Life of the Party

R.I.P., Ellen Craswell

Here's a beautiful tribute by Larry Stickney from the Family Policy Institute of Washington. 

Sometimes a Pro-Life Republican Just HAS to Vote Third Party

I have no intentions of joining a third party.  In fact, I don't like when my conservative friends do.  I've tried talking them out of it.  It creates a release valve for the pressure that builds among grassroots conservatives, and the Party Establishment is relieved when we leave as they smile and say "Buh-bye". 

The best way to defeat a pro-abortion or liberal Republican is to run a serious campaign as a Republican primary challenger.  Of course, it is rarely successful when the opponent is an incumbent, but it can be done.  Even more rare, are third party victories. 

Nonetheless, there are times when there is just no choice for a pro-life Republican but to vote third party. Like for instance, when the local chapter of Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world, endorses the Republican candidate, and when the Republican Party makes it impossible to challenge the candidate. 

My friend, and popular Catholic blogger, Paul Mitchell (AKA: Regular Guy, Paul) threw his hat in the ring for just such a legislative race in the state of Illinois.  He declared himself an "independent" candidate and then a few days later, joined the Constitution Party.  I can't really say that I blame him.  I don't agree with the move, but I support his candidacy, and if I lived in Illinois, I would definitely vote for him.  In fact, I endorse him and encourage you to support him.  Especially, if you live in Illinois.  Although this is a small local race, I think he can make a serious impact on the pro-life movement.  He is talking straight about abortion, and proposing that the state level is where the battle for Life must be fought and he is ready to fight it. 

All that said, I do hope he returns to the Republican Party.  And I hope that grassroots Republicans start realizing that we are losing more and more of our members because we tolerate politicians who don't stand for our principles just because they have an "R" next to their name.  OPEN YOUR EYES!  And I hope that conservatives who are tempted to go and join a third party will think better of it. 

This is OUR Party.  Take it Back!   

The Pro-Life Movement and the Ron Paul rEVOLution

If we could just get together, we could take our country back!

Ron Paul Rally Philadelphia, PA

March for Life Washington D.C.

(Ron Paul "Delivering America" portrait faintly visible in the front toward the left in the crowd)

______________________________________________________________________________

Ron Paul Rally Seattle, WA

"Freedom is Popular"

March for Life Olympia, WA

   

___________________________________________________________________________________

A sign in the sky for Ron Paul?

A sign in the sky at the March for Life?

Support a Local Pro-Life Candidate

Tim Sutinen is running for State Representative in the 19th legislative district of Washington, which could use a pro-life conservative representative.  Tim states on his website:

I am proudly Pro-Life!  I believe that protection of human life is essential for the well-being of our country.

That is a rare statement from a local Republican, since the WSRP usually advises candidates not to campaign on life issues.  You can read more about him on his website, especially his issues page and see previous coverage of Tim, right here at Life of the Party.   

Pro-Life Candidate for Congress Inspired by 40 Days for Life Campaign

Steve Beren, who ran for Congress in 2006, against the militantly pro-abortion incumbent Jim McDermott, participated in the 40 Days for Life campaign last Friday morning. 

It wasn't the only bold move he made on behalf of the unborn, rarely seen by a Washington State Republican.  Inspired by his experience, he posted a beautiful defense of a Human Life Amendment, confidently and eloquently defending the National Republican Party Platform language that's been calling for a Human Life amendment since 1984, and supported by Ronald Reagan. 

Perhaps he can have some influence on some of the other Republicans in our state.  Pro-lifers ought to read his post and express their support in the comment box.  With respectful debate, and with continued prayer and fasting, they might start listening. 

Meanwhile, in other news, another presidential candidate bites the dust on the life issue.  Fred Thompson, you're no Ronald Reagan.  Perhaps if you could spent an hour or two praying in front of Planned Parenthood and an hour reading Steve Beren's website, you might come a little closer.   

"The Matriarch of the Conservative Movement"

The matriarch of the conservative movement is showing no signs of slowing down.

At 82, Phyllis Schlafly is still speaking out against abortion and illegal immigration, still fighting the Equal Rights Amendment, still a thorn in the side of not only Democrats but of Republicans she sees as leaning too far to the left...

"24 Carat Conservative" Reaches $1 Million Fundraising Goal

Colorado Congressman and Presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, has reached and surpassed his fundraising goal of $1,000,000,000.  Of course, this amount is far from being in the same ballpark as the "front-runners" in the race, but that is to be expected.  Their money comes from large corporations.   Some of those large corporations benefit financially from illegal immigration.  But $1 million is certainly impressive for a candidate the media and Republican party leaders would rather ignore.  It clearly demonstrates a grassroots movement.

Other news about the campaign: Bay Buchanan joins the team, and the campaign website has a new look, with many more headlines (including "New Hampshire voters call Tancredo "The Conservative!~"24-carat conservative on everything from entitlement spending to abortion to illegal immigrants to the threat of a rapidly arming China").  Take a look and contribute. 

Tom Tancredo's Speech to CPAC

To view the video  click here.  Below is the condensed version in text.

I a€™m simply troubled, and maybe you are too, by this recent influx of hyphenated conservatives. Neo-conservatives over here. Paleo-conservatives over there. Compassionate conservatives out in the hallway, and the latest nonsense—commonsense conservatives.

Now I am glad to see that at least today—March 2, 2007 €”everybody running for the top office is some kind of conservative.

But for those of us who have been unhyphenated conservatives since before Al Gore invented the Internet, I find the spectacle mildly amusing.

What I want to know is, since when is conservatism, by itself, not enough? When, exactly, has it helped our party, either in policy or politics, to qualify our commitment to limited government, the rule of law, a strong national defense, and traditional values? As best as I can tell, every effort to hyphenate conservatism has led to both policy and electoral catastrophe.

"Kinder, gentler-conservatism" gave us the largest tax increase in our history and President Bill Clinton. €œ"Compassionate€-conservatism" has given us No Child Left Behind, Medicare prescription drugs, open-borders, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

This is not a coincidence. Throughout the last three decades, a simple, if inconvenient, truth has emerged: when conservatives run on principle, we win, and when we run from principle, we lose.

For years, conservatives have been warned by political professionals of the costs of standing too strongly on principle. Today, ladies and gentlemen, we a€™re paying the price for not standing on principle at all.

The only adjective I'll agree to have applied to me is an unapologetic conservative. I am not sorry we won the cold war; I am not sorry that we reduced tax rates and created economic opportunities for millions; I am not sorry that we reformed welfare and put millions of people to work.

. . .and I will never apologize for America, the last best hope for Western civilization. Let'€™s face it, €”no one flees the United States for a better life in, say, Pakistan.

Genuine conservatism has nothing to apologize for, and nothing to lose by making itself heard in this campaign. Conservatism has won before, and will win again, but only when we decide once and for all to discard these meaningless qualifiers!

Conservatism doesn'€™t need an adjective! It needs a leader!

. . .a leader that opposes abortions--not because Iowa caucus goers oppose abortion, €”but because they know even animals don'€™t deliberately kill their unborn.

. . .a leader that believes in a strong national defense because our enemies are psychopaths, and our allies are the French!

. . .a leader that believes in enforcing our immigration laws because the first part of "€œillegal immigrant"€ is ILLEGAL! . . .and who understands there is nothing compassionate about giving amnesty to millions of people who have broken into our country.

If some candidate tells you they are for immigration reform—test them. Ask if they'll agree that massive immigration combined with the cult of multi-culturalism is creating in America a linguistic and cultural Tower of Babel.

...or I guess you can just ask them if they agree that Miami is becoming a third world country.

I guarantee you not a single other presidential candidate will acknowledge what millions of Americans know to be true, what they see happening in their communities every single day

They'll use phrases like a €"comprehensive plan,"€ a euphemism for amnesty; and "€œI am personally pro-life,"€ when they really mean, "€œHey, it'€™s a women'€™s body after all, €”and she should have the right to do whatever she wants with the other body that's inside of her at the time."

If these phrases sound like they're written by political handlers, its because they are. They are designed to shield politicians from their principles. Not to reveal truth but to obscure it, to leave conservatives wondering what politicians really believe and intend to do.

It is from such phrases, from the hacks who write them to the politicians who utter them, that our political process, our party, and our movement must be rescued.

And in a world at war with the very survival of Western civilization at risk, with the Supreme Court potentially one retirement away from reversing Roe and Casey, with the Baby Boom'€™s budget-busting retirement looming, and with Bill and Hillary Clinton already measuring the drapes in the White House, conservatives cannot afford to sit this one out.

Happy Birthday, Abraham Lincoln

On Lincoln's birthday, it's a good time to remember the founding of the Republican Party.  We were founded on a moral issue.  We were founded on the principle that no man should ever be considered the property of another.  Ronald Reagan, who's birthday we also celebrated recently, saw the correlation between slavery and abortion.  As he wrote in Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation:

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to — any more than the public voice arose against slavery — until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

We now remember the words of President Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address:

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation:  conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war. . .testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated. . . can long endure.  We are met on a great battlefield of that war.

We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate. . .we cannot consecrate. . . we cannot hallow this ground.  The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.  The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us. . .that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion. . . that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain. . . that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. . . and that government of the people. . .by the people. . .for the people. . . shall not perish from the earth.

In honor of President Lincoln, let's renew our "dedication to the promise that all men are created equal."  Let's dedicate  ourselves with "increased devotion" to the "unfinished work". 

Let's rediscover our roots as Republicans.  We are not merely about lower taxes.  If we are, we deserve every bit of criticism for being greedy pigs, out to help "the rich get richer".  Our party doesn't exist "to win elections" either.  Rather, we are about what is right, and we exist to do what's right.  Let's choose our leaders, candidates and issues accordingly. 

Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan

We remember the strong pro-life leadership of Ronald Reagan today, February 6, 2007, which would have been his 96th birthday.  He was never concerned with the political costs of speaking what was right.  This was from his final State of the Union Speech (January 25, 1988). 

Tonight, I call America--a good nation, a moral people--to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman's right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense. But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt. I pledge to you tonight I will work to remove barriers to adoption and extend full sharing in family life to millions of Americans so that children who need homes can be welcomed to families who want them and love them.

Of course, we know today that he was not successful in passing a human life amendment.  He had a Democrat majority in Congress.  We have not since had a president in favor of a human life amendment, which would recognize the unborn child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  This would put an end to legalized abortion.  Instead, we are left to hope that we will have enough justices on the Supreme Court to overturn Roe, leaving ourselves and our politicians off the hook, essentially. 

Let us pray for more leaders like Reagan, and let us settle for nothing less.

Happy Birthday, Ronald Reagan!