Posted on 11/15/2010 3:06:08 PM PST by TCH
Idiocy has its claws in the TEA Party movement!
I am a founding member of the TEA Party Patriots of SW Nebraska. I sure as hell do not approve of the recently released letter demanding that Republicans jettison "social issues!" Our group was never informed and had no input!
Ditch "social issues," that we may better focus on the economic issues? Is that so? I believe it is time for a TEA Party reality check.
You cannot promote prosperity at the expense of morality. One requires the other. God is not mocked. The Constitution may be document of incredible insight, but it is not supreme over God’s Law. Freedom requires responsible behavior... Abortion and sodomy do not qualify, and ignoring the consequences of both will result in our downfall.
Everything that affects society is a "social issue," but we are allowing ourselves to be deceived by the utopian nonsense that is Libertarianism. We do so at our peril. These individuals use the term "Social issues." WRONG! We are arguing moral and ethical issues. So what these individuals are actually stating is they want a government bereft of ethics and morality. GIVE US BREAD AND CIRCUSES!
From the beginning I stated my group is not going to be hijacked by Libertarians, and for good reason: Only fools jettison morality and ethics from government. Libertarians claim to “restore” the Constitution, while they march lock-step with the tenets of the Communist Manifesto. Libertarianism is nothing less than veiled Utopianism—a deadly poison to any ordered society, because its precepts mock God’s Law. While the Libertarian advocates the Constitution, he simultaneously disconnects its FIRST CAUSE, as stated in the Declaration of Independence: All men are endowed by THEIR CREATOR with an inalienable RIGHT TO LIFE and LIBERTY. There we have the crux of the issue. Those who established our government did so with the understanding that we are “created beings,” owing our life and liberty to a Creator, and therefore our first allegiance resulting from those created gifts must belong to the higher power. That fact explicitly requires a recognition of and obedience to transcendent moral laws established by that same Creator. However, according to the submitted “letter” endorsed by our State TEA Party leader, we should now acquiesce not to the Creator, but to men who are double-minded and thus unstable in all their ways! Thinking themselves wise they became as fools!
Notice the top signatory to this letter of “demands:” GOProud ... PROUD homosexuals of the GOP! Nice company we keep for the sake of "filthy lucre." Sacrificing moral principles under the pretense of "fiscal conservatism" will not save this country... I doubt any man of sound reason would believe in such nonsense. Abortion and homosexuality cost money: increased healthcare costs, increased insurance premiums, lost tax base, etc.
If a man fails to understand the most basic right, life, then why should we trust him with power? Such a man will give his assent to anything. What this “letter” actually states is that we want our liberty, but we do not want to pay for the consequences of its abuse! That is not liberty, it is licentiousness.
Perhaps the signatories to this "compact" do not grasp the concept that “social” issues COST THE TAXPAYER MONEY! Who pays for abortion? How many abortions are covered by insurance or government welfare? How many more may we expect via Obamacare? Consider the loss of national productivity that must be attributed to the increase in abortions--We are barely maintaining replacement population (mostly through illegal immigration); so what happens when all the baby boomers retire, and America’s workforce (ages 17-60) is reduced to a mere 14 percent of the population? Thank you to all those who demand we not consider abortion a front and center issue! They are contributing to the destruction of our culture and the downfall of our country! Oh, but wait.... they will decrease the size of government in the process! Blind fools!
Now let us turn the focus on the costs of homosexual perversion. Yes, there is a defined “normalcy” in sexuality... homosexual acts do not fall within that scope. All sexual perversion causes disease, but the homosexual variety produces a plethora of fatal infections, and not just those associated with AIDS. A great many more “nasty things” inhabit the bodies of homosexuals and lesbians as a direct result of their perverted sexual practices. If we ignore “social issues, ” then how will the unobstructed rise of these diseases impact medical care and insurance costs for those who live within the bounds of normal sexual behavior--particularly with the advent of socialized medicine--and the insistence that “pre-existing conditions” not be excluded from coverage or considered a dis-qualifier?
Libertarianism is like the Siren who attempts to convince the sailor there are no jagged rocks beneath those calm waters... A nation cannot separate social from fiscal issues... one entails the other. You cannot separate morality from government... one requires the other. Amoral or immoral men cannot govern themselves:
In 'A Letter to a Member of the National Assembly,' 1791, Edmund Burke wrote: “What is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without restraint. Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as they are disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good in preference to the flattery of knaves.”
Edmund Burke continued: “Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Libertarians argue a "non-interference" perspective; but their rationale is a straw man argument. The issue is not about those who have an inclination to same-sex attraction. However unfortunate for them, it is a personal struggle, through which they must affect a strong combat for reasons of physiological, psychological and sociological necessity.
The issue is the propagation of an intrinsically destructive doctrine that opposes life and the common good. Even if we put aside the moral imperative—which act would constitute the greatest of errors, since the moral code is a product of sound reason and marks the boundaries of that singularly most quoted imperative “love thy neighbor”—it will still be proven that anything directed against its own natural purpose is contrary to right reason.
The two sexes are specifically designed so their physiological, biological and psychological aspects are mutually beneficial. Male and female complement one another, in all regards, to the natural end that their anatomy was specifically designed to affect: procreation of the species. This natural end logically supposes an intended purpose consistent with intelligent design.
Homosexual behavior is absolute in its destruction of that purpose. Understanding that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” it is reasonable to state that Nature does not work against itself. By logical extension, and since all things must have a first cause, then neither would an intelligent supreme being create an natural order having as a component of its initial design a species directed to its own demise.
Reason and logic dictate that whenever any object is directed against its own natural purpose, then that object is intrinsically disordered. Since the design of male and female reproductive anatomy gives irrefutable evidence to its intended purpose, it is an attack on reason to presume that biology would be so rebellious of its own preservation as to willingly submit to an ends contrary to that which affords its greatest chance of success.
Homosexual behavior acts in direct opposition to the propagation of life, both directly in its physical acts, and psychologically by subverting the natural order of creation. It is anti-life, just as much as is abortion. Being unable to sustain itself through procreation, it may increase its numbers only by seduction--a point that the doctrine of libertarian thought purposely ignores, and which has a direct impact on society at every measurable level.
The argument that same-sex attraction is a product of genetic accident is easily refuted; for if such a gene were existent for any period of time, it would soon by its own actions render itself extinct, as do most unnatural mutations. Thus it is clear that the homosexual inclination is a product of external environmental stimulus and internal psychological impediments (intrinsically disordered desire). This distinction is important for reason that the state-enforced tolerance of intrinsically disordered behaviors (perversions) aligns perfectly with the anti-life philosophy that has imposed a literal death grip upon our culture. The rationale supporting this statement is the summation of those disorders, while still generally opposed, continue to advance, continue to realize great reinforcement through subversive indoctrination of the young, and thus continue to undermine true liberty with an emboldened narcissistic flattery that pretends itself tolerance.
Thus the libertarian argument of “non-interference” where willing parties engage in private acts not harmful to a non-interested party is a patently absurd and false doctrine. Such philosophy entails the shackling of human society in a suicide pact that is contrary to the development of a resilient culture, is destructive of a sustainable and prosperous economy, and exists in direct opposition to right reason and the moral imperatives derived through the Natural Law.
Ask the signers of this piece of libertarian trash if they are willing to sell their soul for 30 pieces of silver. If they are inclined to betray the common good, for the sake of "limited government and reduced taxes," then let them do so of their own accord; they do not speak for me, and I doubt they speak for most of the THINKING individuals within the TEA Party movement, whom understand the negative consequences connected with duplicity of mind on ethical and moral issues. I do not make deals with the Devil, and neither should the TEA Party do so in my name.
Here is the whole post again, in case anyone else is interested, too....
Here is an excellent you tube video on different forms of government.
It’s about 10 mins long but well worth watching. It made it a lot clearer to me.
Different forms of government
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE
These *Christian theocracy* whiners never stop to really think through the alternative, of which we have plenty of examples.
Want an atheistic society and government? Move to China or NK and get back to me about how wonderful it is to have no moral restraint. What they don’t stop to think it that it’s not just moral restraint on the people, but moral restraint on the government and the people who run the government as well.
The same lack of moral restraint that allows libertarians to do whatever they wish, allows the politicians to do whatever THEY wish as well. The moral system of Christianity is NOT a ball and chain holding back the progress of humanity.
And they think we’d be better off without the mindset that GAVE us this country and accuse of wanting to impose a Christian theocracy by getting back to that. Oh really? The Constitution established a *Christian theocracy*? News to me.
Some people just don’t use the brains that God gave them.
That’s really an appropriate verse!!!
Great observation.
Sargon, it appears FR is turning into a radical theocracy. We have been here much longer than most of these folks. While i am a social conservative by any given standard (bitter clinger to the left), it appears our ideals are not pure enough for the radicals. I think many here are over-reading the election results like the radical left did. Its disturbing, because if this is what comes out of the elected TEA party reps mouths, they are finished politically.
I don’t think Joe Miller, Rand Paul or Sarah Palin would agree with some of these exclusionary comments.
Due to the severe nature of the fiscal problems in this country, the fiscal issue is priority number 1 to me. These folks are stuck on “manners” while the ship sinks. Instead of bailing water they are throwing those that aren’t 100% ideologically in agreement with them overboard, even though they are in it for the same end-goal.
Rnmomof7: Someone once said “what good does it do if a man gains the WHOLE world and loses his soul”
The soul of America is dying before our eyes
So we gain the whole world (fiscally)? Big deal. The moral rot WILL continue to bring us down. Even if we make gains in straightening out our fiscal mess, it will not make one iota of difference in reining in out out of control nannystate.
THAT has to be done morally.
Excellent! I’ve bookmarked it for future reference.
Getting back to our roots as a nation is the establishment of a *theocracy*? Who knew?
Who know that's what the Constitution established at the time that homosexuality and sodomy was illegal and abortion was still considered murder and illegal?
If you don't like it, why not move to some other atheistic run country like China or NK and let us know what a wonderful paradise it is to have no moral restraints.
That really stopped government totalitarianism, didn't it?
Are you really incapable of thinking through what the consequences of what you want are?
I’m tired of listening to this tripe. Show me the the specific article in the Constitution where it says we have to believe in God the way you do?
I don’t care about what you think. Show me the article and clause.
I’m not an atheist btw. I was raised a southern baptists and live in the buckle of the Bible belt. I think some of the comments made by you and others run 180 to the founders intent. They could have established a state religion if they wished. Did they? No. For good reason.
Lets look at theocracies like Iran. That what you want?
Well said, metmom.
“Show me the the specific article in the Constitution where it says we have to believe in God the way you do?”
Still waiting.
AMEN!
That was incredible. Thank you so much!
Under libertarianism, Jefferson would be considered a theocrat:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
"Thou shald not kill," is God's Law, if opposing abortion makes me a theocrat, so be it.
Sodomy is a violation of God's Law, until fairly recently it was considered a mental disorder, if thinking sodomy is wrong makes me a theocrat, so be it.
Due to the severe nature of the fiscal problems in this country, the fiscal issue is priority number 1 to me.
Our nation has allowed 52 MILLION AMERICANS to be murdered in the past 38 years. These are Americans would would be spending money, creating jobs, having children, paying taxes and growing the economy. America's fiscal policies BEGAN when the Baby Boomers, first through contraception and then through abortion, created a demographic time bomb. People like you think that focusing on the symptom while ignoring the actual problem is somehow a solution, it isn't.
Instead of bailing water they are throwing those that aren’t 100% ideologically in agreement with them overboard, even though they are in it for the same end-goal.
The only other time our Republic has faced a moral tragedy close to the level of the current one was with slavery. The Whigs claimed to be opposed to slavery, but didn't want to do anything about it other than seek compromise. Eventually, it became obvious that the ONLY WAY to save America was to go ahead and throw the Whigs overboard.
I will ask you as i asked metmom, show me the specific clause and article in the Constitution that says i have to be subject to a state religion.
What you are quoting is the Declaration of Independence. And your quote does not say the Baptist God, or the Catholic God, or the Jewish God, it say’s “Nature’s God”.
Its none of the federal government’s business what i believe. Nor is abortion, homosexual marriage or any other of these subjects. I am anti-abortion. I don’t believe in homosexual rights. I believe in Christianity.
But we are bound by a political charter called The Constitution. No back to the point, show me the specific clause in the Constitution that specifies the federal Government’s right to impose religious morality. You won’t. Its not there.
You gave me twenty three minutes and are demanding a response?
Impatient bugger, aren’t you?
Well, I have a life and can’t always meet someone’s infantile demands instantly, just because they make them.
I’ll get to a response when I have the time to compose an appropriate one.
Actually there were state religions. What there wasn't was a federal religion. Massachusetts was Congregationalist. So are you talking federal or state? And , no, you didn't HAVE to be a congregationalist to live in Mass but it helped politically and economically.
Nowadays it's fashionable to throw God out of government and your life. And did you know that there were church services held in the House of Reps every Sunday until after the Civil War? Jefferson attended church there. So did Adams. Nasty Theocrats!P> And the Founders backed sodomy laws by the states. They never even entertained thoughts of abortion.
From your post 184: Sargon, it appears FR is turning into a radical theocracy.
That is a lefty talking point. FR is PRO-GOD. Got it?
I think as grown ups we can walk and chew gum at the same time..
The perverts do not vote with conservatives. They are a plant, nothing more or less. The perverts are in no stretch of the imagination, constitutionalists. Saying they are, does not make it so. Look at the voting records of every pervert in politics.
I’m not looking for a “response” . I’m looking for the part of the Constitution where it says the federal government has the right to impose a state religion.
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.