John McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin is nigh unto unbelievable. Her name surfaced on some internet sources about a week ago and she immediately seemed a fantastic choice – so good, in fact, that we despaired of her prospects. By Thursday night it seemed inevitable that McCain would turn to his former nemesis, Mitt Romney.

Such a pick had the advantage of bolstering McCain’s “economic” credentials. More importantly, Romney knows how to raise money.

Yet, miraculously, McCain must have seen that picking Romney would have sealed his doom. Tired politicians spinning their way out of statements made just months ago; Democrats and their pals at Planned Parenthood running ads about the disturbing story of Romney’s ambitious journey from adamant pro-abort to adamant pro-Lifer – just in time to help his bid for the presidency.

Within minutes of McCain’s announcement, the energy level of the conservative base increased tenfold.

We took emails and phone calls all day Friday from pro-Lifers anxious to get involved in the effort to elect Sarah Palin. Folks are energized by her clarion call to protect preborn children. But it is already clear that there is much more to Palin than simply having the politically-correct answer to a modern plague. Obviously Palin is not “politically” pro-Life but rather understands at a heart level that abortion is not about the ambition of various politicians – but about its many victims.

As the media coverage continued throughout the day, other things about Sarah Palin became clear: She is actually a gifted and articulate member of the great “middle class”. Her family is composed of average Americans, and her passion is for the average folks from her neighborhood. She won’t have to spend most of the next three months persuading us that she “feels our pain”: Anyone who has seen her with her family already knows she is one of us. One could safely bet the farm that her highest calling is Wife and Mother. Power and privilege have yet to stain her soul or twist her world-view. She is the sort of person whom the Founding Fathers envisioned stepping up out of obscurity to serve the public good for a season.

We must pray that the Lord protects her from the vast temptations which surround a person of sudden celebrity, because her present humility and station will offer renewed hope to millions of Americans that our system of government can still work – can still produce average persons of great character. People like Sarah Palin have the power to confirm the promise of democracy by demonstrating to all the professionals and pundits that government by the People is still within our grasp.

The choice of Palin also says quite a bit about John McCain. Maybe there is not such a disconnect after all between the hero of Vietnam and the present politician. Perhaps he does hold respect for the values which have bred greatness for a nation. His courage in picking Palin may prove to be his greatest contribution to the conservative movement.

All of which is to say that McCain has put himself back in the game to be president.

An interesting article appeared on WorldNetDaily yesterday. Written by Dr. Arthur Robinson, it was entitled, “The One and Only Solution to America’s Energy Problem”. The article is a very interesting primer on the fundamentals of energy as an economic commodity and worth reading to prepare for the coming “fairy dust storm” on alternative energy sources – a religious principle with Liberals going back to the first Earth Day. (And, despite many Democrat opportunities, a policy with virtually no concrete advancement for that entire period; the reasons for which will become clear after reading Robinson’s article).

Obviously the debate over alternative energy is largely unrelated to abortion.

But a point made by Robinson deep in his commentary refutes one of the darkest arguments used to advance abortion in a selfish culture: Too many people cause economic hardship and deprivation for those of us already here.

Quoting from Julian Simon, a renowned economist in his book “The Ultimate Resource 2”, Robison asserts:

“Simon describes and verifies a fundamental economic law. Each human being who is born, on average, produces more resources than he consumes –IF he possesses the freedom to do so.”

Thus it is the individual human being who is key to general economic security and prosperity.

The greatest natural resource in the world will not be found in an oil field, a gold mine or even a farmer’s field; rather, our economic hope will be found in a mother’s womb.

If this is so – then one can only wonder how much treasure and blessing has been destroyed during America’s long experiment with a freedom that grants certain persons license to kill certain other persons. It is an experiment for which we are all paying a huge, if yet untallied, price.

Ten Catholic congressmen issued a public letter yesterday to Speaker of the House chastising her for “mangling” Church doctrine on abortion.

During an appearance this past Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press, Speaker Pelosi claimed that she was “an ardent, practicing Catholic”. She further asserted that the Church’s teaching against abortion was “something like 50 years old” and over the ages, abortion has been “an issue of controversy”.

The offended legislators, including Steve Chabot of Ohio, Peter King of New York and Devin Nunes of California, correctly chastised Pelosi for misstating the history of Christian doctrine on the sanctity of human life:

“From the Apostles of the first century to Pope John Paul, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law,” wrote the congressmen, quoting from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

As of this writing, we are unaware of Pelosi’s response.

The controversy comes at a crucial – and predictable – time in the political cycle of the nation.

Catholic voters have formed a very important swing constituency during the past three or four presidential contests. One of the core issues in the fight for that vote is abortion. Pro-Life candidates for president have won a plurality of the Catholic vote in the past few elections.

Pelosi, as the nation’s highest-ranking Catholic elected official, is no doubt sensitive to that history and determined to change it. Her statements can be understood to be part of a concerted strategy by abortion advocates to hood-wink Catholics into “overlooking” Obama’s deep commitment to killing preborn children.

Another piece of that grand strategy came to light last Friday, when “Catholics for Choice” released a purported poll of Catholic voters. The group claimed that 69% of Catholics interviewed do not believe they are obligated to vote against candidates who support legalized abortion.

This “poll” is most likely an example of agenda-groups using the respectability of polling to help manipulate public opinion rather than reflect it. What is beyond dispute is the group’s blatant agenda to seduce non-wary Catholics into a comfort with pro-abort politicians.

Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, former governor of Utah, issued new rules yesterday protecting physicians – despite immense pressure from the Abortion Lobby.

Over the past several months, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org have been jamming the HHS website with “petitions” from folks purportedly concerned about the new regulations. According to one web report, Leavitt received some 325,000 names on Wednesday – a number questioned by some because of the way Planned Parenthood has misrepresented the issue at stake.

In his own web action yesterday, Secretary Leavitt made it clear that he would nevertheless act to protect physicians from being forced into performing abortions: “Federal law is explicit and unwavering in protecting federally funded medical practitioners from being coerced into providing treatments they find morally objectionable.”

Leavitt’s action was necessary because of politically-motivated actions by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Under the fierce influence of abortionists within their ranks, ACOG has made moves to force all OBGyns into performing abortions as a condition for certification by the organization. As Secretary Leavitt notes, “physician certification is a powerful instrument; without it, a doctor cannot practice the specialty.”

Before issuing the new rule, Leavitt asked the governing board of ACOG to make it clear that abortion practice would not be made mandatory: Such a standard would not only violate federal law, “it violates decency and the core value of personal liberty.”

The abortion hacks running ACOG refused – hence Leavitt’s action.

His proposed rule makes it clear that the protections for provider conscience apply to institutional health care providers as well as individual employees of institutions (including medical schools) receiving federal funds.

Leavitt is to be highly commended for standing against intense pressure by the Abortion Lobby.

John McCain is a difficult case for the pro-Life movement. Many have already concluded that we ought to rally behind him because he is not Barack Obama. Fair enough: Obama has stubbornly continued to defend abortion even to the point of supporting outright infanticide. (As evidence, see his repeated votes against protecting babies who survive abortion attempts).

Some have observed that his passion for killing preborn children exceeds even that of NARAL – comprised of folks who actually get paid for the killing.

But the problem for many of us is the overwhelming evidence that John McCain is simply not committed to ending abortion. His largely pro-Life voting record is seriously compromised by contradictory statements and actions over a long career. McCain continues to add to our ambivalence every day he pounds the campaign.

Take his recent statements at the ballyhooed forum orchestrated this weekend by Rick Warren, celebrity evangelist. During the discussion, McCain was asked “at what point does a baby gain human rights?” His answer was strong and fundamentally sound:

“A baby’s human rights begin at the moment of conception.”

Then – we are all left wondering – how can John McCain defend the practice of slaughtering human embryos in order to harvest their stem cells? Even worse – how can he advocate that American taxpayers actually pay for the heinous barbarity of treating human beings as a mere cash crop?

John McCain’s support for harvesting stem cells from defenseless babies goes beyond his votes: He was one of 58 senators who signed a letter to President Bush in June of 2004 demanding that Bush renege on his promise to America and open the federal purse to private sector companies built on the dead remains of America’s innocents. (Personally, I’ve always suspected that McCain was playing crude life politics to win the backing of Nancy Reagan and demonstrate his ‘ornery independence’ among moderate business groups).

And just last week, McCain screeched out of his way to throw a grenade at social conservatives by suggesting that he was considering Tom Ridge as his Vice-President pick, despite Ridge’s pro-abortion views.

In explaining his impressions of Ridge, McCain is quoted by the AP as saying, “… the pro-Life position is one of the important aspects … of the Republican Party…[but] …Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and happens to be pro-choice.”

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of John McCain is his record on the judiciary.

At the Warren forum, McCain sang the old standard about picking justices for the nation’s high court who were committed to strictly applying the Constitution – and not ‘legislating from the bench’. Republicans have been winning federal seats for years on just that practiced melody.

But when the opportunity arose, when the Senate struggled to deal with President Bush’s nominations to the federal bench, comprised of just such persons, McCain was the principal betrayer of the faith. He was a central character in the “Gang of Fourteen” drama scripted by Ted Kennedy to block the majority of Bush’s appointees.

So … where are we left? In a bad situation, largely of our own making.

At the moment (if 'moment' can be used to describe a months-long dalliance) when America needed leadership – most of the pro-Life movement sat around sipping tea waiting for a strong leader to emerge. McCain outwitted us through his back-door deals with Fred Thompson in the primaries.

Now we are left to console ourselves with the lame hope that McCain will prove himself worth electing.

[Editors note: The Board of ICL has yet to make an endorsement in the presidential race, and will likely take the matter up at the September Board Meeting].

As presidential hopeful Barack Obama prepares for his Denver gala, the finishing touches are being put to his national “change” platform.

During the primary election process Obama made mechanical reference to his vision of “change” – without being particularly specific as to the particulars. He has now decided to flesh out that vision a bit, and a good deal of homage is being paid to his party’s feminist wing.

Obama and his people want even more offensive language affirming their devotion to abortion:

“The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.”

This language means abortion has become an essential article of faith for all Democrats. It also means that the party is committed to trampling the conscience of pro-Life Americans by setting a course to establish a national “right” to tax-funding of all abortions.

In a recent story run on LifeNews.Com, editor Steven Ertelt affirms that Democrat operatives added language to the abortion plank promoting increased funding of Planned Parenthood in the hopes of mitigating the impact of their radical agenda for the nation. That strategy seems unlikely to be effective, since most of us realize that Planned Parenthood seeks to sexualize and exploit children at the earliest possible age in order to expand its customer base.

Candidates running under the Democrat label may well find this platform language difficult to explain – especially in places like Idaho. But Obama is clearly more concerned about placating the feminist wing which formed the core of Hillary’s vote in recent primaries.

Perhaps even more challenging for local Democrats will be Obama’s commitment to leading the charge on behalf of the “Freedom of Choice Act” – Planned Parenthood’s strategy for federalizing the abortion issue. According to LifeNews, the basic thrust of this proposed federal law would be to override any and all state restrictions on abortion. That would mean Idaho’s ban on tax funded abortions or our Parental Consent Law would be voided by Congressional fiat.

It seems more than reasonable that local pro-Life activists closely question Democrat candidates running this fall on their allegiance to the national party platform and its presidential candidate.