Posted on 08/31/2010 4:17:24 PM PDT by wagglebee
A further example of this viewpoint was shown in a recent interview of Sarah Palin with Sean Hannity of Fox News. Gov. Sarah Palin, a committed pro-life leader, was asked to name the top five issues facing the country today and the deaths of 1.25 million unborn annually from abortion was not on her list. If, indeed, this is the approach a new Congress takes after the November mid-term elections, then the agenda of the Tea Party movement will fail.
He is absolutely right.
Pro-Life Ping
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
QUITE CORRECT!
Fiscal conservatism cannot succeed in the Culture of Death.
I respectfully disagree. Remember when our nation was founded, the issue of slavery was the most important moral issue of the day, with entrenched disagreement on both sides.
The founders would never have come together for independence, or to ratify the Constitution, if the slavery issue had been inserted into the debate. Instead, there was agreement to disagree, and the anti-slavery states did what they could to make a little progress, but did not allow the disagreement to derail the formation of the Union, which it certainly would have done.
I think it will be a tragic mistake if pulling back the reach of the federal government, and stopping/reversing the take over of our economy, is tied to the abortion issue or gay marriage or other social issues.
The Tea Party is right to keep its narrow focus, IMHO.
The Tea Party is about putting limits on out of control government and elites who don’t listen to the people anymore.
But Glenn Beck did a brilliant thing at the Lincoln Monument, bringing social conservatives into the tent through honorable government.
Pure horse droppings.
It seems to me that the Tea Party HAS to include everything about Natural Law Theory as espoused by John Locke and the Founders. It is included in the documents of our country.
It is easy to understand Natural Law. It is reason, common sense and science.
It means that all children have a right to be raised by their biological parents—so laws HAVE to support their natural rights, NEVER DENY THEM.
It means that everyone has to be responsible for their actions and there is a right to private property.
It means that all life, even (and especially) when that life is dependent on others, a civil society, while abiding by natural law, could never be allowed to destroy that life unless in self defense.
Laws that go against Natural Laws are unjust....as cited by Cicero.
I agree.
The house is burning and we’re worried about the broken toilet? Lets get as many people together, both Pro and Anti death to beat back Gov’t to a manageable state. If the Pro life message was such a universal winner, why has a grass roots movement of its own not take hold lately? As people are introduced to the new GE 3D ultrasound, minds will naturally be changed.
100% on the mark. Murder is not just an “issue.” Set it aside, fix the economy first?? Tempt the good God, I say.
There won’t be a dime from me for a “personally opposed but...” candidate. There won’t be a vote from me unless the Dem is a bona fide Communist like Obama.
Republicans, listen up. Eighteen years ago, Lee Atwater opened up the “big tent” to baby killers. I left, and there’s many more like me. We’re waiting.
For if they were, they'd vote for it if they had a chance. But this article indicates that they would not... because this message is not a ‘socially’ conservative one.
That speaks volumes as to how ‘conservative’ they really are.
IE: Anything is good as long as abortion is banned! No, really, ANYTHING! Forced anal goat sex on pain of death, fine... as long as abortion's banned. Turning the citizenry into slaves of the state, that's fine too! Just gimme dat old-time abortion ban!
It's attitudes like this that got Venezuela their Hugo Chavez.
To treat it as a political party with a platform will not work. Such a strategy is not even in the same ballpark and those who try it will relegate themselves to a cul-de-sac of history. They will be left behind and chances are, if they are even thinking of the movement in those terms, they are left behind already.
I posted on a similar thread and said this:
Fiscal conservatism is the only way to preserve LIBERTY. Without liberty, the government “naturally” will impose all manner of morally nihlistic policies — and have the power to FORCE citizens to comply with them.
If the federal government were not a huge behemoth (fiscally unrestrained), it couldn’t force states and you and me to support with our tax dollars abortion, homosexuality and on and on.
Also:
Let’s say the best you can do is elect 50 social conservatives (what some on this thread call “true” conservatives) who may or may not be fiscally conservative. Once elected, they cannot (not enough numbers) or will not (not committed to fiscal conservatism) do anything to limit government. What have those 50 elected social conservatives accomplished for social conservatism?
Now let’s say you can elect 60 fiscal conservatives who may or may not be socially conservative. Once elected, they can (they have enough numbers) and they will (because they are committed to fiscal conservatism) do everything in their power to limit government spending at every turn.
In fact, they end up having enough political power and will to repeal Obamacare, which in turn greatly reduces the number of federal programs providing and paying for abortions.
Or they strip funding for the Czars, purely on fiscal grounds — but this means no Kevin Jennings forcing his perversion on schools.
What have those 60 fiscal conservatives accomplished for social conservatism?
Very wise words, supported by our own history. Thank you.
Fiscal conservatism is the only way to limit government. Limiting government is the only way to preserve liberty. Without liberty, you can kiss you ability to advance social conservatism good-bye.
There may have been a seismic shift but 8/28 was not about November. I explain in this piece I posted today.
What was Glenn Beck's “Restoring Honor” rally really about? (Maybe not what you think).
I have to warn you, though. Most of those commenting had trouble getting through it but not all. I am in the process of a rewrite but here it is as is.
So, you want to build a "big tent" so we can be just like the 'Rats?
The GOP has LOST every election since Roe v. Wade when abortion was ignored.
John McCain never mentioned abortion, he focused on "earmarks" (e.g. fiscal conservatism) and got his ass handed to him.
If the Pro life message was such a universal winner, why has a grass roots movement of its own not take hold lately?
It has taken hold, the problem is people like you who want to drop the issue.
52 MILLION babies have been killed since 1973, a baby is killed EVERY 24 SECONDS. The REASON that Social Security and Medicare are broke, the REASON the economy isn't growing is because fiscal conservatism is contingent on population growth and it COLLAPSES when an entire generation is MURDERED.
The TEA party does not belong to either the pro-life crowd or the pro-choice crowd. To force it to acknowledge one or the other is a huge mistake.
True, but supporting fiscal conservatives does nothing to “deny” natural rights or Natural Law.
Supporting fiscal conservatives, regardless whether they are also socially conservative, is the only way to restore and preserve liberty. And without liberty, you can guarantee citizens will have no ability whatsoever to advance socially conservative causes.
Removing the cancer (pursuing fiscal conservatism’s goals of limiting government) doesn’t mean you can’t also take treatments to ensure the body becomes healthier (pursuing social conservatism’s goals). It’s just that it’s just plain dumb to give up the opportunity to remove the cancer because those “doctors” don’t necessarily also believe in chemotherapy.
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.