Lone Wolf November 6, 2009
The House Judiciary Committee marked up an amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act today. The Democrats succeeded in seriously watering down a number of provisions and in deleting one key section entirely – the so-called “lone wolf” provision, which was passed in added because of limitations that had kept the FBI from searching the computer of Zacharias Moussaoui, 9/11’s 20th hijacker.
The FBI believed it had no authority to access Moussaoui’s laptop because existing statutes only permitted such searches in cases where suspected terrorists was working with a foreign power. Had the government been able to search Moussaoi’s computer, it is likely 9/11 never would have happened. A sobering thought.
Under the lone wolf provision, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is applicable to individuals “engaged in terrorism or the activities thereof”, even if they are not acting on behalf of a foreign power. Some have argued that the FBI could have gained access to Moussaoui’s laptop under existing statutes. But the fact that the FBI believed it couldn’t – and therefore didn’t – and that the lack of clarity regarding solo actors resulted in the loss of untold lives – those killed on 9/11 as well as those killed in subsequent military actions – demonstrates the need for the provision.
In spite of the fact the prior administration liked to take credit for not having had another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, we have experienced a number of events with all the markings of lone wolf terrorists, including the 2001 attempted bombing of an American Airliner by Richard Reid (who continues his attacks on the U.S. from prison), the July 2002 shooting of El Al Airline employees at LAX, and the June 2009 shooting at a Little Rock recruiting office – just to mention a few.
I find it so ironic that the same party to eliminate the lone wolf provision is also twisting arms to get its health care overhaul through Congress. How is it that people who take such an expansive view of the federal government’s authority to regulate every facet of human living hold such a narrow view of the authority of the federal government to protect us from those who want to see us dead?
They will empower the federal government to reach obscenely deep into our pockets, yet will tie the hands of the same government when it tries to protect its citizens from those who seek to kill us – which is, not incidentally, the first function of government. All liberties flow out of the premise that you will be alive to exercise them.
…altogether wrong… July 14, 2009
Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times: July 7, 2009
Free “Crazy Love” July 7, 2009
Free audio book by Francis Chan available at christianaudio this month.
Profile of the Lukewarm…It is not scientific doubt, not atheism, not pantheism, not agnosticism that in our day and in this land is likely to quench the light of the gospel. It is a proud, sensuous, selfish, luxurious, churchgoing, hollow hearted prosperity.
Ouch.
Find out more at crazylovebook.com.
Maafa 21: 21st Century Holocaust July 6, 2009
Saw an amazing movie a couple of weeks ago – an carefully and passionately crafted documentation of intentional genocide against the poor in America as carried out by Planned Parenthood and others. The film is titled ”Maafa 21,” after the Swahilli word for holocaust.
They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.
But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America’s wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.
What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don’t think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it’s happening right now.
From Maafa 21 website.
A Man 4 All Seasons February 23, 2009
Watched the story of Sir Thomas More last night, thinking of course about Walter Hoye, who founded the Issues4Life Foundation to bring to light the holocaust of the unborn happening right under our very noses.
Just as Thomas did not waiver on the sanctity of marriage, Walter does not waiver on the protection of human life.
Just as Thomas counted the cost and paid the ultimate price for standing on truth, Walter too is looking at the near certainty of a prison sentence yet will not allow himself to be silenced by succombing to the judge’s ”stay-away” order (see prior post).
Just as Thomas continued his appeal to justice even to the end of his life, Walter intends to appeal his case and seek to have Oakland’s unjust and unconstitutionally vague “bubble ordinance” overturned through lawful means.
Just as Thomas, Walter did everything he could humanly do to stay within the parameters of the ordinance, yet he, as Thomas, was convicted.
And just as Thomas was chastised by his son-in-law, William Roper, for not going after his betrayers, so Walter, I’m sure, will be asked to take his fight to the “next level.”
But just like Thomas, Walter will resolutely defend the existence of a legal system that has unjustly taken away his freedom, because the alternative is unthinkable.
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?
The Road to Chaos February 22, 2009
“I think that when statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their public duties, they lead their countries by a short route to chaos.”
Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons
Walter Hoye February 20, 2009
I have to keep this short because it is nearly 3:00am and I have an early meeting tomorrow. Just returned from a long day in San Francisco which began with the sentencing hearing of my friend Walter Hoye. Walter was arrested last year for violating Oakland’s newly enacted “bubble” statute, which prohibits approaching, without permission, within eight feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic. The law is modeled after the Colorado statute upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hill v. Colorado in 2000.
Anyway, Walter was convicted in January of two counts of violating the statute – each of which carry a maximum penalty of a $2000 fine and/or one year in jail.
At the hearing today, the judge attempted to offer Walter 3 years probation on the condition that he agree to stay at least 100 yards from the Oakland clinic where he was arrested. The DA had recommended probation and a ”stay away order”, stipulating that if Walter did not agree to the sentence, he should be required to serve the maximum 2 year jail term. This for holding a sign and handing out pamphlets with alternatives to abortion.
As it turned out, Walter did not agree to the stay away order! He did agree to abide by the law, but he would not – could not – forfeit his constitutional right to speak on the public sidewalk at 200 Webster Street. Nevertheless, the judge tried to impose the “sentence” three times and each time painted himself further into a corner. I think the judge was shocked that anyone would risk his freedom simply to inform women that they have choices to abortion. As a result, Walter will return for another hearing next month while the judge scratches his head.
Here is an example of the type of egregious behavior Walter has been convicted of. Please note that Mr. Hoye is not the woman in the orange vest (that would be a clinic volunteer), nor is he shoving his sign in anyone’s face.
The San Francisco Chronicle wrote a decent piece on today’s events – complete with this fully loaded quote from Katrina Cantrell, executive director of Women’s Health Specialists:
“When anyone restricts access to reproductive health services, every woman affected is a living example of a colonized body.”
Wow. Did she really say that? First of all, Walter never restricted the access of women (“colonized” or not) to the abortion clinic. He simply asked them if they were interested in hearing about their choices. Aren’t clinic directors part of the ”pro-choice” movement? If so, why this unfounded paranoia when another choice (besides the one that puts $$$ in your purse) is suggested?
Second, I object to the term “reproductive health clinic” as a euphemism for abortion clinic. Just call it what it is. Because “reproductive” it certainly is NOT.
Finally, the idea that a woman’s relationship vis-a-vis her unborn child resembles that of a ”colonized body” is indefensibly ignorant…at best. It is not just wrong…it is exactly wrong. Not only is the phrase “colonized body” pregnant with all kinds of imperial and racial overtones, the inconvenient fact is that if anyone is the colonizer in this absurd analogy, it would be the mother. The fetus is merely the “colonizee,” subject to, and at the mercy of, his or her protector.
Since Katrina brought it up, let’s see what role the Women’s Health Specialists play in the colonization scenario. Because the clinic provides the colonizer a means of ridding herself of her unwanted populace, I guess it would be the Royal African Company pillaging the West African Coast for lucrative human commodities.
Maybe she’s not exactly wrong after all.
Vigilance February 20, 2009
Changed my blog template. Again. This one is called Vigilance. Why did I choose it? Because it is so necessary.
a kinder, gentler eugenic? January 26, 2009
Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
Nancy Pelosi: Speaker. U.S. House of Representatives. 2009
The problem of the dependent, delinquent and defective elements in modern society, we must repeat, cannot be minimized because of the alleged small numerical proportion to the rest of the population. The proportion seems small only because we accustom ourselves to the habit of looking upon feeble-mindedness as a separate and distinct calamity to the race, as a chance phenomenon unrelated to the sexual and biological customs not only condoned by even encouraged by our so-called civilization. The actual dangers can only be fully realized when we have acquired definite information concerning the financial and cultural cost of these classes to the community . . . when we see the funds that should be available for human development, for scientific, artistic and philosophic research, being diverted annually, by hundreds of millions of dollars, to the care and segregation of men, women, and children who should have never been born.
Margaret Sanger: Founder. Planned Parenthood. 1922
Come, let us reason together… January 7, 2009
This post is largely a response to certain comments inspired by my previous post, “May Reason Prevail.” First, I never stated that Mr. Barker, does not have a right to post his sign alongside the nativity. That is a matter for the folks in the city of Olympia to decide. I am simply commenting on the content of the placard. With that said, I still think the sign is absurd, despite its appeal to reason.
Ichabod’s question, “What makes an atheist’s view less valid than a non-atheist?” gets to the core of the issue – and raises the subsequent question, “Is validity a necessary component of one’s belief system?” I would argue that it is. Which is why Dawkins’ purple spaghetti monster is a straw man. Now, if Dawkins truly thinks that belief in his mythical invention is equally valid to belief that the world was created by an intentional, intelligent Being, then he is either completely dishonest or completely delusional.
The cosmological claims of theism are simple (not simplistic) and compelling. It is the atheist who bears the burden of demonstrating the validity of conclusions that are not immediately apparent.
Theism is based on the premise that the vast complexities of the macro and micro universe can be explained by a force – God – acting outside of and apart from humanity, nature and time. Moreover, the laws of logic, numbers, and physics are not merely abstract principles floating around somewhere in space; rather they reside in the mind of God. The idea that God has mind distinguishes theists from pantheists, who believe that God is everything and everything is God.
In short, when theists contemplate the origin of things, they see a God of mind and purpose. It is not an irrational leap of faith to believe that the intricacies of our universe, which depend on billions upon billions of complex processes occurring at precisely the same time in an ornately particular manner, are the product of a sentient Being.
Atheists, on the other hand, seem hard-pressed to show how the physical universe came into being through raw chance. And I don’t see how raw chance, regardless of the length of time in which it has to operate, can ever begin to explain the existence of non-physical attributes that possess some degree of universality, such as justice. Even if one could present a cogent argument for justice as a purely social construct, how does one explain the laws of logic upon which justice relies? A fortuitous toss of the dice?
As William of Ockham put it, “all other things being equal, the simplest solution is best.”
And herein lies the rub. All other things are not equal. The kind of God who would create humans capable of experiencing such exquisite emotions as we are (including the anger that wells up at the mention of such a Being) and then creates a universe perfectly suited to our need for sustenance and our desire for beauty and magnificence cannot be merely winked at and forgotten. This kind of God does not settle into the pages of some Middle School science text as a fact to be recalled on exam day. The proper question, really, is not whether such a God exists, but what to do with Him if He does.
As far as solipsism, I would grant that not all atheists are solipsists. It has, however, been my experience that atheists tend not to be convinced as to the reality/truth that exists outside of their own minds. Still, it is unfair to categorize all atheists that way. Mea culpa.
May Reason Prevail December 5, 2008
Dan Barker, of the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” has been all over the news lately claiming his right to post a large placard next to a nativity scene in Olympia, Washington. The placard reads: “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens our hearts and enslaves our minds.”
Have you ever noticed that avowed atheists are among the most mis-focused people on the planet? You would think that if they truly believed there is no God and no afterlife, they would furiously occupy themselves with the business of living well. Don’t worry, be happy. You would think that if they were going to bother to post anything at all it would be a giant smiley face accompanied by a placard reading “Have a Nice Day.”
So why are atheists protesting a nativity scene in Olympia when they could be cliff-diving off the coast of Acapulco or cruising the Norwegian Fjords or strolling the Champs-Elysees or any number of infinitely more interesting and pleasurable pursuits? I can respect an atheist who is a complete hedonist. I get that. If this brief life is all there is, then go for the gusto. But an atheist who spends his only existence attempting to convince the American public that the claims of Christianity are “but myth and superstition” is either a fool or, as I suspect, not really an atheist. Why so much hostility? What’s it to Mr. Atheist what I believe if there is no eternity in which it makes a shred of difference?
A while back, I had an enlightening conversation with an atheist in my family. As it turns out, he was not an atheist after all, but a solipsist. He worshiped at the altar of his own mind, because it was all he could know for certain. He was forever stuck in the dark ages of Descartes: cogito, ergo sum. I think, therefore I am. He never bothered to engage the thought that others might exist as well and that they might be bound up with him in a larger humanity subject to an even larger origin of humanity. Instead he lives his life within the confines of his own mind. I am and that is all I know. And because I am all I know, I am all that truly matters – the ultimate statement of radical autonomy. Except that it’s not so radical. We all experience a phase in which we express this I-centered worldview – it’s called childhood. And, just like children, solipsistic atheists are not at all autonomous.
By posting his sign, Mr. Atheist challenges the prevailing American notion that there is a God to whom we ultimately must give account because this notion shatters his theology, which holds “I am the I AM.” And there are no others besides me. But it is the atheist, more than all others, who is utterly dependent upon a society that adheres to basic principles of civil morality, including the ones that allow him to make his absurd statements to begin with. A society loosed from cultural and religious moorings would soon find Mr. Atheist and his rantings burdensome. To whom would he then appeal? Certainly not to God. To a rational populace? Not possible, since he has effectively made himself the arbiter of all that is rational, in which case he would become to those around him just another mythical god-figure that, according to his own wisdom, must be rejected. To the solice of his mind? Probably. And that would be fine, so long as he didn’t have a mob of fellow atheists pelting him with rocks if they chose this means of maximizing their liberty.
I know that’s dark. But it gets darker still. Mr. Atheist-Solipsist may be a fool, but he is not stupid. He understands the futility of his beliefs. If he is all there is, then the world cannot continue to exist without him. On the other hand, if the world goes on, then he will have spent his life defending a fabrication. This, I believe, is the thought that torments atheists to the core. Human beings crave significance – which is one reason why Mr. Atheist fought to post his placard to begin with. We are wired for community. The atheist, who ultimately lives only in the solitude of his own mind, has no objective, rational reason to exist at all. This is the terror of all human terrors. In order to validate the only thing he knows with apodectic certainty – I am – he must subjugate all else to his mind, his will. This is the legacy of believing atheists. To be truly free from the enslavement of one’s mind by any other, the other must be first rejected, then destroyed, and finally anhiliated.
Okay. That’s about as dark as it gets. Nihilism is the only rational end of true atheism. Those naive atheists who post signs calling for freedom from the gods of moral judgment so they can prance around in some Rousseauian utopia have simply never lived with the consequences of their theology.
Have a Nice Day 
The Price of Speech December 4, 2008
Crystal Dixon was fired by the University of Toledo for submitting the following letter to the editor in the Toledo “Free” Press:
Gay rights and wrongs: another perspective
Written by Autumn Lee | | news@toledofreepress.com
By Crystal Dixon
I read with great interest Michael Miller’s April 6 column, “Gay Rights and Wrongs.”
I respectfully submit a different perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider.
First, human beings, regardless of their choices in life, are of ultimate value to God and should be viewed the same by others. At the same time, one’s personal choices lead to outcomes either positive or negative.
As a Black woman who happens to be an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner, I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are “civil rights victims.” Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a Black woman. I am genetically and biologically a Black woman and very pleased to be so as my Creator intended. Daily, thousands of homosexuals make a life decision to leave the gay lifestyle evidenced by the growing population of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex Gays) and Exodus International just to name a few. Frequently, the individuals report that the impetus to their change of heart and lifestyle was a transformative experience with God; a realization that their choice of same-sex practices wreaked havoc in their psychological and physical lives. Charlene E. Cothran, publisher of Venus Magazine, was an aggressive, strategic supporter of gay rights and a practicing lesbian for 29 years, before she renounced her sexuality and gave Jesus Christ stewardship of her life. The gay community vilified her angrily and withdrew financial support from her magazine, upon her announcement that she was leaving the lesbian lifestyle. Rev. Carla Thomas Royster, a highly respected New Jersey educator and founder and pastor of Blessed Redeemer Church in Burlington, NJ, married to husband Mark with two sons, bravely exposed her previous life as a lesbian in a tell-all book. When asked why she wrote the book, she responded “to set people free… I finally obeyed God.”
Economic data is irrefutable: The normative statistics for a homosexual in the USA include a Bachelor’s degree: For gay men, the median household income is $83,000/yr. (Gay singles $62,000; gay couples living together $130,000), almost 80% above the median U.S. household income of $46,326, per census data. For lesbians, the median household income is $80,000/yr. (Lesbian singles $52,000; Lesbian couples living together $96,000); 36% of lesbians reported household incomes in excess of $100,000/yr. Compare that to the median income of the non-college educated Black male of $30,539. The data speaks for itself.
The reference to the alleged benefits disparity at the University of Toledo was rather misleading. When the University of Toledo and former Medical University of Ohio merged, both entities had multiple contracts for different benefit plans at substantially different employee cost sharing levels. To suggest that homosexual employees on one campus are being denied benefits avoids the fact that ALL employees across the two campuses regardless of their sexual orientation, have different benefit plans. The university is working diligently to address this issue in a reasonable and cost-efficient manner, for all employees, not just one segment.
My final and most important point. There is a divine order. God created human kind male and female (Genesis 1:27). God created humans with an inalienable right to choose. There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order. It is base human nature to revolt and become indignant when the world or even God Himself, disagrees with our choice that violates His divine order. Jesus Christ loves the sinner but hates the sin (John 8:1-11.) Daily, Jesus Christ is radically transforming the lives of both straight and gay folks and bringing them into a life of wholeness: spiritually, psychologically, physically and even economically. That is the ultimate right.
Crystal Dixon lives in Maumee.
Posted April 18, 2008
It takes a family to raise a village… November 16, 2008
Tonight I was in Oakland for Life Legal Defense Foundation’s annual dinner. Jennifer Roback Morse was the speaker and she focused largely on the defense of one-man, one-woman marriage. Her argument is that marriage is gender-specific and child-centered. The primary reason the state is involved in the business of marriage to begin with is not to provide tax benefits, but because it has an interest in ensuring a secure environment for the products of marriage – which are not SUV’s, but children.
Somewhere in the whole debate over California’s Proposition 8, we seem to have forgotten this. Children are entitled to a stable, functional home with two parents – one of each gender. Of course, in our divorce friendly state, most children do not get what they are rightfully owed. But the state’s interest in facilitating (to the extent it is able) an ideal family environment remains. In this world of technologically-enhanced fertilization, why should we continue to assert that children have a right to be raised by two heterosexual parents? Because – please don’t faint with shock here – men and women are fundamentally different.
The so-called feminist movement of the middle of the last century did much to undermine the inherent worth of women. It is an affront to women to tell them they are only valuable if stripped of their femininity. Yet last century’s feminists viewed liberation from all things feminine as their objective. And since the most obvious uniquely female quality is the ability to have children, the old guard demanded that childbearing be optional. Instead of celebrating the amazing privilege of experiencing the growth of a new human being within our own bodies, they determined that women would be better served if given the right to destroy the lives of their yet unborn children at will.
[By the way, the original feminists of the late 1800's had a completely different view of abortion. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, for example, spoke for the most progressive feminists when she wrote, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."]
Because last century’s feminists got their way, we now have an entire generation living in the shadow of that determination. An entire generation – the first in human history – that believes marriage is not connected to sex and that neither marriage nor sex are connected to babies. A generation that views women and men as fundamentally interchangeable, sex as purely recreational, and children as disposable. How ironic that in an age that prizes all things holistic, we should become so completely disintegrated.
For this reason, the state – now more than ever – has a substantial interest in protecting children by upholding the integrity of the bi-gender marriage relationship.
With that said, I don’t disagree with Roback-Morse’s child-centered marriage argument, but I’m not sure it’s sufficient.
I suppose one could counter that, given the epidemic of dysfunctional heterosexual families, the notion of the holistic family is a myth and that the state has no legitimate interest in preserving myths. Even if that were true (and I don’t believe it is), the state would still not possess the authority to call any relationship it chooses a “marriage.” In spite of Jacques Derrida’s efforts to deconstruct language, words still have meaning and the word “marriage” conveys a specific relationship, namely that of one man and one woman, that the state is not at liberty – California Supreme Court justices notwithstanding – to alter. It is akin to giving the state the authority to call – or not call – anyone it chooses “human” – or to determine the properties of numbers, for that matter. We may be foolish enough to think we can expand the role of the state to define marriage or humanness or numbers, but this does not change the fact that these things, and their unique properties, exist apart from the state’s determination. Of course, the authority of the state to make such determinations can have severe consequences, as history has borne out. Nevertheless, the state’s power in such cases is limited to a particular time and location. It is temporal – and ultimately illusory.
Election Warp-Up: FOCA November 7, 2008
I intentionally didn’t post much leading up to the election because I was up to my eyeballs in work and because we have been bombarded by the various campaigns for the better part of a year. But that’s all over now. More accurately, it’s just beginning. So it’s time to address one of the first pieces of legislation we can expect from our new administration: the Freedom of Choice Act, or FOCA.
FOCA has probably been introduced in every Congress since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1993, if not earlier. In its simplest terms, FOCA would codify Roe v. Wade, meaning it would be very difficult to pass ANY restrictions on abortion whatsoever, especially before the baby is viable, or able to live outside his or her mother’s womb. Moreover, the provisions in the Act are RETROACTIVE, meaning they apply to any legislation enacted after Roe.
Aside from its provisions, FOCA is also troubling because it’s findings are, frankly, absurd. For example Act opens with: “The United States was founded on core principles, such as liberty, personal privacy, and equality, which ensure that individuals are free to make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference and discrimination.”
This is complete nonsense. First, the US was NOT founded on “personal privacy.” It was founded on certain freedoms, such as the freedom of speech – especially political and religious speech – and the freedom to establish a religion or practice one’s religion without governmental interference. These are PUBLIC rights, not private ones. That’s not to say we don’t have a certain expectation of privacy – but it’s certainly not an absolute right…which is why people don’t have carte blanch to “make their most intimate decisions without governmental interference…” You only have the liberty to make those decisions as long as your “intimate decision” does not impinge on the rights of others. In this case, the “intimate decision” so vigorously defended in the Act results one person depriving another of his or her constitutionally mandated (if not always protected) right to life. (Yes, I know, it’s called “Freedom of CHOICE” but it’s all about one choice…namely the one that puts $$$ in the coffers of Planned Parenthood).
In addition, the right being defended is inherently discriminatory, in that it is only exercised against ONE GROUP of human beings – the unborn (or, constitutionally speaking, “our posterity”).
Even though the Act’s language says that certain restrictions on abortion are permissible after viability, the findings hold that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban “effectively overturns a core tenet of Roe v. Wade.” The authors argue that the Partial Birth Abortion Ban does not contain an exception for cases in which a woman’s health is at risk. But they fail to mention that the so-called “health exception” has consistently been expanded in the past to make any such restriction meaningless. “Health” has been used to encompass not only physical conditions, but mental, emotional, social, financial, and educational concerns. It is the quintessential example of the exception swallowing the rule. For this reason, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban contains a “life exception” rather than the ubiquitous health exception, meaning the Ban does not apply when the life of the mother is threatened.
The Supreme Court, in Gonzales v. Carhart, held that the life exception was sufficient, because the ban only prohibited one type of abortion procedure: the one in which a baby is partially delivered feet first and is savagely murdered by the insertion of a scapula in the back of its head before the skull is collapsed so the dead baby can be pulled from the womb. Other procedures are still available. Abortion providers are still free to cut up babies inside the womb and deliver them in pieces without fear of recrimination.
If FOCA is passed, the right of states to determine how to best exercise their interest in protecting the lives of unborn babies (a right, by the way, articulated in virtually every abortion case, including Roe) will be decimated. If the Partial Birth Abortion Ban – which prohibits only the most barbaric of post-viability abortion procedures – will not pass the FOCA test, NOTHING will. So you can forget about things like informed consent requirements or trying to protect young girls from being taken to abortion clinics without their parents’ knowledge.
Because the right to obtain an abortion is already the most widely protected of all rights, FOCA is unnecessary. It is a raw power grab. I can’t help but be reminded of Abraham Lincoln’s House Divided speech:
“A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States…”
FOCA is no less than an attempt to codify the tenets set forth by Justice Teney in Dred Scott v. Sandford: the abolishment of the rights of personhood for an entire people group based on arbitrary characteristics and the unfettered right of one group of Americans to determine the fate of another for no other reason than the Court said so.
How baffling, then, that President-Elect Obama should have promised to defend that right as his first act as Chief Executive by passing the Freedom of Choice Act.
“Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.”
Barack Obama (July 17, 2007 speech to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund)
Give Us A King November 3, 2008
Fed up with the present administration, the people said, “Give us a king to govern us, one just like the other nations have.”
Okay then. I have to agree that you haven’t done an especially good job of governing yourselves. You’ve been giving yourselves over to the most inconsequential of pursuits, completely missing that which is essential for your well-being.
But in the interest of full disclosure, let me tell you how the king you are about to choose will rule over you:
He will take your sons - your legacy – and employ them in his imperial processions.
He will unilaterally select for himself an elite cadre of generals and captains to run his war machine. They will build his weapons of warfare and assemble a fleet to effectively deliver those weapons. And, at the designated time, they will clear the way for his conquests.
Your daughters will be put to work in the service sector: beauty salons, restaurants, cafes, and the like.
He will exercise the power of eminent domain against the best of your property, including your crops, orchards, and vineyards, turning them over to his special appointees.
He will tax your earnings and the remainder of your property and use the revenue to fund his expansive bureaucracy.
He will take your top employees and your best machinery into the service of his administration.
He will nationalize your food and clothing industries and, in the end, you’ll be no better than slaves.
And on that day, you’ll express outrage at the king you have chosen for yourselves. But no one will be there to hear you.
But the people said, “We don’t care what you say. We still want a king to govern us. And then we will be just like the other nations.”
Okay then. Give them a king.
snapshot October 3, 2008
I’ve never felt more blessed to be an American. I know that’s a strange thing to say at this particular time in history. We are, after all, engaged in a drawn-out war that has not gone especially well. Our Congress, with its lowest approval rating since…well…1789, continues its partisan rants even as it attempts to pass the mother of all financial rescue bills – in record time no less. Our famously inarticulate president is desperately trying not to leave a legacy of disarray before he leaves office. Our economy, it turns out, rests solidly atop a pile of near worthless mortgage notes. Our allies belittle us and our enemies are invited as guests on our top-rated talk shows. Even Mother Nature, it seems, has it in for us. Many would argue this is not our finest hour. Not exactly the best time to be an American.
Still, I couldn’t be more proud.
I have talked to hundreds of people over the past two weeks and almost to a person they oppose the economic bailout rescue stabilization package that will surely pass the House tomorrow. Not only are they not interested in bailing out Wall Street; they are not even remotely desirous of being rescued. Our fast food, MTV, have it my way, it’s all about me, entitlement-minded populace knows that the times they are a changin’. Hard times are upon us. And they are not looking to Wall Street, Main Street, Pennsylvania Avenue, or Capital Hill for a handout. Instead, they are expressing their collective willingness to embrace some serious pain. Above all, they do not want to impose yet another onerous tax burden on their children and grandchildren – regardless of how much it will cost them in the short term.
This is remarkable. So unselfish. So honorable. And so utterly American.
Back to bondage… September 23, 2008
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.
Alexander Tyler 1770
Another Round for Rounds July 4, 2008
This week the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, overturned an injunction that has blocked the implementation of South Dakota’s full and informed consent to abortion law since 2005. In addition to providing information regarding the physical and emotional risks of abortion, the statute requires doctors performing abortions in South Dakota to tell their patients:
-
That the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being;
-
That the pregnant woman has an existing relationship with that unborn human being and that the relationship enjoys protection under the United States Constitution and under the laws of South Dakota;
-
That by having an abortion, her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated;
Moreover, physicians are required to let women know that “medical assistance may be available for prenatal care, childbirth, and neonatal care” and to provide the name of a pregnancy help center in the vicinity. Women will also be told that fathers are “legally responsible to provide child support” following birth. Informed consent, after all, is meaningless unless one is made aware of the consequences of not electing the procedure in question.
The decision, as expected, has rankled more than a few so-called “pro-choice” advocates. But wait…there’s more.
The statute defines “human being” for the purposes of the informed consent to abortion statute as “an individual living member of the species of Homo sapiens, including the unborn human being during the entire embryonic and fetal ages from fertilization to full gestation.”
It’s not surprising then that Planned Parenthood sued to enjoin enforcement of the 2005 law. Relying on its two expert witnesses, Planned Parenthood argued that the statute violated the free speech rights of patients and physicians and that it constituted an undue burden on a woman’s right to abortion. One of the esteemed experts stated in his affadavit that the the proposition “that from the moment of conception, an embryo or fetus is a ‘whole, separate, unique, living human being’ . . . is not a scientific or medical fact, nor is there a scientific or medical consensus to that effect.”
I haven’t done a formal study, but I’m not sure how many scientists or medical experts would disagree that an embryo or fetus is “whole,” “separate,” “unique,” “living,” “human,” or a “being.” Even embryonic stem cell researchers, who disassemble human embryos for a living, would largely admit to the statutory definition – if human embryos are not all of the above, they would not be suitable research subjects. Under the newly enforceable law, South Dakotans are not asking physicians to tell their patients that babies are delivered by storks – just that they are what they are – no more, no less.
In the interest of ideological ecumenism, might there be an alternate definition that would satisfy Planned Parenthood’s crack panel of professional witnesses? To this, one expert (a bioethicist no less) responds with the following: “To describe an embryo or fetus scientifically and factually, one would say that a living embryo or fetus in utero is a developing organism of the species Homo Sapiens which may become a self-sustaining member of the species if no organic or environmental incident interrupts its gestation.”
Ah. You mean if no expert from Planned Parenthood inserts a suction device into the patient in order to tear the living embryo or fetus apart and remove the organism from its uterine environment. Or maybe if no expert first carves the living fetus or baby into manageable fragments before delivering it piece by piece. That would certainly interrupt its gestation.
I’m confused on one thing though: would the partial breach delivery of a fetus and the jamming of surgical scissors into the living baby’s head to extract its brains to allow for a quicker delivery be referred to as an organic incident or an environmental one?
Another argument from one of Planned Parenthood’s experts is that “patients would understand the plain meaning of ‘whole, separate, unique, living human being’ to mean a ‘person’ in the fullest moral and legal sense.” Well, we certainly wouldn’t want anyone to understand that a living human being is a person in that sense. Didn’t Planned Parenthood mention something about the lack of consensus regarding the statutory definition? Maybe a whole, separate, unique, and living human being should be considered in some more constitutionally appropriate manner.
I’m sure history can inform us here.
Let’s see. Yes, the consensus in the antebellum South was that certain whole, separate, unique, and living human beings should be considered, not in the “person” sense, but in the chattel sense. Perhaps this moral and legal distinction would placate Planned Parenthood’s erudite experts.
If not, we can readily turn to more recent examples of the type of consensus-driven definition Planned Parenthood is yearning for. Prior to 1945, the consensus of the Third Reich was that whole, separate, unique, and living human beings who happened also to be Jewish (no doubt a constitutionally impermissible exercise of their uniqueness) should be considered in the untermensch sense. I wonder whether we could amend South Dakota’s statute to include this enlightened German term so as not to offend certain expert sensibilities.
Now that I think about it, 1945 was a long time ago. Our world is growing, evolving, and maturing. We are not as uncivilized as we were a generation ago. There are sufficient instances of consensus-based distinctions among whole, separate, unique, and living human beings in any number of contemporary contexts in our global community – just look at Cambodia…Sudan…Yugoslavia…Rwanda…South Africa…India. Why not simply require physicians to tell women that living fetuses are dalits – the untouchables? That would eliminate any unnecessary and potentially unconstitutional confusion as to their moral and legal status.
The dissenting justices in Planned Parenthood v. Rounds based their objection to the decision primarily on the use of the term “human being” to refer to a living embryo or fetus. “Human being,” they argue, is fraught with impermissible metaphysical, philosophical and ideological implications. Furthermore, they cite the dependence of the living fetus on its mother for sustenance as evidence that the unborn child is neither whole, nor separate. They would prefer that we kill (I mean impose an organic or environmental incident upon) vulnerable, defenseless, unique, and living members of the species Homo Sapiens.
It will be interesting to see whether the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case. If so, Governor Rounds may have to go another round. This time, I would suggest to the South Dakota legislature that they say exactly what they – and the dissenting justices in this case – mean. After all, history has taught us that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”
In the event the informed consent law should be amended in deference to judicial propriety, the new statute should read:
A physician performing abortions in South Dakota shall be mandated to inform his or her patients that the procedure said patients are voluntarily subjecting themselves to will catastrophically and permanently interrupt the gestation of a unique and living embryo or fetus (a member of the species Homo Sapiens to which all human beings belong), since the otherwise self-sustaining embryo or fetus is defenseless to the scalpel, vacuum, or other chemical or surgical device employed by said physician to intentionally bring a complete end to the physical integrity of that unique and living member of the species Homo Sapiens who, being an embryo or fetus, is undergoing the stage of particular vulnerability common to all members of the species while they are wholly dependent on whole, separate, unique and living persons in the fullest sense.
Nothing in the aforementioned clause shall be interpreted to suggest that vulnerable, defenseless, unique, and living individuals, including embryos or fetuses from fertilization to birth, are deserving of special moral or legal consideration.
I’m no expert, but that should do it.
To Tao and Back… June 1, 2008
I have been doing some work with a secular radio program and corresponding website. I enjoy it, but at the same time, I’m wrestling with some things. We are trying to reason from universal truths…the Tao, as C.S. Lewis called it…to communicate something relevant about the present state of the world, but there doesn’t seem to be much traction here. This means one of two things: a) our audience is asleep, or b) people could give a rip about the Tao so long as gas is $4.19 a gallon.
Or both.
People are asleep. What else could explain the Food Network? Seriously…we are on the brink of a global food crisis and Americans are watching grown men duke it out over braised guinea fowl with mango sauce.
People are also worried. Edging past anxiety and wading up to their bellies in panic even. Not so much about the fact that Congress (past and present) has obligated taxpayers to a host of entitlement programs we cannot possibly sustain. Not about the fact that judges are the new lawmakers, creating constitutional rights from whole cloth. No, we are not staying up nights pondering the fissures in the foundation of our democratic republic. We are worried about how to get our kids to baseball practice and still pay the mortgage. And we are worried that if Speaker Pelosi is not entirely correct about Ahmajinedad’s contribution to the success of the surge in Iraq and about Iran’s general good will to the U.S., that our kids will be heading from baseball practice to boot camp before long. And, let’s face it, at least a few of us are wondering what’s up with these catastrophic natural disasters. And we worry that if Sharon Stone is even remotely accurate (recent apology notwithstanding) about bad karma or retribution for a nation’s wrongdoings, we may be in for a shaking ourselves.
When people hear about wars and the rumors of wars, about famines and earthquakes, they need more than clever statements about worldview and the nature of man in a “secular context.” They need more than universal principles that, by definition, apply to all people in all places over all time. They need a word from a very present God that speaks to them here and now.
So why is it then, that when the nations rage and the earth convulses, people look to the state to deliver them from this present turmoil? Why do they turn, not to the church, but to statesmen and political pundits for prophetic wisdom and hope that the world can be put right again?
Because we have a problem in America. For the better part of two decades, Christians have joined the conservative right in seeking to procure the salvation of the nation’s capitol as a singular focus, while the rest of the nation was left to…well…the left. The result of this great evangelical experiment, as it turns out, is an America that is neither conservative nor right.
We have seriously confused church and state. We employ our churches to maintain order and civility in our cities and we employ our governments to care for orphans and widows. It’s not just wrong; it’s exactly wrong.
So, how to disenthrall ourselves from this distorted dogma that has turned states and statesmen into omnipotent benefactors and the God of the universe into a crossing guard?
Perhaps a reality check is in order.
“Do you not know? Do you not hear? Has it not been told you from the beginning? Have you not understood from the foundations of the earth? It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in; who brings princes to nothing and makes the rulers of the earth as emptiness.” (Isaiah 40:22-23)
Besides this you know the time, that the hour has come for you to wake from sleep. (Romans 13:11)
No Longer Music May 29, 2008
Okay…so I was going to write about the stuff that usually preoccupies my mind in this post. And eventually I will. But today I just want to point you to someone who, instead of talking about how absurd it is that judges, political leaders and…well…people in general should prefer darkness over light, is actually doing something to bring light to the darkness.
“Is it God’s desire that no one hears the truth? That all they listen to is lies? Is it God’s desire that only Satan has a say in what people are being told at big music festivals, or in the media? Doesn’t God want his name to be lifted up in these dark places? I believe that God’s heart is broken because those in the church who have received artistic gifts from Him are unwilling to speak, and to boldly proclaim the truth outside the church.”
Now if you think the only way to share the ultimate truth is through a four-steps leaflet, you probably shouldn’t GO HERE… and you will not want to READ THIS…. and you should definitely not watch WATCH THIS VIDEO.
“Jesus is looking for artists who are willing to tell people the truth, for musicians who are willing to go into these dark places and not hide their message, for people who will live lives of power, not just talk. Romans 10:14-15 says, “How can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?”
David Pierce, No Longer Music
God and Governing January 29, 2008
A conference on ethics, virtue and statesmanship sponsored by Trinity Law School. For teachers, professors, students, pastors, church leaders, attorneys, chaplains, those working in any level of government, or anyone who believes that morality has a place in American politics.
- February 1-2, 2008
- Westin South Coast Plaza
- Costa Mesa, California
Featuring:
Os Guinness
Distinguished writer and speaker
Cofounder of The Trinity Forum
Dallas Willard
Professor of Philosophy
University of Southern California
David Wells
Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology
Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
Paul Marshall
Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom
Stephen Kennedy
Associate Professor, Trinity Graduate School and Trinity Law School
Donald McConnell
Academic Dean, Trinity Law School
Vishal Mangalwadi
International Lecturer, Social Reformer, Political Columnist
Author of Thirteen Books
Pat Nolan
President, Justice Fellowship, Prison Fellowship Ministries
