Replies

Here’s the initial post in its entirety:

“A very disturbing number of Freepers are openly advocating, on Free Republic threads, for the defeat of Senator Pat Roberts and other good Conservative Republicans. Greg Orman, in Kansas, is a pro abortion, anti gun, tax and spend Liberal Democrat who has given tens of thousands of dollars to Obama and Pelosi and the Democrat Party and Harry Reid. I am called an “idiot” for supporting Roberts. However, I think that those on Free Republic who support Harry Reid and Greg Orman should be ZOTTED, kicked off the site. I have had enough of there hate filled, vindictive, misguided trash.”

I went through hundreds of posts on this thread and I agree some posters did claim not voting helped elect Obama. Are you claiming it doesn’t help the Democrats when conservatives take their votes out of elections?

In none of those posts could I find anything that said you must vote for the RINOs. I repeatedly made the point in my posts that I respected someone who withheld their votes, but I believe it was better to act positively (by voting) to defeat the greater evil. The other posters on my side of the debate generally said they felt it was better to try and defeat Romney. Again, none of them told you what you MUST do with your vote. If I missed someone who did say that, point it out.

I also did not find any posts where someone said we need to accept that some issues are lost causes. Again, I was very, very careful to point out that I was talking about general elections ONLY. Several others posted pretty much the same thing and said they would vote against the RINOs in the primaries.

The abortion issue in particular is what got Kansas58 in trouble, apparently because he said the blood of babies was on people who refused to vote for anything less than a total ban on abortion. He seemed to speak from personal experience where he saw pro-life forces aligned with the abortionists in Kansas against partial restrictions on abortion. I think his mistake was blaming the pro-lifers for the blood of aborted babies, but to be honest, that’s what other posters claimed about the who said they’d vote for a RINO (in the general election if necessary) to stop an abortion-loving president. So the pro-life posters basically accused Kansas58 of having blood on his/her hands, and then he was banned when he said purists in Kansas had blood on their hands. I think both sides went too far on that one, because Kansas58 is clearly anti-abortion and was apparently directly involved in saving babies in Kansas (by fighting for what was achievable at this time—restrictions on abortion that fall short of a complete ban).

So in answer to your post, I think I’m being as honest as I can be. I try very hard to be civil and never engage in personal attacks. If I’m wrongly characterizing this thread, please point to specific posts where someone said you “must” vote for the RINOs or that abortion is a lost cause.

I had tangled with Kansas58 on numerous threads. I am convinced that Kansas58 is a pro-lifer with a track record of opposing the late Killer Tiller in Wichita. That's the good news.

The bad news is that Kansas58 is a chronic critic of the late Nellie Gray (who created and ran the Annual March dor Life in DC until her relatively recent death) and of Judie Brown and her American Life League. Kansas58's expressed reservations were that Judie Brown and Nellie Gray opposed certain proposed pieces of mild pro-life legislation because no abortion can be approved by a pro-lifer any more than any abortion would be approved by Jesus Christ. The legislation in question was enacted with the support of the National Right to Life Committee and Kansas58 is an uncritical cheerleader for the generally soft and ineffective line advocated by NRLC. Kansas58 is probably better than NRLC but that isn't hard to be.

My own reaction to all this is complicated. I despise the so-called National Right to Life Committee as phonies and frauds. Their interests consist of fundraising, shooting their mouths off ineffectively at press conferences, fundraising, keeping the Right to Life movement tame and inoffensive and seeing that it poses no real threat to the pro-abort status quo, fundraising, and trying to monopolize and homogenize from DC local actual right to life groups which they do not begin to understand and fundraising.

If NRLC closed its doors permanently tomorrow, that would be a significant boost for the pro-life movement.

But, hey, maybe I misdiagnose the situation and the NRLC does as well. The existence of serious and militant pro-life groups like Operation Rescue and Pro-Life Action Network and American Life League and similar groups constitutes a serious embarrassment to the pacifist weenies at NRLC who NEVER get anything done that I have seen. There is nothing NRLC can do to eradicate people who are deadly serious about ending abortion as hard as they may try.

If NRLC has a head and uses it, it would approach its pro-abort pals (the ones it seeks "common ground" with while never mentioning THAT in its endless stream of fundraising letters) and use an old tactic that used to work very well for Martin Luther King, Jr.: tell the pro-aborts that it would be best to give NRLC whatever smidgeon of policy it seeks because, OTHERWISE, they would have to deal with Judie Brown or Operation Rescue or Pro-Life Action Network types.

I know that the foregoing does not sound very nuanced or complicated. Here are both. I actually prefer a wisely waged campaign of principled partial victories if I cannot have total victory today. Parental consent and parental notification, laws requiring the identification of the father of a minor girl's unborn child, banning abortion in the third trimester and counting, second trimester, second half of first trimester, at any time after eight minutes since conception, banning it altogether, banning "morning after" pill abortifacients, IUDs which are abortifacients, etc., etc. With each partial victory, you remind the pro-aborts that you are coming back relentlessly like the abolitionists did until abortion is no more. The strategy of chipping away works but not if you EVER suggest that the latest chip will suffice. That is both ineffective and dishonest for anyone who IS a pro-lifer.

Now, I believe that each life saved from abortion by legislation, by occupation of the mill and de-sterilizing the suction machines and instruments or by whatever means necessary is a life worth saving and can be a life worth living. Planned Barrenhood's research foundation, the Alan Guttmacher Foundation, conceded that 1 out of 3 abortions scheduled for "Rescue Days" never thereafter occurred. So 75 people, let's say, get arrested invading the clinic and putting it out of business for a couple of weeks and spend, let's say, ten days each in jail pre-trial before the court system grows up and dismisses the charges. Let us say that 36 abortions were scheduled just for Rescue Day. 12 kids get to live an average of 75 years each (900 years total) in exchange for 75 people giving up ten days each (a total of a little over 2 years).

That is an economic solution and for the Rescuers: That's Entertainment! and for the jailers, the court personnel, the reporters, and others: That's Education! Any one Rescue did more than 41 years of National Right to Life Committee mealy-mouthing.

The folks at National Right to Life Committee seem to behave as though their highest ambition is a retirement party when each will receive a fifty-year pin and a gold watch when they turn their jobs over to similarly feckless and ineffective pacifistic leaders who also hope for long careers not offending the enemy or the Enemy.

I conceded to Kansas58 that his arguments on Pat Roberts' behalf had changed me from a Wolf supporter to a Roberts supporter. I don't live in Kansas nor do most of us. OTOH, those who preferred Wolf were no more pro-Orman or pro-Harry Reid than those of us who refused our votes to an evil Romney and to an evil Obozo were therefore somehow pro-Obozo.

Voting for or even electing either Obozo OR Myth Romney helps the Demonrats. There ain't a dime's worth of difference on any issue that matters: i.e. NOT trivia like the protection of Muffie's trust fund. What guaranteed conservatives staying home was the nomination of Myth Romney. If the GOP wants our votes it should nominate candidates WORTH VOTING FOR in their own right. Our candidate may be a miserable excuse for a human being much less for a Republican and still less for a conservative but HE'S NOT OBOZO! just does not cut it any more. If you can bring yourself to vote for a Romney, then increasingly you will have to get used to the fact that you will have less and less company in doing so. The Republican delegates guaranteed Obozo's victory by nominating Myth Romney. That's it! Will they play it any smarter in 2016? Can you say "Madame President" if they don't?

Finally the nomination and, God forbid!, the election as a Republican of Myth Romney or any trash like him would mean:

1) An automatic loss in the next election to an even worse Demonrat because Romney does not know how to play the political game. He is a dunce and an airhead when it comes to politics.

2) The elimination of the pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-sexual normalcy, 2nd Amendment, resistance to envirowhackoism, and many other issues during the twenty years it would take to destroy the GOP and replace it with an actually conservative party. God probably lacks the patience to sit still for the results on the ground in the USA during 20 years of unrestrained Sodom and Gomorrah. It is presumptuous to assume that God will postpone His justice that long. Thomas Jefferson, as a Deist, was a vague sort of believer but even he said something to the effect: I tremble for my country when I consider that God is just. If he were alive today, that tremble would be an earthquake measuring about 12 on the Richter scale.