The Tempe Tea Party is dedicated to educating the public on topics and issues that are of importance to our community. We sponsor regular events where invited speakers present information on a topic of their choosing and/or lead a group discussion.
If you have a topic that you’d like to cover, and are interested in being a guest presenter, contact us at the address below and we’ll see about scheduling you:
If you currently have an account here, you now have the power to contribute to our site. All existing users have been promoted to Contributor status. This means that you can post entries and stories of your own, subject to administrator review and approval.
If you’re not yet a member, Join Us and we’ll add you to the growing ranks of Tea Party patriots.
http://youtu.be/oQyDdRzXskIWatch and learn why states are interested in compling with Obamacre’s expansion of Medicaid. Only 4:24 minutes. It’s not about helping the poor.
Apologies for late notice, just found out myself. Tomorrow Feb. 18, 2013, an anti-Agenda21 bill, SB 1403, will be before the Government and Environment committee. Please write or call the committee senators asking them to pass this so eventually it can come up for a full vote and be passed into law. Committee senators are: Crandell, Farley, Hobbs, Jackson, Jr., Ward, Burges and Griffin. It should pass as Repubs hold this committee and are also the bill’s sponsors. Still, couldn’t hurt to let them know we’re out there. The Dems on the committee are Farley, Hobbs, and Jackson, Jr. I sent a special letter to Jackson, Jr. He’s from the Navajo Nation. If any group should fully understand the importance of sovereignty it would be Native Americans. Senator contacts are available here: http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp?Body=S
Dear Corporation Commission,
I read an editorial in the Tempe Republic, that you are allowing the rates to be raised for APS customers. The editorial is correct in saying that all the consumers are trying to “conserve” electricity.
Me personally, I conserve to save my money not because I am ‘going green’. I am anything but ‘going green’. And because of my switching to ‘the time of day’ rate I am saving $360 a year.
Because of us all using less electricity, APS is taking in less revenues.
If they are on a budget, why can’t they cut the budget somewhere so that the rates do not have to be raised? That’s what us ordinary citizens on fixed incomes have to do if we are required to pay out more money to something we have to cut something else. Why not ask APS to reduce their fixed costs? And what are they having to pay more money on? Is it to pay for the “alternative energy” ideas that the government is involved in that don’t work? Or to clean up the Navajo Generating station pollution out put, which from what you all told us is one of the cleanest burning coal stations in the nation.
I am a conservative republican and voted for every one of you and supported you in my precinct by hanging flyers on doors in the neighborhood and at my place of work. I heard you talk many times at our LD26 meetings and my Tempe Republican Women’s meetings. You all said that we should vote for you over the democrat because you had your hands in our pockets and were the ones who regulated the rates for our electric and water. I was listening and this is what you warned us of that the “Solar Team” would be raising rates because of wanting to implement solar. And now you just got elected and right out of the shoot you are raising our electric rates.
I have met and like all of you five people and it is frustrating as a citizen to vote for someone you trust in from your own party and then find out they are not being fiscally conservative.
Especially now that you are all republican! I’d like to know your reasoning behind the rate increase. I expect that from the democrats, but not you republicans. Yeah, it’s only $8 here and there but when all your monthly bills raise the rates that adds up to a lot of money forcing us to cut something.
Thank you.
Wendy Howe
Tempe
Darrow Precinct
The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document. So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it. It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!
There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture: A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general. A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view. And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves. As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations. The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death. It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…
However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame. Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud. Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.
Gun Free Zones are supposed to protect our children, and some politicians wish to strip us of our right to keep and bear arms. Those same politicians and their families are currently under the protection of armed Secret Service agents. If Gun Free Zones are sufficient protection for our children, then Gun Free Zones should be good enough for politicians.
They need 25,000 signatures by January 22nd
Here is my letter to Tempe City Council as they take Chick-Fil-A under consideration:
Dear Council,
Just what does a “gay friendly” Tempe look like? Same sex couples walking around hand in hand, kissing in the parks? Shops that cater to gay activities, gay sex toy shops, gay sex movies at the Valley Art, gay pride parade marching down Mill Avenue? I received an email back from Kobly Granville stating that the idea for putting 1 million in to attracting tourism in downtown Tempe was to attract all visitors not just the LGBT community. So why did the Tempe Republic article single out the gays? And now I read that Kolby has “discussed the neighborhood’s concerns {about Chick-Fil-A having a restaurant in Downtown Tempe} with the business applicant” who applied for a planned development of a Chick-Fil-A restaurant at Mill Ave and University. What possible concerns could the neighborhood have with Chick-Fil-A in downtown Tempe? And how many “concerned neighbors” are there? One? Two? An entire precinct? Are they concerned it would be family-friendly? It would serve tasty, quality food? It would bring revenue to Tempe? It would put a sign on the door saying “gays not welcome”? Or is it the fact that Dan Cathy’s stance on same sex marriage doesn’t fit in with “Gay Friendly Tempe”….There didn’t seem to be any issue with the City of Tempe Council allowing a tatoo parlor or Fascinations having a place of business in Tempe if I recall, and Chic-Fil-A should be no different. They have just as much right as anyone else to have their restaurant in Tempe. I live in Tempe and I stay as far away as possible from the downtown area. I happen to like Chic-Fil-A’s food but because there are none close to me, I don’t frequent the restaurant as often as I would like. This would be a reason for me to visit Downtown Tempe more often. As a 46 year resident of Tempe, I ask you to allow the Chick-Fil-A development to proceed. I have a concern too…to see moral, values oriented, family friendly vendors in Tempe. Chick-Fil-A would be one of them.
Sincerely,
Wendy Howe
Darrow Precinct
Tempe
Don’t know if they will publish it but here is my letter to the editor in Tempe Republic that I submitted:
I would like to express my disgust about the following article: “Tempe works to build strong ties with gay community” as expressed in the Tempe section of the Wednesday paper.
Stop spending my tax money advertising to a “niche” market group. Don’t we as citizens of Tempe want “visitors”, not a particular skin color or sexual orientation and do we really care?
Are we also spending $1 million a year targeting fundamentalist Christians to come visit Tempe? Isn’t their money just as green and spend the same as a LGBT person?
I guess maybe I’m not following something in this line of thinking…next Tempe will be hosting the Gay Pride Parade on my dime so we can bring our children and expose them to all the different ways to have sex and all of the different types of individuals you can have sex with. Where have our morals gone?
Wendy Howe–Tempe
After each violent weapon incident, the old debate is renewed that implies that the 2nd amendment has outlived its usefulness. It might be useful to view this as well as other constitutional elements in light of the cultures existing at the time of their institution versus that of today. In fact we will discover that the bill of rights authors lived in a culture which included respect for the 5th Commandment as well as the others. The Supreme Courts’ subsequent removal of this assumption requires a review of this relationship and a resolution of whether to keep the 2nd amendment and restore the Commandment culture or continue with the progressives’ deterioration of both.
What is commonly called Judeo-Christian culture is that backbone of Judaic law, the Commandments, which continued and was even expanded on by Christ to be a spiritual moral basis within diverse secular governments as opposed to the laws of one nation. This culture was pervasive in Western civilization. While Luther’s concept that violation of Commandments did not impact the salvation of a Christian, neither he, nor any other major Protestant leader denied the efficacy of the moral order reflected in the Bible. An example of this can be seen by the unanimous condemnation by Luther, Calvin, Wesley and other Protestant leaders of contraception–a moral position which was accepted until the Anglican conference of 1930 which allowed for marital contraception, the beginning of the end which has resulted even in Anglican approval of ordination of homosexuals and the underpinnings of the case for same sex marriage. If this most subtle of issues was shared by Protestants and Catholics alike, the more obvious expounding on the Commandments were surely taken for granted in colonial times.
Thus even though obviously violence was not unknown, some framework for justification for war (e.g. the Declaration of Independence) and more personal forms of self-defense were expected and incorporated into law. While the fracturing of Christianity due to the inherently personal nature of Protestantism was the basis for the various colonial relationships to denominations, it was also the reason for the 1st amendment in order that all would have equal freedom. But while denominational differences involved sacramental questions or salvation requirements, the Catholic moral inertia remained the standard for behavior. Thus when the right to bear arms was sanctioned, respect for human life was unquestioned barring serious and legally sanctioned exceptions regarding self-defense.
The basis of the Commandments which would also have been pervasive when the Constitution was written is that there is a personal Creator God and that mankind is a reflection of him, although separate and subordinate to him. Some Commandments deal with our relationship to God, others to one another. The thought that public prayer to God said by individuals in various contexts would have constituted an inappropriate government intervention in religion has no documentation in history.
If we move to 1912 and the composition of the Arizona Constitution, we see daily audible prayer by the founding fathers of Arizona, giving a glimpse of the prevailing attitudes regarding the religious aspect of the 1st Amendment, yet if we fast forward to the “enlightened” and “progressive” last half of the 20th century where the courts have managed to ban the 10 Commandments from public view, God has been expelled from school, and earth is capitalized in the new pantheism which pervades the school system as the new God, albeit a rather helpless one that needs our help to “sustain” Him (or is it Her?). Even if a child is exposed in his family to religion, that is systematically impugned as unscientific (compared to, say, Darwinism or Global Warming, and certainly the newer definition of family itself), to the point of being impotent, not only for the 5 school days, but reinforced by the Hollywood barrage of secularism, including irresponsible sexuality (inevitably leading in real life, though handily neglected on the silver screen, to abortion, STD and divorce with its many attendant social problems) and gratuitous violence.
Abortion acceptance adds to the moral confusion regarding the sanctity of human life. The early nation’s attitude regarding abortion was, from a state-by-state perspective unanimous–that it should be criminal–another carryover from Christian tradition that was cavalierly wiped away by Supreme Court decisions. That the sanctity of human life is compromised is evident by the fact that abortion doctors can get subsidized by Obamakare for killing as many people daily as were killed in Newtown, for which victims Obama shed one of his big crocodile tears for the cameras.
Thus when a marginally sane or poorly socially adjusted individual is faced with some personal crisis, his tendency toward misuse of weapons available is only to be expected. While it should be no consolation for any liberal that the victim(s) of such people have just as much chance to be liberals as conservatives, they persist in following the left leadership’s response: let’s ignore or even get rid of the 2nd amendment.
While the Newtown Connecticut incident has motivated this cultural evaluation regarding the 2nd amendment, it is by no means the only relationship between the Constitution and the Commandments that is interdependent. For example, who would consider that the 1st amendment guaranteeing free press would be of any value unless constrained by the 8th Commandment (regarding honesty)? The entire order of society assumed in revolutionary days based on the Christian definition of family under the 6th Commandment is undergoing a frontal attack. And socialism’s sacrament of redistribution of wealth through ever more graduated income tax has superseded the 7th Commandment against stealing.
One thing is obvious to the most casual observer. The existing situation is dangerous. The present system of freedom to bear arms combined with hostility to the basic foundations of culture through a false reading of the 1st amendment as done by the Supreme Court is a deadly gambit by progressives that decent people won’t have the stomach for the inevitable violence and surrender the 2nd amendment. The result has been recorded numerous times in history that the tyrannical governments’ violence and oppression against their defenseless populations necessitates allowing an armed population. Regenerating the respect for the commandments, not repealing or ignoring the 2nd amendment, is the best hope for peace as well as health and other benefits in this imperfect world. Since the Supreme Court can’t figure this out, if a Constitutional amendment is in order, it would not be to nullify the 2nd amendment but to clarify the 1st amendment and reinstate the basic religious culture into the public square in such a way that they have no way to squelch it.
Welcome from the Tempe Tea Party Christmas celebration
We’re all having so much fun!
http://www.google.com
Freed from the constraints of seeking reelection, Obama faces a difficult decision in the coming weeks. The view at the White House is that routine urban violence poses as much of a problem as mass shootings in schools or shopping malls (two died at an Oregon shopping center last week). But it is the public outcry over Newtown that could provide the impetus for a serious administration push on gun control—unless the president chooses not to go beyond his rare show of emotion that reflected a nation’s grief.
Guns are not the problem here. Crazy people walking the streets instead of being locked up in a padded room are the problem.
In all three cases cited in this article, the assailants were known to be mentally ill. Why weren’t they locked up?
Once upon a time, not so long ago, the demonstrably insane were committed to state mental hospitals. Then along came a movement which decried what it described as the “warehousing of people” and called for the nutters to be released and treated “in the community.”
Problem is, crazy people are crazy. You might give them pills to keep them on an even keel, but even then they might still flip out. Worse yet, the nutters have a tendency to STOP TAKING THEIR MEDS.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right enshrined within our constitution and equal in measure and importance to our fundamental human right to freedom of speech. Any government that seeks to deprive citizens of this right forfeits its legitimacy. Taking firearms away from normal decent citizens will do nothing to make our world safer. It will in fact make our world less safe. Not only will the nutters continue to find ways to murder innocents, whether it be with guns or bombs or even knives as recently happened in China, but the American people will no longer be citizens of a nation whose government is beholden to them, but subjects of a state that is beholden only to itself. Mao was right when he said that political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
If people want to do something about “crazy people with guns” then we need to identify and lock up the crazies. This will solve not only the problem of such people murdering with firearms, but the problem of them murdering others period. Kinda hard to take out a school bus when you’re wearing a straight jacket and knocked out on Thorazine.
Remember folks, Timothy McVeigh didn’t use a gun, and he murdered how many children?
Gary (2)
JRMorris (20)
Lee Reynolds (205)
rightrite (1)
stapalia1 (2)
teapartyadmin (9)
wendell38 (3)