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.
It is obvious that you are against abortion but what is your solution? Other than name calling on a conservative message board. Since the supreme court ruled it legal whether you agree with or not what is your plan? It sure doesn’t help your cause to be calling possible allies names , unless your goal is just to argue.
What do you propose to do to reverse Roe VS Wade?
To END it.
Other than name calling on a conservative message board.
There is a difference between making an observation and name calling.
Since the supreme court ruled it legal whether you agree with or not what is your plan?
As I said, end it.
It sure doesn’t help your cause to be calling possible allies names
YOU are the one who has argued against making abortion illegal on the basis that it won't end abortion. What in the world would make you think I would consider you an ally?
You did not answer the question. How do you propose to “end it”?
I am not against making abortion illegal. I just don’t see how that can be done. Educate me
You don't compromise on the issue.
If the Republican party wants to win elections they need to support only pro-life candidates and those of us who are pro-life should not support any candidate who is not identified as taking strong pro-life positions.
You don't abandon this issue just to get fiscal conservatives into office who are pro-choice. Once you gain the power base, you outlaw the procedure.
If you never gain it, then it may be a lost cause. But God will judge this nation on this issue. And we, as Christians, are to be salt and light for the nation. As a nation we elected the most pro-abortion member of Congress and we are now in the midst of a plethora of national problems. I do not consider that a coincidence.
Absolutely. Any candidate who doesn't make his/her position on Life absolutely clear should not receive support. I want the candidate to say they are pro-life, but I also want them to say that they reject abortion in all its forms, and that any "life of mother" decisions must include all extraordinary means to keep BOTH mother and child alive.
That is a true, pro-life conservative.
No person is qualified to hold public office who doesn't understand that Life is the Primary Right.
Actually, your previous question was, "It is obvious that you are against abortion but what is your solution?" The answer is to that question was that I wanted abortion ended.
Now to your new question, the most viable solutions would be a Personhood Amendment or a SCOTUS decision recognizing personhood.
I think we all know how America's other major moral crisis was resolved. I pray that it won't come to that, but it may.
Amen.
If every Christian would make this resolution, and stick to it, the country would be transformed. The killing would stop.
The candidates need to understand that the fulfillment of their oath is primarily dependent on their devotion to protecting the life and liberty of the people, all the people.
And they are not released from that sworn duty by how poorly anyone else in government is living up to their sworn obligations.
Fixed my new tagline...
Exactly!
You do realize your post #8 is internally inconsistent, don’t you?
Read it over carefully and see if you can see the inconsistency.
Are there “social issues” as currently configured at the federal level that do not cost taxpayers money?
Never.
******************************
That sound you hear in the distance is applause. Well said!
strider44 Since Nov 27, 2001
And as usual, a troll who either can't add or forgets the sign up date of this account.
Matthew 16:26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?
Fixing the fiscal mess won't lead to fixing the social/moral mess.
Indeed. Trying to do so would be the equivalent of trying to bail out a swimming pool by taking buckets-full out of the deep end and dumping them in the shallow end.
” (Arbitrary power is most easily established on the ruins of liberty abused to licentiousness. - GW) “
That is a winner.
states rights and libertarianism are not inconsistent
Screwtape (one of the devils) in The Screwtape Letters always called himself a realist.
As soon as someone says “I’m a realist” you know exactly which side they’re on.
Of course, that’s George Washington, not GW Bush.
No room for the whole quote if I included the whole name, and I didn’t want to leave a word of it out.
States’ rights and libertarianism have a very small overlap.
“Gay” rights, legal abortion, prostituion, drugs and every other social or moral vice is a major part of the official Libertarian Party platform.
The LP claims they want such issues to be decided at state level, but they want such issues in their favor. Libertinism is a more accurate name for them.
Libertarianism is another utopian fantasy in a long line of utopian fantasies. They never work, never have, never will; and when people try to implement them, they create hell on earth.
The only reasons people like the Libertarian platform are because they haven’t thought it through and were duped by all the nice slogans, they are attached to immorality in practice or theory and can’t bear to have such immorality illegal or frowned upon, or smoke too much weed.
I can’t think of any other reason.
Libertarianism has nothing to do with the the Constitution as it was originally written or understood. The founders and framers of the Constitiution would get a long hearty laugh if someone tried to convince them of the platform of the LP.
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.