Posted on 11/14/2010 3:38:40 PM PST by kristinn
Actually, you make a very good point.
Define what “secure those Rights and morals” means?
If Rights and Morals already exist, which our founder’s acknowledged these existed without government...
“that to secure those rights ...governments are instituted amongst men.”
So it's all about money? The golden calf...
PS...
So, if we are missing the Godly morality we have no ability to secure our Rights.
The left has been very clever. They understood this and many on the Right still have not figured it out.
How did they remove our Rights?
They removed the One thing that gave us those Rights. God.
Government doesn’t secure God.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution is designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for any other."-- John Adams
Which in no way obviates the sworn duty of every officer of government, in every branch and at every level, to protect the unalienable rights to life, liberty and private property of the people.
It's not "either/or." It must be "all of the above" to work properly.
My view is that this election was nothing more than a gigantor STOP IT! sign to anything done by the Democrat owned Congress and Obama agenda, whether it be social, economical, shrinking back the government, reinforcing our military and US sucurity, or what have you. That includes protecting the sanctity of life, so push it.
But the primary motive is to save the country from financial collapse. If we go down, the world goes with us, and we won’t be so worried about social issues. But don’t mistake this for a free ride on social issues. Push it.
There is a big difference between “avoid” social issues and “emphasize” social issues. I agree that this Congress needs to emphasize cutting spending and thus, should not emphasize social issues. However, that doesn’t mean go liberal on social issues. You don’t need to vote in amnesty, gun control, gay marriage and approve Lib judges in order to cut spending.
What you hope to do is save a morally bankrupt nation with fiscal conservatism---this is what Libertarianism (properly libertine-ism) seeks to do---but it can't be done. You seek to ignore the truth that NO economic system survives decadence.
The people of Boston, had sodomites been parading in their streets, would have addressed both issues simultaneously. They would have kept their spiritual and moral house in order as well as their fiscal house. The same writers of that day who quill-whipped King George, would have been taking aim at sin in their society, as well. They would have been in agreement with the Christian pastors of Boston and Massachusetts.
Further, the people involved in the Boston Tea Party would have, much more likely than not, been faithfully in their Christian churches on Sundays and whenever the church doors were open for meetings, because their convictions, both about fiscal management and social moral well-being came from the Bible, the Christian Scriptures. They were in their generation a devout Christian people of fundamentalist Bible stock.
Those people had much deeper convictions about what was right and wrong in life as a whole; they didn't worship money or an economic system.
That is a sure way to lose.
Here is an excellent you tube video on different forms of government.
It’s about 10 mins long but well worth watching. It made it a lot clearer to me.
Different forms of government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
Yep. And we are so VERY good at that.
As for gay rights, Gays aren't asking for "equal" Rights any more. Like every other special interest group, they want extra-privileges. I'm sorry, but you can't be FOR limited government and still want that same government to give you something more than anyone else gets.
As for abortion, if it is human... Killing it is murder. End of story.
All of that being said, Nanny Staters do need to be careful. They start labeling every act they don't approve of as "vice" or "sin", without fixing the rest of government first... We'll lose the general public. You don't ride in on a "pro-freedom" horse and start restricting freedom on your first go around.
Get our economic house in order, cut the abusive regulations stifling our economic freedoms, axe all of the Federal agencies that don't line up with Art 1 Sect 8, enforce the Bill of Rights...
Then we can worry about everything else. We don't fix the big problems first, the social agenda isn't going to matter.
Do that and the GOP will loose 2012
Politico = homo dating rag for the political staffers of DC.
what tea party?
not how the log cabin (old name) and goproud (new name) are both the same group but one is fightng DADT in the courts and the other name is trying to divide the conservative as a nuance.
conservative is conservative
homosexual behavior is too expensive for government subsidies from the taxpayers.
We will not stand for anymore of the normal Washington “ rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”.
Well! Who knew Sunday nights at FR could be so volatile?
Thanks for the pings you guys. I’ve spent a few moments browsing this thread and the vanity Jim Rob posted.
And I’ll spend even more time later looking at the posts where liberals have been zotted.
This is very encouraging. It looks like the moral and socially conservative side of Free Republic has made significant progress.
I, for one, will bookmark Jim’s words here and happily cut/paste for the benefit of liberal FReepers attempting to espouse their gay tolerant messages.
BS. That is not an answer to the question. Just because the pro-life issue was not as prominent as in previous election cycles does not mean the overwhelming majority of candidates having Tea Party backing weren't pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-God. Look it up.
>>No mention of abortion or gay issues.
Yeah, no mention on CNBC of the underlying DEMORALIZATION of society that was RESPONSIBLE for the poor character required to perpetrate FRAUD on a massive scale, either.
CNBC? LOL. Riiggght. Only a libertard TWIT would rely upon CNBC to define what the Tea Party was about.
So no sale, TWIT.
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.