Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Here's the Real Reason Independents Have Turned Against the Democrats
NetNet with John Carney @ CNBC.com ^ | 2 November 2010 | Michelle Caruso-Cabrera

Posted on 11/02/2010 7:19:00 AM PDT by The Pack Knight

The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans, and now they are throwing out the Democrats.

What Americans want is a government that stays out of their pocketbooks and out of their private lives. Under Presidents Bush and Obama, we've gotten just the opposite: government program after government program created with our money to socially engineer the economy.

Evidence of voters’ desires lies in the huge swing we are seeing in the so-called independents. They are leaning heavily Republican in every poll. Pundits and political observers use the word independents frequently, but rarely do they define it. Now would be a good time.

I believe independents are fiscally-conservative, yet socially-liberal. How do I know? I’m one of them. I don’t want to be taxed to death, and I don’t want to tell other people how to live their lives.

Yet, for decades the choice has been either A.) a party that didn’t want to overtax me, but seemed awfully concerned about what happens in people bedrooms, or B.) a party that was far more tolerant on social issues but loved spending taxpayer money to “fix” things.

But many believers in small-government think it is a concept that should dictate every aspect of Washington, not just the size of say, the Department of Commerce. Laws designed to legislate social values run contrary to the idea of small government because making laws about peoples private lives is about making government bigger, not smaller.

Now to today’s election and the supposed flip-flop of the American public. To independent voters, Presidents Obama and Bush look awfully similar. Both have presided over enormous increases in government spending, and deep government intervention into large portions of the economy. From President Obama we got health care reform, from President Bush we got the largest federal intervention into education in the nations history, and huge subsidies for people to buy homes. Both have given us protectionism. Both bailed out the banks. Both bailed out the auto industry. For 10 years now we’ve had no difference in governing policies regardless of who was in power.

So now what?

After the Republican sweep of 1994, President Clinton was forced to find fiscal religion, and independents finally got policy changes they wanted: welfare reform, an embrace of the free markets with the passage of NAFTA, and a balanced budget driven in large part by less spending. (Thank you Newt Gingrich.) With the glaring exceptions of the tax-hike of 1993 and the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton looks pretty good to the independent voter of today.

Will President Obama learn from President Clinton? Only if he corrects his view of history.

Right now, the President consistently blames a lack of government oversight and regulation under the Bush years, as one of the key reasons for the nations economic woes. The truth is just the opposite and the American people know that. President Bush may have been Republican, but he didn’t preside like one. We haven’t seen a Republican president who truly believed in keeping government small in the lives of its people since Ronald Reagan.

Despite an enormous amount of new legislation (the stimulus bill, health care reform, financial regulatory reform, and education finance reform) President Obama’s ratings have never been lower.

He needs to ask himself why.

The answer: because he is doing exactly the same thing his predecessor did. Spending too much, regulating too much, and intervening too much, with little to show for it in the way of economic improvement.

To the American people, less is more. They know exactly what they want. Now if only the politicians they vote for would give it to them.

Michelle Caruso-Cabrera is an anchor of CNBCs Power Lunch and author of 'You Know I’m Right, More Prosperity, Less Government.'


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2010; 2010election; 2010midterms; cnbc; election2010; elections; independents; libertarians; mushymiddle; patbuchanan; paulestinians; paulistinians
While I tend to think "fiscally conservative but socially liberal" tends to be an oversimplification, I think Ms. Caruso-Cabrera is pretty accurate in describing the mood of most independent voters. It's something Republican politicians would do well to consider going forward.
1 posted on 11/02/2010 7:19:03 AM PDT by The Pack Knight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Please send this info to your address list.

FYI to everyone - Reporting Voter Fraud

The Republican Party has set up a National Hotline, which will be staffed with Attorneys to handle polling issues as well as possible voter fraud or intimidation.

1 - 888 - 775 - 8117. IF you even SUSPECT this is happening, PLEASE call for their free advice. DOCUMENT AND FILM EVERYTHING.

http://www.resistnet.com/


2 posted on 11/02/2010 7:19:40 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (LET'S ROLL - DEFEAT THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM TODAY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

The truth about The Imam is that he considers himself the first American dictator. The Imam and his cohorts in Congress have legislated themselves the power of life and death over all Americans while exempting themselves from their DeathCare genocide.


3 posted on 11/02/2010 7:23:33 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (LET'S ROLL - DEFEAT THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM TODAY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
"Yet, for decades the choice has been either A.) a party that didn’t want to overtax me, but seemed awfully concerned about what happens in people bedrooms..."

Please give me an example of Republicans being "awfully concerned about what happens in people (sic) bedrooms". I hear this all the time but see no evidence of it. And being against gay marriage isn't a concern of what gays do in their bedrooms.

4 posted on 11/02/2010 7:23:51 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

5 posted on 11/02/2010 7:24:58 AM PDT by BenLurkin (This post is not a statement of fact. It is merely a personal opinion -- or humor -- or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
What Americans want is a government that stays out of their pocketbooks and out of their private lives

Sorry, I don't buy it. Hussain certainly never campaigned on these ideas either. If anything, he promised MORE government intervention...much more.

6 posted on 11/02/2010 7:25:18 AM PDT by truthkeeper ( Remember in November: VOTE THE BUMS OUT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

According to MSNBC and others, the dims are losing because they weren’t liberal enough.


7 posted on 11/02/2010 7:26:49 AM PDT by umgud (Wear your Border Patrol hat to the polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Thanks for sharing this article and agree with her assessment.

During the Bush presidency, I told many people that I did not think he was conservative enough....and many of them laughed at me. I have always considered myself a Reagan Republican.


8 posted on 11/02/2010 7:28:02 AM PDT by KEmom (Proud to be a Mama Grizzly!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans, and now they are throwing out the Democrats.

What's interesting, though, is that two years ago, The American People were completely and utterly inundated with news about how awful the economy was and how terrible the deficits were and how horrible the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were going.

This time around, the press is downplaying the crappy economy even though unemployment is twice what it was two years ago. They are downplaying the skyrocketing deficits even though they are twice what they were under President Bush. And the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Still no noticeable improvement but what's missing is the daily body counts provided by the media.

So, yeah, go figure. The supposed "fixes" we voted for in '08 haven't materialized and STILL we're not happy.

The only thing that's becoming more and more clear in people's minds is the lying, manipulation and outright scheming taking place by the Corrupt Bastards in the media.

It took a while, but we caught on to you.

So, in the famous words of erstwhile Professional Leftists like the RAT Governor of Rhode Island and media mogul Jon Stewart, "Shove it, dudes."

9 posted on 11/02/2010 7:28:13 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Re “fiscally conservative but socially liberal”:

I think there’s a governing majority in them thar hills...

But such smaller governement would be anathema to either party. Hence the battle lines drawn where they are: on a variety of largely peripheral hot button issues.

Better to draw attention away from the real issue of liberty.


10 posted on 11/02/2010 7:28:30 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
The truth about The Imam is that he considers himself the first American dictator. The Imam and his cohorts in Congress have legislated themselves the power of life and death over all Americans while exempting themselves from their DeathCare genocide.

------------------------------------

And then there's the train wreck economy to keep in mind also.

bankrupting-1sm

limitations

The Rats are shovel-ready for the dust bin of history.

11 posted on 11/02/2010 7:30:05 AM PDT by BobP (The piss-stream media - Never to be watched again in my house)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

The defining “social issue” is not what people do in their bedrooms; it is abortion. There is a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby.


12 posted on 11/02/2010 7:31:01 AM PDT by csmusaret (Tax revenue increased 39% from2002 to 2007 as a result of the Bush tax cuts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
Hmmm...

I'm associated with many thousands of Independents across the land. And we're all 100% personhood pro-life, pro-natural family, peace through strength, constitutionalist, Reaganite conservatives.

Because we know that as independent as we are, we are not independent of America's founding principles, and that we are utterly dependent on God.

Unlike this writer.

13 posted on 11/02/2010 7:33:19 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (In America the people are sovereign under God. And when God or the king is mad at you, you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

“There is a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby.”

Yes, there is. But there’s also a huge divided between those who want immigration enforcement or not, or legal drugs or not, or prayer in the schools or not.

It all depends what’s important to you.


14 posted on 11/02/2010 7:34:55 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c60bf53ef013488a2c2e7970c-pi

It’s, well, a space hog, but it is funny.

From Pam over @ Atlas Shrugs


15 posted on 11/02/2010 7:35:05 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret

The keyword to defeat the left is

“defining”.

Make them DEFINE the terms they use.
What do you mean by “social issues”?
What do you mean by “what people do in their bedrooms”?
What do you mean by “progressive”?

Most don’t WANT to define what they mean,
because it would expose the dark side of their beliefs.

On a more direct note - if we were truly “fiscally conservative” with no programs that alleviated the consequences for immoral choices,
“social issues” would regulate themselves.


16 posted on 11/02/2010 7:38:56 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

Right on. I always hear that from the lefties but they can never actually show any evidence of it. It’s another lib lie like the lie that claims that the RATs brought about civil rights for blacks. All propaganda.


17 posted on 11/02/2010 7:40:23 AM PDT by Seruzawa (If you agree with the French raise your hand - If you are French raise both hands.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Many social liberals want the government (that is, us taxpayers) to FUND abortion and embryonic stem cell research. We want to be able to send our kids to private religious schools -we don’t want to force these schools on anyone else - but they want us to subsidize secular public schools for their kids.


18 posted on 11/02/2010 7:41:44 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Vote for Robert Turner for Congress and kick out that Weiner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret
There is a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby.

The swing voters who decide elections think it is a baby, but "with exceptions".

19 posted on 11/02/2010 7:43:10 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BobP; freekitty; MamaDearest; seekthetruth; bitt; Bitsy; NorwegianViking; unkus; Howie66; ...

You won’t care about the economy if you’re in a hospice center awaiting death after having been denied life-saving health care by some political hack.


20 posted on 11/02/2010 7:43:17 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (LET'S ROLL - DEFEAT THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM TODAY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB
On a more direct note - if we were truly “fiscally conservative” with no programs that alleviated the consequences for immoral choices, “social issues” would regulate themselves.

Now you're talkin!"

That's a concept that this fiscal conservative can get 100% on board with.

21 posted on 11/02/2010 7:45:03 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MrB

“On a more direct note - if we were truly “fiscally conservative” with no programs that alleviated the consequences for immoral choices,
“social issues” would regulate themselves.”

They would regulate themselves by creating a constituency for the end of fiscal conservatism. That is why fiscal and social liberalism go hand in hand.


22 posted on 11/02/2010 7:47:09 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Vote for Robert Turner for Congress and kick out that Weiner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead
after having been denied life-saving health care by some political hack

If the money to pay for someone else's health care is extracted from my wallet with the threat of imprisonment, then I say to the hacks, deny away, with my blessing.

23 posted on 11/02/2010 7:48:04 AM PDT by Notary Sojac (God Hates Figs!! (Mark 11:12-14 ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

“and I don’t want to tell other people how to live their lives.”

Then either you are not a Social Liberal or else you are lying and DO want to control their lives.


24 posted on 11/02/2010 7:52:39 AM PDT by TexasRepublic (Socialism is the gospel of envy and the religion of thieves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pessimist
But such smaller governement would be anathema to either party. Hence the battle lines drawn where they are: on a variety of largely peripheral hot button issues.

I think you hit the nail on the head. You even see it a lot on fiscal issues, where the focus is often on earmarks, marginal tax rates, and (under Clinton) the number of federal employees. While I certainly want to see less of all three, the real fiscal crises are Social Security and Medicare, which together are the sacred cow for Democrats and the third rail for Republicans and are therefore always pushed to the back burner.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday that noted the re-emergence of political volatility (three elections in a row with large numbers of House incumbents being defeated) and linked such volatility to major political realignments in the past.

From what I can see, these realignments tend to occur when the ideological identities of the two major parties no longer reflects the political makeup of the population at large. I think we're seeing this now, as it has become clear that the coalitions that make up both political parties have become unstable, with competing interests and factions within each becoming mutually incompatible.

Whether this will eventually shake out into a governing majority in favor of smaller government remains to be seen (and I have my doubts there), but I think there is a very good chance that the two major parties 10-20 years from now will look a lot different than they do today.
25 posted on 11/02/2010 8:02:59 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and the world laughs at you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

I don’t know much about her politics but she does have a nice set of knockers:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_cHYeTpsQJ7g/SZXPsCmD9nI/AAAAAAAAEQI/wmjp9nE_zO0/s400/michelle_carusocabrera_bikini.jpg


26 posted on 11/02/2010 8:03:47 AM PDT by Flavious_Maximus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasRepublic

Liberalism revolves around substituting the “elites” decisions for the the individuals’ decisions.

Being “liberal” and wanting to tell people how to live their lives are one and the same.


27 posted on 11/02/2010 8:06:51 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
"Take back our country" --- from those who are against the U.S. Constitution, and put it in the hands of those who are for it.

Simple as that.

28 posted on 11/02/2010 8:13:07 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o (Only the Best: Quality Plagiarism from Other FReepers since 1998.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans


Is the person that wrote these words just stone cold f*cking stupid? How can you “expect” an upset?

The Republicans weren’t thrown out of congress TWO years ago but FOUR years ago.

My God what a friggin’ idiot.


29 posted on 11/02/2010 8:19:11 AM PDT by Grunthor (I learned only after Obamas' election that I am a racist, SEXIST, homophobe, anarchist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB
On a more direct note - if we were truly “fiscally conservative” with no programs that alleviated the consequences for immoral choices, “social issues” would regulate themselves.

I agree with you 100% -- which is why the whole "fiscally conservative, socially liberal" idea is complete nonsense as it relates to our current political landscape.

I'd also point out that anyone who was truly "fiscally conservative" would probably be lucky to get more than 20% of the vote in any given election. Just look at how damned impossible it is to address the biggest, most unsustainable, Ponzi schemes out there today -- Medicare and Social Security.

30 posted on 11/02/2010 8:24:12 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

“Sorry, I don’t buy it. Hussain certainly never campaigned on these ideas either. If anything, he promised MORE government intervention...much more.”

You are correct. My guess on why Obama was elected has to do with middle and upper class whites wanting to finally get past the race issue by electing a black president even though he was openly to the left of them politically. However, little did they know that he was and is an outright communist and that he had a history of associating with left wing radials and known communists. We have the so called main stream media to thank for that. So, ok, we’re now past the “a black person can not be elected to POTUS” mantra. Now, we can evaluate Obama on merit - which is what’s happening today.


31 posted on 11/02/2010 8:29:56 AM PDT by snoringbear (Government is the Pimp,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Fiscal conservative is right, but that needs definition. One could be a “balance the budget via additional taxation” and call oneself a fiscal conservative because of belief in balanced budgets. A true fiscal conservative believes in balanced budgets via limited spending and low taxation.

Social liberal is not an accurate description of this independent conservative. We want less government in those areas that do not injure lives or threaten others.

Like it or not, such things as prostitution, drugs, abortion, homosexuality, alcohol use, marital policy, education technique, and welfare do have the ability, when overdone/ignored, to injure others.

The question is where to draw the line limiting those social issues.


32 posted on 11/02/2010 8:40:46 AM PDT by xzins (Freep-a-thon--Anyone can do a min of $10, OR you must believe in welfare, cause someone pays for you)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
I think the article pretty much gets it but one of the things we who are called "social conservatives" are going to have to explain to and convince our fiscal brothers of is the importance of judges who respect what others write down on paper as legislation.

Roe v Wade is a really good litmus test. A judge who thinks it should be overturned is not going to let someone take your home and give it to a pharmaceutical company or tell a state they can't ask lawbreakers for ID.

Judges who say Roe is fine and dandy say those other things are fine and dandy as well.

33 posted on 11/02/2010 8:41:24 AM PDT by Tribune7 (The Democrat Party is not a political organization but a religious cult.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Great picture. That’s just what the American people are going to start doing with this election. However, the only certain way to do so on a permanent basis is to thump the statists (of both parties) in the next 2 or 3 election cycles, and to re-educate our kids (and adults) about what the founding principles of our nation mean (as well as what those alien ideologies like fascism and socialism mean, and what they’ve done to this nation). We have to not only take away power from them in the short run, but BURY the b@st@rds and their ideologies.


34 posted on 11/02/2010 8:53:29 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

Amen to that.


35 posted on 11/02/2010 9:02:06 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("The first duty of intelligent men of our day is the restatement of the obvious. " - George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: umgud
According to MSNBC and others, the dims are losing because they weren’t liberal enough.

Never stop your enemy when he is making a mistake.

Make no mistake, the libs/leftists ARE the enemy - the domestic enemy of our liberties, of the ideas and practices that made this country great. Obama did at least keep one promise, to "change" the country; however, I don't think that enough people took that seriously. A certain Austrian painter-wannabee also made promises that no one took seriously, and we know the results. A world without the USA as we have known it (i.e. with a destroyed economy and withdrawal from world affairs) would be equally as bad (and I say that as a Jew who had relatives murdered by that Austrian).

36 posted on 11/02/2010 9:04:59 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
Get used to PSYOP headlines like this one:

Time: "Elections: How Long Can Republicans Keep Independent Vote?"
37 posted on 11/02/2010 9:11:06 AM PDT by dr_who
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight
The expected Republican upset at the voting booth today is bound to leave many inside the Beltway confused. What on earth do the American people want? After all, just two years ago they threw out the Republicans, and now they are throwing out the Democrats.

OK, Beltway morons, I'll tell you what the American people want. It is embodied in this quote:

"That government governs best which governs least." It is not known who said that (Jefferson, Thoreau and Thomas Paine are candidates), but whomever did had their finger on the pulse of the people and on the wisdom of the ages.

Here's another quote (Paine):

"Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one."

To keep it simple enough for the Beltway idiots:

"We want you to get out of our lives. Defend us against foreign enemies, build roads that actually go somewhere, ensure that commerce flows well between the states and run the post office - and then go home and mind your own business!"

38 posted on 11/02/2010 9:12:48 AM PDT by Ancesthntr (Tyrant: "Spartans, lay down your weapons." Free man: "Persian, come and get them!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

I doubt we’ll end up with smaller gvt too.

The thing is, there are entrenched interests supporting larger gvt on either side.

The average citizen doesn’t have a lobbyist. :(


39 posted on 11/02/2010 9:26:25 AM PDT by Pessimist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: csmusaret; Pessimist; ExTexasRedhead; Gilbo_3; hiredhand; Squantos; MrB; combat_boots; ...

“...a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby...”

Spot-on, csmusaret.

The socialist/communist/liberal/progressives have managed to convince a large portion of women (all over the world - not just here) that it’s perfectly natural and fine to MURDER their own infants, and be absolutely FINE with it.

A mother...allowing the murder of her own child. Sickening. Horrifying. And yet...it happens every day.

We have a sitting senator from California (Boxer) who once stated that a baby isn’t even a human being until it LEAVES the hospital - basically saying that’s it perfectly all right to MURDER that brand new, helpless life up, at the behest of his/her mother, until the moment it goes out the door because that brand new person has no human right to live.

Yet...WE’RE called “Nazis” because we oppose “a woman’s right to CHOOSE” - to choose what? Murdering a person that can’t even fight back to defend his/her own life?.

Any sane person WOULD oppose it. We’re allowing the slaughtering of generations of Americans, because “it’s the law of the land” since 1973.

How any doctor could do this and look himself/herself in the mirror day after day is absolutely beyond comprehension to me. They are scum, pure and simple, and legislators that push this are criminals in my eyes - as guilty of murder as any psychopathic serial killer; maybe even worse, because the repercussions of these laws have affected generations of souls who never even had the chance to breathe the air of life...

Pessimist: “...It all depends what’s important to you...”

It’s critical to ALL of us - because if you are able to convince (brainwash, perhaps?) a large enough portion of people that it’s OK to MURDER a helpless baby, how much more of a leap is it to convincing them that it’s OK to eventually murder the elderly (”well, gee, after all, you know, like they’re SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO non-productive, like, and it costs SOOOOOOOOOOO much to keep them alive, and you young people are like the future and all that, and it’s costing YOU personally now...”);

Or the mentally handicapped; ever hear of a program back in the 20’s or 30’s of government enforced sterilization so that the mentally handicapped couldn’t “breed”? Believe that was ALSO a Margaret Sanger Special, that one...;

Or perhaps they’ll get around to George Bernard Shaw’s (another wonderful, compassionate “liberal”) “final solution” of disposing of those “useless eaters and the non-productive....”

Or maybe they could finally get around to “the Christian Problem”, those of us who they’ve been demonizing for the better part of the last four decades in film, plays, media, etc...

Or how about orthodox/conservative Jews...

Or conservative Blacks...

Or Irishmen...

Or Mormons...

Or any other “group-du-jour” that happens to fall outside the liberal/socialist Utopian world/plans/goals...i.e., those of us who just want to be left alone to live out our natural lives - and are prepared to defend that choice. Ultimately, we’re ALL “enemies of the state” at one time or another when these people are in power.

How many people went to jail over the slaughter at Waco or Ruby Ridge?

Abortion is a mindset - if it’s OK to murder the completely helpless with the blessings of the State and the tacit compliance of the citizens, eventually it’ll be OK to murder ANYONE, with the full backing of the law and sanction of the State, just because the majority says so.

See “Germany, 1933-1945”.

See “Russia, 1917-1925, Ukrainian forced collectivization and famine”

China is a perfect example. It’s state policy to murder infant girls. And the people go along with it. I don’t think that they would even resist it if they COULD, after several generations of brainwashing/conditioning.

That’s the road that abortion WILL lead to, ultimately; and I do believe whole-heartedly that THAT’S where the socialists intended to take society all along - to be able to “purge” at will, with impunity.

So yeah, it matters. It matters a lot. Because it’s ultimately a matter of absolute life and death for all of us, on a real and personal level.

It is and always has been a battle between good and evil - between those who believe that every single human being has a God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and those who believe that hey, if it’s politically expedient to mass-slaughter millions of people in the name of some “greater common good”, then tally-ho and have at it, and the State will bless it.

This is THE battle of our lifetime, and we’re all engaged, whether we want to be or not. All of the issues mentioned are connected to this, and are born out of it. It’s about respect for another human’s right to exist. Without that, it’s barbarism.

In other words - “if we’re all to be targets, then we ALL must be warriors.”

God forgive us for letting it get to the point where it is now.


40 posted on 11/02/2010 9:47:19 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NFHale

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2619618/posts?page=60

Send to your address lists; expose this outrage!!!


41 posted on 11/02/2010 9:51:16 AM PDT by ExTexasRedhead (LET'S ROLL - DEFEAT THE ENEMIES OF FREEDOM TODAY.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: circlecity
Were you around here when the Texas law against sodomy was struck down? Ever see the “contraception is evil” threads around here?

But really the issue is abortion. Not exactly “in peoples bedrooms” but close enough. A lot of fiscally conservative independents are locked into voting for Democrats because of abortion.

42 posted on 11/02/2010 10:04:38 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ExTexasRedhead

Please send this info to your address list.

FYI to everyone - Reporting Voter Fraud

The Republican Party has set up a National Hotline, which will be staffed with Attorneys to handle polling issues as well as possible voter fraud or intimidation.

1 - 888 - 775 - 8117. IF you even SUSPECT this is happening, PLEASE call for their free advice. DOCUMENT AND FILM EVERYTHING.

http://www.resistnet.com/

You might want to make a new thread so everyone can see this.


43 posted on 11/02/2010 10:25:00 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NFHale; csmusaret; ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas; stephenjohnbanker; DoughtyOne; dools0007world; ...
RE :”The defining “social issue” is not what people do in their bedrooms; it is abortion. There is a huge divide between people who think a fetus is a choice and those who think it is a baby”.....”In other words - “if we’re all to be targets, then we ALL must be warriors.”God forgive us for letting it get to the point where it is now.

I still think that Abortion probation/regulation like many other issues including murder, belongs with the states. Every-time ‘conservatives’ try to counter liberals by demanding another expansion of federal government power (meaning when a Republican is president) it is another precedent, like another jail cell bar to cage us in when the liberal takes power and decides we have to buy Obama-care, or what-ever. Same for the federal government telling private businesses who get no federal money who they must have as customers or who they must hire. It always comes back, like the Ring in 'Lord of the Rings'. Remember how everyone thought that they would be different and use the Ring power for good?

44 posted on 11/02/2010 10:38:52 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
outta da park FRiend...

except you forgot 'homos and gypsies'...adolf isnt pleased with ya there...

45 posted on 11/02/2010 10:47:13 AM PDT by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; ...
Thanks The Pack Knight.
[Michelle Caruso-Cabrera] What Americans want is a government that stays out of their pocketbooks and out of their private lives... Evidence of voters' desires lies in the huge swing we are seeing in the so-called independents. They are leaning heavily Republican in every poll. Pundits and political observers use the word independents frequently, but rarely do they define it. Now would be a good time. I believe independents are fiscally-conservative, yet socially-liberal. How do I know? I'm one of them. I don't want to be taxed to death, and I don't want to tell other people how to live their lives.
How does she know? She looks in the mirror and thinks she sees everyone else as well as herself. When she says socially-liberal, she means pro-quotas, pro-abortion, cut defense spending, kowtow to Islamofascists and world gov't a-holes.


46 posted on 11/02/2010 7:27:04 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

Thanks bro.

RE Adolf:
F*** him. My old man kicked his SS Ubermensch soldaten arsches all over Europe.

Heeheehee


47 posted on 11/03/2010 9:31:25 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“..Remember how everyone thought that they would be different and use the Ring power for good?...”

Yes, I do - but I also remember Burke - “evil men triumph when good men do nothing...”

If we don’t find a way to stop the slaughter when we are able, what good are we?

Agree about the States’ part - but that’s just a smaller version of government. But it still comes down to the extermination of the helpless under color of law - or not.

Perhaps teaching people to respect human life again would be a start...


48 posted on 11/03/2010 9:38:24 AM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: NFHale
RE :”Yes, I do - but I also remember Burke - “evil men triumph when good men do nothing...” If we don’t find a way to stop the slaughter when we are able, what good are we? Agree about the States’ part - but that’s just a smaller version of government. But it still comes down to the extermination of the helpless under color of law - or not.

I am talking about state's power versus federal power. Yes many Republicans believe the means (increased federal power to control us) justifies the ends (saving innocent unborn lives) versus the less powerful/effective method of having the state voters decide for their state.(as we did before Roe.)

But liberals easily extend that argument to their own ends and make it sell as: “The Federal government cannot allow people to remain sick if the states do” and becomes “The federal government cannot allow us to live unhealthy lives” if the states do allow us because that is life or death of important people(except the old and unborn naturally). And the same Republicans that argued for increased federal power above cry unconditional for this.

I am talking federal vs state power and the US constitution and Roe vs Wade. Sooner or later the other side wins and uses that power. Example: I always tell liberals that President Palin will put Dick Cheney in charge of the death panels and they are first on the list.

49 posted on 11/03/2010 11:54:41 AM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs

“..Example: I always tell liberals that President Palin will put Dick Cheney in charge of the death panels and they are first on the list...”

I just spit coffee all over my screen...HAHAH!!

My friend, that is the quote of the week...!!!


50 posted on 11/03/2010 1:07:02 PM PDT by NFHale (The Second Amendment - By Any Means Necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson