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.

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 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.

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.

Sweden’s National Board of Health and Welfare has issued new guidelines under which doctors cannot refuse to perform abortions through the 18th week of pregnancy for any reason, including sex selection. 

You should know from the outset that I believe abortion is wrong in all circumstances, except in cases of medical necessity to preserve the mother’s life.  I think the evidence reveals beyond a reasonable doubt that unborn babies are people too and we simply don’t kill people – even small people – indiscriminately (well we do, but we shouldn’t).   But I also think that even if you are in favor of abortions in certain situations, you have to wonder what in the Helsingborg this Board has been smoking.  How can a Board of physicians – which, even in Sweden, has a duty to draft its policies on the basis of something more than expedience - say it’s a-okay by them to eliminate people on the basis of gender?  This practice has been condemned by virtually every human rights body on the planet as a form of genocide, yet Sweden is happily declaring it legal.  Where’s a good UN Human Rights Council Resolution when you need one?

Meanwhile in India…

A doctor and his assistant were sent to jail for telling patients they could “take care of” unborn babies who were of the wrong sex – i.e., who were girls.  Sex selection abortions have been banned in India since 1994.

Dr. Vinary Agarwal, president of the Indian Medical Association (IMA) responding to the sentences, said, “”The medical profession is doing all it can though we have to address this as a social evil.”

Now, that’s my kind of medical board.  Who would have thought India’s physicians to be far more progressive in terms of protecting basic human rights than Sweden’s? 

In the US, however…

The jury is still out.  We haven’t formally banned the practice (yet – see HR 1822), but we certainly don’t endorse it.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists used to say sex-selection abortion is “innapropriate” – something akin to popping gum at the opera, I suppose.  Their newly scrubbed revised document  ”opposes meeting requests for sex selection for personal and family reasons…because…such requests may ultimately support sexist practices.”  It’s not exactly India, but thankfully, it’s not Sweden either.  But it does prompt me to ask: Why are people so afraid to approach the sacred cow of abortion?   Are they really afraid that if they say abortion is just flat-out wrong in some cases, they will have caved in to the right-wing fringe?  If so, they’re giving the right-wing fringe much more credit than they deserve.  Where is the voice of reason?  For that matter, where are the feminists on this issue?  After all, in most countries where sex-selection abortion is practiced, the victims are female.   But there’s no outcry because there’s no interfering with one’s veneration of the sacred cow…unless, ironically, you’re in India.

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?

“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