This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Tea Party Candidate Betrayal

This story was offensive. There are 40 Congressmen who were "Tea Party" candidates. 31 of these candidates voted *FOR* renewing the Patriot Act on the first vote.

(The Patriot Act renewal law was first introduced under a "fast-track" procedural rule that required a 2/3 majority. The re-vote required only a simple majority. It was passed on the re-vote.)

It is offensive that a "Tea Party" candidate would vote to renew the Patriot Act.

Many of the "Tea Party" candidates were establishment-backed candidates. They talked about small government, but betrayed their promises once elected. You can't achieve real reform by voting.

This is a common State parasite trick. If non-approved idea X becomes popular, you promote candidates who vaguely promise X. Once elected, they break their promise. They attract and placate voters, because a vague promise of X is better than nothing.

If a candidate breaks his promise, there is no recourse. All you can do is wait for the next election, and vote for another insider-approved candidate.

State insiders are hypocritical. They say "If you're honest, you have nothing to fear from surveillance." Conversely, if you videotape an on-duty policeman, you'll probably be charged with a crime. "Honest" policemen don't want the slaves videotaping them.

It was incredibly offensive, that "Tea Party" candidates voted to renew the Patriot Act. You can't achieve real reform by voting. There are too many dirty tricks that State insiders can use. Voting is pointless.


Anonymous said...

David Cameron (lightweight Public Relations background) promised to raise the inheritance tax limit to 1 million pounds if elected.

Nick Clegg (lightweight European government background ass clown) promised to help students.

Both broke their promises when they formed the coalition government.

Tuition fees can increase up to 3-fold.

If a family member dies, you can be forced to sell your home to pay the inheritance tax on it which is an eye-watering 40% above a threshold limit. With inflation and banksters buying homes with money printed out of thin air forcing house prices up, you can be forced out of your home.

I thought having a home was a fundamental right.

But no, the clowns in Parliament want your home to fund their expense gravy train.

Scott said...

Yeah, obviously they are not libertarians. Tea Party seems to have come to mean rednecks who love the Bible and Sarah Palin and want to kill muslims and go to war with everyone that disagrees with what America says is best.

This is very different from the libertarianism that started it. The movement has been completely coopted and the people following it are fools.

ArrowThief said...

I have to disagree with you that voting is pointless. I really like your posts, and I DO agree it doesn't matter WHO you vote for, although Libertarians are a nice alternative. My point is that we should all vote to keep the PERCENTAGE of voters who actually do vote as HIGH as possible, so that the politicians have to pay attention to the common man. If voter apathy is so bad and nobody cares, then all the politicians think they should only listen to the Banksters & Corporations. The Tea-party is a good example. Although as your post suggests, they (politicians) only PRETEND to listen. Keep up the good work. And please Vote. Percentage matters- we can't all go to sleep on these bastards.


gilliganscorner said...

Voting is a non-binding contract.

I read a post from a law student:

Paraphrase of a question I asked my constitutional law lecturer today, whose main job is a "social welfare litigation attorney". I think he sues the government when they don't steal wealth to give to his clients.

Lecturer: "In a system of representative democracy, all citizens with the capacity to do so vote in elections for political representatives who function as their agents in terms of expressing and establishing their political preferences."

Me: "Normally when we talk about agents acting on behalf of principals, we have to envision a contractual relationship between agent and principal giving rise to personal obligations and rights. Failure to provide due performance in terms of these obligations allows the aggrieved party to seek legal remedies, such as a demand for due performance or a claim for damages. If political representatives are agents acting on behalf of voters, is it possible for voters to claim legal remedies such as these when their political representatives do not fulfill their obligations to them?"

Lecturer: "It would be very difficult to establish the terms of such a contract."

Me: "Is there a contract?"

Lecturer: "No."

Me: "Then are political representatives really agents of voters?"

Lecturer: "...Not in a legal sense."


Hee hee! Then what other sense?

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at