Tea Party Confusion
The idea that politicians should sign a pledge to promote personal morality is contrary to the avowed Tea Party commitment to small government. If you want the government to have a restricted scope, you should stick to the US Declaration as your guide: Government is instituted so as to secure our rights! It is not instituted, at least in the American political tradition, so as to be our moral police!
This is the kind of inconsistency that will bode very ill for the Tea Party and the Republicans. It is just like the liberals' inconsistency of preaching choice in the abortion debate but loving to take it from us in nearly everything else. Obama care comes to mind, which commands people to buy health insurance and is, thus, anything but pro choice. And what about coercing us all to buy green light bulbs?
Who are these people, imposing their standards of right conduct on the rest? Both sides of the political spectrum are still wedded to their tyrannical ways. No wonder so few people vote.
Here is the pledge Tea Party Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann wants candidates to sign:
"Therefore, in any elected or appointed capacity by which I may have the honor of serving our fellow citizens in these United States, I the undersigned do hereby solemnly vow* to honor and to cherish, to defend and to uphold, the Institution of Marriage as only between one man and one woman. I vow* to do so through my:
Personal fidelity to my spouse.
Respect for the marital bonds of others.
Official fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, supporting the elevation of none but faithful constitutionalists as judges or justices.
Vigorous opposition to any redefinition of the Institution of Marriage – faithful monogamy between one man and one woman – through statutory-, bureaucratic-, or court-imposed recognition of intimate unions which are bigamous, polygamous, polyandrous, same-sex, etc.
Recognition of the overwhelming statistical evidence that married people enjoy better health, better sex, longer lives, greater financial stability, and that children raised by a mother and a father together experience better learning, less addiction, less legal trouble, and less extramarital pregnancy.
Support for prompt reform of uneconomic, anti-marriage aspects of welfare policy, tax policy, and marital/divorce law, and extended "second chance" or "cooling-off" periods for those seeking a "quickie divorce."
Earnest, bona fide legal advocacy for the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at the federal and state levels.
Steadfast embrace of a federal Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which protects the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman in all of the United States.
Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy – our next generation of American children – from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.
Support for the enactment of safeguards for all married and unmarried U.S. Military and National Guard personnel, especially our combat troops, from inappropriate same-gender or opposite-gender sexual harassment, adultery or intrusively intimate commingling among attracteds (restrooms, showers, barracks, tents, etc.); plus prompt termination of military policymakers who would expose American wives and daughters to rape or sexual harassment, torture, enslavement or sexual leveraging by the enemy in forward combat roles.
Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control.
Recognition that robust childbearing and reproduction is beneficial to U.S. demographic, economic, strategic and actuarial health and security.
Commitment to downsizing government and the enormous burden upon American families of the USA's $14.3 trillion public debt, its $77 trillion in unfunded liabilities, its $1.5 trillion federal deficit, and its $3.5 trillion federal budget.
Fierce defense of the First Amendment's rights of Religious Liberty and Freedom of Speech, especially against the intolerance of any who would undermine law-abiding American citizens and institutions of faith and conscience for their adherence to, and defense of, faithful heterosexual monogamy."
Some of this is of course redundant – anyone who takes the oath to defend the US Constitution has made many of these pledges, namely, those that involve protection of individual rights. But many of them are meddling pieces of political posturing as the citizenry's moral guide, as our nannies, just as Al Gore wants to be our moral guide vis-a-vis global warming or other environmental issues.
One thing is for sure: anyone who signs this would not be a supporter of limited government, the sort Tea Party folks are proud to claim to be.
Posted by Summer on 07/18/11 12:07 PM
All true, however all potential unifying forces such as religion (take your pick!) are a threat to the PE - The old Divide and Rule - obviously Islam is widely practiced and Muslims view eachother as one Ummah (spiritual group) - an ideological threat, more than a 'physical' one perhaps...
Posted by John Danforth on 07/16/11 10:35 AM
"The question is why is mainstream corruption threatened by Islam? "
They are not threatened by it. They need a bogeyman to go after so they can keep everyone scared and stampede the people one way and another to keep the mill grinding (perpetual debt for perpetual war).
Racist hatred is the easiest tool there is to whip up a frenzy for war. They aren't afraid of Islam nor Middle Eastern people. They want the PEOPLE, the mass-man, to be afraid, and if not really afraid, at least filled with hatred, and if not really filled with hatred, simply indifferent towards them as subhumans, so that they won't recoil in horror at the inhuman things that are done to them.
A step back will give all the perspective anyone needs to see the outright logical absurdity of this wildly successful tactic. What are the odds of Americans instituting Sharia law in their home town? It's simply ludicrous to consider it, yet it is presented as a threat. Yes, it works. It works because most people live the unexamined life and find it easy to hate anyone different than their own clan. The Machinery of State encourages this and feeds off it.
Posted by Summer on 07/16/11 07:36 AM
"Rejection of Sharia Islam and all other anti-woman, anti-human rights forms of totalitarian control."
Oh here we go again - Islam as evil meme. I am a woman, I am educated, I am a Muslim, Islam is not "anti-woman" or "anti-human", quite the opposite!!!
This just demonstrates the ignorance of Islam and/or blatant anti-Islam agenda.
The question is why is mainstream corruption threatened by Islam?
Posted by Kristen on 07/15/11 07:46 PM
Bluebird, it is wonderful to come here and share that hope. And thank you for the kind words. I really think that Ron Paul has a chance of winning this time. While I realize he is limited in what he can do as President, it would help us turn the tide. And if not, as you mentioned, the freedom movement will continue to carry on.
Posted by Bluebird on 07/15/11 07:19 PM
I forgot to thank you for the kind words. I appreciate it. I agree with you. As the Daily Bell is so good at pointing out, the elite create problems so they can "fix" them. I guess they thought since we were all afraid of Sharia Law [they think :-)] the time was ripe for a Christian dictator. I have no doubt they would like to go back to those days. What they fail to realize is that we live among the people from other lands who come here and find they are mostly just like us. They want to be able to live free also. My son's cardiologist is from Iran. He has cared for my little one since he was born 11 years ago. He is a wonderful man.
I don't buy all that junk the elite throw at us. I will vote for Ron Paul, and yes, I have hope. If by chance he does not win, there will be another to come along and take up the cause. There is hope. We are gaining in numbers. We will survive the fall if it comes, and be better for it. Isn't it great to come here and share that hope?!
Posted by WorkingClass on 07/15/11 06:45 PM
Bachmann wants a theocracy. That would be the opposite of freedom. Right? Maybe she wants a small theocracy. Is that what qualifies her for the Tea Party?
Posted by Kristen on 07/15/11 06:30 PM
Hopefully this pledge signals the end of her political career and the continutation of the tyrannical ways of government she supports. She is a bully, you are correct. The dying elite system values her style of management - intimidation, control and subjugation. Free thinkers value honesty, humility and respect - respect of self and others. The number of people who see and appreciate the difference between the two, is growing. Like you, I was so heartened by Ron Paul's great stand against the Bernankster. And, like you, it gave me hope.
Posted by Bluebird on 07/15/11 05:17 PM
I shudder to think about it. We need freedom FOR religion, but also freedom FROM religion. History has already shown what religion in the hand of the state amounts to. We don't need a repeat. Nor do we need a bully. She will not win.
Posted by Kristen on 07/15/11 03:57 PM
Thank you John Danforth and Bluebird for your astute comments; I couldn't agree more. When Michelle self-appointed herself as Tea Party Caucus lead, I was upset. When she voted FOR the renewal of the Patriot Act, it was over for me. And if you'll notice, the Media is grooming her as their favorite for the Republican presidential candidate. Is her pledge part of a larger meme the elite is beginning to promote?
Considering what horror has been inflicted us under Al Gore's global warming meme, one can only wonder what kind of similar terrors might be lurking under this new assault on our liberties. Surveillance cameras installed in married couple's homes to ensure that both parties are being faithful? FBI agents sifting through people's garbage, searching for signs of infidelity? SWAT teams storming into homes announced and removing children from homes of single parents? You are right John, we who love freedom, will not give up.
Posted by John Danforth on 07/15/11 03:02 PM
Ron Paul is Christian too, but he isn't running around proclaiming that God speaks directly to him, as in hearing voices. That's just ... creepy scary. Especially coming from an authoritarian politician that approves killing primitive people.
Thanks for your nice compliment. I always like your posts too.
Posted by Bluebird on 07/15/11 02:26 PM
John, you are cracking me up today. Such out-spokenness is refreshing. We need lots more like you. I make no secret that I am a Christian, but I am forevermore disagreeing with my sister over just such a thing. Anything she sets her mind to do, "God told her". I say "Bull hockey! He would never tell you to do things that will impose YOUR will on others." I would tell Michele the same. Ron Paul 2012! That is what the freedom movement needs.
Posted by Avatar on 07/15/11 12:41 PM
Good Article. Sadly the "real" constitution was dramatically altered in 1860. No wonder the Elites hold Lincoln in such high esteem. He made the USA safe for the New England Industries which were threatened by the lower tariff in the south. Of course Lincoln became a dictator and took away rights guaranteed by the constitution and even instituted an illegal draft that the rich could buy their way out of. Since 1860, our constitution has been permanently altered to the point where Libertarianism is not even relevant to current practices.
Posted by John Danforth on 07/15/11 08:42 AM
Here's Bachmann herself, leaving no doubt. God told her to run for congress.
Click to view link
Posted by John Danforth on 07/15/11 08:37 AM
Bachmann is pure neocon, and is the leader of the effort to derail the freedom movement.
She supported and voted for renewal of the Patriot Act.
She supports unlimited war power of the state. Including the current wars.
As is made plain here, she supports Christian Sharia Law (my term).
She has stated publicly that God spoke to her personally and told her to run for Congressional office.
She has made herself popular by talking up smaller government and keeping rather quiet about the contradictions. It's compartmentalized thinking:
Government should be small and restricted in power (but it should be the biggest empire in the world, project its military power anywhere at will, start "pre-emptive" wars, have unlimited funds to kill people with, and the President should have the singular power of being able to issue a death sentence upon any person in the world without evidence, without review, with no check on this power, simply by DECLARATION).
People should be free from government intrusion into their lives (except the should plant a gunman in every doctor's office to make sure no unapproved procedures take place, and gunmen need to go around sniffing everyone's crotch to find out their sexual habits so that people can be treated differently based on the State's view of them, government needs to have unlimited surveillance-search-and-seizure power to institute a reign of terror over civilians, and everyone needs to get goosed in the pooper before being allowed to travel, and anyone who wants to live with their mate and possibly raise a family must make the State a legal third partner with control over the property and children).
These positions define Bachmann as a statist of the worst kind. I say the worst kind, because she pretends to be a defender of freedom. At least the communists are honest about their goals, and as such cannot destroy the freedom movement through infiltration to derail it by subverting its very goals.
We will knock Bachmann off this perch. Her support of the Patriot Act will be enough to discredit her. Now she aspires to the presidency, a fatal misstep of hubris. The freedom movement will not support her. We will insure her defeat.
Posted by Ichabod on 07/15/11 07:13 AM
I wouldn't get too upset about what Michele wants to do. Ed Griffen, Libertarian, has a pledge to sign too. It follows Libertarian thought at least per Machan. I wouldn't sign either one of them.
This is much ado about nothing. Everyone has a worldview and is or isn't consistent with it. A great many don't know that they have one and emotional responses rule. Take BF. Does everyone understand what's going on here? BF stands for Behavioural Finance and this is the new psychobabble that has been embranced by academics.
Yesterday the head of Dartmouth's Economics Dept revealed his acceptance of BF as valid in a Bloomberg TV interview and Dartmouth is already pursing studies. Robert Schiller last year wrote "Animal Spirits" which signified the shift to BF. I didn't catch it at the time.
Here is the succession of revelations that led me to that conclusion:
First came Robert Schillers book plus his admission that he was chagrined by learning that everything he had been taught wasn't true. That referred to his Keynesian education. He still endorses it but it's broadened now to include behaviour of those in agencies who influence economic decisions.
Larry Summers said "There are two kinds of economists these days in Washington: those who don't know and those who don't know that they don't know."
Olivier Blanchard, Chief Economist of the IMF, said, speaking again of Keynesian economics, "To focus on one special thing (cpi) is so beautiful, but it does not work." Then added "Even to focus on two things (cpi plus unemployment) is beautiful, but it also does not work." There you have the dual mandate directly addressed.
So just this week Bernanke identified and defended that dual mandate and used the words at least six times in his House testimony. So Bernanke clings to surface Keynesian economics while the rest of the Keynesians have move all out to BF which includes Keynes but branches into Behavioural Finance as an extension.
Using this as our economic model, we need to manage perception so that retail consumers plus businessmen will show confidence and profess certainty which will lead us out of the mess we're in and toward the bright future of state capitalism. (sic: contradiction of free market capitalism)
Perception Management is the occupation of the financial media and in that Bloomberg TV excels. But they now frequently use the term Behavioural Finance to indicate they're on board.
Posted by Merridth80 on 07/15/11 06:46 AM
I to, don't want a "Nanny for a President! Let us all vote for someone with some comon/horsesence! Dr. Ron Paul!!
Posted by aikishugyo on 07/15/11 04:10 AM
Oops... derailed. What an obscene document to sign. I'm sorry to be the first to post. Thanks to Tibor for showing this up for what it is.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is bad.