The top tier Republican candidates for president all suffer from serious defects.

It is well known that Rudy Giuliani is a proud defender of abortion rights. He is, therefore, unacceptable as a leader to replace President Bush. And while we can respect his understanding of the national security challenges facing this nation – and even his candor in maintaining his pro-abortion position – the fact that he doesn’t appreciate the fundamental value of human life simply disqualifies him to hold such immense public power.

And there have always been suspicions regarding John McCain. His record in the Senate is generally pro-Life; however, the “Right to Life” scorecard is based upon relatively easy votes. He has never displayed the kind of commitment and leadership on the issue that, say, Sen. Brownback has over the long haul. And McCain’s stubborn campaign to destroy grass roots lobbying efforts is deeply troubling. But as things now appear, his historical moment has come and gone.

That brings us to Mitt Romney. His campaign has generated the most interest and dynamic momentum. The guy obviously knows how to look and sound great in front of a camera. But it is well known that his conversion to the pro-Life cause is a bit too convenient. When it suited his personal ambition, he was proud to defend abortion rights. Now that he seeks a national Republican office – well, those positions have become a liability. Whalah! Now he’s a committed pro-Lifer.

Most of us have been sitting on the sidelines, praying that a Duncan Hunter or Sam Brownback might find the money to generate a competitive campaign. So far – not enough from either.

That frustrating dynamic has led some in the conservative movement to look forward to the likely candidacy of Fred Thompson. But just who is this guy?

Apparently he has a pro-Life record from his days in the U.S. Senate. That offers some hope – though he too suffers from the McCain “reluctant bride” syndrome. Where, for example, are the bills he carried to help stem the bloody tide?

But last week, Thompson confirmed that his candidacy is not a panacea for social conservatives. During an interview on Hannity & Colmes, Thompson declared that he didn’t agree with Roe v. Wade. But then he went on to say that he would not support criminalizing abortion.

Obviously, Thompson’s pro-Life values need more scrutiny and development. To say that abortion should not be a constitutional “right” – but that it should still be allowed is to engage in moral babble. The only reason to interfere with a woman’s pregnancy is the pre-existing moral and legal rights of the preborn child. These precious souls are either human beings – or they are not. And if they are, then it logically follows that they must be protected with the same laws that the rest of us enjoy.

And all of that leaves us with dimming prospects for holding the presidency. As things stand now, we are likely faced with a weak Republican candidate who will almost certainly fail to mobilize the rank-and-file. This person will therefore lose.

The House of Representatives defeated a bogus bill last week that would have provided for research on cloned human embryos – legislation being sold by sponsors as a “ban”. 213 congressmen, including Idaho’s Bill Sali and Mike Simpson, voted against the con job.

But despite the victory, fans of human farming are not ready to quit. There is another bill up for consideration soon which seeks to overturn the president’s ban on destroying human embryos for research purposes.

The embryonic stem cell debate is only part of the picture that Americans need to understand. Proponents of harvesting stem cells from human embryos want not only to harvest stem cells. The larger money is in using human embryos for organs.

A 2005 article in Human Nature magazine entitled, “The Organ Factory”. It lays out a case for cloning human embryos and growing them in test tubes until at least ten weeks after conception. In this analysis, scientists argue that at that point, they could harvest cells which have already “specialized” into early hearts, kidneys, eyes, brains and neural networks. Once harvested, organs could be grown for transplant into the “lucky” donors.

It is clear from a careful reading that even ten weeks would be nothing more than the next moveable line. Every line of this “ethical whitewash” is pure utilitarianism. If some ambitious company or team of researchers decide they need even more time in order to sell “cures” to a desperate public – so be it.

Embryonic stem cell research is wrong because human beings are not a means to some end; as the Gospel teaches – we are ends in ourselves, from the moment that life begins.

Liberals opened another front against freedom this week, when Congressman Carolyn Maloney and Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced a bill requiring pharmacists to dispense the abortion-causing “Morning After Pill”. Pharmacists who refused to give out the drug could be fined up to $500,000. In addition, a woman or girl upset by the pharmacist’s refusal could file a lawsuit and receive awards for emotional distress, punitive damages and attorney fees.

The legislation is being pushed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

Congressman Maloney, according to WorldNetDaily, defended the legislation as necessary to protect “a constitutional right”.

Many pharmacists in the country object to dispensing MAP because it can cause an abortion. In these cases, a fertilized egg is unable to implant in the uterine wall.

It is tempting to conclude that Planned Parenthood & Friends are seeking to place a woman’s convenience ahead of a pharmacist’s right to maintain high ethical standards in the practice of medicine. But the truth is much darker and more complicated.

Groups like Pharmacists for Life pose a substantial obstacle to the Abortion Industry’s Big Lie Campaign to control the public debate over the ethics and scientific facts of human reproduction. They have succeeded, for instance, in forcing many in the Medical Industry to accept their new definition of ‘pregnancy’: A woman is not pregnant until and unless a fertilized egg is actually implanted in the uterine wall. That period of time (which could be a week or more) between fertilization and implantation presents the Abortion Industry with “an inconvenient truth” – to steal a trendy term. The killing of newly created human beings during this first part of pregnancy is an obstacle to selling America more pills; an obstacle to selling a new generation on the wondrous benefits of truly easy sex-without-consequence.

Planned Parenthood is determined to overcome this problem by simply adjusting reality.

Pharmacists for Life and other health care professionals must be silenced. Individuals in the medical community must be forced to comply, to submit to the new "science".

This legislation is just another example of the fascist impulse within modern liberalism, further proof of its greater threat to America’s heritage of freedom.

Perhaps the hottest political topic of the long and glorious Idaho summer is the question of how we select candidates for the state’s judiciary. The gross manipulation being employed by two justices of our Supreme Court is just the latest complication in a long standing strategy by liberals to seize control of this Third Branch in order to advance their social agenda.

Over the past several years, the media have worked with powerful folks like Justice Trout and former Speaker Bruce Newcomb to create the impression that the public must remain largely ignorant of the views and prejudices of candidates. This “undercover” selection process has been equated with the pursuit of blind justice and impartiality once the candidate enters service.
But in reality – the key players in the judicial selection process have all the information they need to stack the bench with liberals. It is the vast majority of us who are expected to blindly follow their choices, hoping for the best. You can see how beautifully this supposed “judicial ethic” works for those trying to impose an illicit agenda upon the public.

Under intense pressure from the peer groups and the media, candidates for the judiciary have lately taken a position in which they refuse to answer public surveys about their political and judicial philosophies. Most recently, candidates for the Schroeder seat refused to answer questions posed by Bryan Fischer of the Idaho Values Alliance.

We believe they were wrong to do so. We believe that every candidate for the judiciary has a set of beliefs and values which will greatly influence how they conduct themselves on the bench; this qualifies them as members of the human race. And we believe that We the People have the right to know those prejudices before they are granted the mantle of public power.

A recent federal court decision in Wisconsin reminds us that the current propaganda about judicial candidates needing a sphinx-like posture to be considered serious judges is just plain hogwash.

Federal District Judge John Shabaz has granted a permanent injunction against provisions of the Wisconsin Code of Judicial Conduct that, here-to-fore, prohibited candidates from responding to public questionnaires. His ruling is in line with a previous one handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court. That case was decided in 2002. It is known as Minnesota Republican Party v. White. A majority of justices found that rules which demand silence of judicial candidates violated their First Amendment rights; the ruling also found that the public has a right to inquire of candidates their views. Rules or statutes which prohibit public discussion interfere gravely with the public’s ability to make informed decisions when casting their ballot.

These rulings from federal courts help illuminate the dastardly con job now being perpetrated upon Idaho by the media and their powerful friends in the lawyers’ guild.