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.

[pgyanke]

We don’t disagree much... but we do have a disagreement between us. I think it’s a matter of perspective. You see, government spending doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It begins with a purpose. Therefore, the basis of any fiscal discussion IS the social discussion because the debate begins at “what should be funded.” You can’t separate the fiscal discussion from the social discussion any more than you can separate the retirement income discussion from the retirement lifestyle discussion.

/financial planner speak.

[pgyanke]

Ok, how do you expect to reverse roe v wade with obama in charge of who the next two SCOTUS justices will be?

Please explain how that will happen.

Ok, how do you expect to be taken seriously as a person with any moral fiber if you are desperately trying to compromise your principles before the primaries have even begun?

Please explain that.

[metmom]

The probability that a welfare class member will have an abortion is higher than a non-welfare class member.

And that is based on what, exactly?

People really should understand what is said before getting too upset about it.

Who's upset?

[arrogantsob]

I am generalizing from the recent revelation that 35% of the abortions in NYC were of blacks. This is a substantially higher proportion than blacks make up in the general population.

In 2000 blacks had 17% of live births and 36% of abortions. This number may have changed to some extent since then but not substantially.

This is not true for other minorities but my suspicion is that as they join the welfare class in greater numbers the abortion rate for them will go up as well.

Several people have not grasped what I have been saying and have gotten upset with what they think I said.

[Barnacle]

Hopefully this was just a California aberration.

If it is, that's still bad news for this Californian.

[xzins]

Taxed Enough Already?

Does that include Fed taxes that are spent on abortion through sleight-of-hand?

It really doesn't matter, for I've heard too often on O'Reilly that the Tea Party is a MIX of moderate dems and repubs with some conservative repubs involved, too. It's a cross-section of America, as they like to say....regular people you'd see everywhere.

And why I'm an independent conservative who will vote for the true conservative in any race for the remainder of my life, God giving me strength.

However, when comparing principles, these caught my eye, for, if an individual or group is wrong on LIFE, then they will compromise anything:

Seven Principles of the Constitution Party are:
• 1.Life: For all human beings, from conception to natural death;

• 2.Liberty: Freedom of conscience and actions for the self-governed individual;

• 3.Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted;

• 4.Property: Each individual's right to own and steward personal property without government burden;

• 5.Constitution: and Bill of Rights interpreted according to the actual intent of the Founding Fathers;

• 6.States' Rights: Everything not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, is reserved to the states or to the people;

• 7.American Sovereignty: American government committed to the protection of the borders, trade, and common defense of Americans, and not entangled in foreign alliances.

[Reagan Man]

I see your distinction. Its a distinction that puts us at odds in how we view politics. You take the road of political expediency. I take a more principled approach.

According to YOU, the pro-life agenda is not part of the Tea Party agenda and it shouldn't be. Okay. I'm sure there are others who agree with you.

>>>>>>You are advocating tying the pro-life “agenda” with the Tea Party agenda. That is far different that “participation”.

Frankly, I believe you can not separate a pro-lifer from their pro-life beliefs. They go hand in hand. The way I see it, stopping people from expressing their pro-life beliefs is un-American. If that is the case, you might as well purge pro-lifers from the Tea Party altogether.

Here it is, straight forward. Just like you can't separate the Founding Fathers from todays Constitutional Conservatives. You can not separate the social issues from the fiscal issues, or vice versa. If you tried, it would cause a meltdown within the conservative movement.

[GonzoII]

"I agree. What’s to stop Neo-Nazis from pamphleting the gathering?"

Because Nazism has nothing to do with the American Constitution.

[DBeers]

The Tea Party is all about individuals and letting the free market of ideas decide what is of value and what value an idea merits locally and nationally.

What are the people censoring this individual afraid of, that he might have a good idea that others appreciate and as well agree with? What about grass roots? How can a collective silence an individual unless it is an established statist collective versus a dynamic grass roots organization of individuals?

No, what we got here is a power struggle between members of the tea party and one group that by default thinks it leads the tea party by suggesting it controls the tea party and limits its activities.

You try to shut me up and you would get the same reaction. I do not recognize no authority to choose for me what is of value save mine God given unalienable authority of self determination and what I choose to value.

Those who would tell me to shut up can cram it. Get out of the way, let the chips fall where they may and deal with it.

[Bikkuri]

I am totally against abortion.. I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was giving in to that side of it (not to mention it was about 3am when I read the article and was nodding off).

Cut the head off of the snake and it no longer can support it’s body.

Bikk

[Bikkuri]

Ping to 290

Bikk

[kingu]

plus anyone right of Brown wouldn’t have had a chance in that state

I disagree there; I think you can run a conservative campaign in even the bluest of states and win. The problem is usually a) Conservative candidates refuse to engage their opponent and b) refuse to make it clear to the voters that they're making a definitive choice.

Republicans could make a massive sweep in Washington D.C. if they put together a strong austerity budget and went right to the voters and said, 'This isn't about me right now, this is about the future of the country. Here's the budget we want to pass, this is your chance to really have your voice heard, and have a national referendum. Do we continue the destruct policies? Or do we try something different, because right now, Washington's beyond broken.'

Throw down the gauntlet, and give people a real choice. Too many times, campaigns are extremely hard to distinguish between because of wishy-washy RINOs and whispering representatives of the national GOP who seem like they don't like any conservatives at all. It doesn't fit in their big tent.

Remember, California's voted against gay marriage not once, but twice. They've voted to strip benefits from illegal aliens, and have led the nation in property tax reform and getting tough on criminals. And it's hard to find a more blue state when it comes to whacky representatives and a state budget that is completely out of control.

I suppose the theory could be tried on a small scale, a city budget that wipes out the excess of existing city priorities and realigns it within the means of the city, as well as a promise to the people to get at least the city government out of their lives. But if we continue to just offer different profiles of the same side of the coin, people aren't going to make the right choice.

[wagglebee]

It doesn’t matter!!!!!!!!!!!

No money means no payments. We have conned ourselves into thinking we could wildly overspend on top of a ponzi scheme. And yes, that is my solution. Tell the truth. SS and Medicare are going away. No more money will be taken from working people’s pay checks to make good on government promises made to others.

I see.

For decades, people have been FORCED to pay into Social Security and Medicare. By LAW the federal government is obligated to repay the money to those who have paid. Now you want to allow the government to break the law.

Do you think the government should be allowed to start taking private property at random to raise money? There's really not a lot of difference.

What about VA benefits and military pensions, I assume you want to the government to just terminate those as well.

[misterrob]

WRONG. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can alter, amend or simply abolish SS since it was a collected tax and not a benefit.

And again, you show that you don’t get it.

THE MONEY IS GONE

And yeah, I want the government to break the law since there was never a provision in the Constitution that gave the Feds the power to implement a pension or health care scam.

You argument tactic is 100% straw man, as always.

[BykrBayb]

So if you can't wildly overspend the money you've taken, your solution is to stop paying the money you owe? And you have the nerve to call conservatives "cons?"

[wagglebee]

so Trumpism occasionally since he probably would build a fence and not grant citizenship to millions.

Have you ever been to one of Trump's casinos?

Essentially every person who works in housekeeping is a Latino, are you trying to tell me that Trump figured out a way to hire only legal immigrants?

[BykrBayb]

And again, you show that you don’t get it.

You aren't the first liberal to come to this forum claiming that "cons" don't get it because only "progressives" are educated enough to understand economics.

[wagglebee]

WRONG. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can alter, amend or simply abolish SS since it was a collected tax and not a benefit.

You've been shown in this thread that your interpretation of that ruling was wrong and it didn't address Medicare.

Back to my question about VA benefits and military pensions, do you think the government should be allowed to terminate those as well? If not, why not?

And yeah, I want the government to break the law since there was never a provision in the Constitution that gave the Feds the power to implement a pension or health care scam.

So, your solution to the government acting beyond the scope of the Constitution is to give them the authority to break any law they want?

I guess I'm not surprised, most libertarians are just anarchists at heart.

You argument tactic is 100% straw man, as always.

This from the troll who openly called for rationing of health care.

[BykrBayb]

The troll’s repeated use of the word “cons” in place of the word “conservatives” is telling. By the time you get to the meat of its argument, that conservatives are cons and liberaltarians have all the answers, you’re not surprised by any of its outrageous views.

[P-Marlowe]

For decades, people have been FORCED to pay into Social Security and Medicare. By LAW the federal government is obligated to repay the money to those who have paid. Now you want to allow the government to break the law.

The only reason Social Security is legal is because it is a tax. Congress could abolish the whole thing tomorrow. The government is not obligated to repay even one penny of Social Security. If Congress were to pass a law tomorrow ending the whole program then that would be the end of it.

There are no such things as "entitlements". Any belief that your Social Security taxes are being held for your future use is entirely illusory. Congress could likewise end Medicare and Welfare tomorrow as well.