Earlier this year, Texas U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz touted a bizarre conspiracy theory claiming that George Soros secretly partnered with the United Nations to eliminate the game of golf. Seriously, we aren’t making this up.

Unfortunately, this fantasy isn’t limited to just one unusually radical candidate for elected office. Rather, the Arizona House is expected to vote today on a bill motivated entirely by the same imaginary conspiracy, and the same bill already passed the state senate:

Arizona lawmakers appear close to sending to Gov. Jan Brewer a tea party-backed bill that proponents say would stop a United Nations takeover conspiracy but that critics claim could end state and cities’ pollution-fighting efforts and even dismantle the state unemployment office.

A final legislative vote is expected Monday on a bill that would outlaw government support of any of the 27 principles contained in the 1992 United Nations Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, also sometimes referred to as Agenda 21.

Senate Bill 1507 was passed by the state Senate last month and received an initial House affirmation Wednesday. It is sponsored by state Sen. Judy Burges, R-Sun City West, who also sponsored a state birther bill that Brewer vetoed last year.

Lest there be any doubt, Agenda 21 is not a Soros plot to destroy the game of golf. It is not, as Cruz claims, a “globalist plan that tries to subvert the U.S. Constitution and the liberties we all cherish as Americans.” And it is not, as Burges claims, “social engineering of our citizens” in “every aspect” of their lives. Agenda 21 is a twenty year-old non-binding resolution endorsed by 178 world leaders, including then-U.S. President George H. W. Bush.

So the Arizona bill addresses entirely imaginary concerns. Unfortunately, however, it will have very real consequences if enacted. The bill provides that every arm of the Arizona government “shall not adopt or implement the creed, doctrine, principles or any tenet of” Agenda 21. But Agenda 21 expressly lists among its “principles” essential functions such as “combating poverty,” “protecting and promoting human health conditions,” “protection of the atmosphere,” and “safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive wastes.”

In other words, if this bill becomes law, Arizona’s government agencies would instantly be forbidden from doing anything to reduce poverty. Or to combat air pollution. Or to ensure that radioactive waste does not contaminate the environment. Or potentially to do anything at all to promote human health. Under this bill, Medicaid, state unemployment and welfare programs and nearly any environmental programs would need to cease, immediately.

Simply put, this is what happens when you place irresponsible Tea Partiers who lash out at paranoid fantasies in charge of government. The proposed response to Agenda 21 would be comic if it were not so potentially tragic. In response to a non-threat presented by an entirely non-binding resolution, the Arizona legislature is set to dismantle their entire system of government — and they probably don’t even understand that this is what they are about to do.

Most Republicans are smart enough not to openly admit that they think America’s social safety net is unconstitutional, even if they do misunderstand our founding document to prohibit Medicare or Medicaid or Social Security. Instead, the Republican leadership normally placates the most radical parts of their base with vague rhetoric about respecting the Tenth Amendment, without explaining that much of this rhetoric would undercut three generations of progress if it were ever taken seriously.

This weekend, however, delegates to the Utah GOP convention voted to force a primary that will determine whether Republicans in one of the nation’s reddest states are still satisfied with vague generalities — or whether they would prefer a senator who openly and proudly proclaims that it is unconstitutional for the United States to provide health care to children. On Saturday, tenther state lawmaker Dan Lijenquist (R-UT) earned enough support from convention delegates to force a primary against incumbent Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). Lijenquist joins at least four other Republican senate candidates who believe the Constitution requires America to drown most of its protections for workers, consumers and the elderly in a bathtub:

• Dan Lijenquist: Lijenquist himself called the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) unconstitutional in at attempt to draw contrast between himself and Hatch, who once supported the program. It’s not clear what false theory of the Constitution Lijenquist bases this claim on, but a court decision striking down SCHIP would almost certainly have to take out Medicaid, and could endanger Medicare as well.
• Ted Cruz: Texas U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz co-authored a white paper suggesting that Medicaid and most federal education funding is unconstitutional. He also coauthored a complex but nonetheless unconstitutional plan to nullify the Affordable Care Act.
• John Raese: West Virginia U.S. Senate candidate John Raese, who is best known for declaring that “we need 1,000 laser systems put in the sky and we need it right now” when he also ran for the same job in 2010, also called the minimum wage unconstitutional during his failed 2010 race.
• Wendy Long: Long, a U.S. Senate candidate in New York, is a former law clerk to tenther Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. She also penned a book review praising an opinion by her former boss which would lead to everything from national child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters being declared unconstitutional.
• Sam Rohrer: Pennsylvania U.S. Senate candidate Sam Rohrer gave a speech claiming that “such things as education, or health care, or for that matter even highways and roads” are limited to the states, a position that would lead to Medicare, all federal education funds & student loans and the entire federal highway system being invalidated.

Although these candidates’ views are increasingly common among Republican elected officials, it is somewhat baffling that Republicans are willing to repeat this strategy of running tenther extremists in their bid to take control of the Senate. In 2010 — a year that otherwise benefited Republicans — four of the six outspoken tenther Senate candidates went down in defeat.

Texas GOP Senate candidate Ted Cruz thinks that Medicaid is unconstitutional. He echoed Gov. Rick Perry’s (R-TX) claim that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme,” wants to privatize the program and to raise the retirement age. He proposed an unconstitutional backdoor plan to nullify the Affordable Care Act. His first campaign ad touts how he helped Texas kill an undocumented immigrant. And he believes that George Soros and the United Nations are engaged in a giant conspiracy to eliminate the game of golf. Seriously.

So, of course, wealthy Republican donors and corporations love him:

Texas Senate contender Ted Cruz might not be leading in the polls, but he leads in support from independent expenditure committees — not just in Texas, but across the nation.

An independent expenditure committee, many of which are known as Super PACs, can advocate a candidate to be elected or defeated as long as they are not in direct contact with the candidate’s campaign.

According to the Federal Election Commission, independent expenditure committees have spent $1,688,649.63 either in support of former state Solicitor General Cruz or in opposition to his Republican primary opponents, mainly Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, the leader in several polls. . . . “He’s once-in-a-generation type candidate for FreedomWorks, for the Tea Party movement,” said Brendan Steinhauser, the director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, a conservative group, which has spent $95,191.25 in support of Cruz.

It is not surprising to see a Republican like Cruz rolling in cash from Super PACs and other vehicles enabling the very wealthy to buy and sell elections, as these independent expenditure groups overwhelmingly favor Republicans. As of last January, seventeen of the top twenty donors this election cycle were conservatives or Republicans:

Nevertheless, the fact that Cruz appears to be winning the Citizens United lottery nationwide suggests that this kind of spending is particularly beneficial to the most radical conservatives. Admittedly, Cruz’s plans to dismantle much of the nation’s safety net doesn’t really distinguish him among Republicans — congressional Republicans nearly unanimously voted for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan to phase out the Medicare program just one year ago. But Cruz’s penchant for conspiracy theories about evil Soros plans to wipe out our nation’s golf courses marks him as unusually radical even for a Republican senate candidate.

Ted Cruz, the Tea Party darling who believes that Medicaid is unconstitutional, has taken a moment from spouting paranoid conspiracy theories about a secret George Soros plan to ban the game of golf to produce his first campaign ad. The ad is not subtle, asserting that Cruz can be relied upon as an uncompromising conservative because he once fought to ensure than an undocumented immigrant would be killed:

When the UN and World Court overruled a Texas jury’s verdict to execute an illegal alien for raping and murdering two teenage girls, Ted Cruz fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and he delivered. . . . Politicians cut deals, principled conservatives deliver.

Watch it:

This marks the second time the United Nations has played a starring role on Cruz’s list of America’s enemies — Cruz claims that the UN is Soros’ co-conspirator in his supposed socialist plot to eliminate golf courses — and, indeed, Cruz’s decision to tout his role in this case says as much about his belligerent approach to foreign policy as it does about his passion for state-sponsored killings.

Contrary to Cruz’s implication, the case that he touts in his ad, a 2008 case called Medellín v. Texas, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Texas may execute anyone. Rather, Medellín presented the very narrow question of whether Texas must comply with America’s then-existing treaty obligations under the Vienna Convention to inform foreign nationals who are arrested in the United States of their right “to request assistance from the consul of his own state.” Texas flouted this obligation before sentencing a Mexican national to die, but no one in that case questioned Texas’ power to execute someone who had been tried in full compliance with America’s treaty obligations.

It’s worth noting that Cruz’s belief that Texas should simply ignore this treaty places him in very lonely company. Even North Korea honored the Vienna Convention when it took two American journalists captive in 2009.

In an article that would appear to be a poorly-executed parody of Texas Senate candidate Ted Cruz’s (R) right-wing beliefs it Cruz had not posted it on his own website, the Tea Party stalwart touts a truly ridiculous conspiracy theory about George Soros secretly partnering with the United Nations to come into our cities and eliminate our right to play golf:

In 1992, the United Nations adopted Agenda 21 to “achieve a more efficient and equitable world economy,” outlining a process to eliminate environmental decay and social injustice through micromanaging industries, communities, and culture. They will meet again next year to discuss its “progress” in over 100 nations.

The originator of this grand scheme is George Soros, who candidly supports socialism and believes that global development must progress through eliminating national sovereignty and private property. He has given millions to this project. But he is not the only one promoting this plan; in fact, the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) now consists of over 600 cities in the United States.

Agenda 21 attempts to abolish “unsustainable” environments, including golf courses, grazing pastures, and paved roads. It hopes to leave mother earth’s surface unscratched by mankind. . . . Agenda 21 subverts liberty, our property rights, and our sovereignty.

In reality, Agenda 21 is a twenty year-old non-binding resolution which speaks largely at a very high level of generality about reducing poverty and building sustainable living environments. The United States is one of 178 nations that signed onto this non-binding agenda — and we did so during the Bush Administration. So if Agenda 21 actually were a nefarious Soros plot to destroy paved roads and take away our sacred right to golf courses, it has worked very badly. Two decades after Agenda 21 was produced, Ted Cruz himself is still allowed to sell golf shirts on his website with minimal intrusion from UN peacekeepers.

Sadly, however, Cruz’s conspiracy mongering about George Soros’ war on Tiger Woods is par for Cruz’s course. When Cruz isn’t inventing fantasies about international plots to turn fairways into rough, he invents unconstitutional proposals to nullify federal laws or calls for a radical rereading of the Constitution that would lead to Medicaid and most federal education programs being declared unconstitutional.

There’s no word, however, on whether Cruz believes that the Constitution provides all of us with an inalienable right to play eighteen holes at Pebble Beach.

Earlier this year, Texas Lt. Gov. and Senate candidate David Dewhurst (R) told ThinkProgress that he thinks that it is unconstitutional for the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act by preventing Texas’ racially discriminatory Voter ID law from taking effect. At a forum featuring Dewhurst’s fellow GOP candidates last night, the Republicans would-be senators lined up to join Dewhurst’s opposition to this landmark law

It’s time to do away with the nearly 50-year-old federal rule that let U.S. officials block a new state law requiring Texans to show photo ID to vote.

That’s what Republicans candidates running to replace Kay Bailey Hutchison in the U.S. Senate said during a forum Thursday night.

They called for repeal of the Voting Rights Act provision that requires Texas and other Southern states with histories of discrimination to receive pre-clearance when changing election laws.

“Right now, Texas is subjected to different standards than much of the country,” former Texas Solicitor General Ted Cruz said during the forum, hosted by the Dallas Bar Association. “I think we need to be fighting to ensure the law is colorblind and fair to everyone.”

It’s a strange definition of “fair to everyone” that says we should allow laws that enable a state to systematically disenfranchise minority voters. DOJ recently blocked Texas’ illegal Voter ID law because, like all Voter ID laws, it disproportionately disenfranchises minority voters. As DOJ determined, “a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack” the identification required to vote under Texas’ law.

The GOP candidates’ lockstep opposition to voting rights comes at the same time that the state’s Republican leadership argued that the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional in a federal court in DC. Significantly, the Voting Rights Act was last reauthorized in 2006, after it passed the House 390-33 and the Senate 98-0 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

Newsday reports that Wendy Long, a former law clerk to tenther Justice Clarence Thomas who is best known for spearheading several inaccurate race baiting attacks against Justice Sonia Sotomayor during Sotomayor’s confirmation process, is considering running for Senate against Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) this year. Long, however, is not simply significant for her racially-questionable attacks on Sotomayor. She would also be the latest GOP Senate candidate to bring both genuine legal credentials and a deeply radical tenther vision of the Constitution to the race.

In 2008, Long penned a book review which not only slams the late Justice Thurgood Marshall’s rather banal statement that the original Constitution was a flawed document because it allowed slavery and discrimination, it also embraces one of her former boss’ most radical views — praising an opinion by Justice Thomas which would lead to everything from national child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters being declared unconstitutional. Sadly, such bizarre distortions of the Constitution has become increasingly common on the campaign trial in the post-Tea Party era:

• Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a former law clerk to Justice Samuel Alito, shares Long and Thomas’ radical belief that national child labor laws violate the Constitution. He’s also claimed that Medicare and Social Security — among many other things — are unconstitutional.
• Ted Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general and law clerk to Chief Justice William Rehnquist, proposed using an unconstitutional backdoor method to get states to nullify the Affordable Care Act and he co-authored a white paper advocating a reading of the Constitution that would eliminate Medicaid and most federal education funding.
• Joe Miller, a Yale law grad and former federal magistrate judge, ran for Senate in 2010 on the platform that pretty much everything is unconstitutional — including Social Security, Medicare, the federal minimum wage, and unemployment benefits.

There is hardly an outpouring of support for this kind of candidate. Long is far from the favorite to win in a solid blue state like New York, especially after Gillibrand so recently spanked her GOP opponent during a cycle that otherwise favored Republicans. Likewise, the six outspoken tenther candidates who ran for Senate in 2010 massively underperformed the remainder of the GOP. Miller lost to a candidate whose name wasn’t even on the ballot. And Lee won in large part because he was able to manipulate the Utah’ GOP’s undemocratic method of choosing Senate candidates in order to get his name on the ballot in this blood red state.

Nevertheless, the emergence of multiple candidates who combine genuine legal credentials with a desire to declare nearly the entire Twentieth Century unconstitutional is a troubling trend, and one that could have long term consequences for American policy. Few Democratic officials have the same comfort discussing constitutional matters as a Mike Lee or a Wendy Long, even if Lee and Long are consistently wrong about how they read the Constitution. If this trend continues, it will mean that voters will receive a continuous diet of constitutional garbage with little constitutional reality presented to them as an alternative. And if only one side makes its case to the electorate, it won’t be long before the inmates take over the asylum.