The Pardu

The Pardu
Watchful eyes and ears feed the brain, thus nourishing the brain cells.
Showing posts with label conservative pledges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservative pledges. Show all posts

Saturday, July 9, 2011

The Pledging GOP: The Marriage Vow (a bigoted and racist scroll)

A few words about Right_wing pledges before I delve into the latest editions. An edition that AGAIN has white conservatives using slavery as a preferred way of life as opposed to aspects of modern American life. Excuse the visuals but American conservatives often need reminders of the evils inherent in 'people ownership'.

Anyone who would inflict repeated trauma
such as this must have been insane with all
symptoms common to serial criminals.

Does the pledgers find good in this picture?
Any human being who could travel to 'harvesting' America in this manner must have been of superior physical strength and an equal level of mental strength.
A telling painting of a family being broken apart via the market just as you go to market to purchase vegetables.

I cannot find one remote aspect of 'human bondage' that could be comparable to family life (in any form) since January 9, 2009!  

If you can view the pictures and find any iota of agreement with 'The Marriage Vow' sub-notes related to slavery and one parent life in America, you are suffering from a psychological paradigm that is extremely dangerous in our nation. (See additional comments about human bondage, below

The Pledge Epidemic out of conservative America is becoming so common, any conservative who has not viewed, discussed or signed a pledge must feel as if they are immersed in the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". They do not yet have their cocoon (pledge)!  My reading, hearing and visuals about the various pledges leads me to a point, " those who do not have their cocoon (pledge), should continue to hide from their afflicted brethren".

I could be wrong but I do not recall one 'pledge' from the conservatives or their political cult (Aka GOP) that includes any of the following tenets: 

- I pledge to work towards the betterment of life for middle class and poor Americans.

- I pledge to fulfill my role as a US Congressional representative and work within the system, to bring the nation beyond the current financial recovery.

- I pledge to diligently work towards jobs development while working hand-in-hand with Democratic representatives.

- I pledge to provide information my constituents, including businesses and organizations which contribute to my campaigns, that will assist their understanding that we must all work towards reducing spending and cutting the national debt.

- I pledge to work towards equality among the US citizenry without regard to sex, race, economic status, sexual orientation and religion. I will additionally fight for fairness in matters of congressional business and cooperation in federal governance.

- I pledge to expend every effort to ensure that people are allowed opportunity to exercise their Constitutional Freedoms (including those granted by pre-1990's Supreme Court).

Such pledges do not come from the RIGHT, yet we hear of Right-Wing pledges on a daily basis.  I personally have no problem with pledges of solidarity in cases of noble causes that are shared among the US populace.  Pledges from the RIGHT appear as written evidence of their authoritarianism and their desire to mold our world in compliance with their 'social deficiencies'. Moreover, I have yet to read a pledge from the RIGHT that does not seem to be rooted in fear that their stake-holding members will show a degree of open-mindedness and, Lord forbid, work with the LEFT.


I also have to ask, what is the penalty for breaking the signed pledge if information and constituents are effective in  changing the mind of the ill-fated pledger (pledgee?)?  Should the offender commit suicide or should the person simply remove their GOP membership cared from their wallet or handbag and hand it over to the leaders of the party. 

Before I go further, let me state that I believe the plethora of pledges provides a 'sick' basis for an unofficial  RIGHT-Wing constitution should the GOP ever takeover all three branches of the US Government.  We should make no mistake that the RIGHT has actionable designs on occupying majority or top positions in all three branches of government.  They have stacked the SCOTUS for many years to come; they are also reaping the rewards of years of SCOTUS development (i.e. , Citizens United, Wal-Mart Decision). They have the House Of Representatives and we see the downsides of that majority. The Majority Party has not proposed one jobs bill since their swearing in (AND PLEDGE) this past January.  Yet, they have voted against at least ten (10) such proposals from the LEFT.

The latest 'Authoritarian Fear Scroll' [AKA Pledge] as delineated below was quickly signed by Michelle Bachmann and the 'twilight zone' Rick Santorum. (Pledge details below, thanks to the excellent work on the Huffington Post)

Pledge, Pledge, Pledge!!!!


Bob Vander Plaats, Iowa Social Conservative Kingmaker, Unveils A New Pledge For 2012ers 

Authoritarianism and a bit of pure RACISM  LINK

A few weeks ago, we delved into the world of pledges that the members of the GOP field were being pressured into signing. Turns out we should have held off! Last night, news broke that Bob Vander Plaats -- who managed to successfully parlay a failed bid for the Iowa statehouse into a new gig as go-to social conservative kingmaker -- was set to unveil yet another one of these pledges. And today, under the auspices of his organization, The Family Leader, that pledge is now public. And it's a dilly!
The pledge is titled "The Marriage Vow: A Declaration of Dependence upon MARRIAGE and FAMILY" (emphasis in the original), and what follows is pretty standard-issue Christian conservative rhetoric on the definition of marriage and the sanctity of same, but it comes with a fiscal twist that basically makes it clear that Vander Plaats does not cotton to the notion that social issues can be divorced from economic concerns.
The pledge reads as follows:
The Candidate Vow: 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.
Most of what's encoded in the pledge is easily endorsed by the majority of the current GOP field (though Jon Huntsman, I'll remind you, is dead-set against pledge-signing of any sort). The pledge does strive for rigorous consistency (if not practicality), as seen in its preamble: "We acknowledge and regret the widespread hypocrisy of many who defend marriage yet turn a blind eye toward the epidemic of infidelity and the anemic condition of marriages in their own communities." Alexander Burns points out, however, that the "divorce piece in particular would be an awkward position for any presidential candidate to hold in a general election." (For Newt Gingrich, it will be awkward at any point on the campaign calendar.) I'm interested in the tenability of the call for the "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" and the human trafficking clause. In a technical sense, these clauses should imperil the livelihoods of many private military contractors who continue to receive taxpayer money despite the fact that they engage in these very activities with impunity. Challenging these contractors would be something of a watershed moment in contemporary policymaking, as there is currently a dearth of willpower to rein in these malefactors -- and I'd be willing to bet that few, if any, of the current GOP candidates are even remotely interested in intervening.

For what it's worth, here's my favorite part:
Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.
I'm going to be generous and assume these statistics are accurate. Still, I'm not particularly amenable to the hinted argument that a child is better off being born into conscription than being raised by a single parent or same-sex couple. I guess we're going to find out what presidential candidates beg to differ!
If Rick Santorum isn't at the front of the queue to sign this, someone should really go and check to make sure he's okay.

UPDATE: The Des Moines Register reports that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) stepped up to be the first Republican presidential candidate to sign the pledge.

END HUFFPOST Aol article.

I am often asked why I have such contempt and disdain for conservative America.  In addition to the many reasons that you can easily glean from articles posted on these web pages, I offer the following.

Since Barack Obama ascended to the position of Chief Executive and President of the Untied States, I cannot remember three (3) months passing without some conservative politician using the horrors of slavery in what appears to be revisionist reverse-rationalization of the wickedness of their ancestors ( SOME ANCESTORS). They do so without any history of nor understanding of the institution some call 'human bondage'. Their ancestors and relatives were not adducted or sold-off as chattel to support the overwhelming greed of people in positions of power and authority, in the expansionist colonial (developing) Western Hemisphere. 

{NOTE: the slave trade Middle Passage included approximately 2.5 million slaves transported like chattel to the Untied States, it included ten (10) to twelve (12) million people sold to other people in South America, and approximately 1.5 to 2 million slaves sold across various Caribbean Islands. There has never been such a massive forced movement (transport) of people or such a mass disenfranchisement of families in mankind's history. The latter point is exponentially relevant when one factors-in that not one of those people wished to join the greed based institution of Western Hemisphere Slavery.}
Quote from article above.
.......yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.
Still, I'm not particularly amenable to the hinted argument that a child is better off being born into conscription than being raised by a single parent or same-sex couple.
Mr. Linkins makes an eloquent point that directly illustrates the callousness of thought, and insensitivity of intent by those who continue to postulate their beliefs while including slavery as an experience of a better life. I take extreme exception to the statements for others reasons.  

Am I to ignore the fact that single parent households are not a social phenomena that first manifest on January 9, 2009 (the day after the inauguration of President Obama)?

Am I to, by omission, assume, that single parent households are endemic to only the black community?

I can assume that not only do the crafters of the pledge and anyone who signs the document (including Bachmann and Santorum) not understand US History. I can also assume that Bachmann and Sanrotum continue to reinforce and validate their racist beliefs; beliefs that are becoming more and more evident on a daily basis.

A few weeks ago, the 'lawyer' Bachmann stated that "the Founding Fathers" worked tirelessly to rid the nation of slavery....and they succeeded". I am certain by now that her handlers have told her that to the MAN, slavery was common experience among the constitution crafters (I no longer refer to them as founding fathers).  I hope they have informed her that the US Constitution is a document that completely legitimized slavery and was crafted to with full intent to protect the PROPERTY rights of the young nation's upper crust.

I am equally certain that her handlers have not given her any perspective on the dangers of even including the word 'slavery' in her rhetoric or advised her to stir clear of documents that even remotely reflect on slavery. I can take another leap and justify in my mind that Ed Rollins, her senior campaign chair, probably know less than does Bachmann about US Slavery.

Maybe Bachmann should consider a few points.

- Western Hemisphere slavery included not only the horrors delineated above, families lived in 24/7 fear that they could be torn-apart via the sell or barter of a family member.  In fact it was in many cases an expected reality. Now, the unintelligent mind should contemplate that a moment and think of what life or one's psychological well being would be in such an institution. And, that is the case for both the slave and the person's owner!  Think about growing up in an environment of complete servitude and dehumanizing experiences and then think of that being the case for hundred of years (thus generations). One last point on this item, think of the many many sick people today who abuse animals, is it a far leap to think of life as a slave with people (and their families) having any right to do as they please with you or your mother, your father, you sister or your brother, your daughter or your son.

- Slaves were prohibited from learning to read and write the English Language. Think about that fact as you consider the hundreds of years of slavery. Is it a far leap to imagine how over time so many lost interests in education for themselves and their families.  Is it hard to see how that insidiously factual calamity  still exist in some in this nation.

- Maybe Bachmann cannot force a lessening of density in her head to facilitate grasping the fact that the newly born into slavery were not allowed to take the last name of their natural fathers.

The insensitive and callous use of slavery to make political points in modern America is a systemic problem that seems to ooze across the GOP and the entire continuum of conservative America. 

The pledge and similar comments are not restricted to only people who aspire to hold government office.  I have heard similar comments from others and I have heard the supposed 'smart' Haley Barbour outright lie about the impact of Jim Crowe and segregation in his wonderful State of Mississippi. He actually lied about he and his generation working to stop discrimination in education and across the South.  The man defended the White Citizens Council as not being a threat to black people.

I am waiting to see how many other GOP candidates will touch this pledge. I am specifically interested in seeing if Herman Cain touches the document or avoids rebuking the document.

In closing, Bachmann places herself squarely in the same camp of many in the Tea Party who wear their social views on placards, sign age and their lips.  Her agreement to sign the pledge was factually racist. She placed herself in a position to negatively attack the President of the United States via use an institution that was born of, and nurtured with, strict adherence to servitude of people from the Black Race. Bachmann joins people such as David Duke who have professed clear affinity for the Tea Party.  There is only one reason that a person such as Duke would align so closely with the Tea Party and I suggest that Bachmann is of similar ilk.

From another perspective, I suspect as I consider her background and her tendencies that she may not have known the document that she so quickly signed had sub-notes that included the racist and sickening verbiage.  Alas, guilt by action!!!!  She should have known the document included such verbiage.  I often criticize the RIGHT for its tendency to operate at a level comparable to the shallowness of a tadpole pool.  They seem to have little to no in-depth cognitive perception or inclinations.  I offer that Fox News producers know same, thus their success with the sycophants who follow their 'electronic yellow journalism'.  But, now I have digressed.