No ‘social issues’ - Pro-life tracts banned at Sacramento Tea Party event

California Catholic ^ | April 18, 2011

[GonzoII]

Bud Reeves, president of the Sanctity of Human Life Network Inc., reports that he was intercepted at a Tea Party rally in Sacramento on Saturday and ordered to stop distributing pro-life pamphlets to attendees.

The event was sponsored by NorCal Tea Party Patriots and held at the Cal Expo in Sacramento. Scheduled speakers, among others, included U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock, Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and a contributor to Fox News, radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, and Brad Dacus of the Pacific Justice Institute.

“Today I attended the Sacramento area gathering of the Tea Party to hand out prolife tracts,” said Reeves in an April 16 email. “Given that the Tea Party purports to be an organization promoting the U.S. Constitution and all that it stands for, I thought my handing out of a small prolife tract promoting the most important civil right, the right to life, would be welcome. I was wrong. Not long after we started passing out the 7 thousand tracts we had printed for the event, we were told that we must stop the distribution, which was welcomed by most of the attendees we approached and who received the tract.”

Reeves said he asked why and was told, “Because we will not be involved in the ‘social issues.’ I asked to talk to a supervisor. I was escorted up to the stage area and when a supervisor did not appear, I returned to the crowd to continue handing out the tracts. Not long after I heard my name on the P.A. system, asking me to respond. I did so and was met by Mr. Rapini, the organizer of the Tea Party event.

[M Kehoe]

Good afternoon. I hope you are feeling well.

I simply zot them.

I like your style.

5.56mm

[The Citizen Soldier]

Jim, I'm forwarding your e-mail,intact, to my California State Senator, California State Representative, both California Senators and my Representative.

With the purposeful misrepresentation of the Tea Party by the media, your summation is perfect and truly embraces ALL that the Tea Party stands for (not simply fiscal and economic issues).

As a Viet Nam veteran, I especially appreciate and applaud your blessing on America and what has made her strong and free!

[trisham]

See post #200.

[Jim Robinson]

I’ll tell you what. Rather than you telling us to take a hike, how about you taking a hike. I make no bones about FR being a pro-God, pro-life, pro-Liberty site. It’s on our front page. Those who can’t handle that fact should not post here. They should definitely not try to tell us how to go about our business. Buzz off RINO!

[P-Marlowe]

The same usurpers who can 'find' a federal right to abortion can also 'find' a federal right to your hard-earned dollars.

The Federal Right to my hard earned dollars can be found in the the 16th Amendment. I don't like it, but there it is.

The Federal Right to an abortion is nowhere in the Constitution.

There is a right to life in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

That's the difference.

[little jeremiah]

Works for me!

But someone’s gotta help them show their true colors, if you grasp my meaning...

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>>I agree that if the Tea Party tries to “purge” Americans who are pro-life and pro-traditional values from “participating” in the Tea Party, then you would be correct.

That was my point with my innocuous post. Glad you finally got it, but that is where you should have STOPPED!

Let me reemphasize. Social and fiscal conservatism together is what is at the core of our founding documents --- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are not ambiguous in that regard. Limited government, life and liberty for ALL.

There is no separating of the issues for our Founding Fathers or for us constitutional conservatives today. That is a fact of life.

[trisham]

I hear you.

[unique]

Yes, conservatives are winning within certain house districts but in others no. That’s excellent with fiscal issues primary, not social issues. Fiscal first, social second.

[little jeremiah]

I agree. And sooner or later the 16th Amendment needs to be repealed.

[trisham]

You don’t seem to be getting the message here.

[unique]

I’m a conservative all the way, just realistic as to what can be done at this point in time, the rest later. There is no argument here, as least from me - it’s just timing with the end game and goal the same.

[little jeremiah]

You don’t give up, do you.

Only in ultra, ultra leftist regions of the country do RINOs win.

And RINOs do very badly in presidential elections.

Just because you’re a social liberal, you see with colored glasses and think most people are, when you are wrong.

[upsdriver]

If this is what it takes to bring the true Democrats/Libertarians/Conservs together, then let it happen..

If abandoning the unborn is what it takes to win, this country deserves to die. Taking our country back also includes defeating the immoral and evil people, including so-called conservatives or libertarians that think killing babies is okay. I'm tea party but I will fight anyone to keep them from getting the nomination that is a social liberal. A conservative who is pro-abortion, pro-gay,etc is just as evil as any liberal. They are responsible for destroying our country, fiscal considerations aside.

[unique]

How does timing on addressing social issue make me a social liberal? First things first and right now social issues are second to fiscal issues when it comes to getting something done, now.

[misterrob]

Tell me you are in favor of getting rid of socialistic security and you get upgraded to the good stuff

[wagglebee]

If you can figure out a way for the government to REPAY the money that people have paid into programs like Social Security and Medicare, I'm all for it. But I don't see that happening.

Otherwise if you simply abolish them, we are in a position of taking money that people paid into these programs and using that money to expand the government somewhere else.

That being said, the REASON that Social Security and Medicare are on the verge of bankruptcy is because an ENTIRE GENERATION of taxpayers who would fund it was murdered. Without Roe v. Wade, Social Security and Medicare would be solvent.

[trisham]

What is your definition of “conservative”?

[unique]

If I’ve even implied that anyone should take a hike here, I apologize - that wasn’t my intention. Perhaps it’s something to do with living in California - one starts to try to sort out what can be done if anything, but that’s no excuse.

[Reagan Man]

>>>>>I’m a conservative all the way, just realistic ...

The end game comes down to supporting either political expediency or political principles as a guiding force. Example, do you support Reaganism or Trumpism?

I say principles trump expediency all day long. How bout you?