Posted on 02/06/2010 7:41:20 AM PST by Syncro
Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express on now.
She is saying the bickering is unnecessary, and we need to support each other.
Don't back down because of negativity of some.
If you don't like what another group is doing, ignore them
We have one chance, and the time is now
We need to stick together.
Today is Ronald Reagan's 99th birthday!
Give it a rest.
You're NOTHING but Free Republic's designated cheerleader for Pro-Roe, Pro-abort, moderate-centrist candidates like the abortion enabler, Scott Brown.
Besides, Reagan was for a Constitutional Human LIfe amendment that would prootect the unborn from right to abortion advocates like Scott Brown and YOU. As much as I admire J. Scalia, he's wrong.
Whatever!
Whatever yourself.
If Roe v. Wade were reversed tomorrow it wouldn't stop the profligate spending, the marxism taught in schools, the growth of government, the overall lack of respect people have for one another, etc.
Turning the tide back to conservatism does not rest on one issue - it will take a gradual resolve.
As for Sarah Palin, I do believe that unless she drops her support for McCain then I cannot support her. I have heard the arguments for her support (honor, integrity, loyalty) but do not agree with them. By supporting McCain she is supporting the worst of the RINO's. Frankly, I don't see how some can reconcile her support of McCain with calling her the leading voice of conservatism. It really baffles me.
bravo :)
Finish the pint of ripple you’re sucking on and go take a nap.lol
But is it necessary that Scott Brown be openly promoted so vigorously around here, considering his Pro-Roe, Pro-Romneycare, Pro-man made global warning, Pro-gay marriage rights agenda?
No doubt directed at me and a few others, since you make it a point to try to hijack the Scott Brown threads I have posted, just as you're doing now, with your false claims about me.
My support for Scott Brown had nothing to do with his abortion position.
I won't respond in kind by insulting you, but you're as arrogant as Obama when you call Scalia wrong and you don't even have a J.D.! LOL.
KMA!
I will...he's a disgruntled old fart who is negative about everything.
AMEN... and I am totally jazzed today by these speakers. I am energized!!
It is the video that says this on it:
Bill Whittle & Zo, Plus Glenn, Dr. Helen & Andrew Britbart v. The Arrogant Bastards
32 minutes
Breitbart starts a little after 7 minutes in. You can slide right over to that part.
LOL, they spelled his name wrong, Britbart
Looking forward to hearing Sarah Palin in a few hours.
She is the most Pro Life person especially by example
having a child with major disabilities and having
the best chance to beat Obama in 2012.
Some would rather support a person who has never won an election and never will.
By supporting their Pure candidate type, they are in the end enabling the pro abortion Obama for a 2nd term just to make a point.
Really. I've tried my best to stay away from you since your return from that anti-FReeper site, or wherever you hung out after fleeing FR a couple years back.
>>>>>No doubt directed at me and a few others, since you make it a point to try to hijack the Scott Brown threads I have posted, just as you're doing now, with your false claims about me.
I wouldn't call replying on one Scott Brown thread you posted, as hijacking. You're so self-righteous, yet so wrong. You can spin and twist things all you like. You support Scott Brown and Scott Brown supports Roe v Wade and abortion on demand. I think pointing out that connection is relevent and correct. You see abortion as a states rights issue, but you don't support a Constitutional amendment. Whatever.
Thanks for that, I’ve watched every video they have up at PJTV they are great. I’ll keep searching...
I think highly of Sarah and believe that she is both genuine and a woman of her word, so I don’t believe she is going to be dissuaded from supporting her former running mate, whom she calls a “close friend.”
Likewise, I am supporting Sarah 100 percent, but I am also supporting JD Hayworth in his challenge against John McCain.
Politics makes strange bedfellows and most often when politicians support or endorse other politicans they do it out of friendship, and those endorsements are often returned. The endorsements do not mean that the candidates and office holders share one another’s platforms entirely, or that they’re on board with every issue. I think Sarah’s relationship with McCain is special, and I knew well ahead of her announcement that he would ask her and that she would oblige. I am not disappointed or upset.
The primary in Arizona will be decided by the voters. If Sarah could influence elections, then all we would need would be to send her to every race and we’d get the outcome we wanted.
I understand your concern. But this is about women and men, and what has happened to them since Roe vs. Wade.
My view is a statistical one and it looks bad at the moment.
You can see my view here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2434789/posts?page=29#29
In my lifetime I have seen mothers become workers paying someone else to raise their toddlers and I have seen them lose their sense of community in effect becoming irrelevant except for natural emotional bonds they may have had the joy to experience when their children were young. Once the children are assimilated into the educational system the mothers become even more irrelevant.
When women abandoned the home for work I barely noticed because I was already on my own and there was a sense that women needed to enjoy the new independence and opportunities opened to them, I thought that’s probably a good thing and I still do but my view has been tempered by the confusion I have observed in some women as they long for a family and children, yet feel insecure that they can do it on their own and are reluctant to put their lives and security into the hands of a man. This I am sure has always existed but it seems to be more prevalent in the last 30 years.
I can remember a time when families needed only one breadwinner and mothers were home to provide a base of living and set the rules for the family. She was an authority not only in her home but also her community because she had time to network with other mothers. Mothers were leaders, natural ‘community organizers’ if you will.
But many women decided they needed to reach and break through the glass ceiling and some have succeeded. But most women I observe will never have a crack at it because only a very few are chosen, the probability is just not there that an entire society of women are going to be politicians, pilots, military combat soldiers, CEOs and so on. Many of them at some point look back and say to themselves “at some point I have to stop what I am doing and have the family I keep putting off”, or “I need to hurry up my career and independence plans so I can have that family”. Sarah Palin comes to mind but get real for a moment, what percentage of women can have it all as Sarah appears to have? And what support system does Sarah have? can all women expect the same? The answer is clearly no. Not even most men can expect to have what Sarah has.
So I believe without doubt that most women (not all but most) are held back or significantly slowed in their careers by desires and burdens of childbearing and childrearing.
I see that happening to men rarely, one happens to be a good friend at 45, never married, handsome, successful, secure, can have his pick of women. Now he is wrestling with the idea of having children, that he better do it now or never. But he is deathly afraid that his life could be upended and even ruined by choosing the wrong woman, and he will never know if he has chosen the right one.
And then there are the class of men and women that don’t have a chance unless they learn the ropes and pulls of government dependence programs; WIC, Food Stamps, Section 8 etc., or even getting a safe government job. They will have children even though they are not capable of providing for their children. Many of them will experience momentary joys of marriage, forming a family and watching their children come into the world. They will mimic images of responsibility and of carrying the burden but most of them will fail because economically they do not have a strong enough foundation to sustain their folly. If they had lived a century ago and known how to fish, hunt, farm and ranch, and were burnished in the incredibly hard work ethic of the era, then they would have the foundation, but today’s reality and skill sets limit them, so they fall into divorce and failure.
So I stand back and recall the hours I spent in the microfiche section of the University reading about social mores of the past in newspapers that go back to the 19th century up through to the present, and I ask what happened? Has anything changed? What caused it to change?
And as I ask those questions the standard list of factors are abandonment of God, weakness of churches, no-fault divorce, women’s liberation, increased dependence on government, increased urbanization, failure of educational institutions, etc., etc., etc.
But those are only side effects of what I believe is the real culprit.
The real culprit is taxation.
The Income tax started as a flat tax of 7% maximum on the wealthiest 2% of Americans.
Social Security started as a payroll tax of only 1%.
State sales taxes were rarely more than 1% and when they were they never exceeded 2.5%.
A man could support his family and a mortgage on his income alone until taxation and government borrowing and Federal Reserve induced inflation caused him to lose control of his ability to be the sole provider.
I believe most every woman looks at choosing a man and judges him by his potential to provide. If she feels secure to take a risk with him, she will bring forth children. If she is uncertain, she will be hesitant. She will mark time by going to college or job training and she will put off the family until she is ready or he is ready. And because she and he want to be together, because they like the closeness and togetherness, the harmony of their hearts together, they will couple together and make a ‘mistake’, have an ‘accident’, their eyes will view such events as unwanted and disastrous, especially if she is unsecure with him. So the abortionist has a door open for her, and sometimes a government subsidy to help get over a financial fear of taking care of the ‘mistake’.
And the result is we have had 50 million abortions and because some of those aborted children would have had children, there are 75 million less Americans present today, more than enough to fill the coffers of Social Security and avert the economic collapse that is now beginning. Our USA is going bankrupt and we are playing russian Roulette with having the Federal Reserve monetize the debt, trying to see if our poor dismal state can somehow stay better than the poor dismal state of affairs of other currencies and global banks. It is clear this cannot continue.
And am I afraid of overpopulation? No, not at all. There are plenty of resources to go around if there is an economy that enables people to get their share through hard work. I looked at birth-death differential equations under a change in lifespan, people living longer, and the results show we need about 50 million more Americans for every 10 year increase in lifespan. We’re not even as crowded as Europe under those assumptions and far more sparse than Asia or India.
So we are at a crossroads, at a moment of history where we must prioritize which battles will be engaged.
And the battle of highest priority is tax reform, followed by creating conditions of self-reliant security and freedom for young Americans to have as many children as they can responsibly bring into our nation.
And if we are successful we will see abortion on demand fade into a fringe rare set of events, and we can set the stage for overturning Roe.
So let the Tea Party be for now about Taxes, as it was hundreds of years ago.
Focus on that one battle, the other conflicts will be surrendered to us if we are successful.
I agree with you.
Sarah Palin represents and lives PRO-LIFE.
Sarah *is* hope for all. With Sarah “hope” is not just an empty word.
Strange, in light of the fact that I was responding to comments that most certainly weren't.
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.