There has been a lot said about the enthusiasm and passion of the Tea Party Movement. It has been stoked as the “people’s movement” consisting of conservatives, democrats and independents. All of whom are acting out of nothing else but “genuine” concern for the country and its direction. However, when you examine what has been pushed by this movement, you can not help but wonder how any reasonable person could be taken by such a facetious claim of patriotism and counterfeit love of individual freedom.
The Tea Party movement has been suspect from the start. Supposedly, its moniker is “Taxed Enough Already”. Of course when you examine the data, federal taxes on individuals have been the lowest in more than 50 years since 2009. This is thanks to both Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. So this can not be the reason that the Tea Party was founded. If you look back at pre-Tea Partyism, there were many rallies with people showing up with guns, trying to get a reaction out of the newly elected President Obama.
This was unprecedented, even during former avid gun-control administrations. When he didn’t bite, then this so-called “grassroots” movement had to change course to something that could gather traction and build up steam. Then the target became TARP which had been signed by former President Bush and executed by President Obama. It then stretched to Obama’s stimulus package which, by the way, included tax cuts.
Then the focus was expanded to convincing the populace that the Affordable Healthcare Act (you may it know as Obamacare) was going to triple the deficit.
However, if the truth be told, this was not the case.
Furthermore, the national debt within the last 50 years has been increased the most dramatically under 2 presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Guess what else these two have in common? They both were avid tax cutters although Reagan raised taxes at some point. President Obama, by embracing the lunacy of the tax cut doctrine, may also be added as the third President should he continue to so readily acquiesce to Republican demands.
Another amazing feat that has been successfully merged with this mass hypocrisy is the bait and switch that has been done with the narrative. How is it that fiscal responsibility and job creation morphed into social conservative activism?
There is no moral difference between evangelicals, the muslim brotherhood and the Taliban. When you seek to subvert the freewill of man in order to subject him to some religious ideology, you are not an advocate of freedom. You are an adversary of it. Religious morals are based on changes of the heart and mind and not changing of laws. Moreover, by adopting such positions, you are not a “strict constitutionalist”. You are an obstructionist to the constitution.
There is a reason why there is a separation of church and state. There is a reason why the founders put in the constitution that “. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.” You can find this in article 6 of the Constitution.
The founding fathers knew that you did not have to be religious in order to treat your neighbor like you would want to be treated. Progressives and liberals do not fight for abortion rights or gay rights because they are immoral secularists but because they realize that in being true to the founding fathers they must not subject every other citizen to one’s own religious convictions.
I find it ironic that social conservatives will tell you that they are against “Obamacare” because they don’t want government to get between you and your doctor. Yet, they advocate the government getting between you and your doctor if he performs abortions. They would also have government come between you and your marriage to a consenting adult, should you be of the same sex.
They claim the government puts too many regulations on businesses such as gun retailers and other industries but yet they will pass stringent regulations on abortion clinics. They advocate the government mandating women to have a child once they become pregnant but are staunchly against the government providing any health care for that mother and child. Moreover, they would also eliminate the guarantee of the child getting a decent education if it were possible. HYPOCRISY!
When you inquire as to why this is the case, they will tell you that the free market would fix resolve such inequalities of care. Now this is blind and futile faith because over 250 years, the “free market” has not, by itself, produced affordable healthcare.
How is it that so-called “Christian conservatives” care more about big business than they do about the average everyday American? Why would they seek to regulate the personal lives and choices of a free people but seek to deregulate commerce even when it is harmful to the general welfare of the average American? Perhaps the next time they ask you, “What would Jesus do”, you should acknowledge that they honestly don’t have a clue and give them an answer.