Saturday, October 30, 2010

The Radical Agendas of The Billionaires' Funded Tea Party Movement ,Tenthers , State Sovereignists, Libertarians and Christian Dominionists

UPDATE: 3:16 PM, Sat. Oct. 30, 2010.

* Radical Agendas of Right Wing Movements both Religious and economic are funded in large part by Billionaires and the Conservative super wealthy.

* Are they in fact UnAmerican since they reject most of the laws passed by the US Federal government since 1920 or even after 1820 ???

* Must Average Americans kowtow to these Uberconservative super-wealthy pro-big business elites who favor unfettered capitalism and who argue that Property Rights trump all other rights ???

* Must average Americans kowtow as well to the Uberconservatives'Fellow Travelers and enablers in the Religious Right Movement who in fact are religious fanatics wanting to make America into a puritanical Christian Nation ???

The Tenthers-anti-tenth Amendment
State Rights v the Federal Government
Secessionists - Political ideologues & purist
Unfettered Deregulated Capitalism
Phony Astroturf Populists :Tea Party & Americans For Prosperity
Religious Right
Christian Dominionists

Let's begin with first principles as they are characterized by those Americans who refer to themselves as "Tenthers" or "Sovereignists" or "libertarians" .

Sovereignty Under 10th Amendment
SpongeJosh | May 15, 2009

With each passing day, our constitution seems to be hanging by a thread, and states are usurped of it's constitutional rights to govern within it's respective borders. We are seeing laws implemented by "Big Brother" such as the GIVE Act, the REAL ID Act, and other legislation which undermine not only our state's sovereignty, but our own personal liberties as well.

In the words of a founding father, Alexander Hamilton states the 4 principal reasons why our federal government was formed:

"(1) The common defense (national security);
(2) the preservation of public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks;
(3) the regulation of commerce with other nations and between states;
(4) the superintendent of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries (foreign affairs)."
Many thanks to the people at

TenthAmendmentCenter | June 17, 2010

There seems to be a bit of confusion of what it means to be a Constitutionalist or supporter of the Tenth Amendment (Both go hand in hand) and a Conservative. Let me explain my definition of both.

A Constitutionalist and Tenth Amendment supporter believe that the U.S. Constitution is arguably the greatest political document man could devise. Sure, the Articles of Confederation were also a great document, in fact the Convention delegates that gave us the current Constitution were technically meeting only to revise the Articles. With that said, we support the United States Constitution wholeheartedly and want those elected to Federal office to abide by it. Unfortunately, they stopped many, many years ago.

What does supporting the Constitution mean? Many people who call themselves "Conservative" have rebuked us for betraying conservative principles ie... Gun Rights, Abortion, Homosexual Marriage, Drugs and prayer in school to name a few.

If you are a federal office holder and "Conservative", you should always defend the Second Amendment, look to overturn Roe v. Wade, vote for the Marriage Amendment and absolutely be in favor of the War on Drugs. This is what a Conservative is conserving, right?

Ignore the Feds! Tenth Amendment Center Pledge for the Constitution

While accusing the Obama administration of having a radical "socialist " agenda for America the extremists in the anti-Obama camp or faction as it were is made up of various individuals and groups which have their own radical agendas whether its the Christian Dominionists, Nativist or the Tenthers who want remake America according to their extremist ideology or theology. Each wants to recreate their respective versions of an American historical myth of America's Golden Age.

The religious radicals such as the Christian Dominionist want to return America to a time when America was a Christian Nation and there was no such notion as "The Separation of Church and State". As we have noted they believe that "the Separation of Church and State" was an invention and innovation and did not exist as part of the Founding Fathers vision of America .

They further claim that in fact the Founding Fathers wanted the government and its laws to reflect Biblical laws , principles and morality. According to their interpretation of American history and the founding documents The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights etc. these documents were conceived and authored by men who were Christian and who were inspired and guided by the Will of God in the writing of these documents.

These documents are therefore seen as having a "Divine Authorship" and therefore have Divine Authority almost on a par with The Holy Bible itself. Therefore they contend that it is not just wrong but sacrilegious to tamper with these documents

So if a new piece of legislation is not in sync with these documents and their Divine Intentions such legislation must be rejected. What is true about these Founding Documents is true for all time. So the move towards secularization and the embracing of "The Separation of Church and State" has been a violation of the founding principles, ideology and theology upon which American governance is based.
If for instance blasphemy, homosexuality (Sodomites) , adultery, violating the rules concerning the Sabbath were crimes punishable by the State in 1800 then these laws are sacrosanct and must remain the law of the land for all time. One is forced to ask what about slavery as an institution should it have been kept as an American Institution because it was according to Christian Dominionists or Evangelical Fundamentalists Divinely sanctioned . So they would have similar arguments concerning gender equality and rights and who is permitted to hold public office-Christians only of course and women would not have been given the right to vote and members of the LGBT community would be "put in irons " as it were.

While the Evangelical Fundamentalists and Christian Dominionists want to radically change America's institutions and its society there are those who approach these issues from a Political Ideology such as Libertarianism, Tentherism who also believe America has betrayed its basic principles as put forth by the Founding Fathers .

The Tenthers , sovereignist, and Liberarians argue that under the US constitution the Federal Government's powers were to be limited with the States being granted more powers than the feds. For instance they claim abortion, school prayer, gun rights laws, the death penalty and a host of other laws should be dealt with on a state by state basis. If someone doesn't like the laws of the state they live in they can always move to another state which is more in accordance with their beliefs.

For instance candidate Rand Paul argues that the Civil Rights legislation though in his view for the most part constitutional he believes that parts of the legislation concerning discrimination by private businesses and corporations is unconstitutional.
So African Americans who insisted on equal rights and equal access to public facilities and private facilities were wrong in the latter part of their demands. Rand Paul and other libertarians and Tenthers believe that all such laws regarding private businesses must be amended and tossed out.

Rachel Maddow Discussion With Rand Pauls about "Civil Rights Legislation" and the rights of Private Property and Private Business. He argues the part of that legislation of 1966 which dealt with discrimination by private businesses was in his view was a case of over-reach by the federal government & the Supreme Court. He argues government should not dictate to private business whether they be permitted to discriminate on the basis of race or religion, ethnicity or gender , or sexual orientation.
In his discussion with Rachel Maddow he assumes this is just an academic exercise on her part refusing to see the the very real effects of such a view on individuals or groups and on society . Maddow questions his ideology of property rights and how far should it be pushed. Much of the reform in the United State that has occurred according to his logic would have to be revised and or tossed out.

They therefore argue that given the establishment of "property rights" businesses such as a hotel or restaurant or Woolworth's or Wall Mart have the right to refuse to accommodate, to serve certain groups such as African-Americans or Asian Americans , Native Americans, Muslims, Jews , the Irish , Mormons, atheists or women etc. So these uberconservatives would of course be against Supreme Court ruling such as the 1954 Brown V. The Board of Education or the 1973 ruling of Roe V Wade since these are examples of federal over reach and as unconstitutional. They are also against laws concerning minimum wage, collective bargaining rights, health and safety issues, environmental legislation, child-labor laws , the Income Tax, Inheritance Tax or regulations dealing with the creation of Monopolies or Trusts (ala "The Trust Buster" President Teddy Roosevelt ) or laws concerning Health Care or welfare or subsidies of any sort to the disadvantaged that is the poor, the lame , the sick, the unemployed , the mentally challenged.

So these uberconservaives, Tenthers and libertarians don't just want to roll back certain types of legislation back lets say a decade or two but rather to the era prior to the 1920s or even prior the Civil War era which the various groups or individual actors respectively designate America's Golden Age.

States Rights v Federal Government
Sovereignty or Tenthers

Majority Of U S States Join Sovereignty Movement, Assert 10th Amendment Rights
Glenn Beck interviews Tenther Dan Itse New Hampshire -

infogal09 | February 26, 2009
New World Liberty

A majority of states have bills passed or have proposed bill which affirm 10th Amendment rights. Some affirm additional rights and/or give specific reasons. New Hampshire has written the most aggressive legislation.

and so it goes;

No comments: