Posted on 11/15/2010 3:06:08 PM PST by 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.
I prefer calm. I’m old and tired. ;-)
That explains a lot, but it's nothing to brag about.
They have left the building. At their own request.
I guess learning to swear in 3rd grade preempted learning.
2010 - 15 is 1995, two years before JR's sign up date.
And your sign up date is was 4/11/2001, which then would make you a retread.
But since your account has apparently been nuked completely as I get a "The requested document does not exist on this server. ", a lightning image doesn't cut it. It's more like this....
Sure you can. Ever hear of laws that legislate murder, rape, theft, lying, vandalism, destruction of personal property, .....?
That's what laws do. The question is WHO'S morality is going to be legislated? The liberals with it's pro-death agenda, or the Judeo-Christian one that is pro-life.
Noob, you are on thin ice.
I guess I wasn’t clear. I am in no way saying get rid of all moral laws.
But the purpose of the laws you site is to define the punishment allowed. A law cannot be passed to end any activity. The law does not in the strictest sense ban say murder or prostitution it just lays out what the penalties are for breaking the law. If the penalties are not severe enough plus the chance of getting caught are too low you will not reduce the problem you are trying to solve.
Morality in my mind’s eye is doing the right thing when no one is watching. If a person is a real racist no law will change that. If a robber feels that he needs a gun he will get one no matter the law. That doesn’t mean not have laws it means we have more work to do.
To change morality you do it by teaching that these things are wrong. Having kids to get more government welfare is legal but wrong. Lying to get disability is both illegal and wrong but it doesn’t stop it. If in both those cases those people were shunned by society it would be more effective than tougher laws.
The liberals have been teaching for years these things are alright. Your just giving it to the “man”. No one is hurt. It becomes accepted by society that is what has to change.
I am getting too heavy even for me so I’ll end by saying no law will change thinking.
Good grief. What is it with these trolls that they need to make martyrs of themselves?
They could just log off and never post again. It’s not rocket science, although it might be more mental capability than someone with a third grade education could figure out.
You’re right about that.
Laws can influence behavior in SOME people, but the best they do is establish penalties for breaking them and give the government teeth for when it needs it.
Moral people will make a moral society, but the government doesn’t need to hasten the decline by allowing immoral behavior to go unaddressed or unpunished, or to legalize it, as in abortion.
With a potty mouth like that, I doubt they succeeded.
You sound just like the Whigs on slavery.
You can sing "Kumbaya" or shut your eyes or do whatever else it is that the libertarian utopianists have told you will work, but the FACT is that a baby is being murdered EVERY 24 SECONDS in the United States. I am no longer interested in any solution that is conditioned on the hope that people change minds.
;-)
“You can’t legislate morality. The liberals try to all the time and how does that work for them?”
Wrong. The liberals have never legislated “morality”... they have consistently legislated amorality at best and immorality at worst. That is why their system fails.
“Affirmative action quotas” are immoral because they hold one individual better than another under the pretense of helping that person they claim to be disadvantaged. The result is that both are wronged.
“Anti-gun laws” have less to do with morality per se, save in denying the individual the right to self-defense; but more to do with control and enslavement.
“School bussing” is another perfect example of an immoral act enforced by the federal power: a coercion that violates freedom of association under the pretense of equality, which is not equality at all but is radical egalitarianism, a Marxist principle.
“Anti- bullying legislation” You mean Hate Crimes legislation? That purposely vague dictum of political correctness, designed to protect and thus promote one particular behavior: sodomy. In a shining example of federal “morality” in action, the government misuses its powers, so to censor or punish a majority of citizens, and pursue by coercion the agenda of a rebellious reprobate minority. “Anti bullying laws” exemplify the federal government’s violation of freedom of religious expression, freedom of thought, and freedom of dissent. These PC “laws” violate free will by forcing the suppression of the individual’s moral beliefs and conscience. How peculiar this suppression always fixes its cross-hairs on the Judeo-Christian ethos. Thus the federal government IS establishing a religion: Anything but Christianity, or atheism
“Has racism stopped?”
For the most part Americans are not racist, but not on account of any promulgation by the federal government, but rather in spite of its constant medling. In fact, the federal government does more to promote racism than any state institution had ever sanctioned, and certainly more than any individual was ever guilty of.
“Are gun crimes down?”
Yes; for reason of the reversal of several odious gun-control laws. Gun crimes only increase where gun control laws are prevalent. Where Second Amendment freedom is unrestrained and practiced, very little gun crime occurs— an armed society is a polite society.
“Do black children learn better?”
Not as long as the federal government violates the moral right of parents to choose which school their children will attend.
“The only one that works is political correctness. Why? It is taught, the person who steps out of line gets punished for not being politically correct.”
Why am I not surprised you are a fan of PC?
“Do you think the Tea Party can do a better job than the liberals on the legislative front?”
That depends on whether they legislate, or vote for legislators, with moral principles. Christian morality works every time it is PUT INTO PRACTICE. Or have you forgotten that the Ten Commandments serve as the foundation for all our laws, at least those which are most affective in preserving a just society.
“We must pick our battles and teach morality, not try to pass laws.”
The US Supreme Court in 1973 legalized the murder of innocent unborn children, claiming they were not persons. The same federal institution stated black people were not persons (Dread Scott decision).
Teach morality? Where? In the home, while parents are threatened with losing their children if they practice any degree of discipline? Worse, the present Administration is pursuing ratification of the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, which fundamentally alters the parental relationship in favor of granting children broad autonomy. If that is not the direct enabling of immorality on a gross scale then I do not know what qualifies.
The federal government, as a matter of law via the Department of Education and the control it exercises over the States via federal funding and Teachers Unions, holds our children captive in their indoctrination centers (public “schools”) for most of their young and impressionable lives, where that same federal government has disallowed any semblance of prayer and any teaching of transcendent absolutes, while they simultaneously mandate the teaching of the Marxist-inspired theory of evolution and the Marxist-inspired moral relativism—particularly the sexual brand as established by SECUS. Research SECUS and Alfred Kinsey if you want a real education as to what the schools are required to teach your children:
http://www.cwfa.org/images/content/kinsey-women_11_03.pdf
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2005/08/sordid_science_4.html
“...don’t compromise our core beliefs,”
I have not, and will not; whereas you have shown the willingness to do just that.
“The founding fathers didn’t insist you believe in the Christian ethic but they wanted everyone to know that is how they will run this country.”
Hmmm, “how they will run this country” … but they did not have that mindset when they wrote the map for such plan — the Constitution. Too bad the present government never studied the map.
Imho, part of the problem is that it appears that there are posters who are confusing thought and action. Laws address actions, not thoughts or beliefs.
There also seems to be confusion over the purpose of laws. A law cannot prevent murder, for example, and the fact that it does not completely eradicate crime is not evidence that it is inappropriate or ineffective.
If you think that outlawing it will stop it then you are dreaming. It should be taught it is morally better to keep the baby alive and and have it adopted then aborted. Slavery, through constant repeating was though of as morally wrong in the North before the Civil War not after.Passing laws changed no ones mind. I am against abortion but if we can reduce the federal government and make it a states right it will make the fight one we can win. To win this fight we need more than 50% of the people behind us. Not everyone is as passionate about it as you are. Are you willing to give up over one issue? Because if you do then they have won. You will never see abortion outlawed and will see euthanasia.
I for one will fight to gain ground against what I see as a bigger problem than one issue. I see many issues that need to be changed and every step towards that goal is one more forward.
When a majority of pepole see that conservatisim is the right way we can tackle issues that the liberals have forced on us.
****************************
Why would those remedies be mutually exclusive? Why can't there be a law against abortion, while at the same time community/societal support for adoption?
And? Murder is "outlawed". Robbery is "outlawed". They still happen but there are consequences.
The reason abortion isn't illegal is because it's lucrative. Not because so many people support it.
The same with homosexual "marriage'. People are against it. One man, one woman laws have passed in every state where it's been on the ballot, 38 states.
If you believe otherwise you are buying the left's spin.
I think they would love us to push religious issues over Obamacare and the fiscal ones.
Like I said, I have no idea where the so called authority to make that letter in the name of the Tea Party came from. Everyone has free will. I do think we don't allow attacks on Christianity or allow Muslims their own courts either.
We want to place judges, get rid of Obamacare and get fiscal sanity going again? Then this is a multi-part deal We need more conservatives/Republicans elected in 2012 when another third of the Senate is up.
We need a super majority and a Republican President in 2012.
We need to put out the fires. Then we can go after this or that kind of issue which could send support all over the place.
Do you doubt what I said by the way regarding Democrats loving us to do things that would peel votes away to them?
Don't, we should push conservatism at this time. We are obviously not a theocracy that I know of (though I'd love to hear less liberal cr@p out of church leaders). :-)
I believe that I understand your concern, however, I wonder if you are aware of the recent election that we had here in Massachusetts?
Republicans Baker and Tisei challenged incumbent Governor Patrick and lost. Baker supported homosexual “rights”, as did Tisei, an openly homosexual candidate. Deval was reelected.
That may or may not strike you as relevant, but it says to me that conservatives will not vote for candidates that are not much different from their opponents. Imho, we make a grave error by believing that our candidates must be “moderate” to win.
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.