TEA Party Groups Playing With Fire (Vanity)

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.

Wagglebee,

It’s fascinating to me, an atheist, to see these people who post about theocracy because so many conservatives are religious believers.

The poster who pouted about this (I believe you said he’s gone) was stunningly ignorant on even the meaning of separation of church vs. state. (I’m not interested in discussing the broader issue, just want to focus on this most common dead horse of the left.)

These folks seem to have a problem with the SOURCE of people’s feelings about abortion and such. Just because religious belief is the source of one’s morality has ZERO to do with church and state. Believers also say murder is wrong and should be punished by the state—by this logic, murder should be legal, because people are against it because their religion says so.

The point—and these folks can’t seem to get this, because the truth is they are hiding their anti-Christian bigotry behind the screen of “separation of church and state”—is whether one can justify the enforcement of a belief within a Constitutional framework. It does’t matter if God, or Moses, or Jesus, or Ben Franklin, or Abe Lincoln, or Reagan, or my aunt, or my dad or WHO inspired the belief for or against abortion, for example—what matters is how defensible that belief is Constitutionally. THAT’S ALL that matters.

But some folks see belief coming from belief in Christ, and “Theocracy!!!!”

It’s the kind of thing that makes me laugh at the liberals/atheists I encounter all the time here in Boston. They hate Christianity, and that’s all that’s needed for others to think they are somehow enlightened and must have a background in “logic” and facts. They don’t, but no one cares; as long as they hate the proper enemies, it’s assumed they’re smart.

George Washington was NOT a practicing “Christian” ... yet he was a moral man.

Many will be surprised to learn that Washington was a “stocic.” His morality was based in the practice of Freemasonry and Roman philosophy. The morality that Washington espoused was such to the extent that governs a practical man, which Washington always claimed himself to be.

Washington had little use for close freindships, other than what utility required. Now Washington did speak of Christianty, and Christ... BUT only in the philosophical sense as was his pragmatic nature to do.

http://www.fathom.com/course/10701018/session4.html

http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/B_007_WashingtonCatholic.html

The point is that “morality” is not always rooted in Christianity, it may find its spark in other sources. However, it is always the better course in governance. Washington knew this and practiced virtue, if but not for the nation’s than for his own reputation’s sake.

I think they would love us to push religious issues over Obamacare and the fiscal ones.

Abortion, Gay Rights, DADT.... are RELIGIOUS issues?

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.

Correct. And No immoral RINO's like McCain or Newt will get us there. We need the moral stability of a Palin or a Huckabee.

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.

It was the lack of moral clarity that put our country down the tubes. Only if/when we restore moral sanity (and NO - I don't mean enforcing my religious values on you - I mean returning to our Constitutional roots and the eras like the 40's and 50's that were the apex of American greatness) will we then be in any position to deal with the economic fail-storm that the liberals have brought us. The cart does not go before the horse. America must adopt Jim Rob's credo....

Free Republic is a pro-life, pro-family, pro-liberty constitutional conservative activist web site. Those who cannot live with that should simply stay away!! (saves wear and tear on my zot button - bitterly clinging redneck, Jim)

We have the same thing happening here in CA and that is a state issue.

I do not believe or suggest that anyone be moderate to win. I am very happy to have them run on God principled values and conservative fiscal views.
They can even do what they can in the state to overturn the social issues IMO.

We are talking more the national stage. Obamacare, over regulation, taxation and overpay and employment of government people.
On national stages they should take on the national issues.
I think if they want to lead a charge in their state, then so be it. Those are state issues and if they don't push a national agenda for a state issues the Democrats will not be able to use them to win national elections IMO.

Maybe we have different terms for the same issues here.

I think what you refer to as moral clarity is really people being bought off to vote Democrat for over 4 decades. Then the other problem is near communism level teachers who educate our youth into believing Capitalism and love of country is wrong.

The biggest problems are we have communists in the educational system and politicians handing people a good part of the treasury for the vote.
The answer to keep it going for the Dems is to have 50% +1 vote or more for their stuff by using class warfare and racism to their advantage.

Bottom line, how do we get good people into education who won't teach heavily on the cr@p in some books?
Secondly, how do we have conservatives better compete with politicians who put out wads of money on plates for their voters against our message of self reliance and balanced budgets.

Truth is IMO we are dumbing down and brain washing the kids.
We are also seeing the poor being given money to vote against the wealthy.
Pretty much nobody pays taxes if they make less than 50k and their is a ton below 50k who are willing to vote for wealth distribution from the top.

That is the direct issues and problems IMO.

Exactly correct. I do not want the TEA Party to become a “big tent”... We have one already... It’s called the GOP, and if they make their damn “tent” any larger, they might as well toss out the platform since it will by then be so diluted as to have no meaning for anyone having a modicum of principle.

The TEA Party ideal is in its basic essence a CONSERVATIVE PHOENIX that has risen from the ashes left in the wake of the scorched earth policies enacted by a spineless GOP leadership, who put principle to the torch in 2008 with their nomination of John McCain.

Do-nothing GOP leadership had as much to do with creating the TEA Party as did any action of the progressive movement. This is why TEA Party members have such a gut-reaction to any attempt by the GOP to subvert or assimilate its members. We’ve been there, done that, and bought the t-shirt ... The GOP brand of “conservatism” just does not hold up to repeated runs through the DC wash and rinse cycle, so we have decided to develop our own brand. We think it superior both in quality of materials and staying power.

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.

To the best of my knowledge, making something a crime has never abolished a single crime. However, IT IS a deterrent. You sound like every other leftist who wants to legalize whatever their chosen vice is under the theory that people are going to do it anyway.

As far as teaching that it is better to put the baby up for adoption, there is no reason not to do both. Even better would be to teach that there is NO REASON to have sex if you aren't prepared to have a baby.

I for one will fight to gain ground against what I see as a bigger problem than one issue.

52 MILLION INNOCENT AMERICANS have been murdered since 1973, there ISN'T a bigger problem, this is the most heinous crime EVER ALLOWED in a nation that follows the rule of law.

When a majority of pepole see that conservatisim is the right way we can tackle issues that the liberals have forced on us.

I think it's pretty presumptuous of you to use the terms "we" and "conservatism" at the same time.

When a majority of pepole see that conservatisim is the right way we can tackle issues that the liberals have forced on us.

Wagglebee,

I'm not sure if this poster saw my post from last night, but this is the weirdest mentality. If children were being executed in the street daily, would these sorts have this opinion?

I think you know what answer I suspect.

When I read the rationalization for accepting the killing of babies I want to hit my head against the wall, because if this is "logic" I must be insane.

The "they're going to do it anyway, let's just keep it legal" argument is just as intellectually vacant as the "it's just a blob of tissue, not a baby" approach.

As I said earlier, EVERY LAW has been broken at least once, that is why we have police, courts and prisons. However, laws DO deter crime. To legalize things based on the idea that people are going to do it anyway will ultimately result in lawless anarchy.

As for the "let's educate people about adoption and why abortion is wrong" strategy, what is it that they think the pro-life movement has been doing for nearly four decades. EVERY DAY at EVERY ABORTUARY in America there are people praying, distributing literature and demonstrating against abortion, yet over 3500 babies are still murdered EVERY DAY.

The libertarian "let's keep it legal and educate people" approach advocates nothing more than preserving the status quo.

People are also confusing “religion” with “moral values”. They think that for the government to have any laws based on moral principles makes it a Christian theocracy.

They are wrong on several counts.

1. Monotheist religions share the same basic moral principles.

2. All laws are based on morality - laws against assault, robbery, slander and libel, murder - all are based on morality.

3. Having a government recognize the necessity of moral principles founded on religion is not theocracy, it is the foundation of human civilization. Without such religious-based moral principles human beings become barbarians and cruelty and “might makes right” are the standard.

4. The idea that a government can remain neutral about morality is a fallacy. Abortion is either legal or illegal. Homosexuals can marry members of the same sex, or they cannot; homosexuals can enlist in the military, or they are forbidden to. Prostitution is either legal or it is not. Etc etc. To imagine that a government can be neutral about morality is just plain silly and shows fantasy thinking.

Theocracy means if the priests, bishops, reverends, cardinals, elders, imams, clerics, swamis and so on actually run the government. That will never happen.

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.