Monday, February 15, 2016

#1500 (2/15) "George Washington Deserves His Own Day, Not Presidents Day"

"GEORGE WASHINGTON DESERVES HIS OWN DAY, Not Presidents Day" - David Azerrad/ Feb.12,2016/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/12/george-washington-deserves-his-own-day-not-presidents-day/ 

George Washington understood himself to be the president of a republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws—not some visionary leader who must define what progress requires and lead the unenlightened masses there. (Photo: World History Archive/Newscom)

Poor George Washington. His birthday, spontaneously celebrated since the revolution and formally declared a holiday in 1879, has slowly morphed into the insipid Presidents Day [today]...

Washington, the “indispensable man” of the revolution who was rightly extolled for being “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” has now been lumped together with the likes of James Buchanan, Jimmy Carter, Franklin Pierce and John Tyler.

It gets worse. Washington’s good name and great legacy are now shamelessly invoked to justify positions that he would never have envisaged. In a Time Magazine special edition on Washington, historian Joseph Ellis matter-of-factly remarks: “He began the political tradition that produced a Union victory in the Civil War, the Federal Reserve Board, Social Security, Medicare and, more recently, Obamacare.”

Washington, who called on Americans to display “pious gratitude” for their Constitution and warned against any “change by usurpation,” is now a partisan of the sprawling welfare state and the unprecedented individual mandate. Ellis even has the gall to hail Washington—the man who gracefully and voluntarily relinquished power after two terms when he could have stayed on for life—as the father of “strong executive leadership” and the precursor to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who stayed in office for an unprecedented 12 years.

The true Washington still has much to teach us, in particular when it comes to the presidency, foreign policy and religious liberty. Although much has changed in the past two centuries, his sage advice and conduct in office have lost none of their relevance, anchored as they are in the timeless principles of the founding and a sober assessment of human nature.

Washington, like every president after him, swore the following oath upon taking office: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Unlike many presidents in the past 100 years, however, Washington took the oath seriously and did not try to place himself above the Constitution.

He understood himself to be the president of a republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws—not some visionary leader who must define what progress requires and lead the unenlightened masses there.

Washington took care “that the laws be faithfully executed,” as when he quashed the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. He did not try to make the laws himself, either by issuing executive orders that circumvented Congress or by regulating what could not be legislated. He left behind no “signature” legislative accomplishments as we would say today. He only used his veto twice—once on constitutional grounds and once in his capacity as commander in chief. Washington gave, on average, only three public speeches a year while in office—including the shortest ever inaugural address. And, of course, he had to be persuaded to serve a second term.

As a president who took his bearings from the Constitution, Washington devoted considerable attention to foreign policy. Our first president sought to establish an energetic and independent foreign policy. He believed America needed a strong military so that it could “choose peace or war, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.” His Farewell Address remains the preeminent statement of purpose for American foreign policy.

No survey of Washington’s legacy would be complete without acknowledging his profound commitment to religious liberty. Many today seem to have lost sight of the crucial distinction he drew between mere toleration and true religious liberty. As he explained in the memorable letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport: "All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights."

... as we celebrate our greatest president, let us remember why he—and not Polk or, heaven forbid, Wilson—deserves a national holiday. 

(Originally published in 2012) [bold and italics emphasis mine]

David Azerrad devotes his time and research to increasing public understanding of America’s founding principles. As director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics and AWC Family Foundation fellow, he teaches the tenets of the American political tradition to policymakers, political leaders and the public at large, while connecting our founding principles to the thorny questions of the day. Read his research.

Sunday, February 14, 2016

#1499 (2/14) SUNDAY VALENTINE SPECIAL: "Of Martyrs and Marshmallows"

"OF MARTYRS AND MARSHMALLOWS" - By Chuck Colson|
Breakpoint.org: June 25, 2012;http://www.colsoncenter.org/the-center/columns/colson-files/18028-of-martyrs-and-marshmallows[AS I SEE IT: Valentine's DayEven as people in “relationships” celebrate romantic love, the truth is that all human love is limited. Human love often ends in disappointment, hurt, pain, rejection, etc., simply because we are each prone to selfishness and sin. But there is one relationship where the love is unlimited; that is the relationship we each can have with the Creator God of the universe. God demonstrated His INFINITE, MATCHLESS love through His incarnation as Jesus Christ and as He gave up His life that we could know Him as our Heavenly Father. (Rom. 5:8) As we become His child, we come to know a love that will not fail, reject, or hurt us but will remain faithful and true no matter how we fail Him. As Christians, it is our nature to become blasé about God’s great love and to take it for granted. May we recommit ourselves – especially during this Easter season -  to reflecting daily on that love, to pause to be in Awe and Wonder of it (something we are not prone to do) and to demonstrate that love and to share that gospel of love in every opportunity we are given. - Stan]

hope_1

Valentine’s Day Origins - First published for Valentine’s Day 1998, this BreakPoint commentary reminds us of the power and beauty of love, the greatest of Christian virtues.

A California pet store is offering the perfect Valentine’s Day gift for the person who has everything: designer hermit crabs. The crabs’ shells have been hand-dipped in 24-karat gold.Well, anything for a buck. Gold-plated crustaceans are indeed an offbeat gift idea for a holiday on which we celebrate romantic love. But how many of us know that Valentine’s Day began as a symbol of Christian love?

Early church records are sketchy, but it’s believed that actually several men named Valentine were martyred in the third century A.D. This was during the reign of Roman Emperor Claudius II, a ruler known for his brutal persecution of Christians. One of these Valentines was a priest who secretly married couples against the wishes of Claudius, who believed that unmarried men made better soldiers. Two other Valentines—a priest and a bishop—were beheaded by Claudius late in the third century.

Historians are not certain which Valentine began to be celebrated on February 14. But they are certain why the church chose that day. You see, in ancient Rome, February 14 was the eve of a pagan festival called Lupercalia. During this festival, the Romans worshipped Februa, a goddess of marriage, childbirth, and sexuality. Brian Bates, a professor at the University of Sussex, is an expert on how we celebrate holidays. Bates writes that during Lupercalia, "young men and women drew lots for sexual partners, in preparation for a day of sanctioned license the following day."

As Christianity spread throughout the ancient world, the church began replacing pagan festivals with holy days. In an effort to control the lewder aspects of the Lupercalian festival, the church fathers replaced this pagan holiday with the feast of Saint Valentine, in honor of one of the martyred Christians. Instead of drawing the names of sexual partners out of a box, young men were encouraged to pick the names of saints—and then spend the following year emulating the saint whose name they drew. The focus on love lingered on, but was sanctified from mere sexual license to chaste romantic love. Not surprisingly, the romantic aspect is what became popular, not the more austere love of the Christian martyr.

Now, it’s fun to exchange gifts with our sweethearts, and I’d be the last person to ask you to sacrifice Valentine’s Day. And I won’t ask you to give up reading love poems and substitute meditating on Foxe’s Book of Martyrs. But we ought to take a moment to remember the early Christian saints, as well, and how their martyrdom dramatically illustrates their love for God.

[Also,] In the midst of our romantic celebrations, we should remind ourselves that for Christians, the love between husband and wife is meant to reflect the love between God and His church. Throughout the Scriptures, the imagery of the love between a husband and wife is perhaps the most compelling symbol of the relationship between God and His people.

So while we’re buying those roses, chocolates—or maybe even one of those gold-plated hermit crabs—we ought to remind ourselves and our kids about the Author of all love: not Hollywood or Hallmark cards, but God Himself.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Next steps What do you know about Christians who are suffering for their faith today? Ask a church leader for some help in finding out about the persecuted church. Then begin to make persecuted believers the object of your Christian love by praying for them regularly.

Saturday, February 13, 2016

#1498 (2/13) PRO-LIFE SAT: "Planned Parenthood Abortion Clinic in Florida Shuts Down"

"PLANNED PARENTHOOD ABORTION CLINIC IN FLORIDA SHUTS DOWN" Steven Ertelt, Feb. 11, 2016 |http://www.lifenews.com/2016/02/11/planned-parenthood-abortion-clinic-in-florida-shuts-down/ [AS I SEE IT: PTL! This is such exciting news, esp. for we here in Florida. And to hear that others are also closing is very encouraging. Thanks to our Governor Scott who launched the investigation of PP clinics last year that has helped shut down a number of them. It's too bad the media has chosen to ignore this news, even if they could give their usual pro-abortion spin on it. A great encouragement that we should pray for even more of these killing centers to go out of business, as people are known to fly in from Puerto Rico and elsewhere for abortions here. - Stan]
plannedparenthoodwinterhaven
A sign posted on the front door was the first indication that the Planned Parenthood office in Winter Haven, Florida, had closed. It announced that as of February 1, 2016, the abortion facility which offered the abortion pill and surgical abortions through 16 weeks of pregnancy, would shut down for good.

According to the ABC News affiliate WFTS in Tampa Bay, the clinic’s staff merged with the Planned Parenthood facility in Lakeland, which does not do abortions.

“Planned Parenthood isn’t one to leave money on the table, and if their Winter Haven abortion facility had shown a profit, it would still be open,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “This shows that the demand for abortions had fallen so low in that area that an abortion facility was financially unsustainable.” The fact that Winter Haven referrals are now going to an office that does not supply abortions supports Newman’s conclusions.

This sudden closure follows the shutdown of another Florida abortion facility, Woman Care in Orlando, that merged with another abortion business, All Women’s Health Center in Almonte Springs.

Sixty-two surgical abortion facilities continue to operate in Florida, down from 71 in 2010. Florida is second only to California for having the largest number of abortion facilities per state.

“Florida is over-saturated with abortion clinics and as the demand continues to fall, we expect to see more closures,” said Newman. “This is great news for pregnant women and their babies who will no longer have an abortion business actively marketing abortions to them that they would not otherwise want.”

Planned Parenthood organizations in Florida have had regulatory issues since the state launched an investigation last year after the Center for Medical Progress released a series of undercover videos that showed Planned Parenthood negotiating for the illegal sale of aborted baby body parts.

Last September, five Florida abortion businesses were cited and fined by the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) for conducting illegal second trimester abortions as a result of that investigation. Among them were three Planned Parenthood abortion facilities in St. Petersburg, Ft. Myers, and Naples.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

LifeNews.com Note: Cheryl Sullenger is a leader of Operation Rescue.

Friday, February 12, 2016

#1497 (2/12) "The Delusion Behind Obama’s Budget"

"THE DELUSION BEHIND OBAMA'S BUDGET"Kim Holmes/Feb.10,2016/
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/10/the-delusion-behind-obamas-budget/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is often assumed that there is no problem that government cannot solve provided there is enough will and money to tackle it.

President Barack Obama’s $4.1 trillion budget plan is out. Alas, it’s more of the same. It calls for raising taxes but does nothing to rein in the nation’s out-of-control debt, which is estimated to exceed $19 trillion.

You would think that Obama knew better. The dangers are plain to see. Without some check on social entitlement and other government spending, a reckoning of our massive debt will surely occur. Whether it happens with a bang—like a big collapse of the economy—or unfolds in a long, painful whimper, as in a slow-burn decline in our standard of living, who knows? But one thing should be certain. That day will come, and when it does, all the economic and social stability that anchors our prosperity, not to mention our constitutional form of government, could crack like a thawing river in springtime.

So there’s a lot at stake. In fact, everything is at stake.Which raises the most fundamental question of all: What is it about our government, and even about some of us, that makes it so nearly impossible to restrain our spending habits?

The easy answers are well known, but they don’t seem to help much. Yes, we know that a lot of people who depend on government want more of it. We also know that even some who claim to despise government in theory are accepting of it well enough in practice, protesting, for example, when their favorite program is put on the chopping block. There is enough hypocrisy to go around, so I suppose some humility is in order in facing up to the truth.

But what is that truth? We live in an age that suffers from delusions of governmental grandeur. It is often assumed that there is no problem that government cannot solve, provided there is enough will and money to tackle it. That is, after all, one of the central premises of Obama’s presidency.

I’m not speaking here of constructing rockets to go to the moon, or of building mighty armed forces to defeat the Nazis. I’m referring instead to the countless wasteful programs that arise from nothing less than the spirit of profligacy. Apparently, the thinking goes, we are so rich that we can afford pretty much anything we want. How else could you explain a federal program that spends $2.6 million on how to train Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job, or to fork out a portion of a $325,000 National Science Foundation grant to build a robot squirrel to find out why rattlesnakes rarely attack squirrels that wag their tails?

And then there is that old standby—the bottomless well of government compassion. It is from this mighty fountain that hundreds of thousands of government programs spring forth not only to ease every person’s discomfort, but to eliminate all the nasty inequalities of the human condition. From bullying to income inequality to rectifying the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere—you name it—there is no condition government can’t at least “address,” which of course is not the same thing as solving it.

There is only one remedy to this kind of utopian thinking. We must return to understanding that there are limits to what government can and should do. The default question should not be what should the government do if it could, but what should the government do only if it can and if it must?

As I explain in my forthcoming book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left,” it is OK to dream, but dreaming should not be an excuse for fantasizing.

If we ever hope to solve our problems, we must at least return to a semblance of reality-based thought. All the fantastical thinking about unlimited federal budgets … would have to disappear. So, too, will simplistic government solutions for the most pressing problems of our lives[.] […] What is not contestable is that we cannot continue on our current course without destroying the American system as we know it. Unless we find it within ourselves to rediscover the age-old American wisdom about the limits of government, including a deep and abiding respect for the Bill of Rights, we will surely lose a lot more than our wisdom. We will lose our ability to govern ourselves.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Kim R. Holmes, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, oversaw the think tank’s defense and foreign policy team for more than two decades. He's the author of the upcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind." Pre-Order Kim Holmes’ New Book “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left”

Thursday, February 11, 2016

#1496 (2/11) "Why Beyoncé Shouldn’t Have Honored Black Panthers in Super Bowl Show"

"WHY BEYONCE SHOULDN'T HAVE HONORED BLACK PANTHERS IN SUPER BOWL SHOW" - Kim Holmes/Feb.09,2016/ http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/09/why-beyonce-shouldnt-have-honored-black-panthers-in-super-bowl-show/ [AS I SEE IT: The writer says "We all know what she was driving at." Well, since I was not interested in the half-time show, I barely paid attention and didn't notice there was a hidden message in her performance. It angers me that the NFL leadership doesn't screen out all such political presentations, esp. to a world-wide audience. I fault them as much as I am offended by Beyonce's presentation. - Stan]

Beyonce performs during the halftime show at Super Bowl 50 on Sunday, Feb. 7. (Photo: Randy Pench/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

By now, Beyoncé’s Super Bowl halftime ode to the Black Panthers has entered the national consciousness. We all know what she was driving at. She was channeling the meme of the “black lives matter” movement. But why use the symbolism of the Black Panthers? After all, the group has long and sordid history of violence.

Why raise such a divisive symbol of racial militancy and separatism to the pinnacle of a Super Bowl halftime show? The answer is quite simple: because it shocks—or at least it’s intended to shock.

Taking a movement that once was known to have shootouts with the police, and even occasionally torture and murder snitches in its ranks, and then to make that movement a symbolic carrier of the “black lives matter” movement, was meant to convey a very simple message. It is now “cool” to embrace violence, mayhem, and frankly even racial separatism in the cause of civil rights.

In my new book, “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left,” I call this cultural phenomenon “authoritarian cool.” It’s the use of entertainment to convey the message that not only is it okay to demonize and oppress your cultural enemies, sometimes even with violence, but it is absolutely necessary to do so. As I explain:
     "When actor Sean Penn told CNN’s Piers Morgan in 2013 that Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, a Republican senator from Texas, should be hospitalized in a mental institution, even the famously liberal Morgan was shocked. “Actually have him committed?” he asked. Penn seemed nonplussed and simply said, “I think it’s a good idea.” When Susan Sarandon and one of the actors of “Real Housewives of New Jersey” found out that a teacher at a Catholic school posted a critical remark of sexual liberationist Dan Savage on her private Facebook page, they tried to have her fired. In a 2015 Playboy Magazine article, rapper Azealia Banks said she hated “fat white Americans” and “these racist conservative white people who live on farms.” 

You get the picture. Some of our most popular entertainers are not exactly constrained when it comes to expressing authoritarian values. Entertainers are notoriously liberal. There’s nothing new about Carlos Santana sporting Che Guevera t-shirts or Pete Seeger spouting communist propaganda. But what is new is the degree to which today’s most popular entertainers are willing to indulge in fantasies of violence and mayhem. Some sound like bloody totalitarians.

This is particularly worrisome for a culture such as ours. It is increasingly focused on and defined by popular entertainment. The lines between entertainment and politics are now completely blurred. Social media is only adding fuel to the fire. There is a gleeful abandon on Twitter in making “epic takedowns” of opponents and driving their proverbial noses into the digital dust. And our movies and TV shows glorify revenge and narcissism to the point where they are not merely acknowledged as social realities, but actually accepted as positive expressions of the human condition.

Here’s the danger. Former Hubert Humphrey speechwriter John P. Roche once told National Review columnist John Fund that “[i]f authoritarianism of the right or left ever comes to America, it will come surrounded by patriotism and show business.”  So true. The Super Bowl’s opening act of Lady Gaga belting out the Star Spangled Banner was followed by the halftime display of black revolutionary nationalism. The juxtaposition was not an accident. It was intended to show the latter is now acceptable by the former.

We had best be careful about the kind of entertainment we wish for. We may find ourselves someday on the wrong side of Penn’s wish to institutionalize people.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Kim R. Holmes, a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation, oversaw the think tank’s defense and foreign policy team for more than two decades. He's the author of the upcoming book, "The Closing of the Liberal Mind." Read his research. Pre-Order Kim Holmes’ New Book “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left.”

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

#1495 (2/10) ASH WED: "... THE COUNTER-CULTURAL SEASON OF LENT"

"We Are Not Our Own- THE COUNTER-CULTURAL SEASON OF LENT" - By: John Stonestreet| Breakpoint.org:Feb.10,2016;
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/28854?utm_source=Colson+Center+Master+List&utm_campaign=2a80d7da11-BP_Daily_02_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_84bd2dc76d-2a80d7da11-6541173
daily_commentary_02_10_16
Is it all about us, or about Jesus and Him crucified? Today, we enter what may be the most counter-cultural season of the church calendar. 

In many ways, today is one of the strangest days of the year. Everywhere—at work, the grocery store, shopping, exercising—we’ll see all kinds of people walking around with dark smudges on their foreheads. Now whether or not their own church participates in this ritual, most Christians will know that the smudge is the sign of the cross, and that today is Ash Wednesday, the beginning of the season of Lent.

To the unbelieving world, Ash Wednesday is at best quaint (it’s sort of cool to have traditions, you know). At worst, it’s somewhere between bizarre and even anti-social. After all, to a culture committed to the pursuit of self-fulfillment and feeling good about oneself, this whole fasting and self-sacrifice stuff is an existential smack in the face.

Think of how these words contrast with our contemporary illusions of autonomy and self-determination: I am not my own. And I will die one day. And so will you. As the minister tells us when he rubs the ashes on our foreheads, “remember thou art dust and to dust thou shalt return.”

And here’s the bolder statement still, a way-more-weird and counter-cultural claim—We are rotten to the core. We are sinners. So much so that God became a man and died on a cross in our place. He loved us that much! And then, get this: He came back to life. His body wasn’t eaten by worms in a tomb. He was resurrected from the dead.

What happened on that Resurrection Day, which we’ll commemorate 40 days from now, is the most important event in the history of the world. As Russell Moore has said, “Christians from all over the world, despite all this science and all this progress and all this technology, [still confess] what the earliest believers in the catacombs of Rome cried out: ‘Christ is risen indeed.’”

We confess it because what it says about God, the universe, and us is TRUE. On Ash Wednesday and during the season of fasting, prayer, and almsgiving called Lent, we redouble our efforts to heed Jesus’ call to pick up our crosses and follow him. We meditate and remember with Paul that we have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer we who live, but Christ who lives in us.

Crucified with Christ! Our hopes, desires, politics, intellect, and yes, even our sexuality—crucified with Christ. What a thing to say! Jesus, who redeemed us by His blood, lays claim to all of these things.

This is not the God of what sociologist Christian Smith has dubbed “moralistic therapeutic deism,” a god who demands nothing more than that people take it easy on themselves and be nice and fair to one another. This is a God who says the two greatest commandments are to love Him with all of our hearts, souls, minds, and strength, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. And as Jesus said, to love Him is to obey Him (talk about counter cultural!) and to believe in the One He has sent. To love our neighbors, we preach the Good News of Jesus’ death and resurrection and His triumph over sin and death. We feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, take care of the widow and orphans.

Friend, what could be more authentic, more relevant, than to conform our lives to Jesus, who is the Way the Truth and the Life? Jesus did not and will not conform Himself to the culture. Why would we? How dare we urge others to? As Paul says, we were called to freedom in Christ, which is a freedom from conformity and from the desires of the flesh and a freedom to serve one another in love, joy peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5).

Now that’s a lot to swallow, which is one reason that for nearly two millennia, Christians have taken this long season of Lent as an opportunity to repent of our conformity to the world, draw near to Jesus, and prepare ourselves to celebrate the day that changed the universe.

If you’d like some helpful resources on the observance of Lent, including that DVD series T. M. Moore and I have produced called “He Has Risen,” come to BreakPoint.org and click on this commentary. (This commentary originally aired February 18, 2015.)

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

FURTHER READING AND INFORMATIONLent serves as a reminder for us to conform our lives to Jesus, who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Check out the links below for resources that can encourage you as you follow Christ.
AVAILABLE AT THE ONLINE BOOKSTORE
He Has Risen: The Worldview of Easter - John Stonestreet, T. M. Moore | BreakPoint.org
Devotions for Lent - Tyndale House | December 2009
Lent and Easter Wisdom from G. K. Chesterton - G. K. Chesterton, The Center for the Study of C. S. Lewis | Ligouri Publications | January 2008
OTHER RESOURCES
"The Lent Project" - Biola University - http://ccca.biola.edu/lent/2016/#day-introduction
"The Heart of Lent: 40 Days of 4-giveness" - Laura Waters Hinson |BreakPoint.org | February 25, 2010;http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/articles/entry/12/9711
"Ashes of Affirmation: Lent and Worldview" - Jim Tonkowich | BreakPoint.org | March 19, 2010;http://www.breakpoint.org/features-columns/breakpoint-columns/entry/2/8358
"One of the Great Rarities of Our Time: The Virtue of Humility" - John H. Armstrong |BreakPoint.org | April 30, 2007;https://www.colsoncenter.org/features-columns/articles/breakpoint-features-archive/entry/12/9781

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

#1494 (2/9) "Doritos Super Bowl Ad Shows Why Pro-Lifers Are Winning"

"DORITOS SUPER BOWL AD SHOWS WHY PRO-LIFERS ARE WINNING"Katrina Trinko / Feb. 08, 2016 / 
http://dailysignal.com/2016/02/08/doritos-super-bowl-ad-shows-why-pro-lifers-are-winning/ [NOTE: Go to the weblink to find a video of the commercial as well as another great video clip.]

This couple's baby is lunging towards his dad's Doritos. (Photo: screenshot of Doritos' Super Bowl ad)

A room with an ultrasound may seem like an unlikely setting for a chips commercial. But in ad aired during the Super Bowl, Doritos cleverly suggested you don’t need to be outside the womb to have a serious chips craving.The ad showed an oblivious dad eating Doritos at his wife’s ultrasound. His wife is annoyed; their baby, on the other hand, is a fan—first moving toward the chips, and then, in a comedic ending, actually being born, whooshing out of the womb to get a chip.

Not everyone was laughing. NARAL Pro-Choice America tweeted its outrage that the Doritos ad was “using #antichoice tactic of humanizing fetuses.” Ah, yes, the horror. It’s much easier to talk about abortion when you’re suggesting what will be disposed of is a “clump of cells” or similar language rather than face the reality that as early as five to eight weeks on, the baby is developing her nose, mouth, and ears.

But the fact is that—no doubt partially due to ultrasound technology—moms and dads are now developing relationships with their children long before the due date, sometimes even announcing both name and sex to friends and family before the baby is born.

In the case of the Doritos ad, the creator, Australian Peter Carstairs, told The Huffington Post Australia that he got the idea from watching his own son Freddie’s ultrasound. Freddie’s 3D ultrasound gets its own cameo in the ad—it’s the original footage of the baby before the animated, chip-seeking version shows up. “I was interested in this collective thought,” Carstairs said, “that when you go into the ultrasound suite, mum is always incredibly connected to the baby and going through this life affirming moment while dad, particularly in Australia, is usually in the corner watching the footy or on his iPad—so that was the humor we wanted to find.”

Yup, that definitely sounds like the thinking of a political strategist—not.

And that’s what’s frightening to NARAL and other pro-abortion advocates: The day is over when people waited until birth to get to know and love their little ones. From sharing ultrasound snaps to 3D videos, parents are proudly chronicling the in utero development of their kids, just as they will go on to chronicle their toddler and school-age years. It’s not about politics. It’s just about sharing your kids’ progress.

That’s becoming increasingly obvious. Outlets as mainstream as NBC’s “Today” and People have highlighted ultrasounds, with Today.com writing about a “baby [who] gives parents a cheerful thumbs up in ultrasound photo” and People last year highlighting “how one blind woman was able to share in the awe of that first ultrasound moment,” showcasing a diapers ad that showed a woman getting a 3D printed version of her ultrasound.

But, of course, the increasing awareness that these unborn babies are growing and developing does raise questions about current abortion policy in the United States. Most legalized abortion advocates have been adamant that abortion must be legal to the end of the pregnancy, even going so far as to support partial-birth abortion.

That’s not the international norm—in fact, the U.S. is one of only seven countries where elective abortions after 20 weeks are legal.

Polling suggests that Americans don’t agree that abortion should be legal for the entire length of the pregnancy. According to a January Marist poll done for the Catholic organization Knights of Columbus, only 12 percent think abortion should be legal during an entire pregnancy. In contrast, 61 percent of Americans back banning abortions after 20 weeks, unless the mother’s life is in danger, while 81 percent support some abortion restrictions.

Newer laws are beginning to reflect Americans’ actual views. Several states have banned abortions after 20 weeks in most cases (although these bans have been going through the court system). And that’s not all.
lozierchart
“States have adopted 288 abortion restrictions just since the 2010 midterm elections swept abortion opponents into power in state capitals across the country,” wrote the Guttmacher Institute [of Planned Parenthood!] in a January report. To put that number in context, states adopted nearly as many abortion restrictions during the last five years as during the entire previous 15 years.”

Finally, we may be reaching a point where the “no abortion restrictions” message of pro-abortion advocates is being recognized for the extremism it is.

That Doritos Super Bowl ad was a funny take on a real experience many parents face: meeting their kid via ultrasound. And it was true to unborn babies’ experience, too: Ask a pregnant woman what foods her baby likes and dislikes, and she probably has some sense. In fact, NPR reported in 2011 that babies’ tastes are influenced by what their mom ate while they were pregnant, noting that “if you eat broccoli while you’re pregnant, there’s a much better chance your baby will like broccoli.”

The Doritos Super Bowl ad worked not because it bolstered a political viewpoint. It worked because it resonated—and that should terrify pro-abortion advocates.

[bold, italics, and colored emphasis mine]

Katrina Trinko is managing editor of The Daily Signal and a member of USA Today's Board of Contributors.