It was supposed to be a slam-dunk. Under Obamacare, the Health and Human Services Department mandated insurance coverage of contraceptive and abortifacient drugs without allowing conscience exemptions for non-worship religious ministries or faithful secular employers. To dismiss ecclesiastical objections to the measure, Planned Parenthood and the liberal media created a narrative that 98 percent of Catholic women use artificial birth control. Despite the absurdity of the claim, team Obama repeated it again and again; furthermore, they ascribed spurious policy goals, such as outlawing contraceptives altogether, to the Catholic Church and the Republican party. Rationalizing that young ladies would surely appreciate a defender against such neanderthals, the Democrats tethered their electoral hopes to this contrived War on Women.

Now, finding their synthetic progesterone powered incumbent with a 46-50 favorable-unfavorable rating among women (down from 57-39 in April) and only a 5 point lead over the Republican candidate among likely voters of the fairer sex (the margin was 13 points in the 2008 vote), the Democrats must be asking themselves what went wrong.

A preliminary report of What Catholic Women Think About Faith Conscience, and Contraception: A Nationwide Survey of Catholic Women (18-54)* recently released by the Women, Faith, and Culture Project provides some insight. Finding that only 37% of Catholic women “completely reject the Church’s teaching on family planning,” the study contradicts the meme that widespread use of birth control indicates widespread dissent in the pews.

More remarkable is the bad news the study portends for President Obama and his Planned Parenthood coterie. The average ideal number of children per family identified by women in the survey was 3.5 and jumped to 4.0 when the phrase “if money were not a factor” was added to the question. “Ability to financially support a child,” was the number one factor for considering when to conceive, cited by 64% of the women sampled overall, including a whopping 76% of young infrequent church-goers.

Consistent with the study’s findings, The Atlantic reports that an Obama baby bust is indeed underway with fewer births every year since 2008, and 1 in 5 millennials putting their dreams of parenthood on hold because of the flailing economy. Based on 2010 census data, that translates into 7 million would-be mothers in the 18 to 34-year-old age group whose loving arms are as empty as Solyndra headquarters. So it appears that while the Democrats celebrate copay free birth control as the vehicle for feminist self-actualization, millions of women see improving the economy as the key to reproductive freedom. They are not concerned about Republican bogeymen keeping them from going on birth control. They’re worried that President Obama’s abysmal job market will prevent them from ever going off.

With a narrow polling advantage, President Obama and his media enablers are brazenly trying to run out the clock until election day with distractions such as the phony War on Women. Meanwhile, young women voters are feeling genuinely “left out” and “stuck in the Obama economy” as they hear the very loud ticking of the most opportune biological time to have a baby passing them by.

* The survey, conducted in mid-2011, months before the HHS mandate controversy erupted, was intended to serve as a tool to help Catholic ministers focus sexual morality education resources. This sample included English-speaking Catholic women who self-reported attending Catholic Mass at least “a few times a year.” The 824-woman sample included the following quota groups: 24% frequent church-goers, ages 18-34; 26% infrequent church-goes, ages 18-34; 25% frequent church-goers, ages 35-54; and 25% infrequent church-goes, ages 35-54.

My worldview was wrenched into recalibration recently when I watched the video of Cardinal Timothy Dolan’s March 2012 address “Lifting Up Our Voices: How Catholics Can Make an Impact on Public Policy,” in which he said the following:

You lay people have the specific charism of bringing a religiously informed political consciousness into the public square. We bishops and we priests don’t. We stick to principles, all right. We leave a lot of the messiness of politics up to you.

Now, I say that in some ways, everybody, out of self-defense because it seems to me a lot of Catholic folks don’t get that. They still come running to daddy, namely to me and Bishop Murphy to say, “Why don’t you bishops do something? Why don’t you excommunicate So-and-So? Why don’t you throw these people out of the Church? Why don’t you say that this is a mortal sin?” In other words, they will want us to do the dirty work of politics.

Now as Bishop Nicholas Dimarzio, our brother in Brooklyn, who perhaps says things a bit more bluntly than Bishop Murphy and I do, he is responding to them, “Get off it! You’re the ones who vote. You’re the ones who can run for office. You’re the ones who can write your representatives. You’re the ones who can get into political organizations. So do it!”

(Full speech video here. Quoted selection begins at 21:00. Run time is 51 minutes.)

Cardinal Dolan is saying loud and clear that the Catholic Church leadership in America is not the cavalry. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops isn’t even the signal corps relaying the “Charge!” command from the Headquarters-Element-in-the-Sky. Instead, they are a doctrine center, producing volumes of information on a gamut of issues, but leaving the choices of where, when, how, and which evil to engage in political battle up to us. And, by the way, don’t expect a formal excommunication of Nancy Pelosi anytime soon.

This is new information for me and others like me. My whole adult life I’ve been what blogger Mark Shea calls a “whipped Catholic.” Throughout my formative years, it was subtly instilled in me that it is sinful to get involved in the “messiness” and “the dirty work of politics.” I’m self-conscious about the little bit of grassroots activism in which I participate. I certainly never thought it legitimate to bring my politics to church or vice-versa. Further, it is my impression that from the Reagan years forward, the American Catholic Church has sided with the supposedly peacemaking doves and the social spenders in government, except on the third Sunday of January, when we receive our annual reaffirmation that abortion is intrinsically evil.

So what is a faithful Catholic to do? Considering that all power is derived ultimately from God (Romans 13:1), those of us fortunate enough to be shareholders in a government “of the people, for the people, and by the people” have an obligation to use not just the ballot, but all of our basic freedoms and civil liberties to ensure our Republic remains a “shining city on the hill.” Much prayer and reflection has led to my sincere belief that the Republican party platform is infinitely more consistent with Catholic teaching than the Democratic party platform, and so I offer the following suggestions to my fellow papists who are ready to take a stand:

Flex your free exercise of religion. Every law, policy, regulation, and budget item has a moral implication, denoting a given activity as right or wrong, good or bad; consequently, religious people, struggling sinners though we all may be, have a bona fide role in the public square. Now more than ever it is time to embrace your Catholic faith. Pray and receive the sacraments regularly. Remove the log from your own eye through habitual confession, and you’ll be amazed how clearly you can see the wrongs that need to be righted in our country, and which among them are in your power to improve.

Defend against attempts to establish a government sanctioned Catholic Church. The Democrats and the media ceaselessly attempt to
define acceptable faith in action for Catholics by quoting biblical passages and Vatican statements out of context. You can counter their efforts by studying authentic Catholic teaching in relation to the pressing issues of the day. Keep your Bible handy and refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church as needed. Additionally, visit the websites CatholicVote.org and The Pulpit (a Catholic kind of Drudge Report) for current events updates.

Find your voice and speak up. If you are like my beloved mother, for eight years you politely simmered in silence while the liberal in your office or seniors’ breakfast group waxed toxic about the Bush administration. In 2008, you knew that an Obama presidency would be detrimental to our country, but your friends were so emotionally invested in “hope and change” that they were impossible to reason with. Last January, you were horrified by your sister’s Facebook postings of support for Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation. The Democrats in your life may cry, get hysterical, use diversion tactics and possibly defriend you, but it is time to offer alternatives to the steady stream of liberal groupthink in their intellectual diet. You don’t have to be skilled in polemics to assert yourself with a simple, “I disagree, but I hope we can still be friends,” or “Are you just venting, or are you open to hearing what I really think?”

Reclaim your freedom of assembly by rejecting the prevailing conservative caricature. Liberals in government, academia, the media, and unfortunately the Church have labored successfully to convince America that conservatives and Republicans are hypocritical, heartless, inbred, ignorant, racist, misogynistic, neo-Nazi domestic terrorists. I can understand why someone might be apprehensive about associating with such a tainted brand. If you take the time to read the diaries and comments on Republican sites such as Red State, to visit your local Republican party office, or to attend a conservative candidate’s event, I think you will find that, in truth, most conservatives are very average, freedom-loving, law-abiding Americans, grateful for the opportunities that allowed them or their ancestors to immigrate, and whose hopes and dreams for our country are a lot like yours. When you are tempted to equivocate that both parties are equally repugnant, remember that even when you can’t bring the Republicans in line with your faith, they will, unlike the Democratic party, respect the morals behind your argument.

Use your freedom of assembly to take over the Republican Party establishment. If the Republicans do not measure up to your principles because more than a handful of prominent leaders are lukewarm, self-serving consumerists, you can become part of the grassroots movement to steer the GOP ideologically back to the right. The organization is called the Precinct Project and aims to allow “We the People” to reclaim the party through a trickle-up process starting at the precinct level. More details can be found at their website.

Petition the government. This oldie but goodie still counts. If you haven’t been doing so all along, start now. E-mail, call, write, and visit your elected officials regarding the issues you care about most.

Give 10th Amendment federalism a fair hearing. Do you believe that the amount of money allocated for social programs is a reliable measure of Christian charity in Congress? Does the intention to do good justify wasteful spending on ineffective social programs? Should the loving work of a struggling private charity be supplanted by a more predictably funded, but impersonal government organization? Does social justice demand that you clothe, shelter, and feed the poor using a credit card obtained under your newborn’s name and Social Security number? If you answered, “No,” to any of these questions, read this interview in which Representative Paul Ryan explains how Catholic teaching influenced his budget proposal. You may be surprised to find that you agree with him in both principle and substance.

Still not convinced? Still caucusing with the Democrats? Then I have three recommendations. First, labor union Catholics who oppose union support of pro-abortion candidates should exercise their right to file for refunds of dues that are not used for direct representation of workers. This website can help you get started. Second, unionized Catholic workers in healthcare and education should communicate to their local union leadership the need to include conscience protection clauses during contract negotiations. Third, American Catholics need to sustain the Church’s work in areas where taxpayer funded organizations directly contravene Catholic beliefs, for example, pregnancy crisis centers as an alternative to Planned Parenthood, and Catholic education as an alternative to God-free school zones.

“Then he said to his disciples, ‘The harvest is abundant but the laborers are few; so ask the master of the harvest to send out laborers for his harvest.’ ” (Matthew 9:37)
I know that this is a long, but not exhaustive list, and I am not demanding that anyone try to do everything on it. All I ask is that you keep the words of Blessed Teresa of Calcutta in mind when discerning your role as a faithful American:

It is not how much we do,
but how much love we put in the doing.
It is not how much we give,
but how much love we put in the giving.
[snip]
You can do what I can’t do.
I can do what you can’t do.
Together we can do
something beautiful for God.

May God light our paths and bless America abundantly.

But of all God’s miracles large and small,
The most miraculous one of all
Is that out of a worthless lump of clay,
God has made a man today.

from Fiddler on the Roof, Lyrics by Sheldon Harnick

If anyone has a grudge against Rick Santorum, it is I. Back in 2004, I was far from home, feeling secure in the knowledge that the Party of Reagan was running the country. I had a blind trust in our leadership, a dial-up internet connection, and no conservative filtration of news stories. That spring, I took Rick Santorum’s advice and cast an absentee ballot in favor of Arlen Specter over primary challenger Pat Toomey for the Pennsylvania Senate seat.

(Four paragraphs of back story follow, but you can skip to the next section without missing my point.)
I accepted as truth that Pat Toomey could not win the general election, and that it was better to nominate someone who had a high likelihood of winning, and who had promised to approve President Bush’s appointments to the Supreme Court. Pat Toomey lost the primary by 1000 votes. If Santorum had been a little less vigorous in his endorsement, perhaps the outcome would have been different.

In November 2006, my husband was deployed and I was expecting, so I was in my home district during Rick Santorum’s bid for a third term. That year the charges that Santorum used Pennsylvania resources to educate his children, who were living in Leesburg, VA, left a particularly bitter taste in my mouth. My husband and several of our neighbors knew the commuting route from south-central Pennsylvania to DC quite well. Because the very lovely communities on the Yankee side of the Mason Dixon line are only 35 miles farther from DC than Leesburg is, Santorum’s choice of where to raise his family indicated to me that he wanted to be part of the beltway crowd.

On the Democratic ticket that year was Bob Casey Jr. Like many Pennsylvania rank and file Republicans, I remembered Casey’s late father fondly, almost entirely because he sacrificed his political future rather than compromise his pro-life philosophy. Casey Jr. claimed to be pro-life, and I believed him.

I was tempted to sit the election out until I received a campaign mailing from Karen Santorum, detailing her husband’s commitment to the pro-life cause. The letter mentioned their loss of son Gabriel Michael, soon after birth. Having lost a child through miscarriage 3 years earlier and a niece born still a year before that, I took some time to read the reviews of Karen’s book Letters to Gabriel. I felt a sisterhood toward Karen because of our common experience, and in the end filled in the little bubble next to Rick’s name on the ballot, but only because his wife asked me to. That November, Rick lost the election by an embarrassing margin, the Republicans lost control of Congress, and I started following politics and policy for the first time in 10 years.

Fast forward to 2011

When Rick Santorum formally announced his bid for the presidency, my reaction was, “How dare he!” How dare he ask for my support at the national level when he let me down at the state level! How dare he continue to justify his Specter endorsement! (Start video here at 38:43) How dare he abandon his wife at home with 7 kids while he runs around the country campaigning!

I did not believe that Santorum was a pro-life statist. That would have been too kind. Instead, I felt that he was an unctuous politician who assembled his platform based on what positions would get him the most votes at any given time. Then in October there was a little troll who called to my attention the disgusting liberal blogosphere lie that Santorum’s son Gabriel Michael died in a late term abortion. This lowlife attack reminded me that circling the wagons does not mean painting bulls’ eyes on your neighbors’ Conestoga canvasses. I had nothing nice to say about Rick Santorum, but I would keep that opinion private. I armed myself with knowledge to defend Karen Santorum, should the need arise, by finally reading her book.

Reading Letters to Gabriel and subsequently learning about Rick and Karen’s most recent addition Bella, I discovered that the Santorums have a remarkable family history. Out of 9 pregnancies, they lost one child through an ectopic implantation, a condition fatal to the baby in all but miraculous cases, and potentially fatal to the mother if left untreated. They lost Gabriel Michael, and Karen almost lost her own life, to complications resulting from an in utero procedure to correct a fatal birth defect called posterior urethral valve. A few days after Bella’s birth, they were counseled that her genetic condition, Edwards syndrome, was incompatible with life.

Right now, as I add these words to a diary that I had been saving for the occasion of Santorum’s bow out, I believe his chances of winning the Republican nomination and the presidency are 1 in a million, but I find myself rooting for him anyway. Those kinds of odds have favored him before.

From various medical sources I discovered that the incidence of ectopic pregnancy is 1/40 pregnancies, the incidence of posterior urethral valve is 1/5000 live births, and the incidence of Edward’s syndrome is 1/3000 live births. Assuming they are unrelated events, the chance of having each of these three complications occur at least once in 9 given pregnancies is roughly 1 in a million*.

The intersection of these events has allowed Rick Santorum to experience personally the hard case “what ifs” that frequently derail pro-lifers in the abortion debate. However malleable he was early in his career, this one in a million miracle of suffering seems to have welded the social issues leg to his tripod stool. His foreign and economic policy positions may still be modular, but I know that his vision for the future of our country includes a culture of life.

My feeling right now is that if God can use a persecutor of Christians to evangelize the ancient world, a bantamweight nun to shoulder the suffering of Calcutta’s slums, and a minister who earned a C grade in public speaking class to “Let freedom ring” across America, surely He can get some good out of a scalawag like Rick Santorum.

In the general election I will gladly and proudly vote for the Republican nominee for the presidency, and I won’t need nose plugs to do so. Whatever may happen in the next few weeks, I wish Rick Santorum well, and I hope he remains on the national scene to deliver and defend the gospel of life in America.

* P=1.09798267 × 10^-6

In a remarkable coincidence, the sexual harassment allegations against Commander Fred Wilhelm, who was relieved of command of the USS Gunston Hall, also became public two weeks ago, bringing to light the risk of Female Repression and Abortion Under Duress (FRAUD) that would result if the uterine curettage cultists have their way.

A female officer said that in early 2010, when the [USS Gunston Hall] was deployed to Haiti, she made a comment in the wardroom that she was hungry. [Commanding Officer Fred] Wilhelm, she said, asked her if she was pregnant. She replied, “No sir, I’m not.” She said he replied, “Good, because if you were, I’d hand you a coat hanger.”

(Source The Navy Times)

Despite the NARAL’s false claim of the moral high ground on this issue, all pro-life and pro-choice Senators should support the servicewomen who protect us by standing firm against assaults on the military installation abortion ban (2).  If mandated by Congress to provide abortion services, the Department of Defense, given its pregnancy-incompatible primary mission and its near absolute authority over its members, will inevitably induce some of its most vulnerable pregnant airmen, marines, sailors, and soldiers to abort. 

Social and professional pressure to abort
Although not often stated so explicitly or crassly as CDR Wilhelm’s remarks, pregnant military women face greater social and professional pressures than their civilian counterparts. Pertinent military regulations take pregnant women out of the fight. No matter how talented, intelligent, and effective she may be, a servicewoman for the duration of her pregnancy and the post-partum deployment deferment period, is by definition a second class member of the team. Also, unlike private sector employees who have invested their own money in the knowledge and skills that they bring to the job, military personnel are paid to attend free training; therefore, time on the job lost for each child born is more costly to the Department of Defense than to other employers.  Finally, pregnancy in any military setting, down to the most collegial rearguard training command, has a far greater impact on supervisors and co-workers than is experienced in the private sector. Command leaders do not have the same flexibility in hiring temporary replacements that civilian employers enjoy. As a result, watch rotations are left shorthanded for months at a time, and collateral duties are reassigned to people who already have insuperable workloads.  Because the armed services pay by the month and not the hour, shipmates left to pick up the slack receive no recompense for their efforts.

Evolution of the medical corps to a pro-abortion outlook
Military medical hospitals, clinics and shipboard departments are also too different from private sector hospitals and practices for conscience rules to protect pro-life medical personnel and those who are pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion. The military core value of teamwork makes isolating one doctor’s activities from the corpsmen, nurses, physician’s assistants, pharmacists, and other doctors in the clinic impossible.  Because of the chain of command structure, the senior medical officer of every military clinic would unavoidably be a direct accessory to abortion; therefore, doctors who do not want to be involved in abortions would find their potential for promotion very limited. Medical personnel who believe that abortion is an ethical, beneficial therapy in a wide range of circumstances, on the other hand, would be free to recommend the procedure to their patients. Over time, the politically correct outlook in the medical corps would resemble that of a thriving abortion clinic. Perhaps when President Obama put the
*corpse* in corpsman, it wasn’t a gaffe after all.

Institutionalized obedience to healthcare providers
The unique relationship between service members and their healthcare providers is a third factor that would make an abortion mandate for military clinics problematic. For health related matters, all are by position subordinate to, if not outranked by, their primary care physicians, whose medical prescriptions constitute lawful orders. They are required to undergo a review of their medical readiness annually and prior to deployments or transfers.  Failure to report for required medical appointments is a punishable offense. Service members are well-aware that their bodies in some respects belong to the government.  By the time they finish basic training, they have been examined in every imaginable way. They are inoculated against diseases that they never knew existed, whether or not they want to be.  What are highly personal matters to the rest of us, such as body mass index, hairstyle, and fingernail length, are governed by impersonal instructions. Waivers for men and women alike, even for religious reasons, are extremely rare. In the military setting, the lines between informing a service member that abortion is available to her, recommending that a service member have an abortion, and ordering a service member to have an abortion can easily become blurred.

The fact is that the military is incapable of being pro-choice on anything related to unit readiness.  Behaviors are either prohibited or encouraged. The current situation, where elective abortion takes place off base at the service member’s own expense, is a delicate balance that creates a safety buffer between the needs of the military and the innocent child.  Instead of being a kindly deed for rape victims, overturning the military abortion ban would be an affront to the 2180 American service women pregnant at any given time, putting them at a higher risk of aborting their children through undue pressure, the misperception of professional medical guidance, and unlawful orders from bullies like Fred Wilhelm (3,4).

Notes:
1. There is a glaring error in this report. Guttmacher Institute uses the annual earnings figure of $23,000 per year for a servicewoman with three years of service time to make a case for taxpayer funded abortion. According to the 2010 military pay chart 2010 military pay chart, this figure takes into account base pay and the basic allowance for subsistence, without factoring in the value of free military lodging. Whether this is an intentional lie or a careless mistake, it renders suspect all other figures cited by Guttmacher. 

 2. In 2003 the “National Abortion Rights Action League” changed its name to “NARAL Pro-Choice America” because, I suppose, they rightfully loathe the truth about themselves. For the purpose of appearances, it would have been better for them to lobby for both abortions and adoption services on base.

3. There were 780 reported rapes involving American service members in Fiscal Year 2009 according to a
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services report (page 149). This figure includes rapes where a service member is the perpetrator against a civilian, and rapes where a man is the victim. Although I have never experienced rape, I wish I could make the pain of the victims go away. Aborting a baby doesn’t help, but rather, ironically, rolls the violence downhill onto an innocent fetus and inflicts further insult on the woman. Having an abortion without confronting the perpetrator with the full force of the law, which the Guttmacher Institute suggests is a compassionate aspect of overturning the military ban, callously leaves every other woman vulnerable to the same attacker.

4.  Department of Defense pregnancy figures were difficult to find.  A 1997 estimate, apparently acceptable for US Air Force academic use, is that 10% of the female force is pregnant at any time. This percentage was used to derive an estimated number of pregnancies from military personnel statistics obtained from the Department of Defense here
here and here.

Like a gaggle of nattering stada babas, Andrew Sullivan , Gawker.com , Bill Maher , Wonkette , and others have begun counting months on fingers regarding reports of a baby on the way for newlyweds Track and Britta Palin. As with previous Palin pregnancies, the usual suspects have swung into armchair gynecologist mode, using Facebook photos of Mrs. Palin’s baby shower to estimate her delivery date. Having arrived at the consensus that Britta is about six months pregnant, they have pronounced the May 2011 union a “shotgun marriage.”

Employing Saul Alinsky’s Rule #4 for radicals, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” the liberals were quick to issue self-righteous tut-tuts over the perceived failure of abstinence promotion for teens, a Palin family pet cause. For example, Gawker admonished the former Republican Vice Presidential nominee “to shut up the next time she champions abstinence only education.” A Yahoo! News commentary headline proclaimed, “Sarah Palin’s Views on Abstinence Lead to Second Grandchild.”

The apparent argument is that Sarah Palin is a proponent of abstinence-based education, and Sarah Palin’s son did not practice abstinence before his marriage; therefore, Sarah Palin must either concede that she is wrong about abstinence-based education or submit to the hypocrite label. The flimsy assumption undergirding this illogic is that 22 year-old Track Palin’s sexual practices are the product of abstinence-only education, a preposterous claim given his military record. By attacking Sarah Palin before checking the pertinent facts, abstinence opponents have disproved their own position.

Track Palin enlisted in the US Army in September 2007, leaving behind his nulliparous* high school sweetheart Britta. He served as an infantryman, completed a tour of duty in Iraq, and was discharged sometime in 2010 (based on a presumed three-year enlistment). Whatever Track learned from his parents was superseded by the indoctrination he underwent in the military.

So what did the Army teach Track about the birds and the bees?

Because unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections erode mission readiness, the US Department of Defense has a decided interest in educating its personnel on how to avoid both. Army Regulation 600-63, the Army Health Promotion Manual , sets forth doctrine regarding sex education for soldiers. Like so many sex ed programs favored by the left, the regulation provides lip service to “abstinence, when appropriate,” yet aims to “[p]romote and maintain a culture in which responsible sexual behavior is encouraged, supported, and expected.” Indeed, absolute abstinence is not even mentioned as a form of birth control on Army Medicine’s official “Contraceptive Methods Compared” health tips sheet . Given that at least 46 percent of the population from which the military draws its recruits is sexually active, it is not surprising that abstinence education is afforded a low priority.

Typically, military members are required to receive service-sanctioned sexual health education during basic training, before deployments, and otherwise annually. Military health briefings are nearly always presented by medical corps personnel, so junior soldiers are likely to place a high level of trust in the presenter based on both rank and professional expertise. A representative Army health briefing can be found at this link . Slides 10 and 11 refer to birth control supplies and pills, respectively, and slide 48 recommends that sexually active individuals use condoms. For three years in the Army, Track Palin’s views on acceptable sexual conduct were influenced by this risk management, vice risk avoidance, training strategy.

Following the reasoning of the liberal pundits, we can conclude that abstinence-based education worked well for Track and Britta up to his enlistment, and that the gospel of the latex sheath subsequently failed. Ironically, thanks to a condom-and-pill type of program preferred by those who despise Sarah Palin, That Woman’s DNA has been imparted to yet another lucky child.

*If you are waiting for creepy Palin conspiracy theorists to weigh in, Britta has already been added to the Trig’s mother candidate list .

     This past October on Lincoln Square in Gettysburg, my family participated in the annual “Life Chain,” a prayerful hour of silent witness against abortion. The prayer on Lincoln Square was part of the larger national Life Chain effort on the same day, with participants in over 1500 cities (1). The reaction we received was largely positive, as passing motorists smiled, waved, or gave us the thumbs up. Only one detractor yelled out his car window, “I can’t believe you brought children to this!” Because he seemed to be pro-abortion, I’m not sure if he opposed the presence of children at the Life Chain specifically, or the world outside the womb in general.

     When I reviewed local coverage of the event the next day, I was delighted to read a story sympathetic to the pro-life movement (2). The reporter wrote from the perspective of two demonstrators who regretted having abortions. The article even provided information on Silent No More Awareness, an organization that helps post-abortive men and women cope with the loss of their child(ren) (3).

      What is interesting is that this demonstration could have been stopped if Gettysburg had wanted to suppress it. The day of the Life Chain coincided with Gettysburg College’s alumni homecoming weekend, a (hopefully) busy time for downtown businesses, and a passable excuse for Gettysburg borough council to reject the Life Chain’s permit application. But the permit was granted, the businesses on the square were gracious, and about 100 of us, holding signs and praying quietly, lined the sidewalks in the heart of Gettysburg.

     Having exercised my First Amendment rights in Gettysburg recently, I was bewildered by allegations on both Fox Nation and RedState that Gettysburg was trying to “kick God out of town” through code enforcement action against the Civil War Chapel, a bivouac-type gathering place built by the US Christian Commission (4), (5). The subsequent destruction of the chapel by arsonists amplified the claims and triggered an accusation that the town leadership had desecrated Gettysburg’s hallowed ground (6).  

     If you are reading this, you are probably among the Americans who, heeding President Lincoln’s words, have dedicated yourself to the unfinished task of giving “this nation under God…a new birth of freedom.” For you, any intimation that Gettysburg has forsaken God would be most distressing. Rest assured, the reports of His eviction are grossly exaggerated.

     Today, this 7500-citizen town is home to 34 religious congregations (7). Tablets bearing the Ten Commandments remain the cornerstone of the courthouse. Today, the US Christian Commission renovates a new museum space to accommodate growing receptiveness to its ministry to visitors (8). Today at the Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg, over 250 men and women prepare for a life of service to God (9). Today, construction continues on St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church’s new school and parish life center because the existing facilities are bursting with the faithful (10). As snow falls on Gettysburg today, the Adams Rescue Mission shelters 6 families and 33 single men, in Jesus’ name (11). Today, a petition bearing the signatures of 66 local religious leaders implores the Pennsylvania State Gaming Control Board not to grant a license to the proposed Gettysburg casino (12). Today, Prince of Peace Episcopal Church plans for a permanent move of its soup kitchen to a larger venue (13). Today a Christmas tree stands alone in the center of town, hailing the upcoming celebration of Christ’s birth.

     In short, the people of Gettysburg freely exercise their religious beliefs. In doing so, they have proclaimed God’s Good News. They have let their children come unto Jesus. They have provided for Him when He was hungry and homeless. Please have faith in Gettysburg, because, as far as I can see, Gettysburg is keeping its faith in God.

1. http://www.nationallifechain.org/

2. Katharine Harmon. ‘A silent witness.’ Evening Sun (Hanover, PA) – Sunday, October 3, 2010.

3. http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/

4. http://nation.foxnews.com/culture/2010/11/22/gettysburg-wants-kick-god-out-town

5. http://www.redstate.com/ladyimpactohio/2010/11/19/gettysburg-wants-to-kick-god-out-of-town-threatens-historic-civil-war-chapel/

6. http://www.redstate.com/ladyimpactohio/2010/12/07/arson-officially-ruled-as-cause-of-fire-which-destroyed-gettysburg-chapel-burned-god-out-of-town/

7. http://www.gettysburg.com/communit/church.htm

8. http://www.usccgettysburg.org/museum.asp

9. http://www.ltsg.edu/Prospective-Students/files/Gettysburgseminary_Viewbook

10. Craig K. Paskoski. ‘Sneak preview for new school.’ Evening Sun (Hanover, PA) – Wednesday, November 3, 2010.

11. http://adamsrescuemission.org/

12. http://nocasinogettysburg.ning.com/notes/Casino_Comments_closed,_NCG_Delivers_

Petitions

13. http://www.gettysburgsoupkitchen.org/

Expensive government programs had done little to ease poverty or unemployment.

Entrenched fiscal mismanagement and corruption stirred the voters’ anger.

She a was right-center candidate in a party associated with Christianity.

He was a professed leftist running in a left-center electorate.

She couldn’t escape her personal history of superficial interviews and big hair.

He advocated a socialist agenda of government-forced wealth-spreading.

She was described as “ill-prepared” for the office she sought.

He demonized private corporations.

Her proposals to reduce government bureaucracy were called “fuzzy”.

Both ran as outsiders.

The year was 1998.

The state was Venezuela.

She was Miss Universe 1981, Irene Saez.

He was Hugo Chavez.

He won.

He won with 56% of the vote.

The people lost.

The people lost freedom of expression.

The people lost property rights.

The people lost Democracy.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of non-marxist.

Support Christine O’Donnell any way you can, if only with your silence.
        
Because elections have consequences.

MR. GREGORY: …So isn’t it in the–in the spirit of transparency, were you offered a job by the administration?  And what was it?
REP. SESTAK:  I learned, as I mentioned, about that personal accountability in the Navy.
MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.
REP. SESTAK:  I felt I needed to answer that question honestly because I was personally accountable for my role in the matter.
MR. GREGORY:  What’s the answer?  What’s the job you were offered?
REP. SESTAK:  And–but anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role, and that’s their responsibility.

Admiral Sestak’s inappropriate retreat into his Navy comfort zone was reminiscent of Admiral Boom, the cannon firing character from the movie Mary Poppins, whose inability to reassimilate into civilian life leads him to couch every conversation in nautical jargon.

As ridiculous as Admiral Boom’s rooftop flagship, Representative Sestak’s words show the result of taking the Navy core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment and warping them through the Liberal moral relativism machine. Honor becomes a matter of individual choice and a standard that one must not impose upon another. Courage is recognized in a refusal to divulge the truth to a constituency that deserves to know. Commitment to the Democratic Party outweighs the Congressional oath of office. Given his statement that he would “be honored to stand with the President of the United States,” Admiral Sestak’s credo seems to be: I will not lie, cheat or steal, but I will tolerate, laud and protect fellow Democrats who do.

It is a common and, in my opinion, valid tactic for high ranking military officers turned Democratic politicians to highlight their service in terms of defense policy expertise, foreign affairs acumen, and unimpeachable patriotism — all attributes that appeal to a right-of-center electorate. Surprisingly, Admiral Sestak did not take this approach in the remainder of his interviews. Instead he touted his military career as a valuable qualification for imposing an unabashedly liberal agenda on an unwilling public. His overall logic appears to be that if a policy works in the Navy, it is good for Pennsylvania. He did not volunteer, nor was he pushed to address how his proposals would be funded.

In his own words:
“This is payback to this nation, as far as I’m concerned, because they took care of me and my family with TRICARE, wonderful health care. They took care of my daughter when she had a health issue. I wanted everyone to be like in the military–health opportunities because the dividends that accrue to our nation are immense.”

In an infuriating display of Democratic elitisim, Admiral Sestak advocates this “wonderful” idea — the private-insurer-killing public option for federally mandated healthcare — because the military healthcare system managed his family’s health well. A man who undeniably received deferential treatment by virtue of his rank and position has no business using his positive experience to justify government healthcare for the rest of us. My personal TRICARE misadventures aside, I wonder how other men, lacking the advantage of senior rank, must cope with their daughters’ suffering at the hands of Dr. Hasan and Dr. Velasquez, both of whom the military medical bureaucracy inexcusably failed to weed out.

He continues:
“[In the Navy] we don’t even promote you above a certain rating or rank unless you have an education, an associates college degree.  I’d say pretty much those are kind of principles that give dividends to our nation. Imagine a work force that’s healthy and educated, that can compete with China and India.”

I find it troubling that Admiral Sestak proposes expending taxpayer dollars to implement a military-inspired policy on a population of which 75 percent of 18 to 24 year olds are ineligible to serve because of “criminal records, obesity, or lack of education.” Ironically, in Admiral Sestak’s homeport, Philadelphia, the ineligibility figure is between 80 and 90 percent. (Perhaps not coincidentally, in 2008 Barack Obama received 83% of the Philly vote.) In my Navy, money thrown at Running, in a training program that has failed to achieve Crawling and Walking, would be grounds for a phone call to the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline.

I cringe at the thought of what other military practices for public consumption schemes might be floating around in Admiral Sestak’s head. Perhaps the energy conserving “Turn Off Your Heat for the Season on 15 March No Matter What the Weather” bill is being drafted as I write this. Mandating Space-A travel for underserved populations on otherwise unfilled commercial airliners might resonate with left-wing voters. Can we look forward to Orwellian mandatory physical training to promote the general welfare? After all, it works in the military.

Active duty and reserve military personnel voluntarily, but temporarily, give up certain individual liberties in exchange for a respectable job opportunity and a chance to serve their country. Their spouses and children living with them in base housing or on overseas installations similarly relinquish a bit of independence. The fruit of this sacrifice is intended to be greater freedom for the rest of us. Admiral Sestak’s suggestion that the top-down military act as a domestic governance model for our We-the-People-up Republic flies in the face of the Constitution that he himself swore to protect throughout his 31-year career.

Allowed to carry out his liberal agenda, Joe Sestak, like a blast from Admiral Boom’s cannon, will leave us scrambling to protect ourselves and our property. You can stop him by supporting Republican nominee Pat Toomey here.

The “feminists” don’t speak for me:

Because I believe that women are miracle workers through our extraordinary capacity to nurture life within and to bring forth children. To me, the primacy of unrestricted abortion in the “feminist” agenda reveals an insidious movement to deny women our full potential.

Because I interpret chivalrous gestures as an affirmation of female ascendency. It is odd that in a culture where the rich and powerful rely on personal security details, “feminists” perceive the male instinct to protect women as a sign of female weakness.

Because I am amazed at the degree to which motherhood has honed my management skills, especially in the areas of communication, accountability, multi-tasking, and prioritization. Research suggests there is a physiological basis for this change.

Because I contend that in free societies with rule of law, religion is not a common means for men to subjugate women. I believe that men of faith humbly recognize their weaknesses, and by the grace of God, endeavor to triumph over behaviors that are destructive to women and families.

Because I can have it all, just not all at the same time. Years ago, I had a fulfilling non-domestic career. Now I am reveling in my adventures as a stay-at-home mom. When my husband retires and my children are in school, I’ll rejoin the workforce. Provided that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not destroy our healthcare system, I have decades ahead of me to make my mark on the outside world.

Because I am willing to admit that my spouse outranks me. In our house, my husband is the commanding officer and I am the executive officer. He sets the overall course for the family (with my input); I make the day-to-day decisions (with his input). I am 100 percent certain that if I asked him to reverse roles, he would.

Because I maintain that when a “feminist” uses the v-word outside its medical context, she curtails violence against women as effectively as a misogynist who uses the c-word.

Because I believe that parents who shelter their adolescent daughters from sexual experimentation and drug and alcohol use, liberate them to become healthy, confident women.

Because I think that fertility awareness is the most pro-woman form of family planning. It is safe and reliable, works in achieving and avoiding pregnancy, increases marital intimacy, and provides additional health benefits. If you are tempted to crack a joke, please consider that Planned Parenthood’s vested interest in purveying pills, condoms and abortions makes natural family planning an ideal target for Alinsky-style ridicule.

Because I see the Conservative movement within the Republican Party as the natural home for true feminists. No two women are alike. No national organization can reasonably claim to speak for us all. Why not affiliate with the party that promotes equality based on unalienable rights rather than the party that thrives on conflict over superficial differences?

Jo and Joe earn less than $40,000 combined each year. First generation Americans of Mexican descent, they have three children ages ten to four and rent at the least desirable neighborhood in town. In the past four years, they’ve had their phone disconnected at least three times for failure to pay their bill. To my knowledge, they are not particularly religious.

Jo and Joe, just as my parents raised my siblings and me, value education for their children and expect them to excel in school. And also like my parents, to make ends meet Jo works days, Joe works nights, and grandma watches the children during shift overlap. They are proud and, aside from sending their children to Head Start for preschool, would not dream of accepting a handout.

We met Jo and Joe in late 2004 when we rented at their apartment complex while waiting take possession of our own home. A few weeks after we had moved out, Joe rang our doorbell. He had been walking our neighborhood looking for people who needed lawn care. Since my husband, a habitual late worker, hadn’t mowed the lawn in over ten days, the tall grass in our yard gave Joe reason to believe that we were potential customers. Joe explained that he hoped to start a landscaping business someday. (Mock that, Sen. Obama.) After discussing the matter with my husband, I hired Joe for the summer.

For the following two years we were stationed overseas, and Joe reliably took care of the yard in our absence. Now that my husband is an uber-commuter, Joe continues to provide weekly lawn service. Because he is busy with his full-time job and family life, we are still Joe’s only customers.

Given that Jo and Joe are struggling as it is, we are concerned about their fate if the economy tanks. So a few weeks ago, I asked Joe directly how his family is faring in the slowdown. Joe replied that all is fine. There have been some layoffs at the deli, but over the years, he has managed to “carve a place out” for himself and is not worried. In addition, the plant where Jo works, is doing well and exports to China and Italy have actually increased.

Then Joe gave me his very astute observations on the economy. He said that the economy is “like a roller coaster — it has its ups and downs, and you just have to ride it out.” He said that falling gas prices had given his family some immediate breathing room, and opined that bailout money should not be wasted on Wall Street when people like him would use it more responsibly.

Even though many liberal Democrats in effect wish to subjugate the working poor through entitlements, Jo and Joe are living proof that the America dream is alive and well, that there is no substitute for hard work, and that parents still teach their children that they must contribute to society. Hopefully Joe will swing over to the R column by Tuesday, but if not, Jo’s vote is one that Sen. McCain and Gov. Palin should be proud to have earned.

FINAL NOTE added on 5 NOV: Jo and Joe both voted McCain/Palin. The American Dream lives on.

In doing a search for my parents’ “lost Biden” in the Congressional Record, I discovered some beautiful remarks that he made on the Senate floor on July 18, 1989 in response to the Supreme Court decision to strike down laws protecting the American flag:

…it is often pointed out to me by my colleagues and the press that France does not have a statute to protect its flag, the Union Jack in Great Britain does not have special status in terms of how it is protected, and I respond in the following way. You do not define a French person or an Englishman by what they believe, or what form of government they subscribe to. You define them based on their ethnicity. You can determine who is French, who is British, by their ethnicity.

How do you define an American? Do you define Americans based on their color, on their religious beliefs, or on their parental and grandparental lineage? We are the most unique democracy in the history of mankind because we are the most heterogeneous nation in the history of mankind. And we have remained strong, vibrant, and vital in spite of that great diversity.

These young people are taught in school as we were that our strength flows from our diversity. That is true ultimately. But initially, our diversity pushes us apart. It does not bring us together. The fact that we are black and white does not generate confidence. It generates fear initially.

The fact that we are Christian and Jew does not send us running into one another’s embrace to herald our differences. Mankind fears that which is different, and we are very different, except in one very important regard. That is that we are, as a Nation, more or less united on the means by which we can realize our dreams and the rules and regulations which will guide us in our attempt to fulfill our dreams–the Constitution–a covenant, if you will, embodied in that flag, to the President’s right. That is the national symbol of unity, and we need unity in this country because we are so diverse.

Symbols are important. We would have to be blind to world history to not understand that symbols are important. And I say to my friend, the Presiding Officer, that we have a symbol–unlike the Court’s inability to recognize it–that is needed to unite this Nation, this diverse Nation, and the symbol is the flag.

Just as my parents were left wondering what happened to Sen. Biden between his first term and 1988, I am perplexed as to how his views on unity, diversity, and the unique symbolism of the American flag could have changed so much since 1989 for him to join a candidate:

-Who considers wearing a flag pin a “substitute” for “true patriotism.”
-Who lamented to his San Francisco supporters that people in fly-over country “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
-Whose surrogates belittle small town America.
-Who equates criticism of his economic proposals with racism.
-Whose mentor trampled on an American flag for a photo-op. (Obama was 40 years old at the time, not 8.)
-Whose treatment of his primary opponent created a gender based rift in the Democratic party.
-Whose campaign threw 12,000 miniature American flags in the trash after a rally.
-Whose tax policies reek of class warfare.

Sen. Biden, I join many in both the Republican and Democratic parties to beg you to come on back from the dark side. The road to perdition is not a one-way street.

The stated mission of CCHD is:

to address the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and support of community-controlled, self-help organizations and through transformative education.

As a Catholic, I am glad that there is a dedicated Church agency helping the poor in America, and on paper, CCHD appears to be a good cause; however, an article posted yesterday on EWTN.com citing Catholic editorialist Stephanie Block, reveals the alarming news that through CCHD, “millions of dollars have funded Alinksyite community organizing groups.”

By reviewing the CCHD annual report and list of grantees, I found that in 2006 CCHD awarded 45 grants to ACORN chapters around the country, totaling $1,165,000. CHD’s grants for 2006 totaled $9,669,407, meaning that ACORN received 12 percent of the available funds, or based on CCHD’s annual operating cost of $13,106,628, ACORN received 9 cents out of every dollar placed in the collection basket.

The CCHD fulfills its mission through grants given to community organizations nationwide based on seven criteria: the activity “must conform to the moral and social teachings of the Catholic Church,” must work to eliminate “the root causes of poverty and enact institutional change,” and “must benefit people living in poverty.” “People living in poverty must have the dominant voice in the organization.” The organization “should demonstrate ongoing leadership development” and “a clear vision for development of financial capacity.” Finally the organization “must be fully nonpartisan when engaging in political activities.” (emphasis mine)

Considering that the ACORN Votes Political Action Committee’s endorsement of pro-abortion Senator Barack Obama for President is displayed on ACORN’s website and as Block points out, “ACORN’s ‘People’s Platform’ has nothing in common with Catholic social justice teaching and everything in common with socialism,” ACORN should be precluded from CCHD funding on at least two counts.

Because the annual special collection provides 88 percent of CCHD’s revenue, church-going Catholics can put a stop to the outrage. The non-ecclesiastical Catholic Weekly The Wanderer recommends for a Catholic:

to contact his or her bishop and inform him of the contents of [Block’s] editorial…[because] it is the solemn duty of a bishop to inform his flock about the serious discrepancy between the official image of CCHD as an instrument to help the poor and the unfortunate reality that, too often, CCHD funds are used to promote secularist and Marxist-inspired political activism.

On a personal level, one can also quietly refrain from contributing to the special collection, or reduce the donated amount by at least 9 percent. Certainly, all should pray that our Bishops will continue to fight poverty by supporting organizations that operate within the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Like many Pennsylvanians, ten days ago I became aware that a crisis in the United States financial system threatened to send our country into a full scale depression unless a $700 billion bailout bill was enacted quickly. Subsequent news revealed that certain Members of Congress had been warned of the impending disaster years earlier, but either denied the existence of a problem or spent tens of billions of tax dollars treating symptoms without addressing root causes.

I believe this negligence is as reprehensible as if Congress had been given specific intelligence of the 9/11 attacks to include the terrorists’ names and passport numbers, the buildings targeted, and the flights to be hijacked, but did not take action until the first plane hit the World Trade Center simply because the exact date of Al Qaeda’s plans was unknown.

In recent years Members of Congress have staged televised hearings to chastise the baseball Commissioner because players were taking steroids and to point fingers at network executives because Janet Jackson had a “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl half-time show. Because of the severity of the financial situation and the urgency with which taxpayers were implored to support an expensive and complicated rescue package, I think it is high time for someone to call our Senators and Representatives out on the carpet for the consequences of their inaction.

Election Day is a month away, and some may argue that voting gives Americans the opportunity to remove the guilty from office; however, I disagree. Because many incumbents enjoy insurmountable advantages in their reelection campaigns and Congressional term limits have been rejected, there seems to be no effective way to hold our national legislative bodies responsible for dereliction of duty and to curb the abuses of power resulting from that lack of accountability.

In my opinion, the only remaining redress is for our state legislatures to reassert their position over the federal government as our Founding Fathers intended. I respectfully request that you begin a movement for the Pennsylvania Legislature to hold hearings to determine whether our House and Senate delegations have fulfilled their obligations to the Commonwealth and to vote for a recall of any member who has not. At the very least, the people of Pennsylvania deserve a performance review of Representative Paul Kanjorski, who chairs the House subcommittee directly responsible for the financial mess.

Pennsylvania’s greatest statesman Benjamin Franklin said, “No man’s life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session,” and “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” I ask you to heed his wisdom and take the long overdue steps necessary to reign in a Congress that has usurped power from the states and used it irresponsibly.

Thank you for your attention and your continued service to the people of our district.

Sincerely,

(Posted on YouTube by the same person who created the OIF veteran “Dear Mr. Obama” video.)

64 phone calls (32 each week) to likely voters, not all were Republicans.
9 McCain supporters (3 last week/6 yesterday)
8 Undecided (5 last week/3 yesterday)
1 Obama supporter (last week)
2 refused to respond
44 answering machines, messages, wrong numbers, etc.

Points of interest:
1. Given four choices (the economy and jobs, gas prices, national security, health care) 7 of the 8 “undecideds,” without hesitation, cited the economy and jobs as their top area of concern this election. Although, the economy is usually the number one issue in an election, I was surprised to find that the choice was nearly unanimous.
2. Of the 9 McCain supporters, 5 felt that all four issue choices were equally important and had to be pressed to pick one.
3. Last week, when the phone bank script introduction used the words, “calling on behalf of the local Republican Party,” 7 respondents initially pointed out that they are not Republicans. This week, the script was changed to “calling on behalf of the local McCain-Palin campaign,” and no one balked.

The county:
My phone bank was in a county in Pennsylvania where President Bush won every precinct except one in 2004. The local economy is a mixture of farming, manufacturing, and in one community, tourism. There is also a large and growing population of commuters to the three metropolitan areas within 75 miles. The population is 90 percent white. The county unemployment rate was 3.3% in 2007. The county foreclosure rate is 0.02%, but I could not find a national average for comparison.

My conclusion:
To win the votes of the remaining undecided electorate, we need to present a strong pro-McCain message on the economy. The grassroots Get-Out-The-Vote efforts in counties like mine will be crucial in canceling out the work of the Phiadelphia/Pittsburgh Democratic party machines.

I’ll be working the phone bank every Monday until Election Day, and will report back on any significant findings.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, mac and cheese or McDonald’s for dinner would be history. No matter how busy our family schedule would be on a given day, it wouldn’t matter that I was too tired to cook something nutritious and appealing to little appetites because there would be a kitchen staff to do it for me.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, I’d be relieved that my days of waiting for doctor’s appointments were over. With a physician available, I wouldn’t have to drag a sick child out of bed to the emergency room in the freezing cold because he happened to develop an ear infection at 2:00 AM on Sunday. My special needs child would have access to the top specialists for his condition.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, my remaining young daughters would never go on another date without a chaperone. They would resent it, but the Secret Service would be with them in situations where parents should give their children some leeway, but honestly don’t want to.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, my family would travel the world and see history in the making. There would be no long lines at the airport or the challenge of keeping track of 14 shoes, 7 carry on bags and 5 little fugitives while trying to get the cursed stroller folded into the x-ray machine at the security checkpoint. My children would learn first hand that the United States of America is the greatest country on Earth.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, my husband, my children and I would have to sacrifice privacy, quality time, our comfortable routine, control over our lives, and proximity to extended family. Despite these hardships, if the next President felt that I had the unique potential to strengthen America and secure a future of liberty and prosperity for my children and grandchildren, I would do it in a heartbeat.

With a houseful of kids, a son in the infantry, an expectant daughter, a special needs baby, and a challenging job, Governor Sarah Palin is someone to whom every American mom can relate. Whether we work at home or in a factory or in an office, whether we have one child or eleven, all of us feel overwhelmed and inadequate more often than we should. We regret that we aren’t perfect, and we blame ourselves when our children aren’t the best behaved, or the smartest, or the healthiest.

So please, liberals, keep alienating millions of American mothers by criticizing the Palin family. You will never say anything harsher about Gov. Palin than she has already thought about herself.

First, on international issues (Iraq and Georgia), within his answers McCain was able to cite a visit to the country in question, summarize the history of the situation, and name the leaders with whom he has an established relationship. In a topsy-turvy world, McCain is very reassuring vis-a-vis risky Obama.

Second, in answering domestic policy questions, McCain repeatedly used anecdotes to illustrate how problems were tackled in the past in bipartisan fashion. For example, he discussed how President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill worked together to fix Social Security 25 years ago. This could help sway independents and undecides in his direction.

Third, he used a wily old man sucker-punch when responding to a Clinton voter who wanted to know why McCain considered himself a better choice than Obama. He started off by stroking the young lad’s ego with words to the effect of, “I should have called on the guy behind you,” as though the question was too hard, and then of course went on to answer it effectively. Our candidate is good on his feet.

Crowd Reaction to Georgia Speech
As other posters have noted, McCain used the York appearance to make a statement on Russia’s invasion of Georgia. I would term the crowd’s reaction to the statement as subdued support. This is not surprising, considering that for well over a decade, I have known of the potential for Russia to use the treatment of Russian nationals as an excuse to reassert control in former Soviet republics, and even I wish the problem would just go away on its own. I can’t imagine how someone with no familiarity with the history of the Caucasus feels about more conflict in the world.

Smooth Operations
The operations team for the town hall meeting was SUPERB and deserving of highest praise. Even though my frame of reference is a 1992 President George H. W. Bush event, I was impressed with how smoothly the staff managed crowd control, parking, seating, etc. The line was long and the security checks were thorough, but everything kept moving in a very orderly fashion. I would have swooned from the greatness of it all, but the campaign team hospitably distributed water to the crowd.

Standing Room Only
I had been checking the John McCain campaign website daily in hopes of finding an event nearby, and on Sunday morning, there was nothing listed. I received a robo-call about the appearance mid-afternoon Sunday and saw a notice on the site immediately afterwards. That means in under 45 hours, the McCain team and local Republican organizations easily mustered 4000 supporters. I do not doubt that he could fill his own 76,000 person stadium if he were so inclined and egocentric.

The Retinue
Because I am a staunch pro-lifer, one aspect of the appearance disappointed me. Senator Arlen Specter delivered the warm-up speech before the Straight Talk Express arrived. Former Homeland Security Director and two-term Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge and Senator Joe Lieberman arrived with Senator McCain. Although these gentlemen are prominent and distinguished public servants and it was appropriate for them to take part, couldn’t Senator McCain find any nationally recognized pro-life friends who willing to ride the bus with him?

All in all, I consider myself lucky to have had the opportunity to see Senator McCain in person. His ability to speak well on any topic and his campaign’s operational efficiency gave me cause for optimism this fall.

In an open letter to Izvestia, [Gorbachev advisor Alexandr] Yakovlev argued that the Communist Party had turned against the individual citizen and had proven incapable of bringing forward “a leader capable at least of inspiring purely human and political respect.”

I’m still laughing.

Upon entering the House chamber, I expected to see a Republican pep rally. Instead, it was much more like stepping into a Normal Rockwell painting. Average Americans, in a national crisis were looking to our leadership for help. I was able to stay for 90 minutes, but would have been happy to listen all day if I could.

Most in attendance were families on summer vacation touring the Capitol. The format of the session was informal but informative. The Representatives took turns approximately 15 minutes long to talk to the visitors, almost all of whom sat on the House floor, about the energy debate and the House procedures driving it. Members speaking during my stay were Representatives Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Steve Scalise (LA-01) as well as one each from California and Kentucky whose names I could not make out. Specific topics discussed during while I was there included:

-Oil production in the ANWR
-Energy independence as it relates to national security
-”Drill here” job creation
-Safety of offshore drilling
-Supply and demand
-Discharge petitions
-The role of the rules committee
-The power of the Speaker of the House
-The power of the majority
-The importance of an up or down vote on offshore drilling

I estimate that there were 200 people in attendance at any given time, of whom 125 appeared to be of voting age. Most people seemed to stay for about 30 minutes, or two speakers. Based on five hours of speechmaking, I assess that the Republicans are directly reaching about 1250 eligible voters every day.

Each Republican speaker that I saw received rousing applause or a standing ovation after his talk. When I moved to the gallery, I observed only five tourists who did not clap at all.

The crowd was not apparently partisan, but rather eager for getting fuel prices under control. Rep. Sessions introduced Democratic Rep. Pete Visclosky (IN-01) when he arrived on the House floor with a tour of his constituents. Whether he is in DC because of high gas prices was unclear to me, but he received warm applause just for showing up.

Outside the Longworth House Office Building, I overheard one female tourist, about 40 years old, ecstatically talking to someone via cell phone about her family’s opportunity to sit on the House floor, so I do believe that the word will spread. I am sure that each family will return home and tell a few people about the experience. Perhaps when the adults return to work, they will have a new set of gas price talking points for the water cooler; however, I do no know if 18,750 people constitutes a critical mass for action.

If I may make some respectful recommendations:
-Representatives, you are doing fabulous work. Your speeches are easy to understand and have great imagery and analogies that your audience will remember. I was able to hear you clearly when I was in the gallery.
-As carefully as I was trying to hear your names, I couldn’t make them out. I did my best to write what I heard and then had to look you up on the internet later. This is important because the first thing my husband asked me was, “Who did you see?” If you can, please have your staffers pass out your business cards to visitors while you talk.
-Please consider allowing 5 minutes for questions and answers at the end of your time. It would bring home the idea that it is the people’s House.
-If you can linger on the floor after you speak, it would give visitors the chance to say something to you personally. I wish I could have shaken each of your hands simply because you did such a great job. Alternatively, you could announce that you will be in your office for visitors for 45 minutes.
-You seem to be downplaying this monumental event because the Democrats have called it “a publicity stunt.” I believe this is playing right into their hands in the worst tradition of the Republican party. In addition to your work on the House floor, please try to meet the public somewhere where they can take pictures.

All in all, it was a great experience and I encourage everyone in the DC area to take some time and get there before it is all over.