Glenn Beck rally will be a measure of the tea party's strength

[mary_bobo]

First of all I don’t “idolize” Kucinich. I agree with much of his politics. I also think the title of this thread is about Beck and the Tea Party. And the Tea Party is involved in conservative politics. And I know enough about Beck’s politics from watching him draw on his chalkboard on FOX than to have had to waste my time watching his sermon on the mall or wherever he held it. I trust though it wasn’t on a mount.

The gathering had nothing to do with the Tea Party. It had everything to do with restoring honor and charity and brotherly love to our citizens. It is just fascinating to watch our liberal friends twist themselves into knots trying to make this something it was not and was not intended to be. You did not watch, fine, many say “don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up”. I put you in that crowd. Peace.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

That is not for you to decide who is Catholic and who is not.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:14-20)

Both Kucinich and Moore are very openly and publically in support of abortion on demand and same sex marriage, openly declaring their opposition to Catholic doctrine. I may not be able to declare who is Catholic and who is not, but I sure as heck can check the fruit and see which is a good tree and which is a bad one.

 

[Darryl1958]

The gathering had nothing to do with the Tea Party. It had everything to do with restoring honor and charity and brotherly love to our citizens. It is just fascinating to watch our liberal friends twist themselves into knots trying to make this something it was not and was not intended to be. You did not watch, fine, many say “don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up”. I put you in that crowd. Peace.

For many if not even most on the left, conservatives are considered not just wrong, but evil. Hence we can be rejected without regard to any facts.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

For many if not even most on the left, conservatives are considered not just wrong, but evil. Hence we can be rejected without regard to any facts.

Those annoying precepts of traditional family, respect for all life, limited governmental involvement in our lives, following the rule of law, not spending more money than you have, and ethical behavior from elected officials are contemptable. Bad conservatives. BAD!

 

[josephdavid]

Those annoying precepts of traditional family, respect for all life, limited governmental involvement in our lives, following the rule of law, not spending more money than you have, and ethical behavior from elected officials are contemptable. Bad conservatives. BAD!

Republicans and other conservatives in government today can easily fall into those categories as well. Still a sheep just different color wool.

 

[Catherine_D]

The gathering had nothing to do with the Tea Party. It had everything to do with restoring honor and charity and brotherly love to our citizens. It is just fascinating to watch our liberal friends twist themselves into knots trying to make this something it was not and was not intended to be. You did not watch, fine, many say “don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up”. I put you in that crowd. Peace.

Even the news media got involved with the “don’t bother me with facts, my mind is made up” routine. And it went beyond the general theme of “these people are all white, so they must be racist.” I saw it reported on TV, just as if reading off a printed agenda of the event, that both Michele Bachmann and Dick Armey would be speaking at the Restoring Honor rally, both of which have definite Tea Party ties. But of course they were never scheduled to speak. Did the person reporting that they would later say “whoops, I made a mistake, they’re not speaking afterall?” I didn’t see any of that.

This entire business of expressing dislike or rejection of something one knows nothing about reminds me of my cousin when we were children. She refused to eat green beans, saying that she didn’t like them. My Mom once asked her if she had ever tasted green beans, and she said she hadn’t, but she knew she didn’t like them anyway.

This event drew all kinds of people from all walks of life. I have to wonder if someone, somewhere, is counting the minorities in the pictures to be sure that they’re just a tiny, unrepresentative number. There were Christian priests and pastors, Jewish Rabbis and even Imams in the group of over 200 religious assembled during the rally.

People that missed it, for whatever reason, missed out.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Republicans and other conservatives in government today can easily fall into those categories as well. Still a sheep just different color wool.

You are absolutely right. It is one of the reasons why I think that there should be a Constitutional amendment to forbid putting party affiliation on ballots. It would require (in theory) that people actually figure out who these people are and what they stand for and stop voting merely out of “party loyalty”, a notion that George Washington said would be the death of this country.

"Washington continues to advance his idea of the dangers of sectionalism and expands his warning to include the dangers of political parties to the government and country as a whole. His warnings took on added significance with the recent creation of the Democratic-Republican Party by Jefferson, to oppose Hamilton’s Federalist Party, which had been created a year earlier in 1791, which in many ways promoted the interest of certain regions and groups of Americans over others. A more pressing concern for Washington, which he makes reference to in this portion of the address, was the Democratic-Republican efforts to align with France and the Federalist efforts to ally the nation withGreat Britain in an ongoing conflict between the two European nations brought about by the French Revolution.

While Washington accepts the fact that it is natural for people to organize and operate within groups like political parties, he also argues that every government has recognized political parties as an enemy and has sought to repress them because of their tendency to seek more power than other groups and take revenge on political opponents. He argues that these parties’ efforts to seize power and exact revenge upon their opponents have led to horrible atrocities and will ultimately end in despotism as people throw their support behind the most powerful faction and the faction focuses on increasing their own power instead of promoting the public liberty.

Washington goes on to acknowledge the fact that parties are sometimes beneficial in promoting liberty in monarchies, but argues that political parties must be restrained in a popularly elected government because of their tendency to distract the government from their duties, create unfounded jealousies amongst groups and regions, raise false alarms amongst the people, promote riots and insurrection, and provide foreign nations and interests access to the government where they can impose their will upon the country.[emphasis mine]" Source

 

[Suudy]

Main Entry: support
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: take care of, provide for
Synonyms: angel*, attend to, back, bankroll, be a source of strength, bring up, buoy up, care for, chaperon, cherish, earn one’s keep, encourage, feed, finance, fortify, foster, fund, give a leg up, guard, keep, keep an eye on, look after, maintain, make a living, nourish, nurse, pay expenses of, pay for, pick up the check, prop, put up money for, raise, set up, sponsor, stake, stiffen, strengthen, stroke, subsidize, succor, sustain, underwrite, uphold
Antonyms: let go, neglect, refuse, reject

Irrelevant. I hope you understand the difference between “support” and “provide”.

Also, you need to take into account Centesimus Annus. I covered this extensively before with another poster, but since the demise of the Politics 2008/2009/2010 boards, the posts seem to have disappeared. I’ll have to reply with more than one post, because CA makes it clear that a permanent, federal structure is contrary to Catholic teaching.

First, from CA:

1. These general observations also apply to the *role of the State in the economic sector. *Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to development and to the economic order.

The state’s role (and the word “state” is used in the generic sense, not as in United States) is to guarantee “individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services.” It is not the provide them. It is not to tax and pay for. This is especially made clear in the light of CCC 1883 (“a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions”).

Here we get into the meat of it. I’ll split this next paragraph into pieces:

Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the free initiative of individuals.

The state does not have a primary role in “directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector”. This is reserved to the individuals and various groups. Again, this is made clear by CCC 1883.

This does not mean, however, that the State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.

Note the two conditions on when the state may get involved: stimulating … where they are lacking and moments of crisis. This obviously means a temporary solution, not one where the state takes a permanent role. More below on this very point.

The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and guiding development, ***in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise ***a substitute function, when social sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are not equal to the task at hand.

Only in exceptional circumstances may the state exercise a substitute function. Since the state is not primarily responsible (the individuals and various groups are), the state should only be involved when absolutely necessary. There is even more on this point below.

Such supplementary interventions, which are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.

I had to emphasize this entire section. You are advocating a solution that is directly contrary to this exact point! When the state gets involved, it must be “justified by urgent reasons” and “must be as brief as possible”! A single payer insurance system, federal social programs, and other subsidies are neither urgent nor intended to “be as brief as possible”. In fact, they are the opposite!

Note also that the point continues to be hammered home that the proper role for these activities is society and business systems, not the state. And when the state excessively interferes, it is “to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

 

[Suudy]

And the rest of the reply…

In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again *the principle of subsidiarity *must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.

Read this entire paragraph. Let it sink in. Federal solutions are exactly what this paragraph is warning against. Yet leftist Catholics continue to ignore this important point.

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.

This paragraph as well! Read it! Let it sink in! Federal solutions, especially the kind promoted by the Democrats, are addressed directly by this point! There is “an inordinate increase in public agencies” and they “are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients” and they most certainly “are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending”.

And it is quite clear (I hope) to all that those in need are best served by those closest to them. Sorry, but Uncle Sam is far too distant to adequately serve the needy.

The Federal Government takes 30% of my income? Curious what is the effective tax rate here in the U.S.?

I meant all taxes. My bad. But even as a percentage of GDP, federal taxes are now 15-20% of the GDP (source). But factor in other taxes, and yes, at all levels nearly 30% of the GDP goes to taxes (source) with the bulk going to the federal government.

 

[estesbob]

It appears this thread has went far a stray.

I personally think that the tea party is so disjointed and scattered that the rally should not be looked upon so much as a measure of their strength as it is a measure of the discontent with the federal government. I believe the Republicans will take the House back this fall and if they do not reign in the spending they will be thrown out in two years. Hopefully they will also get enough of a majority to repeal the healthcare abomination but if not it appears the courts will do it for us.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Because many on the Left equate God with being Republican

And vice versa. A lot of Republicans think that their political ideology makes them holy and godly.

 

[josephdavid]

It appears this thread has went far a stray.

I personally think that the tea party is so disjointed and scattered that the rally should not be looked upon so much as a measure of their strength as it is a measure of the discontent with the federal government. I believe the Republicans will take the House back this fall and if they do not reign in the spending they will be thrown out in two years. Hopefully they will also get enough of a majority to repeal the healthcare abomination but if not it appears the courts will do it for us.

Personally I believe that Republicans will probably gain seats. Either take majority or make more gridlock. This will expose the Republicans for who they are. We already know the Democrats are spinless and not really interested in helping creat jobs and protect jobs.

This will result in the Tea Partiers disappointment as well the Centrists (myself included) to possibly form their own party. I personally believe the Republican Party over-all is taking the good people of the Tea Party movement for a ride.

If the Disclose Act was put into place and effectively enforced (key phrase) the Tea Party people would leave in droves once the Republicans and these PAC’s are exposed. They certainly will not go to the Democrats (can not blame them).

 

[larkin31]

And vice versa. A lot of Republicans think that their political ideology makes them holy and godly.

Self-righteousness is often a serious character flaw.

 

[scipio337]

And vice versa. A lot of Republicans think that their political ideology makes them holy and godly.

Tu quoque. And a lot of “progressives” think that anyone with a political ideology other than their own is “unholy” and “ungodly” (when they actually believe in God, which is rare).

 

[estesbob]

Personally I believe that Republicans will probably gain seats. Either take majority or make more gridlock. This will expose the Republicans for who they are. We already know the Democrats are spinless and not really interested in helping creat jobs and protect jobs.

This will result in the Tea Partiers disappointment as well the Centrists (myself included) to possibly form their own party. I personally believe the Republican Party over-all is taking the good people of the Tea Party movement for a ride.

If the Disclose Act was put into place and effectively enforced (key phrase) the Tea Party people would leave in droves once the Republicans and these PAC’s are exposed. They certainly will not go to the Democrats (can not blame them).

It is easy to sit on the sidelines and throw stones at everybody. It effectively removes you from having to take responsibility for anything. Those of us concerned about the direction the country is taking have to make the tough decisions and vote for viable candidates whom we may not agree hundred percent with on everything . You have effectively removed yourself from the political process. You are sitting on the sidelines while the rest of us wrestle with the great moral issues that face our country today There are too many children dying every year in this country for me to look for political purity when casting my vote

The disclose act is nothing more than an incumbent protection law described as campaign reform

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Irrelevant. I hope you understand the difference between “support” and “provide”.

Also, you need to take into account Centesimus Annus. I covered this extensively before with another poster, but since the demise of the Politics 2008/2009/2010 boards, the posts seem to have disappeared. I’ll have to reply with more than one post, because CA makes it clear that a permanent, federal structure is contrary to Catholic teaching.

First, from CA:
The state’s role (and the word “state” is used in the generic sense, not as in United States) is to guarantee “individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services.” It is not the provide them. It is not to tax and pay for. This is especially made clear in the light of CCC 1883 (“a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions”).

Here we get into the meat of it. I’ll split this next paragraph into pieces:

The state does not have a primary role in “directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector”. This is reserved to the individuals and various groups. Again, this is made clear by CCC 1883.

Note the two conditions on when the state may get involved: stimulating … where they are lacking and moments of crisis. This obviously means a temporary solution, not one where the state takes a permanent role. More below on this very point.

Only in exceptional circumstances may the state exercise a substitute function. Since the state is not primarily responsible (the individuals and various groups are), the state should only be involved when absolutely necessary. There is even more on this point below.

I had to emphasize this entire section. You are advocating a solution that is directly contrary to this exact point! When the state gets involved, it must be “justified by urgent reasons” and “must be as brief as possible”! A single payer insurance system, federal social programs, and other subsidies are neither urgent nor intended to “be as brief as possible”. In fact, they are the opposite!

Note also that the point continues to be hammered home that the proper role for these activities is society and business systems, not the state. And when the state excessively interferes, it is “to the detriment of both economic and civil freedom.”

Wow. This post is awesome.

 

[josephdavid]

It is easy to sit on the sidelines and throw stones at everybody. It effectively removes you from having to take responsibility for anything. Those of us concerned about the direction the country is taking have to make the tough decisions and vote for viable candidates whom we may not agree hundred percent with on everything . You have effectively removed yourself from the political process. You are sitting on the sidelines while the rest of us wrestle with the great moral issues that face our country today There are too many children dying every year in this country for me to look for political purity when casting my vote

The disclose act is nothing more than an incumbent protection law described as campaign reform

HA! You are back at this again. I forgot that exercising my Constitutional right to vote for people other than your candidate of choice is unacceptable.

How do you know I am not directly concerned and active with in the direction in this country has taken. I remember what I was doing '87 - '95 and what I did then. My family and my country is proud of me for not sitting on the sidelines. Or the fact now I actively work with local and nationwide manufactures in speaking with local, state and federal politicians in the unfair trade practices we have (and other issues) and seeking a viable manufacturing base again. Which actually we have but they are at a disadvantage.

Moral issues. I was laid off last year for a good deal of time. I wrestled to make sure my children had a roof over their heads and food on the table and pay my $2000/mo in health insurance premiums, all the while draining away my savings.

I feel sorry you to have to use that as an argument. I feel sorry you have to questions other’s faith and accuse them of supporting abortion because they do not support your political idealogies.

I prefer to let the facts lie where they are with out the spin.

 

[josephdavid]

Wow. This post is awesome.

I do not think Suudy is too far off on what my point I am making. Perhaps I am not explaining my position correctly. Or it is a matter of semantics.

The government should never be the only and in many cases permanant solution. Obama’s problem is he, his administration, and Congress are trying to be the only solution but in fact they are too Keynesian. They only put a band-aid on the situation. The stimulous stopped us from going over the cliff BUT, it is just a band-aid. They need to control deficits. How? Increase the tax base (a former Republican philosophy) to increase revenues to pay down the debt, control deficits. With jobs comes income. Income equals wealth. Wealth equals demand… I could go on more.

Besides without the individual taking initiative to better himself/herself first then no government or corporate program is going to work. Ultimately it comes down to the individual. Those who run corporations should practice in an ethical way, pay just wages, maintain a safe work environment. If workers want a collective representation as Catholics we are ok to support that as does the CCC and Catholic Social Teaching.

However the CCC and Scripture does say that government is part of the solutions and if anything should be the protector. But I agree it is NOT the sole solution. Just reylying on CCC1883 is broadbrushing the realities. Because we have to take in and accept the entire CCC, just as we have to with Scripture. We accept all or none.

In regards to Mr. Beck and thenature of this site, he would run if he saw all the “Common Good” phrases with in our CCC.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I do not think Suudy is too far off on what my point I am making. Perhaps I am not explaining my position correctly. Or it is a matter of semantics.

The government should never be the only and in many cases permanant solution. Obama’s problem is he, his administration, and Congress are trying to be the only solution but in fact they are too Keynesian. They only put a band-aid on the situation. The stimulous stopped us from going over the cliff BUT, it is just a band-aid. They need to control deficits. How? Increase the tax base (a former Republican philosophy) to increase revenues to pay down the debt, control deficits. With jobs comes income. Income equals wealth. Wealth equals demand… I could go on more.

Besides without the individual taking initiative to better himself/herself first then no government or corporate program is going to work. Ultimately it comes down to the individual. Those who run corporations should practice in an ethical way, pay just wages, maintain a safe work environment. If workers want a collective representation as Catholics we are ok to support that as does the CCC and Catholic Social Teaching.

However the CCC and Scripture does say that government is part of the solutions and if anything should be the protector. But I agree it is NOT the sole solution. Just reylying on CCC1883 is broadbrushing the realities. Because we have to take in and accept the entire CCC, just as we have to with Scripture. We accept all or none.

In regards to Mr. Beck and thenature of this site, he would run if he saw all the “Common Good” phrases with in our CCC.

I see your point now. Well said.

 

[snowpea]

And what good is Nov going to bring?
So it’s nothing but an ongoing circle. Take this yr. Ok we don’t like the bums in there so we’re going to go back to the bums who got us here in the first place.

And then we can repeat it all the next time.

Exactly Rs are no better-we need viable 3rd party candidates who are willing to make a stand