September - October

From The Mail Box... Another Black American sounds out against the evil and dangers of the Obama-Biden platform. --Joe (feel free to post comments)

From The Mailbox...  An open letter from a concerned Black American to all those, black or white, or other, who are considering the Obama-Biden platform. Take the time to give this important statement a read. --Joe

       Why I Cannot Vote for Barack Obama

  By Robert Oliver

  Yes I’m a Black man, and I won’t vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States.

  Today I saw on the Internet an editorial cartoon that was originally published in the Chicago Sun-Times.  It had God, Senator Obama, and a baby.  God was touching the baby’s forefinger.  Obama stands behind the baby and holds a sign that says “LIVE BIRTH ABORTION.” Obama screams at God: YOU KEEP OUT OF THIS!”  Suddenly everything made sense to me, maybe not by words to God, but by actions -- actions which speak much louder than words. By his actions Obama says a lot, both to God and to Christians.

  In a Human Events article “Obama More Pro-Choice Than NARAL” by Amanda B. Carpenter, December 26. 2006 (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647), she writes:  “In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

  “Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention.

  “When the federal bill was being debated, NARAL Pro-Choice America released a statement that said, ‘Consistent with our position last year, NARAL does not oppose passage of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act ... floor debate served to clarify the bill’s intent and assure us that it is not targeted at Roe v. Wade or a woman’s right to choose.’

“But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted ‘present.’ At the second he voted ‘no.’

“The bill was then referred to the senate’s Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

“Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies’ being born alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

“Stanek told me her testimony ‘did not faze’ Obama.

“In the second hearing, Stanek said, ‘I brought pictures in and presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being treated if they were wanted!’

“’And those pictures didn’t faze him [Obama] at all,’ she said.

“At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being ‘very clear and forthright,’ but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested ‘doctors really don’t care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable die.’ He told her, ‘That may be your assessment, and I don’t see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden on a woman and I can’t support that.’”

This man who wants to be President of the United States would allow survivors of botched abortions to die when they could have been given life support. That is cold and heartless, isn’t it?  I ask Christians, is that the attitude that God is pleased with? Can God smile on that? Proverbs 31:8 says: “Open thy mouth for the dumb in the cause of all such as are appointed to destruction.” I would say that describes those babies left to die, those babies that Obama would allow to die.  One woman said that God brought Obama this far not to let him down. Do you seriously think God anointed and appointed such a man like that with a heart and a character to let those deaths of infants continue?  There is a word for it – infanticide. 

  Can God bless infanticide? Does God bless infanticide? Is it “Suffer the little children” or “Let the little children suffer”? Which one did Jesus Christ say? I forget. Help me out with that one.

  On the subject of Jesus, I saw another article on World Net Daily called “Why Jesus Would Not Vote for Barack Obama” (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=37080) in which the above-mentioned nurse Jill Stanek wrote: “In February 2004, U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, sent a fund-raising letter with the ‘alarming news’ that "right-wing politicians" had passed a law stopping doctors from stabbing half-born babies in the neck with scissors, suctioning out their brains and crushing their skulls.

  (What a lovely picture that makes. What did I say about “let the little children suffer”?)

“Michelle called partial-birth abortion ‘a legitimate medical procedure,’ and wouldn't supporters please pay $150 to attend a luncheon for her husband, who would fight against ‘cynical ploy[s]’ to stop it?”

Stanek continues: “As a nurse at an Illinois hospital in 1999, I discovered babies were being aborted alive and shelved to die in soiled utility rooms. I discovered infanticide.

“Legislation was presented on the federal level and in various states called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (BAIPA). It stated all live-born babies were guaranteed the same constitutional right to equal protection, whether or not they were wanted.

“BAIPA sailed through the U.S. Senate by unanimous vote. Even Sens. Clinton, Kennedy and Kerry agreed a mother's right to ‘choose’ stopped at her baby's delivery.

“The bill also passed overwhelmingly in the House. NARAL went neutral on it. Abortion enthusiasts publicly agreed that fighting BAIPA would appear extreme. President Bush signed BAIPA into law in 2002.

“But in Illinois, the state version of BAIPA repeatedly failed, thanks in large part to then-state Sen. Barack Obama. It only passed in 2005, after Obama left.”

That was a good thing.

  The article “Obama's Abortion Extremism” in the April 2, 2008 edition of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040102197.html ) says: “But Obama's record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion -- a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called ‘too close to infanticide.’ Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be ‘punished with a baby’ because of a crisis pregnancy -- hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.”

  It really boggles my mind that people who say they are Christians will vote for him.

It is bad enough that Obama is “pro-choice,” which is a euphemism for pro-abortion.

Ever since 1973, seventeen million Black babies have been destroyed in the womb and disposed of.  In 1977, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr. said that abortion is “genocide against the Black race.” (FYI: Go to www.blackgenocide.org.)  In 1984, he flip-flopped on that issue for some reason.

  Every day over 1200 Black babies are being aborted, with no outcries from “Black Leadership,” especially Barack Obama. Did you know that abortion is largest cause of death in the black community today?  Is it any wonder that as a whole, that as a “minority” group, Hispanics have passed Blacks in population?  Our numbers are dwindling.  And who is allowing that to happen? (The Ku Klux Klan and the Aryan Nations are not complaining about that. They would complain if we were saving our babies instead of killing them. At the rate we are going we will put them out of business because we are doing their job for them, aren’t we?  They may picket and protest us for taking their jobs away.)

  Let the little children suffer, right?

  Many Blacks will vote for Obama simply because he is Black. They want to see a Black man in the White House which is fine and good. But what kind of Black man do we want there?  It is the color of the skin or the content of character that is more important?  Did we really believe what Martin Luther King, Jr. said or did we not? Let’s be real. To Christians I ask is having a Black man in the White House more important than the lives of babies, including Black babies?  Is having a Black man in the White House more important than moral principles based on God’s Word? What is more important to you: Black Pride or God’s Word?  Which one would God want you to choose? (See Proverbs 31:8 again or remember Exodus 20:13 “Thou shalt not kill.”)  You know this world is under the influence of two entities: God and the Devil. If you choose Black Pride and reject God’s Word, who have you really chosen by default? When Black Pride directly opposes God’s Word, which one do you feel will win over the other? And rejecting God’s Word is pure hell for Black folks, isn’t it?

  Here is what Rev. Wayne Perryman (www.wayneperryman.com), author (Unfounded Loyalty and What the Media Failed to Tell American Voters), says about the subject:

  “Most of the intelligent/informed blacks know that the entire abortion program was sold to the general public during the height of the civil rights movement. It was a time when both the general population and Congress were sensitive to the struggles of blacks and women, so it was the perfect time for the pro-choice advocates to play the race card. They did so by emphasizing that poor blacks did not have the funds to obtain abortions like many of their white counterparts; consequently many were forced to go to places that were unsafe and unregulated.

  “Congress ignored the fact, that as a race, African Americans were never interested in aborting their children. It was not unusual for blacks to have as many as ten or more children to work the family farm (often as sharecroppers).  Other siblings found other odd jobs to help supplement their family’s income. Large families meant more laborers to share the workload.  Even during the hardship of slavery, blacks never aborted their children. Blacks also believed that abortions were biblically wrong. Nevertheless, by making abortions a woman’s rights issue and a racial issue, the proponents of abortions gained public and congressional support.

  “Their support also helped Margaret Sanger fulfill her dream of reducing the portion of the population that she referred to as: “the unfit,” meaning African Americans.  Sanger is credited with starting Planned Parenthood and the “Negro Project,” a program to reduce the black population in America.  The supporters of Obama who feel that the abortion issue is not that important, should consider the following:

v     Isn’t it strange that Planned Parenthood, the agency that supports abortions and birth control, is the same agency that was started by Margaret Sanger, the same woman who started the Negro Project; which was the same project designed to control the birth rate of African Americans - because she felt blacks were inferior?

v     Isn’t it strange that Congress seems to have unlimited funds to give to young black mothers to kill their babies (through abortions), but it struggles to find funds for pre-natal care if they decide to let their baby live?  How can blacks support a candidate who is willing to provide unlimited funds to kill them (seventeen million black babies since Roe v. Wade), but is hard pressed to find health care funds to help heal them?   

v     Intelligent blacks present the question this way: Under the banner that a woman has the right to choose, why is it that the government has unlimited funds to help the black baby die, but has limited health care funds to help the baby live?

v     It is estimated that the government has spent billions to kill the seventeen million black babies (since Roe V. Wade).  This is why concerned blacks ask: Why did the government decide to fund abortions? Was it out of the concern for the poor black mother, or was it to slow down the birth rate of African Americans due to Afro-phobia?  Had those seventeen million babies lived during the past thirty-four years and each had two children of their own, the black population in America would be close to ninety million, thus making it the largest ethnic minority voting group in America?

v     How can blacks condemn Jim Crow and Klan for killing thousands of blacks, and yet support a candidate that defends a program that killed 17 million blacks?

v     Do blacks find is strange that the same party that supported the slavery, Jim Crow and the Ku Klux Klan is the same party that supports the killing of black babies?

  “In the debates on abortions, they often fail to mention that both Oprah Winfrey’s mother and Jesse Jackson’s mother were teens when they became pregnant, and because of their unique situation, they had every excuse to abort their child - but chose not to?

  “Blacks must always remember that all of their great leaders, from Jesus to Jackie Robinson, came through the womb of a woman. The womb of the woman is the only pathway to life. We must cherish it, protect it, and honor it, recognizing that it is the gateway that God uses to deliver His diversity of gifts to mankind.  Therefore, African Americans should never support any candidate, whether they be black or white or Democrat or Republican, that endorses a system that has killed and will continue to kill over 17 million blacks.”

  Let the little children suffer.

  Of course I would like to see a Black man as President of the United States. I’m African American. This is America.  Blacks have made many strides American society.  One of us should have the most important job in the United States as well as being a recognized leader on this earth.

  However, this time around my vote will not go to Barack Obama. He has been weighed in the balance, character-wise, and was found wanting.

  I just saw a news report that the world wants Obama as President.

  I do not.

  Robert Oliver is a writer, photographer, and a radio commentator in Southern California.  Email interactionswest@gmail.com

On The Wire... NEWS FLASH: ***McCain/Palin Opposition Team Again Suffers Recurring Foot-in-Mouth Disease!***
I have an OPEN PLEA: To Misters Obama and Biden, and your whole pro-abortion crew: For crying out loud, come in to your humanities, get it straight, and help end the climate of death faced here and abroad. --Joe

   And Again: Now Bishops Correct Biden's False Statements about Catholic Teaching on Abortion

By Thaddeus M. Baklinski

September 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Bishop Robert C. Morlino of Madison, Wisconsin, Archbishop Charles J. Chaput and Auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley of Denver have reacted to Senator Joseph Biden's remarks on NBC's Meet The Press, criticizing him for confusing the differences between faith and natural law and for flawed moral reasoning.

In a Sunday interview on Meet the Press, Senator Biden said that he is "prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception" but would not impose that faith on anyone through law. He claimed that to do so would be "inappropriate in a pluralistic society."

After watching Biden's appearance on Meet the Press, Bishop Morlino at the last minute set aside his prepared homily on Sunday and instead addressed the Senator and Speaker Nancy Pelosi's fallacious remarks about Church teaching on abortion.

Senator Biden, noted the Bishop, doesn't understand the difference between "religious faith and natural law."

"Any human being, regardless of his faith, his religious practice or having no faith, any human being can reason to the fact that human life from conception unto natural death is sacred," Bishop Morlino argued. "Biology, not faith, not philosophy, not any kind of theology - Biology tells us, science [says], that at the moment of conception there exists a unique individual of the human species."

"It's not a matter of what I might believe. What my faith might teach me," he said. "Sen. Biden has an obligation to know that. And he doesn't know it."

Bishop Morlino then criticized politicians for confusing the Catholic faithful by making false, inaccurate or misleading public statements.

"They're supposed to believe in separation of church and state. They're violating the separation of church and state by confusing people about what I have an obligation to teach," he charged.

"Prominent Catholics should not be violating the separation of church and state" by "teaching the wrong thing", but Pelosi and Biden, in their lack of knowledge and understanding, were "doing precisely that," the Bishop said.

"They themselves were confused after the Council and I don't blame them for that. Bishops allowed it, theologians did it, some priests did it, and in Canada even some bishops did it."

Bishop Morlino concluded by encouraging his listeners to make sure they themselves really understood what the Catholic faith teaches, through the Pope and the bishops, and to offer correction to those who were confused or in error "with love," because otherwise "we will be lost too."

Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput and Denver's auxiliary Bishop James D. Conley issued a letter to the faithful yesterday, titled "Public Servants and Moral Reasoning: A notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado", addressing Senator Biden's comments.

"When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief," the letter begins.

Referring to Senator Biden's statement that when life begins is a "personal and private issue," the bishops stated that "in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception.  Religion has nothing to do with it."

"Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong," the Bishops wrote.

"If, as Senator Biden said, 'I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,' then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there."

The Bishops' letter mentions Biden's statement to Tom Brokaw on Meet The Press that he has opposed taxpayer funding for abortions: "I don't support public, public funding. I don't, because that flips the burden. That's then telling me I have to accept a different view," he said in the interview.

A look at his voting record however reveals the opposite.

Earlier this year Biden voted against an amendment sponsored by Sen. David Vitter that would permanently prevent abortion funding with federal Indian Health Service (IHS) funds at Indian health care service facilities. (See Planned Parenthood Targets Native Americans with Abortion: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08060903.html).

Biden voted against the Mexico City Policy, an initiative to prohibit taxpayer funding of groups that promote or perform abortions overseas, in April 2005.

In 2003, Biden voted to repeal the law that prohibits performance of abortions of military base hospitals, which are taxpayer funded.

The Bishops' letter also pointed out Biden's "strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false 'right' to abortion it enshrines," and emphasized that this "can't be excused by any serious Catholic."

The Bishops concluded the letter saying that "resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion," and that a failure to defend innocent life means that "all of us - from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews - fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens."

On The Wire...  In Speaker Peolsi's world there exists a conflicting duality. I publicly, respectfully request, that madam speaker come to her senses, and thereby come back to reality. Father Williams breaks it down. -- Joe

  Don’t Blame the Bishops: Catholic means pro-life.

By Father Thomas D. Williams

(National Review Online)

You are unlikely to ever come upon a group called Mohammedans for Polytheism or Environmentalists for Seal Slaughter. A Muslim who espouses a multiplicity of deities has, ipso facto, placed himself outside the Muslim confession. Polytheism is not an Islamic thing. An environmentalist who patronizes anti-ecological activities is an environmentalist at all, but a subversive. This is because the monikers “Muslim” and “environmentalist” mean something; they carry with them a series of necessary consequences. Certain terms — like “Muslim” and “polytheism” — simply can’t be squared, and combining them is nonsensical.
not 

The recent ecclesiastical backlash to Nancy Pelosi’s unfortunate remarks on Meet the Press should have surprised no one, least of all Speaker Pelosi herself. Her attempts to squeeze abortion rights into Catholic moral teaching were no more credible than trying to pass apartheid off as a legitimate goal of the civil rights movement. The bishops — some seven have weighed in on the matter so far — had no choice but to speak out.

People — including apparently some “ardent” Catholics — seem to forget how central the pro-life issue is to Catholic morality and why that is so. We are not quibbling here about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is no exaggeration to say that the inviolability and sacredness of innocent human life is to Catholic morality what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is to Catholic dogma. Both are not only non-negotiable; they are foundational. I would challenge Speaker Pelosi to come up with any moral question on which the Church has expressed itself with greater clarity than on the intrinsic evil of abortion.

A solid core of beliefs or principles under girds any human organization. These beliefs constitute the cement that binds the society together and determine its identity. Obviously plenty of issues fall outside this fundamental core, and there is a difference between legitimate pluralism of opinion and arrant contradiction. Environmentalists, for example, can disagree about many things — such as strategies, priorities, tactics, funding and the like — but devotion to the environment and its logical corollaries are not up for debate. If you sport a mink coat, you’re out of the club.

Being Catholic is no different. The title “Catholic” presumes a whole string of basic beliefs, succinctly laid out in the Apostle’s Creed. Catholics believe in one God, creator of heaven and earth, in Jesus Christ his only begotten son who became man, suffered and died for us, rose from the dead on the third day, and so forth. Along with this canon of doctrines, Catholics also embrace a body of moral teaching (summed up tidily in the Catechism of the Catholic Church) which governs their understanding of right and wrong, what is pleasing to God and what offends Him.

From the earliest days of Christianity, Jesus’ followers distinguished themselves from those around them both by their doctrinal beliefs and their moral code. The earliest known work of Christian antiquity outside the New Testament is called The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, known also by its familiar Greek appellation, the Didache. This catechetical manual makes no bones about what it means to be a Christian. It begins with the stark admonition: “Two ways there are, one of Life and one of Death, and there is a great difference between the Two Ways.” Included in the explanation of what it means to love one’s neighbor, as part of the “way of life,” first century Christians read the words, “Do not kill a fetus by abortion, or commit infanticide.” Such has been the consistent teaching throughout the history of Christianity and no amount of political posturing will change that.

Some people think that when Catholics compare abortion to slavery or to Nazi anti-Semitism they are engaging in hyperbole. They couldn’t be more wrong. Abortion is not only the greatest social injustice of our century; it is arguably the greatest social injustice of all time. Abortion circumscribes an entire class of human beings (the unborn) as non-citizens, excluded from the basic rights and protections accorded to all other human beings. In this way abortion mimics the great moral tragedies of all time, which always began with the denigration of an entire class of people as unworthy of life or freedom.

The evil of abortion is compounded by the magnitude of the problem. Though completely reliable statistics are unavailable, conservative estimates place the number of legal abortions performed worldwide each year at 25-30 million, a figure that alone makes abortion a social problem of staggering proportions. “Humanity today offers us a truly alarming spectacle,” wrote Pope John Paul in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae, “if we consider not only how extensively attacks on life are spreading but also their unheard of numerical proportion.” The legal, systematic elimination of the most vulnerable members of society is the most heinous crime known to man. To fail to oppose it is to make oneself complicit in it.

The most disturbing element of Speaker Pelosi’s comments, however, was not her historical fudging, her disingenuous misrepresentation of Catholic moral teaching or her implicit adoption of cafeteria Catholicism. It was her insouciant dismissal of the moral significance of abortion. She said that in the end, it didn’t matter when life begins anyway. Her exact words were: “The point is, is that it [when life begins] shouldn’t have an impact on the woman’s right to choose.” No matter when human life begins, a mother’s right trumps a baby’s, and that right includes the choice to destroy the child. This is irreconcilable not only with Catholic morality, but with the most basic natural ethics.

Pundits and liberal commentators have predictably accused the bishops of playing politics and using Speaker Pelosi’s comments to further the agenda of the Republican party. Any objective observer knows this is not the case. If Speaker Pelosi didn’t want a response, she should not have forced the bishops’ hands. And if the Democrats’ star running back steps out of bounds, it’s not the referees’ fault for calling it.

Speaker Pelosi can campaign for abortion all she likes, but to do so as an “ardent, practicing Catholic” is to invite a stiff correction. Americans still value truth in advertising, and know that words have meanings. “Catholic” means pro-life.

— Father Thomas D. Williams, LC, ThD is Vatican Analyst for CBS News and author of Knowing Right From Wrong: A Christian Guide to Conscience (Hachette, 2008).

On The Wire... John McCain hits a home run with his selection of Alaska gov. Sarah Palin for his running mate. -- Joe

Pro-life, Pro-family Leaders Praise McCain's Choice of Pro-Life Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for VP Running Mate

By Kathleen Gilbert

DAYTON, OH, August 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Republican John McCain has picked first-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his surprise choice for a running mate, in a move hailed by conservative leaders as "absolutely brilliant" and "electrifying" conservative voters, especially women.

Gov. Sarah Palin, known for her traditional and unabashedly pro-life and pro-family views, is the mother of five children, including her youngest boy, Trig, who has Down Syndrome.  She is now only the second female vice-presidential candidate in history and the first for the Republican Party.

Gov. Palin had been considered a wild-card for a running mate, and the choice further solidifies the appeal of the Republican presidential contender to values voters.  The news comes only days after the Republican platform became what has been called the most pro-life and pro-family in Republican party history.

Representatives for the National Right to Life said they were "thrilled" to hear of the selection.  President Wanda Franz, Ph.D said, "Governor Palin brings another strong pro-life voice to the Republican ticket, in sharp contrast to the pro-abortion ticket of Barack Obama and Joe Biden."

"The country now has a clear choice," added Darla St. Martin, Co-Executive Director of the National Right to Life Committee, "between an avowed pro-abortion ticket that would continue to push for unrestricted abortion on demand, and a strongly pro-life ticket that will bring us closer to a society that embraces the value and dignity of human life."

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America (CWA), welcomed the fresh perspective that Palin will bring to the presidential race.

"Governor Palin will change the dynamics of the entire presidential race," she said. "Her admirable record of confronting corruption and living her pro-life convictions shows she is a doer, not just a talker. Sarah Palin will make history as a vice presidential candidate - and not simply because she's a woman, but because she's a woman of substance and character."

Janice Shaw Crouse, director and senior fellow of CWA's Beverly LaHaye Institute, proclaimed the choice of Palin a victory for a true feminism. 

"It is particularly significant that a conservative woman was nominated for the nation's second highest office," she said. "For years the feminist movement has acknowledged for leadership only those women who embrace a radical agenda. How refreshing that now we have a woman who reflects the values of mainstream American women. Sarah Palin is pro-life, pro- marriage and pro-family. She is a woman who is balancing the personal and professional in admirable ways. She is an outstanding woman who will be an excellent role model for the nation's young people. Sarah Palin is chief among equals with American professional women; she brings the kind of balance that characterizes the high-achieving women of today. She will bring to the forefront of our cultural conversations an intelligent, realistic, well-grounded woman's perspective."

"Absolutely brilliant," said Matthew Staver, Chairman of Liberty Alliance Action, Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, on the choice of the attractive young governor.  He continued, "Personnel is policy. With the selection of Gov. Palin, Sen. John McCain has proven that he can exercise sound judgment." 

"The selection of Gov. Palin means that this upcoming election will be historic. But beyond making history, Palin brings substance and excitement. She is intelligent, young, attractive and articulate. As a woman and a mother, she can attract women voters, particularly those who feel disenfranchised," said Staver.

Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser agrees. "Sarah Palin is the whole package. Women voters are electrified, and Sarah is someone who is truly in sync with the way real American women think," she said.

Almost without exception, social conservatives are hailing McCain's new running mate as a brilliant choice that will appeal to a broad swathe of voters and inject a freshness into McCain's run for the presidency.