You may know some of this story, which relates to the current election cycle.  But the story is even more important for pro-lifers because it is part of a broader strategy to undermine First Amendment protections for political speech.

Toby Harnden of the London Daily Telegraph has written an opinion piece entitled, “Epitaph for Barack Obama’s Democrats: ‘Is that the best you can do?'”

Here’s the video of Bob Schieffer asking that question of David Axelrod:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdhP2gqBs28

You might want to watch this response by Charles Krauthammer.

As pro-lifers, we must look at this in the broader context, which is the all-out assault our right to speak on political matters.  Obama and his band of Alinsky-ites are trying to permanently strip us of this right in order to gain and keep political power for themselves.  They have been restrained by two recent Supreme Court decisions (Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), but only by narrow 5-4 majorities on the Court.  [Just a reminder: elections matter.]

Mark Levin exposes the hypocrisy of these people in this analysis that is worthy of your consideration.

Apparently, the Obama administration is intent on expanding its power by bringing Chicago-style voter fraud to the entire nation.

To really understand the mind-set of Pres. Obama and his henchmen, you have to read “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky.  Alinsky was the father of “community organizing” in Chicago, and he provided the philosophical underpinnings for much of what has become of the Democratic party over the past 30 years.  In Chapter 2 (Of Means and Ends) any means are acceptable as long as the end result is to take away from the “Haves” and give to the “Have-Nots”.  One of Alinsky’s moral authorities is none other than Vladimir Lenin, killer of millions.

Since the Alinsky movement is driven by atheists who reject the notion of Christian virtues, these people have no sense of accountability to any outside moral authority (e.g., God).  To them, laws and morality are only constructs of the Haves to hold onto their own power/wealth and keep the Have-Nots from getting theirs.  They hold themselves accountable only to their own ideology, which is to take from the Haves and give to the Have-Nots.  (Of course, they are not above taking a huge cut for themselves [Source 1, Source 2].)  As long as the end result is that more people are helped than harmed, it is morally justifiable to lie, cheat, steal, and (if we are to follow the example of Lenin) even murder.

These people are not your father’s Democrats or even your next-door-neighbor Democrats.  They are Alinsky-ites and they are not to be trusted.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckIDGpXCS5s

The coming election is critical. We’ve all heard the hopeful talk, but remember what the great philosopher Yogi Berra once said, “It ain’t over ’til its over.”

Let me encourage you to do whatever you can to bring back a pro-American, pro-Freedom, and pro-Life Congress in the next 30 days.  Don’t sit around watching Fox News.  It makes you feel good but it does nothing to help.  This will help:

1. Pray and fast for God’s mercies.
2. Go to www.RealClearPolitics.com.  Find a tossup Senate race and a tossup House race. Go to their websites. Donate. Volunteer. There may be ways to volunteer even if you don’t live there.  Caution: don’t waste time on lost causes nor on races already won.
3. Order a copy of the video Battle for America (trailer below) and host a home showing for all your pro-life, pro-freedom, pro-American friends.  Most importantly, view it with your children, nieces, and nephews and their friends.
4. Whatever happens on Nov. 2, the work isn’t finished.  Help create a permanent pro-life voting majority by supporting CBR (click here).  Your $10 a month will help CBR visit 96 major university campuses before the 2012 elections.

If you don’t do anything, then don’t complain to me about the anti-American, anti-Freedom, pro-Death people you get stuck with.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jXmweoX-VI

Jill Stanek has an interesting op-ed piece in the World Net Daily that you should read.  She addresses the pro-life aspects of the new GOP Pledge to America and the emergence of a number of pro-life Tea Party candidates in key Senate races.

I’m sure that there will be many people disappointed that the GOP Pledge says little about abortion, but Stanek points out that it actually says more than it’s predecessor, the 1994 Contract with America.

Although the new Pledge is no pro-life manifesto, it does have the effect of saving babies by removing some of the funding that pays for the killing.  We should bear in mind that defunding Planned Parenthood in New Jersey has already caused at least one abortion clinic to close down.

Furthermore, it has been reported, the GOP Pledge also promises to defund and repeal ObamaCare.  That’s big because ObamaCare is the most aggressive baby-killing legislation perhaps ever to pass Congress.

Some pro-lifers lament the fact that although the Tea Party is emerging as a conservative force in the Republican party, the Tea Party says nothing about abortion.  We should remember that words are important, but deeds are also important.

As it turns out, five GOP tea party-backed U.S. Senate candidates are pro-life with no exceptions: Sharron Angle of Nevada, Ken Buck of Colorado, Joe Miller of Alaska, Christine O’Donnell of Delaware and Rand Paul of Kentucky.

You think that’s not big?  Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards thinks it is, hence her frantic email alert Monday calling this development, “not just crazy – truly frightening.”

Non tea-party candidates Carly Fiorina of California and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire are also reported to be pro-life.  That’s big because right now, all 17 female senators are pro-abortion, including the four Republicans.

Yes, we still have a long way to go.  The work of protecting every unborn child will not be finished overnight.  But until that day comes, my rule is this: if the pro-aborts don’t like it, it must be good.

Do you know the difference between an extremist and a main stream candidate?  We’re indebted to Jose Farias for the answer.  He left this comment in response to an article in The Telegraph.

Today’s definition of an “extreme” candidate is:

1. Being against high deficits;
2. Being against a higher debt;
3. Being for living within your means;
4. Being for small government;
5. Being for spending cuts;
6. Being for lower taxes;
7. Being for less regulations;
8. Being for the traditional definition of marriage (between a man and a woman);
9. Being against terrorism;
10. Being for a strong military;
11. Being for the implementation of the rule of law when it comes to illegal immigration;
12. Being for individual freedom;
13. Being for the Constitution as envisioned by the founding fathers;
14. Being for free markets;
15. Believing in the abilities of the American people;
16. Holding on to the beliefs of our God, the Creator of Heavens and Earth;
17. Believing on the right to bear arms;
18. I could go on and on …

Today’s definition of “main stream” candidate is:

1. Not holding on to any principles;
2. Not saying what you mean, and not meaning what you say;
3. Being for high deficits (they don’t say they are but actions speak louder than words);
4. Being for a higher debt (ditto);
5. Spending like drunk sailors;
6. Being for more regulations;
7. Being for homosexual marriage;
8. Being for a weak military;
9. Being against the fight against terrorists;
10. Being for criminals when it comes to the execution of the law;
11. Believing the individual can not take care of himself;
12. Believing the government is to run everything, that is, believing in socialism;
13. Being for the limitation of individual liberties in favor of government intrusion;
14. Being against free markets;
15. Being for Keynesian economics;
16. Being in favor of gun control;
17. Being against the right to exercise one’s religious beliefs;
18. Being against God;
19. Being against Christians;
20. Being in favor of Muslims;
21. I could go on and on …

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlfEdJNn15E

FAB is indebted to Dr. Frank Joseph for this excellent essay.  Please comment below!

Debating Abortion on the political stage: Carly Fioriana blew it

Carly Fiorina had a golden opportunity to blow Barbara Boxer out of the water in their California senatorial debate, but she blew it.

An abortion question was asked by a member of the panel, and of course, Boxer went according to script. Said Boxer (paraphrasing and making it short), “I am for a woman’s right to choose.” Never saying the word abortion. “Women shouldn’t have to go to jail if Roe v Wade is overturned, and that’s what Fiorina wants.”

To begin with, this is a lie. Women would not go to jail. They didn’t before Roe and they won’t if Roe is overturned. Democrats just have to lie, just like they did in the 1960s when they said that 5,000 – 10,000 women died every year from back-alley, coat-hanger abortions. Even NARAL founder Dr. Bernard Nathanson now admints that it was a willful lie. The year before Roe, only 39 such deaths were reported to the CDC. Anyhow, only the person who kills the child (the abortion doctor) would be breaking the law and put in jail if Roe is overturned.

Fiorina did not call Boxer on this lie. She did say she is pro-life, but she never mentioned that Boxer not only supports the killing of unborn children, she supports this killing for the entire nine months of pregnancy. She even supports partial-birth abortions, which 75% of the American people oppose. According to polls, more people identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice (to kill unborn children).

They each had 2 minutes for their final summations. In her statement, Boxer again brought up a woman’s “right to choose” and again falsely stated women would go to jail if Fiorina had her way and Roe was overturned. She kept pounding on that issue.

It seems that when Democrats are in a debate, they go for the throat. Maybe Republicans just don’t want to hurt the feelings of Democrats. I think they just don’t get it.

Fiorina should have mentioned that Boxer lied about women going to jail if Roe is overturned. She should have also said that women who do not have their child killed would decrease their risk of getting breast cancer and decrease their risk of drug and alcohol abuse as well as suicides.

She could have even mentioned that abortions increase the risk of premature babies in subsequent pregnancies, resulting in low birth weights. Such children are more prone to develop physical and mental problems, including cerebral palsy.

She could also have said that she favor’s a woman’s reproductive rights, but when reproduction is over, that is where she draws the line. She could have mentioned that Boxer even supported killing babies while they are being born, at which time they would suffer excruciating pain. As Boxer repeated over and over again what little ammunition she had, Fiorina should have mentioned this over and over again. Sometimes, you have to fight fire with fire.

1. Republicans controlled Congress during the so-called “Clinton surplus.”  It was the first Republican majority in more than 40  years and the first budget surplus in more than 25 years.
2. The Democrats had controlled Congress for two years leading up to the 2008 economic crisis.  They helped create the deficit that Pres. Obama “inherited”, and would have made it bigger if they could have.
3. As the Wall Street Journal pointed out in The Obama Economy, Bush essentially governed like a Democrat during the economic crisis of 2008, cooperating with their efforts to throw away billion$ on bailouts and stimulus packages.
4. The current economic policies are merely a continuation of the policies that got us in this mess in the first place.
5. Sowell says that if we are going to talk about “the policies that created this mess in the first place,” let’s at least get the facts straight and the names right.

But I should point out that Sowell missed a few facts that are also important.  First, there was no such thing as a Clinton surplus.  The so-called budget surplus of the mid-1990s was a surplus only if you include as revenue the money that was stolen out of the Social Security fund.  If you count it as borrowed money that has to be returned one day, the government was still running a deficit.

Second, Sowell was entirely correct that the mortgage lending crisis was created by Democrats, although it was implemented in full view of Republicans who did too little to stop them.  The mortgage crisis was like gasoline thrown on the fire of economic crisis of 2008, but there were other factors that must be remembered and corrected:

1. The ultimate cause of the economic conflagration was the widespread belief that this economic gravy train—25+ years of Reagan-Bush recovery—would never end.  This belief caused people throw caution to the wind.  They took on way too much debt to buy bigger and bigger houses and other stuff they didn’t need and couldn’t afford.  Lenders lent money to people who couldn’t afford to pay it back.  Corporations focused on short-term profits at the expense of long-term stability.  It’s very tempting to throw your money around at the casino if you get the stupid idea that the game won’t let you lose.
2. The sudden spike in world oil prices in the summer of 2008 was the match that lit the fire.  Suddenly, industries sensitive to oil prices had to cut back, the effects of which rippled through the economy.  People and corporations were way too extended, so they were vulnerable and fearful.  They panicked.  They cut back.  People’s incomes shrank.  They lost jobs and houses.  You know the rest.
3. In 2008, it became apparent that big-government socialists might occupy all three branches of government.  The leading candidate for the White House was preaching bigger and more expensive government, along with dramatic tax increases.  This caused many job-producers to keep their money on the sidelines.  People just will not risk their money in the face of such uncertainty.
4. Finally, it is going to take time to ease the panic and correct the excesses.  According to the Wall Street Journal, credit excesses built up over many years have to be wound down, and that takes time, while banks have to work down their bad assets.

But hopefully, people are beginning to learn some of the lessons of unchecked government spending.  Check out this column by Hugh Hewitt.  He describes how young teachers in California are being punished by a system that pays extravagant benefits to retired teachers, leaving too little for the teachers still on the job.  Raising taxes is no longer an option.  “The present is very much being sacrificed to the excess of the past.”  It’s another kind of excess that will take years to correct.

But not to worry.  In his piece Obama’s Shrinking Presidency, Columist Richard Cohen tells us exactly what Pres. Obama needs to do that will fix all of this.  He says, “The president needs better speechwriters.”  Well, there you have it!

Speaking before the House Judiciary Committee of the 104th Tennessee General Assembly, State Representative Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains) defines eco-terrorism, PETA, and left-wing eco-greenie wackos (which are sort of like fire-ants).

Note: the cartoon explosions and animal sound effects have been added after-the-fact.  Pigs and cows won’t come into the State Captial building when politicians are present.  I think they can’t stand the smell.

I just love Tennessee.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbYhbVvPZKc

My good friend Stacey Campfield wondered why conservatives are called the “right” and liberals are called the “left.”  He found the answer in the Bible, of course:

“The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”  (Ecclesiastes 10:2)

I wanted to share with you two op-ed pieces by Charles Krauthammer.  Well worth the read.

• The last refuge of a liberal – The theme of the column is summed up in two words near the end, “undisguised contempt”.
• It’s nonsense to say the U.S. is ungovernable – The Left’s contempt for American institutions.

My letter to the Knoxville News Sentinel has been published:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2010/aug/17/letters-democrats-attacking-first-amendment/

Lots of comments already.  I’ve responded to some of them.  Please leave your own comments on the KNS website (if appropriate to the topic), and also below (to tell me what a smart guy I am)!

Follow CBR / Pro Life on Campus on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

From Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life:

Thanks much for your notice of our endorsement criteria.  It actually is one of the toughest in the nation.

Many people assume that having such strict standards would actually marginalize our influence.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We began this practice over ten years ago.  Today, the majority of publicly elected legislators in the state of Georgia hold to “life of the mother ONLY” exception.  In the last decade we went from the bottom of the list of states ranked by Americans United for Life (AUL) for its pro-life legislation to our current rating of 8th in the nation.

In the current race for Governor, 6 of 7 candidates supported our position AND support a Personhood Amendment to our Georgia Constitution.

We in the pro-life movement have been misled by our leaders in thinking that a biblicaly based, principled approach to politics is not achievable.  We have demonstrated otherwise.  We are proving that politicians “only see the light when they feel the heat.”

Thanks for all you are doing to end abortion in our day.

For the Sanctity of all life in the 21st century,
Dan Becker, President
Georgia Right to Life

(Note:  Dan Becker, President of Georgia Right to Life, left a longer version of the above as a comment on a previous FAB posting.  We thought his comments were important enough to warrant a reposting for wider visibility. — FAB)

Georgia Right to Life (GRTL) has issued their endorsements for the August 10 runoff election.  Click here.

GRTL has very strict requirements for getting their endorsement.  Each candidate must sign the following statement:

WHEREAS, the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law,” Georgia Right to Life PAC affirms the principle that the right to life is the bedrock upon which all other Constitutional rights are derived.

IN ADDITION, we believe, in the face of compelling biological evidence, that a continuum of human life and personhood begins at the moment of fertilization and ends at natural death, the ethical treatment of human embryos must include their “best interests,”

THEREFORE, as a candidate for public office, I affirm my support for a Human Life Amendment to the Georgia Constitution and other actions that would support these principles. This would assure that regardless of race, age, degree of disability, manner of conception or circumstances surrounding a terminal illness, that the civil rights of the pre-born at an embryonic or fetal level, the elderly and those with mental or physical infirmities are protected by law and are violated when we allow destructive embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic or reproductive cloning, animal human hybrids, abortion (except to save the life of the mother), infanticide, euthanasia or assisted suicide.

As a candidate for public office I agree to uphold these principles and positions.

Note that politicians who support a rape/incest exception would NOT get the Georgia Right to Life endorsement.  What do you think about this agreement?  Is it strong enough?  Too restrictive?  Please comment.

I think I would add a requirement that the candidate also sit and watch a video of abortion, e.g., the video on the www.AbortionNo.org website.  Do you agree?

FACT says vote “NO” on judges in Tennessee.  For the whole story, click here.

Do you agree?