TEA Party Groups Playing With Fire (Vanity)

TCH | November 15, 2010 | TCH

[TCH]

Idiocy has its claws in the TEA Party movement!

I am a founding member of the TEA Party Patriots of SW Nebraska. I sure as hell do not approve of the recently released letter demanding that Republicans jettison "social issues!" Our group was never informed and had no input!

Ditch "social issues," that we may better focus on the economic issues? Is that so? I believe it is time for a TEA Party reality check.

You cannot promote prosperity at the expense of morality. One requires the other. God is not mocked. The Constitution may be document of incredible insight, but it is not supreme over God’s Law. Freedom requires responsible behavior... Abortion and sodomy do not qualify, and ignoring the consequences of both will result in our downfall.

Everything that affects society is a "social issue," but we are allowing ourselves to be deceived by the utopian nonsense that is Libertarianism. We do so at our peril. These individuals use the term "Social issues." WRONG! We are arguing moral and ethical issues. So what these individuals are actually stating is they want a government bereft of ethics and morality. GIVE US BREAD AND CIRCUSES!

From the beginning I stated my group is not going to be hijacked by Libertarians, and for good reason: Only fools jettison morality and ethics from government. Libertarians claim to “restore” the Constitution, while they march lock-step with the tenets of the Communist Manifesto. Libertarianism is nothing less than veiled Utopianism—a deadly poison to any ordered society, because its precepts mock God’s Law. While the Libertarian advocates the Constitution, he simultaneously disconnects its FIRST CAUSE, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: All men are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with an inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE and LIBERTY. There we have the crux of the issue. Those who established our government did so with the understanding that we are “created beings,” owing our life and liberty to a Creator, and therefore our first allegiance resulting from those created gifts must belong to the higher power. That fact explicitly requires a recognition of and obedience to transcendent moral laws established by that same Creator. However, according to the submitted “letter” endorsed by our State TEA Party leader, we should now acquiesce not to the Creator, but to men who are double-minded and thus unstable in all their ways! Thinking themselves wise they became as fools!

Notice the top signatory to this letter of “demands:” GOProud ... PROUD homosexuals of the GOP! Nice company we keep for the sake of "filthy lucre." Sacrificing moral principles under the pretense of "fiscal conservatism" will not save this country... I doubt any man of sound reason would believe in such nonsense. Abortion and homosexuality cost money: increased healthcare costs, increased insurance premiums, lost tax base, etc.

If a man fails to understand the most basic right, life, then why should we trust him with power? Such a man will give his assent to anything. What this “letter” actually states is that we want our liberty, but we do not want to pay for the consequences of its abuse! That is not liberty, it is licentiousness.

Perhaps the signatories to this "compact" do not grasp the concept that “social” issues COST THE TAXPAYER MONEY! Who pays for abortion? How many abortions are covered by insurance or government welfare? How many more may we expect via Obamacare? Consider the loss of national productivity that must be attributed to the increase in abortions--We are barely maintaining replacement population (mostly through illegal immigration); so what happens when all the baby boomers retire, and America’s workforce (ages 17-60) is reduced to a mere 14 percent of the population? Thank you to all those who demand we not consider abortion a front and center issue! They are contributing to the destruction of our culture and the downfall of our country! Oh, but wait.... they will decrease the size of government in the process! Blind fools!

Now let us turn the focus on the costs of homosexual perversion. Yes, there is a defined “normalcy” in sexuality... homosexual acts do not fall within that scope. All sexual perversion causes disease, but the homosexual variety produces a plethora of fatal infections, and not just those associated with AIDS. A great many more “nasty things” inhabit the bodies of homosexuals and lesbians as a direct result of their perverted sexual practices. If we ignore “social issues, ” then how will the unobstructed rise of these diseases impact medical care and insurance costs for those who live within the bounds of normal sexual behavior--particularly with the advent of socialized medicine--and the insistence that “pre-existing conditions” not be excluded from coverage or considered a dis-qualifier?

Libertarianism is like the Siren who attempts to convince the sailor there are no jagged rocks beneath those calm waters... A nation cannot separate social from fiscal issues... one entails the other. You cannot separate morality from government... one requires the other. Amoral or immoral men cannot govern themselves:

In 'A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,' 1791, Edmund Burke wrote: “What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.”

Edmund Burke continued: “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Libertarians argue a "non-interference" perspective; but their rationale is a straw man argument. The issue is not about those who have an inclination to same-sex attraction. However unfortunate for them, it is a personal struggle, through which they must affect a strong combat for reasons of physiological, psychological and sociological necessity.

The issue is the propagation of an intrinsically destructive doctrine that opposes life and the common good. Even if we put aside the moral imperative—which act would constitute the greatest of errors, since the moral code is a product of sound reason and marks the boundaries of that singularly most quoted imperative “love thy neighbor”—it will still be proven that anything directed against its own natural purpose is contrary to right reason.

The two sexes are specifically designed so their physiological, biological and psychological aspects are mutually beneficial. Male and female complement one another, in all regards, to the natural end that their anatomy was specifically designed to affect: procreation of the species. This natural end logically supposes an intended purpose consistent with intelligent design.

Homosexual behavior is absolute in its destruction of that purpose. Understanding that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” it is reasonable to state that Nature does not work against itself. By logical extension, and since all things must have a first cause, then neither would an intelligent supreme being create an natural order having as a component of its initial design a species directed to its own demise.

Reason and logic dictate that whenever any object is directed against its own natural purpose, then that object is intrinsically disordered. Since the design of male and female reproductive anatomy gives irrefutable evidence to its intended purpose, it is an attack on reason to presume that biology would be so rebellious of its own preservation as to willingly submit to an ends contrary to that which affords its greatest chance of success.

Homosexual behavior acts in direct opposition to the propagation of life, both directly in its physical acts, and psychologically by subverting the natural order of creation. It is anti-life, just as much as is abortion. Being unable to sustain itself through procreation, it may increase its numbers only by seduction--a point that the doctrine of libertarian thought purposely ignores, and which has a direct impact on society at every measurable level.

The argument that same-sex attraction is a product of genetic accident is easily refuted; for if such a gene were existent for any period of time, it would soon by its own actions render itself extinct, as do most unnatural mutations. Thus it is clear that the homosexual inclination is a product of external environmental stimulus and internal psychological impediments (intrinsically disordered desire). This distinction is important for reason that the state-enforced tolerance of intrinsically disordered behaviors (perversions) aligns perfectly with the anti-life philosophy that has imposed a literal death grip upon our culture. The rationale supporting this statement is the summation of those disorders, while still generally opposed, continue to advance, continue to realize great reinforcement through subversive indoctrination of the young, and thus continue to undermine true liberty with an emboldened narcissistic flattery that pretends itself tolerance.

Thus the libertarian argument of “non-interference” where willing parties engage in private acts not harmful to a non-interested party is a patently absurd and false doctrine. Such philosophy entails the shackling of human society in a suicide pact that is contrary to the development of a resilient culture, is destructive of a sustainable and prosperous economy, and exists in direct opposition to right reason and the moral imperatives derived through the Natural Law.

Ask the signers of this piece of libertarian trash if they are willing to sell their soul for 30 pieces of silver. If they are inclined to betray the common good, for the sake of "limited government and reduced taxes," then let them do so of their own accord; they do not speak for me, and I doubt they speak for most of the THINKING individuals within the TEA Party movement, whom understand the negative consequences connected with duplicity of mind on ethical and moral issues. I do not make deals with the Devil, and neither should the TEA Party do so in my name.

[ChinaThreat]

Accusing me of being a Marxist is not only offensive, but just exposes your mental capacity. You are obviously a man without honor. Or you let the fact you are at a keyboard cloud your judgement. Either way, you have lost my respect and my ear.

[LomanBill]

>>Economic collapse predates

yada yada yada,

How many United States Central banks imploded before the FED existed?

And why did America survive those economic crisis? It wasn't because of "Fiscally Conservative" Useful Idiots - it was because the American SOCIAL framework, namely the Judeo-Christian tradition.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."
---from President George Washington's Farewell Address, 1796

>>I am a Constitutionalist.

LOL, whatever Rambo.

 

Regardless you're still a Rainbow Pirate in an cup of Earl Gray who is facilitating the confusion of Liberty with Fatal Liberality; in this instance by trying to unexest what Social Conservative Tea Party attendees saw, heard, and perceived with our own eyes, ears, and FREE MINDS.

 

So once again -  NO SALE!

 

[ChinaThreat]

Sorry, that was directed at Mr Bill. My apologies.

[ChinaThreat]

Please see 121.

[DJ MacWoW]

Accusing me of being a Marxist

You better have a post number and quote.

You are obviously a man without honor.

You need to stop right there and prove your "marxist" allegation that you made. You won't find it. I never said such.

You owe me an apology.

[ChinaThreat]

You already had it. See above.

[DJ MacWoW]

I honestly don't see where Bill called you a marxist. He said that we have all been brainwashed, some more than others. And that is entirely true. We are lied to daily by the press. We've been lied to about our own history. We're given bogus polls and spoon fed fear. And then there is the PC crap we're fed.

Our Founders were fearless. We need to be also.

[FreedomPoster]

>>Social issues should be properly returned to states rights issues, not national issues.

Bingo. That’s the real issue right there.

[milwguy]

I have been posting here since 2004 and the increasing intolerance of the ‘social conservatives’ has really increased.

We are fighting an evil based of religion in the form of Islam, and the religious right is starting to adopt many of the same ‘my way of the highway’ attitudes as the militant Jihadi’s. Ben Franklin was one of the founders of our country and he was a deist...........................
Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the tenets of Deism, rejecting a state church, religious fanaticism, intolerance, and the intervention of God in human affairs. ....

Our current crop of ‘experts’ on the founding of our great country would be wise to realize they do not have a monopoly on how the founders thought our country should be structured as relates to the influence of Christianity or any other organized religion on our personal affairs.

[milwguy]

Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the tenets of Deism, rejecting a state church, religious fanaticism, intolerance, and the intervention of God in human affairs

Ben Franklin was a deist. He was one of the founders of our country. He realized injecting you idea of God’s commands onto the lives of others was not the role of gov’t. You would be wise to remember that.

[LomanBill]

>>You already had it. See above.

I don’t see where I called ChinaThreat a Marxist either.

Rambo, Useful Idiot, and Rainbow Pirate yes - Marxist no.

How bout a link to the Marxist quote?

[ChinaThreat]

He was making references to Orwell’s Animal Farm. He thinks he is clever. I think he is funny.

[DJ MacWoW]

I met Bill on here just a few months ago for the first time. Man! It was WAR! We HATED each other. *ahem* Then we found out just how badly people can miscommunicate on the internet. Discovered that we really DID agree. It was weird though. And angry. Very angry. lol

[JDoutrider]

Well said...

[Responsibility2nd]

You would be wise to remember that.

__________________________________________________

Thanks for the advice. And while I’m remembering that, let me also remember what else our Founding Fathers said.....

John Adams and John Hancock:
We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]

John Adams:
“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress

“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 was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” —October 11, 1798

“I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen.” December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

“Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell.” [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

Benjamin Franklin:
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?” [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin’s 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.”

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone.”

Thomas Jefferson:
“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”

“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”

“I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.”

James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our heart.”

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

George Washington:

Farewell Address: The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion” ...and later: “...reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle...”

“ It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

“What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.” [speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs May 12, 1779]

“To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian” [May 2, 1778, at Valley Forge]

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

I could go on and on and on and on....

But say again? What were you saying about the Founding Fathers rejecting the intervention of God in human affairs?

[DJ MacWoW]

Ben Franklin was a deist.

Deists ask for prayer? Really? Ole Ben did at the Constitutional Congress.

And imagine! A deist wanting the FedGov seal to be the parting of the Red Sea!

Proposed Seal for the United States LOC

On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task.

[LomanBill]

Diest Schmeist.

"I KNOW BUT ONE CODE OF MORALITY FOR MEN WHETHER ACTING SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY"
--
Thomas Jefferson

You don't have to be a religionist to recognize the self-evident truth that sociobiological fitness declines for EVERY society that normalizes the abomination of nature.

Fitness is a measure of reproductively viable offspring over multiple generations.

It's pretty simple - sans surrogacy or the perversion of medial science ala post-modern equivalents of the ancient turkey baster, like "sperm" from female stem cells - a homosexual couple has a reproductive fitness of ZERO.

ZERO viable offspring over multiple generations ain't much of a way to maintain an economic base, now is it?

 

And the "Fiscally Conservate" transhumanist/postgenderist  uber-menschen FAIL again.

[ChinaThreat]

I’m not angry, a little amused frankly by his prose. But I’m not going to play bubble gum 2nd grade intellectual with him. As with JimRob earlier (who I am honored to have even been directly addressed by, even if I was being admonished), sometimes you reach a point of impasse. I think the difference between Bill and JimRob is that one was a gentlemen (JR), and one was not.

You do have a good point about telecommunications.

[TCH]

I am going to blow your argument out of the water...

I trust you are aware of the “Full Faith and Credit” clause in the Constitution? How do you propose that a State defend itself against the recognition required by that clause, when a licensed “homosexual marriage” is granted in one State, and the two perverts decide to make themselves residents in a State that does not allow such a “union”?

You cannot escape the conflict created by your libertarian viewpoint. Morality is about absolutes that transcend petty arguments of state sovereignty.

You wish to place the Constitution in an amoral box, not understanding that it was designed to govern a moral people. What you fail to grasp is that at the time of the Constitution’s writing, none of the drafters would have imagined a circumstance where same-sex ‘marriage’ could ever be at issue, because they were men of moral conviction, as were most of their contemporaries.

Homosexual perversion is nothing new, but you refuse to deal with the absurdities presented by its amplification in our amoral-immoral culture; so rather than defend the common good and the truth, you choose to ignore their unrelenting voice, making States’ rights the issue. Burying your head in the sand will only guarantee the problem increases in scope and severity. I would rather fight on the side of right and risk all in this world, than be comfortable with the goats and loose all in the next.

[DJ MacWoW]

I’m not angry, a little amused frankly by his prose.

Oh man! We argued for at least 3 pages on a thread. It got wild.

You do have a good point about telecommunications.

One has to be so careful on line. You can't see expressions or body attitudes......it makes it hard to communicate with only words that can so easily be misunderstood.