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

To: hocndoc; EternalVigilance; GailA; Tennessee Nana; Mountain Mary; wagglebee; little jeremiah; ...
Dr. Willke is no political genius. Nor is he possessed of a reputation for character judgment. He was the long-time head of National Right to Life Committee which gets virtually nothing done other than fundraising but provides swell salaries and perks to its employees.

When Dr. Willke ostensibly ran the NRTLC show, he came to Connecticut to support a package of state legislation jointly endorsed by Planned Barrenhood AND NRTLC's local affiliate, the "Pro-Life" Council of Connecticut run by a semibraindead former Democrat State Senator Regina Smith who doubled as Pro-Life Director of the Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford. The legislative package was pure sucker bait produced by Planned Barrenhood (Can't we all just get along and kill the maximum number of babies?). It repealed each and every pro-life statute (some enacted in the 1860s and others as recently as 1972 or so).

The statutes had not been enforced because of post-Roe vs. Wade fedcourt injunctions but, in the event of Roe vs. Wade being overturned there was a clear path to restoration (virtually automatic) and enforcement. In exchange Planned Barrenhood allowed vague nonsense like counseling by the abortionist's staff. As a result of this fiasco, Smith was fired as $60,000 per year "Pro-life" Director of the Archdiocese by an enraged Archbishop John F. Whealon (who in about 20 years as Archbishop fired practically no one despite many provocations). Regina Smith was also a National Vice President of NRTLC under Willke.

I had a chance to discuss this matter personally with Dr. Willke a year or two later when he came to Connecticut to address a national conference of University Faculty for Life. Out of respect for his previous accomplishments, I did not question him in public but at his car in the parking lot. I asked him how he could have supported such a legislative package when he had left Connecticut after doing so to go directly to another state (Wisconsin?) to support a legislative package there that was 180 degrees opposite of the shameful Connecticut legislation. Dr. Willke admitted that it was one of his worst mistakes and that he had relied on Regina Smith.

NRTLC, then and now opposes such efforts as Operation Rescue and similar exercises of pro-life activism that actually save the lives of innocent babies (according to even Planned Barrenhood's own Alan Guttmacher Institute which admits that 30% of babies scheduled to die at abortion mills on the day of a Rescue are not thereafter aborted. It was the privilege of the Operation Rescue types to be jailed, however briefly, to save those babies' lives. Meanwhile NRTLC's middle class respectability was more important to NRTLC than the babies' lives.

Dr. Willke is not an evil man. He has done yeoman work patiently explaining the facts of pregnancy and the humanity of the unborn for many decades. My impression of him was that he is a good guy. However, that makes me sad that he gets involved with political judgments as to which he is in WAY over his head. On top of everything else he imagines that George Herbert Walker Bush (Bush the Elder) was genuinely converted to pro-life. The fact is that his surrender on the issue was a condition of his nomination for VPOTUS imposed by Ronaldus Maximus. Bush the Elder's mother Dorothy Bush was for many decades on the national board of directors of Planned Barrenhood (serving along side of Peggy (Mrs. Barry) Goldwater. Barbara Bush is no better. George W. Bush (Bush the Younger) is, unlike his forebears a genuine Christian because Christianity was responsible for him abandoning addictions to alcohol and recreational drugs. He also appointed John Roberts as Chief Justice and Sam Alito as Associate Justice of SCOTUS.

I know nothing of Dr. Hurlburt but it sounds as though he should stick to the classroom or the laboratory and leave politics (and amateur psychiatry) to those who are competent in such fields.

There is absolutely NOTHING in Myth Romney's track record to suggest that he is other than a ranting, raving pro-abort monster like both of his parents. He enacted Romneycare in 2006 AFTER claiming to have been converted to pro-life in November, 2004. Romneycare required all employers, including pro-life churches, to pay for abortions ($50 co-pay) no matter how complicated, abortifacient IUDs, abortifacient "morning after" abortion pills, and probably abortifacient regular birth control pills (when my wife was propaganda mistress of a major pharmaceutical company, the scientific reports landed on her desk).

Many people here despise Obozio and that is justifiable and quite understandable. What is neither understandable nor justifiable is blind acceptance of uber pro-abort Myth Romney as somehow a pro-lifer. We are not called by God to be gullible idiots believing what we want to believe in spite of all the evidence. We REALLY want a pro-life POTUS major party candidate. Well, face it folks. We don't have one no matter what lies Myth babbles this year. The only difference between Myth and Obozo on life issues is that Obozo would like to move "forward" to an acceptance of killing them after they are born.

For people who are serious about morality, this year's major party candidates present us with a choice of Caligulas, Neros, Diocletians.

Our Christian predecessors suffered death in the arena (by lions, tigers, bears, gladiators) or by being exposed naked on ice-covered lakes or by being crucified like Peter or being burned as torches wrapped in pitch to illuminate Nero's garden parties. Dare I suggest that we, as pro-lifers, withhold our votes from Obozo AND from Myth Romney?

I won't worship any bloodthirsty Caesar (and both Obozo and Romney are quite bloodthirsty). Will you?

59 posted on 06/20/2012 9:03:38 PM PDT by BlackElk (Viva Cristo Rey! Tom Hoefling for POTUS! Viva Cristo Rey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: BlackElk
Dare I suggest that we, as pro-lifers, withhold our votes from Obozo AND from Myth Romney?

Yes, you may, and I will support you in that, given that both Obama and Romney subscribe to the doctrine of murder of the unborn.

For the life of me, I can't comprehend how any so-called conservative can throw away their sacred principles to vote for either of these men. Romney doesn't deserve our support, because he's in foursquare agreement with nearly every plank of leftist ideology - as evidenced by his entire record in politics.

If there is such a thing as sin, then one definition is giving ones support to a person who has violated everything that one has recognized as abominable and destructive to life and goodness. Mitt Romney has done these very things throughout his political career.

How can this possibly be reconciled through logic or reason? I posit that there's no way that it can. Not in any universe, or earthly plain. You either believe in something, or you don't. It's that simple.

63 posted on 06/20/2012 10:18:36 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

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