be in 2006.

Posted by Paul at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Or so says a drug warrior:

Illegal drug use in the United States “has by and large already been decriminalized,” said former U.S. drug czar and retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey.

Of course, that’s nonsense. But it’s also a tacit admission, by one of its leading proponents, that the drug war is a failure. We have spent billions, stuffed our prisons and subverted our liberties to prosecute the drug war. If after all of that we can still say drugs have been effectively decriminalized, what lesson might we draw?