Posted on 04/18/2011 9:22:34 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at calcatholic.com ...
I expose you for making unfounded assumptions and I am a troll?
HA HA HA HA HA HA
So, which one of your core beliefs do you feel like getting rid of to win?
Taxes will be raised in the near future, how about that?
I don't. Our modern GOP elites do.
Interesting. You were defensive of my post earlier... and I didn't even take on your position. I see now that you were right to be defensive.
Social conservatives are moral people. Without the social conservative values, the fiscal conservatives are just going to be a flash in the pan. It will not and cannot last without actual, real, moral values behind it.
If this country falls, it's going to fall from rot within, not from financial collapse.
Social conservatism will result in fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism will not correct what is morally wrong with this country. It will only slightly delay the inevitable collapse and resultant anarchy. Then all the fiscal conservatism in the world will not help.
Why are you so afraid to address your penchant for wearing girls panties and posing in front of the mirror?
Projecting much?
We don’t need consumers we need producers with the money to PAY for their own consumption.
Since members of the welfare class are more likely to get abortions I would say it would be 50/50.
This Tea Party issue though says nothing about the “organization” in any case. It was one event and the decision was made by the organizer. There is no centralized Tea Party decision making group. There isn’t even a leader. Anyone can call themselves Tea Partyers. You could start a Tea Party for Life group and run your own rallies devoted totally to Pro-Life concerns.
Stupid. Even if you can skip the huge ethical issue, Abortion is a both Revenue AND a National Security issue.
I am not a believer in the myth of the GOP elite or the Country Club Republicans. Nor do I support those guaranteed never to garner more than 2% of the vote.
I’m wondering if you are sober; maybe just intoxicated by your own hatred.
How do you define the "welfare class"?
The largest group of women having abortions are white women in their late teens or early 20s from middle class and upper-middle class families.
You dare say you are wrong. Nothing guarantees that reduced federal funding is reduced abortion funding. What the "purely fiscal" crowd is missing here is that this isn't just a discussion of "less" funding but rather a discussion of funding priorities. The government has a roll to play and this debate is about where it should spend... and where it shouldn't. At the end of the day, as your post points out, that is a moral discussion as we decide our national priorities.
Very well said.
Are you sure you're on the right forum? This isn't DU, you know, comrade.
I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity. [To approve the measure] would be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded. President Franklin Pierces 1854 veto of a measure to help the mentally ill.
For every benefit you receive a tax is levied.
-- Ralph Waldo Emerson
“Obamacare must be a tough issue for libertarians, on the one hand you side with conservatives on the opposition to socialized medicine, but on the other hand libertarians love the idea of death panels.”
Well said!!! Bravo!
The people who attacked me for my post (#2), are clueless & intellectually dishonest, and they just don’t get it. Anybody who’s a deep thinker woudl see the tie-in between social issues & fiscal ones. I have been shocked to see the “pro-choice” libertarians lash out lately. Might I suggest that they’re really not pro-”choice” at all; they’re pro-death. Their eagerness to assign a value to life based on one’s productivity makes them no better than those they claim to oppose. Boortz has more in common with Obama than he realizes.
The Tea Party is not anti-life. It’s not “another” agenda. The TP is not limited to anti-tax stuff.
And you know darn well that social conservatives are not the same as people who want huge government and entitlements galore. The huge government and entitlements galore folks are the Leftists.
Why don’t you vent your (considerable) spleen on the Lefists? Hmm?
They are also on the wrong forum!
By definition? Because people believe it should be illegal to murder babies (just like it's illegal to murder anyone else) means they favor nanny state and entitlements? That's nonsense. If that was true then anyone who favored laws against murder would be nanny staters. Thus it is as I thought, there's not a shred of evidence that "many" pro-lifers favor nanny statism or entitlements. Why the Tea Partiers would want to alienate one of their staunchest supports and constituents amazes me and indicates the movement will peter out.
I resent your insinuation that I support a nanny state. Could you clarify exactly what you’re trying to accuse me of? Plase, I’d like specifics.
Ok then.
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.