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.
Nope, you’re not seeing it. I’d suggest you try again, but I think it’ll be better to spell it out.
On the one hand, you’re agreeing with the concept presented in the article, that Republicans should not press for social issues legislation.
Then you inform us that what they should do instead is get the federal government to return those social issues to the States.
Do you need more help seeing the inconsistency? Or do you suppose that the second one does not require pressing for social issue legislation? The courts aren’t going to volunteer to do the job for them.
Fair enough. But first you have to get either two thirds of the congress to go along or a change at the SCOTUS. Either will take time and lots of effort, as I am sure you realize. All I am trying to say is conservatives made great gains and we should keep the momentum up. Not abandon our convictions at the ballot box but do the ground work first.
My reason for this is I live in Liberal New York and every Tea Party candidate was attacked not on their record but on the scare tactic of those mean Tea Party people will take away your Social Security and your right to choose. It may not be true but they thought it would work and that’s why they drag it out. This time it did not work. We even sent liberal John Hall packing.
To reverse this you must change the minds of voters who think this is OK. The liberals have the upper hand by allowing the argument to be over a “women’s right to choose”. It’s like she would lose the right to vote if abortion was illegal. More than a few people fall for this. The woman’s right to choose is at conception and not at birth. I would say it is the Childs right to life but the phrase seems overused. To liberals it is the code word for religious zealot. Maybe the answer is a Childs civil rights, as guaranteed in the constitution. IE: Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can be convicted for double murder for killing a pregnant woman. Why do liberals support women using capital punishment against a citizen whose only crime is poor timing? Why is one citizens rights more important than another?
So I believe that it should be illegal but is now the time to make it a centerpiece of correcting the course of the United States? I think it is too soon, the ground work is not yet done. If we lose this battle for the United States you can start adding the deaths of old people who are no longer productive to your count of abortions. At this early stage of reversing 50 years of liberalism we can use the model of death from a thousand cuts. Campaign for pro lifers, when cutting government funding make sure pro-abortion groups are on the list, and make the argument about a child’s civil rights VS capital punishment. When debating abortion never call it abortion, call it murder. That then makes the liberals defending a woman’s right to murder.
I hope you now see where I am coming from. When the liberals wanted to legalize abortion do you think they said we want to make murdering an unborn child legal? No they started with arguments about unhealthy pregnancies. Ones that endangered the life of the mother. Then they progressed to sick babies, next thing you know you could abort on a whim. The other dirty little secret about abortion not everyone realizes is the liberals wanted abortion clinics in poor neighborhoods to cull the herds. Like all liberal plans it did not work.
I have enjoyed our spirited discussions and I never thought your goal was wrong. I just know that you will never achieve that goal alone.
Liberals have made an avocation, over the last 60 years, of nationalizing everything while telling conservatives that conservative issues are state issues -- and then suing in federal court to have their own way.
Turn about is fair play, but in the longer run you are right. The problem right now is to subdue the knee-jerk federalizers and internationalizers, who are really just all about amassing power. At some point their creation becomes a black hole of despotism, but they don't care -- they want their fix, like junkies.
Grover Norquist has signed up with GOProud.
Grover has just a whole bunch of interesting friends. His Moslem wife is active in groups connected to Hamas, e.g.
Google Grover and read more -- people have put up plenty of material about Norquist's activities. He isn't just about taxes any more.
Tell that to the Supreme Court.
Then try telling it to the Marxist, "progressive" (neo-Stalinist), and formerly-liberal groups like NARAL and the homosexual Lambda Legal, who exist to run to the federal courthouse for decrees on their pet issues.
"Grover Glenn Norquist (born October 19, 1956) is president of taxpayer advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform. Norquist is a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association and the American Conservative Union, as well as the Advisory Council of GOProud.
Background and education
Norquist grew up in Weston, Massachusetts, and became involved with politics at an early age. In his early teenage years, Norquist volunteered for the 1968 Nixon campaign, assisting with get out the vote efforts. He enrolled at Harvard University in 1974, where he would obtain both a BA and MBA. While in school, Norquist was an editor at the Harvard Crimson and helped to publish the libertarian-leaning Harvard Chronicle. Norquist has said that he believes that one's political beliefs are fully developed by the age of 21. He attended the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, an organization that teaches conservative Americians how to influence public policy through activism and leadership."
We are talking about the politial stand of the Tea Party - not the courts and not the Marxists who will kill everyone in sight if given the chance.
You can't be gay and conservative. That's like being positively and negatively charged, having both a positive valence number and, on Thursday nights, a negative one.
"Baptists for Satan."
"Commies for Jesus."
Other such laughers suggest themselves.
From Wikipedia:
"Norquist, whose wife is Muslim, in 2010 emerged as the most outspoken Republican foe of politicizing the mosque-in-Manhattan issue, saying:
"This is a distraction from a winning game plan.... It is very stupid, when Republicans are poised to win an overwhelming victory in November over Democratic spending, to focus attention on this issue.""
Hmm. Who appointed you the All Knower of the future?
Norquist is pure unadulterated evil already. And now a member of an “all gay” militant organization that wants to make the GOP an arm of the homo-nazi movement.
Sheesh.
Most of his resume looks pretty good, but there are a few inconsistencies that really stand out.
Norquist’s joining the GOProud and his support of Hamas are enough for me to cross him off any list of potential allies!
Also from Wikipedia:
Islamic Free Market Institute
In 1997 Saffuri, along with Grover Norquist, one of the most politically-connected Republican lobbyists, founded the Islamic Free Market Institute (often called simply the Islamic Institute) to build Republican support among Muslim Americans. The Institute operates out of the headquarters of Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform.[2] The start-up money largely comes from Middle Eastern sources. Saffuri’s former boss at the AMC American Muslim Council, Abdul Rahman al-Amoudi, gives at least $35,000. The Safa Trust donates at least $35,000, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT) contributes $11,000. Both organizations are part of the SAAR group and are among the organizations that were subject to a March, 2002 raid under the auspices of Operation Green Quest.
The Operation Green Quest raids led to the convictions of two people, including Abdurahman Alamoudi, who worked for the SAAR Foundation. Alamoudi admitted that he plotted with Libya to assassinate the Saudi ruler and was sentenced to 23 years in jail.[3][4][5]
[edit]
Well, I'll tell you anyway: it's because Tea Party groups refuse to organize into something larger. There's no umbrella organization, and no general standards to define a "Tea Party" group.
And so, to be "Tea Party," pretty much all you have to do, is adopt the name -- it doesn't actually matter what you stand for.
And you folks can't do anything about it, because there's nobody who speaks for all of you.
"Publius" said the same thing about freedom and morality in The Federalist.
Very interesting article, nice work
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.