Imagine how we got to this point. In one generation, we’ve gone from abortion being unthinkable to the majority of civilized society, to the defense of human life being a controversial issue. I don’t know about you, but when I just let an idea sink in, the clarity and simplicity of its truth stands out.

So we have the Dominican Republic now reminding us that the basic defense of human is the bottom line of all human rights.

The new Constitution of the Dominican Republic guarantees the right to life from the moment of conception until natural death. The press department of the Bishops’ Conference of the Dominican Republic has informed Agenzia Fides that “after a long battle with pro-abortion groups and against the international interests lobbying for the government to ensure that the new Constitution approved the right to kill (abortion), life has triumphed.”

“The Catholic Church”, continues the text, “had become the opposition and this has been criticized and has been the subject of sarcasm, but in the end God has permitted that our Constitution respect life from conception until natural death."

"The subject of sarcasm"? For defending human life? Sometimes it seems like we live in an alternate universe these days, where life is subject to utilitarian values and…..way too much like a blend of ‘1984′ and ‘Brave New World’.

Following a debate which lasted about seven months in Parliament (which later became the National Assembly of Revision), and the new Constitution of the Dominican Republic has been approved and it supports and “defends life from conception until natural death.” After the official announcement by the President of the Assembly, Reinaldo Pared Perez, the President of the Dominican Republic, Leonel Fernández, said that the new Constitution is “the Constitution of the XXI Century.”

Bravo, Dominican Republic, for showing the big, powerful, developed world how to govern with sanity and reason. And for reminding us what we can’t not know….but somehow forgot.

The Chicago Tribune has a heartwarming story today about a man very dedicated to his family, and particularly to the tradition he established years ago to treat each of his three daughters to a special dinner to celebrate Valentine’s Day. Each individually, no matter what, no matter where…

For some reason, the Trib doesn’t have the link up yet, but here’s a snip:

One Valentine’s Day when his three daughters were little girls, Tony Cacich…decided to begin a tradition of taking them out to dinner.

The idea was born of a corporate team-building high ropes course in New Mexico. As part of the exercise, Cacich, then in his early 30s, was asked to think about his life and reflect on what he wanted most out of it.

“I wanted to be the best grandfather I could be,” says Cacich, vice-president and general manager of a hospital supply company’s contract manufacturing group. “I was envisioning 30 years from now. But to be the best grandfather, you had to be the best father first. And what does that mean?”

It meant a way of organizing his life.

“To be a good father, I have to spend time with them, be a part of their life, understand the things they’re going through,” Cacich says. “Since that time, I’ve really spent my time trying to participate in their life, get an understanding of what life is like for them.”

Wow. What a great Dad. What a good idea for other men who may never have considered such a simple thing to do with their children but one that has a profoundly lasting impact on their relationship with you for life.

Speaking of which…..parents, children, life, Valentine’s Day…

If you’re in the Chicago area at the time, The Women’s Center is holding their annual banquet on February 14th. Just saying…

First, it was a great game, no matter which team you were rooting for. Whether at home or in the stadium, you felt you were in on one big party, and from the Star Bangled Banner to the final blizzard of confetti, it was all good. But people at home had the chance to see the much-anticipated ads. How were they?

Here’s my take….

The Tebow ad that drew so much fire from abortion activists came so early and went so fast and said so little, it was startling. Probably to everyone, supporters and critics alike. Today’s Chicago Tribune has a little item about it on page 3 that needs a slight correction though. The headline is “Little controversy in actual Tebow family ad”, and the sub-head says ‘Political ad is first for CBS to air during Super Bowl. ‘Scuse me? “Political ad”? Did they watch it? (It's also on Mercatornet's homepage). See, when papers write things so jarringly off base like that, it casts more doubt on the rest of their reporting (than already existed in that paper). But then, this is Chicago, and they see politics in everything.

By the way, some feminists are still calling the Tebow ad offensive, but now they’re changing the subject as to why. Because Tim playfully tackled his mother, and they both popped up teasing each other with humor and affection. But that faux tackle offended some feminists….seriously, though that’s hard to take seriously. Trouble is, they had their opportunities to take issue with Super Bowl ads here. The one with office workers all walking around in their underwear was demeaning to the people in the ad, women and men alike. Pretty hard to watch, too. So was the one with men marching around a field in their briefs chanting something about being men who don’t wear pants. Whew. How undignified was that?!

And are feminists saying anything today about those GoDaddy ads featuring attractive women wanting to strip down to show why they may qualify as attention grabbers in future GoDaddy ads?

So back to finding politics in Super Bowl ads…..There was an opportunity in that big Letterman-Oprah-Leno surprise spot. Cute, the three of them on a sofa, the guys munching chips, Letterman growling, Oprah asking him to be nice…..Know how this got filmed? Network heads and producers and all three celebrities connived to sneak Leno into Letterman’s CBS studio to film it. But first, NBC Universal flew Leno to New York on a private jet just for this little advertising gig. Where are the global warming/climate change activists now, and what was the cost of that carbon emission?

In other words, advertising tells us a lot about ourselves, how we see ourselves and talk to each other. Let’s be civil, let’s be consistent, and let’s learn from those cute little babies in the etrade commercials how to laugh with each other. Because as Drew Brees said after winning the Super Bowl, thanking God, and holding his baby boy in his arms on the field to enjoy the big celebration, this is what it’s all about.

Earlier, as confetti swirled just above the playing surface at Sun Life Stadium, Brees’ eyes were already watering, trying not to cry as he held his son, Baylen, who was wearing a Saints jersey with his father’s name on the back and a headset so the loud celebration wouldn’t scare him. Brees struggled yet one more time to keep his emotions in check as he lifted the silver Lombardi trophy over his head.

But a few minutes into his postgame interview, Brees simply quit trying.

“Eighty-five percent of the city was under water, all the residents evacuated all over the country, people never knowing if they were coming back or if New Orleans would come back,'’ he said. “But not only the city came back, and the team came back … when the players got there, we all looked at one another and said, ‘We’re going to rebuild together.’

“We leaned on each other,'’ Brees said, pausing as he choked up. “This is the culmination of that.‘’

Yeah, we’re all in this together.

Heightened emotions. Fear. Falsehood. Condemnation without information.

It's no surprise that it was all in the mix for the activist abortion-on-demand organizations agitating publicly for the past two weeks to keep the Tim Tebow ad off the air during the Super Bowl. Because that's how the pro-abortion movement operates.

If there's anything in the 37 years of legal abortion since Roe that has singularly and clearly revealed the fact that the movement that calls itself 'pro-choice' is actually 'pro-abortion'.....it is this one. And the pro-abortion movement thrives on falsehood and lack of information.

This is what it was all about. All along. As USA Today calls it, it was 'an early hit', and one that will have the last laugh on critics.

What could they say to this? Pam Tebow, a happy mom, stands center screen, talking about her "miracle" baby Timmy and how he "almost didn't make it into this world." She beams, "He's all grown up now" but she worries because, "with all our family's been through, you have to be tough."

Whoops! Heisman Trophy winning quarterback Timmy, tackles mom right out of the picture. But she pops right back up, saying, "Timmy, I'm trying to tell our story here," and tells her big Heisman Trophy winning big boy, "You're not nearly as tough as I am."

That's it, folks. Now, visit the Focus on the Family site, for the rest of the story, and plenty more.

At the Focus site you can see this ad and the pre-game ad that didn't include the tackle scene. You'll also get the full story on exactly how tough she had to be. She was so sick doctor's advised ending her life-threatening pregnancy and she relied on her faith to carry Tim to term. You'll also see president Jim Daly on video inviting you to read or view a plethora of resources on heterosexual, married family life and on their efforts to get you talking . Daly says,

"Over 50 million children have lost their lives due to abortion. We simply want to ask people the question: Can we do better? I think we can."

Can we talk now?

Know how you start typing a phrase into a Google search window and all sorts of possibilities pop up to help you find the search you’re after? That helps me a lot in my daily forays into web research.

But look at this…..not helpful, Google.

Google, the Internet’s ubiquitous search engine, is under fire this week for censoring negative search results about Islam. If you type “Christianity is” into the Google search box, there immediately pop up a series of suggested completions to the sentence, most of them derogatory: “Christianity is bulls—t,” “Christianity is not a religion,” “Christianity is a lie,” “Christianity is false,” “Christianity is wrong,” “Christianity is fake.” No positive suggests come up. Likewise with “Buddhism is,” and the sentence is once again completed with numerous negative suggestions: “Buddhism is wrong,” “Buddhism is not what you think,” and so on.

So, it’s not only Christianity. This religion free-for-all is restricted, selectively.

But type in “Islam is,” and nothing comes up at all. The negative suggestions inundating the searcher for other religions are nowhere to be seen.

Google, however, says it was all a mistake, and denies have done anything to favor Islam. “This is a bug,” insisted a Google spokesman, “and we’re working to fix it as quickly as we can.” Oddly enough, however, even with all of Google’s technical savvy, this “bug” persisted for days and continues as of this writing, long after Google’s announcement that it would quickly be fixed.

Right.

Critics have complained for years about Google’s tendency to decorate its logo colorfully for cherished days of the Left such as Earth Day and International Women’s Day, while ignoring Christmas (aside from bland Holiday greetings) and Easter. What’s more, Google-owned YouTube has more than once removed material critical of Islamic jihad supremacism, while allowing blood-curdling pro-jihad and vile anti-Semitic material to remain on the site.

Hey, we can use some voluntary self-censorship, each one of us. Like, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s offensive blurts (recently, as well as his penchant for profanity) and high profile politicians and media folks caught making off-color remarks when they don’t know the mic is hot. Like no doubt all of us, with our occasional slip of the tongue. The Bible warns about the wicked tongue untamed, and the harm it can do.

But don’t search the Christian Bible on Google. Who knows what translation they may pull up.

One of the things I like about Wikipedia is the sort of democracy of the Wiki world. Harkening back to President Obama’s address at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington this week, at which he spoke to people of all ranks and religions, let’s have more civility in the Google world.

The growing movement of pro-life advocates who flow into Washington each January on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade for events culminating in the March for Life have stopped expecting the media to actually notice their swelling numbers and hear their voices. They’re taking coverage of the event directly to the people.

After more than 200,000 mostly young people (the future faces of the abortion battle) gathered on the Mall of Washington, carried signs and chanted, sang, laughed and networked with hundreds of others, they saw either nothing about it on tv news or in the papers, or pathetically distorted attempts to derail the event.

Fed up with what they call the “mind-boggling corruption” of media coverage of the march, a small production team has released a YouTube video revealing the truth about the enormous event and the skewed media reports that referenced it.

The same group released a documentary last year entitled “Thine Eyes,” which reveals the sheer size of the 2009 March for Life and the pro-life stories behind it.

"We had hoped to set the media straight, but we did not succeed,” says narrator Jack Cashill. “Their performance in 2010 convinced us that the issue at hand is not ignorance or incompetence, not even bias, but outright fraud.

"More than any other event, the march reveals the truly eye-popping, mind-boggling corruption of the mainstream media.”

Cashill responds to two particularly egregious media misrepresentations: one by CNN anchorman Rick Sanchez, who strongly implied that the number of pro-life marchers and pro-abortion demonstrators at the event were comparable.

“Well Rick, we counted at least 300,000 pro-life marchers to 5 pro-choice protestors. In the real world, that qualifies as most,” says Cashill.

The video also skewers a Newsweek article by Krista Gesaman, in which she claimed that young women were “missing” from the March for Life 2010. Gesaman’s article quoted a Washington police officer who said, in the reporter’s words, that “a majority of the participants are in their 60s and were the original pioneers either for or against the case.” The YouTube video responds with copious imagery documenting the large percentage of youth at the March, a great deal of whom were women.”

And though Cashill’s last line was added to punctuate their point, I agree with only half of it. There will be greater numbers next year, as there are every year. But in this group, there’s never anger. But plenty of ‘righteous’ determination.

This annual inter-faith and faith-based event, drawing together high level politicians, diplomats, dignitaries, clergy and media, is supposed to be about God and humanity and peace and goodwill, which is why it generally gets little press. This year’s National Prayer Breakfast got into politics more than usual, and got plenty of press.

The buzzword in many headlines was ‘civility’, as in what President Obama called for in his address.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton got a mention in most articles, mainly because she denounced Uganda for legislation aimed at homosexuals, although Clinton was the keynote speaker. You’d never know by the reporting.

But her remarks, echoed by Obama, fuled the fired up rhetoric online within the LGBT community, who were already angry about the evangelical Christian group sponsoring this prayer breakfast (kind of an odd thought there….politics and anger and a prayer and all).

“Mr. Obama struck similar tones to previous speeches in which he has called for civility, including his appearance last year at the National Prayer Breakfast. He acknowledged that politics has always been messy, saying: “We shouldn’t over-romanticize the past.”“But there is a sense that something is different now, that something is broken, that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should,”

Mr. Obama said. “At times, it seems like we are unable to listen to one another, to have at once a serious and civil debate. This erosion of civility in the public square sows division and cynicism among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion.”

Some thoughts at this point….

Seems like whoever the president was addressing this event in past years, the message was always uplifting and encouraging, affirming the tradition and in fact need of core humanitarian values derived from faith for a moral society to serve the common good and take care of ‘the least of these’. I heard President George W. Bush address the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast with admiration for the “armies of compassion” that good people of faith represent in the smaller communities that make up America. Even last year, in his first address to the National Prayer Breakfast as president, Obama delivered an inspiring message based fundamentally on the Golden Rule.

“We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”

But backing up just one paragraph before those lines, he said this:

“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.”How can he make that assertion, stated as a certainty and a conviction, and expand access and funding for abortion since his first day as president?

Speaking of which….Tim Tebow was at the National Prayer Breakfast, too.

He gave the closing prayer.

Univeral health care has appeal in its promise to provide treatment to everyone, no exceptions. The very moral thing to do. However, no exceptions does not mean no limitations.

And now that a prominent Canadian politician has come to the U.S. for a lifesaving procedure, questions that Washington politicians have brushed aside are re-emerging……What does this say about a nation’s delivery of health care?

"Last August, in the middle of a season of politician-roasting town halls over the government overhaul of the American health-care system, the Detroit Free Press reported that our neighbors to the north had begun contracting with American hospitals to handle overflow from their oft-praised single-payer system.

“The effort by Canada attempted to legitimize a natural flow of people with means across the border to seek the immediate care that Canadas fully-public system could not provide. That story didnt get too much traction in either the U.S. or Canada, mainly due to the efforts of politicians in both countries insisting that central control of the health-care sector is necessary for reform.

“However, that may change now that a prominent politician in Canada has followed the same path as many of his fellow citizens in order to save his own life: ‘Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is set to undergo heart surgery this week in the United States.’ …

“If an American governor had to go outside the U.S. to seek the kind of immediate care he needed, that would be considered scandalous. In fact, if an American governor had to leave his or her own state to seek expert care, Id expect it to be a fairly controversial move, unless it was treatment for a rather exotic malady that perhaps only a Mayo clinic could handle. … The motto among the statists seems to be: State-controlled access for thee, instant access for me."

What a bizarre primary Illinois just had. After the Chicago Tribune editors ran a series on the ’state of corruption’ urging voters in the strongest terms to grab their brooms and shovels, shoulder the sword, marshall their forces and get out the vote to clean up ‘politics as usual’ once and for all…….the primary went down with a record low turnout. With the majority of the voters staying home, what they said was “I don’t care”, which is equal to saying ‘let the status quo just be’…

You watch world politics shift and people’s revolutions rise against tyrants and fall under their iron fist, and you see people liberated after terror and oppression and finally get their first taste of democracy and risk their lives to come out and wait in long lines to raise their purple finger proudly after having their say in their first representative election ever. And maybe a lot of Americans….or in this case Illinoisans….are just too busy to pay attention to that or think much about it, but it sure affects me. Every single election is an opportunity to express faithful citizenship and exercise our collective responsibility to vote for representatives of the people who will govern one way or the other. News media like to use the term ‘values voters’ but everyone is a values voter. It just depends on which set of values you want making laws and social policy.

The pro-life voters of Illinois were probably the most actively engaged in that primary, but there were a number of pro-life candidates on the Republican and so their vote was split enough to leave the race for governor in that party still up in the air the morning after the election. Combine the votes for candidates with conservative values and clearly those voters came out and spoke in the greatest force. But it didn’t get the pro-life Republican the victory in the race for Barack Obama’s Senate seat in November.

However, the apathy vote did get the Democrats the candidate most allegedly tied to scandal and corruption, the one who started his political career with help from Barack Obama, with ties to some of the same high profile figures as Barack Obama. So much for the Trib’s crusade for reform…

It’s early, and the mid-term election of 2010 is months away. Maybe that’s why so many citizens ignored yesterday’s primary. But Barack Obama began his campaign, brilliantly, years in advance, and methodically worked his way to ‘the highest office in the land.’ Anyone who complains today about politics or policies or problems, at least in this state, is a day late. And probably way more than a dollar short.

Elections have consequences. Everyone who wants to make real change in November had better get those brooms, shovels and swords out now.

Why didn’t the president think of that? After all, politicians are so good at spin.

Let’s start with the end of this piece and work back…

Don’t talk about the deficit as a historic deficit. Talk about it as a historic investment. Make the subject record unemployment relief, and record state relief, and record job spending, and record small business investments, and record tax cuts. Tell a positive story you want to defend rather than a negative story you want to apologize for. Obama likes to blame Bush and the recession for the deficit. Substantively, it’s right. Politically, it looks like excuse-making. The average Americans thinks this is Obama’s budget. He needs to defend it like he owns the thing.

Okay, break this down….

The Democratic-controlled Congress was substantially responsible for the deficit, and the Republicans certainly share the blame. And blaming Bush (for everything) is excuse-making, especially given the decisions and policies of this president’s first year in office.

Obama won’t own anything negative. Look how he blamed everyone in the house (and senate) at the SOTU for everything he sees wrong…..even that unprecedented shot at the Supreme Court. It would be good if he did, as Derek Thompson suggests here. Own your actions and policies and decisions and words. Didn’t Obama run on acccountability….among other things?

So back at the start of the Atlantic piece, and how Obama is failing to defend his budget. Thompson excises good snips that make his point well, snips of what Obama is saying about his budget (he seems to be calling it a “terrible mistake”; treating American’s dollars like Monopoly money; or…

where he makes the weird argument that the administration should be more penny-pinching during a recession, while all of his policies (and Keynesian economic theory) call for expanding government aid to states, businesses and individuals…

Thompson says:

Here is what I’m hearing: “This is not my deficit. I don’t like it at all. Deficits are terrible mistakes, and the government always treats your taxes like Monopoly money, and we really should be tightening our belts now by now.” Obama sounds like his own budget’s best critic!

I can’t imagine this self-critical approach will win public support. One heuristic I use to gauge whether I think a framing device will work is: Can I imagine some bloke on the street repeating it with a news camera in his face? So: can I imagine a some self-described moderate independent say to a CNN camera, “I really respect Obama for admitting how much he despises all the numbers in his budget”? No, I cannot. Here’s what I can imagine: “Did you hear about how horrible this budget and deficit is? Even the president hates it!

No worries. Obama is not given to the self-critical approach, for any purpose.