fiscal-conservativism (6)



T.E.A. Party Doubles-Down on Failed

Over-Involvement Policy and Social Conservativism


                In 2010 the remarkable effect of the T.E.A. (Taxed Enough Already) Party’s Anti-Big Government; Pro-Constitution; and Pro-fiscal Responsibility Platform was truly the news of the hour even if the lamestream-mainstream media were not willing to cover it and Time magazine refused to even consider it a newsworthy movement.  Besides the resurgence of conservatives in the U.S. House of Representatives, a shift of over 600 state legislature positions from liberal to conservative hands was an outstanding result by any fair measurement.  Only trouble?  Three shoo-in semi-conservative U.S. senators were defeated by three T.E.A. Party favorites each of whom proved to be unworthy and ineffective candidates . . . and the liberal Obama-supporting U.S. Senate under Harry Reid continued unbroken to obstruct citizens’ movements for responsible-responsive governments.  At present Reid’s Senate has NOT passed a budget in over 1,190 days just six days short of three full years.  Over the same time period, the House of Representatives under Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi also failed to pass a budget, but the Republican-controlled House after the 2010 “miracle-election” has passed two significant Paul Ryan budgets.  Just imagine how different things might be if the T.E.A. party had not interfered in Colorado, Nevada and Connecticut.  Now it appears that mistake in judgment is about to be repeated in the case of several well-respected Republicans; two quite prominent and most notably, Utah’s Orrin Hatch, a damned decent man in my not-so-humble opinion.

            Today rather than getting credit for the modern miracle they pulled off,  and almost pulled off . . . in many places the T.E.A. (taken enough abuse?) Party is villified and has lost much popularity.  Rather than being seen as the “savior of conservativism,” by Republicans, many moderate Republicans regard the T.E.A.s as a threat and a group of butt-inskies.  Has something gone wrong?  If so what?   What can we learn from the relatively few but remarkably stupid mistakes of 2010? 

  1. 1.       In each of these three cases, rather than emphasizing the T.E.A. Party “Contract from America,” the T.E.A. Party chose to become extremely involved in the early primary and election process itself.  In fact, today, the T.E.A. Party emphasis on the Contract from America has virtually disappeared:  a grievous error.
  2. 2.      In each of these three cases, the T.E.A. Party, rather than playing the role of impartial protectors of the Constitution emphasizing to voters how they ought to be making decisions, decided instead to immerse itself in the political in-fighting. 
  3. 3.      In two of the cases, Colorado and Nevada, the T.E.A. Party embarrassed itself by getting involved with virtually inarticulate SOCIAL-CONSERVATIVES who were easily maneuvered into ugly and untenable positions by experienced liberal politicians.  In Connecticut, their glorious candidate was a sorry excuse for a politician – who vetted that woman – witchcraft, indeed?   Looking at the Contract from America . . . where exactly are we to find any social-conservativism at all?  Or Witchcraft?   If the T.E.A. Party  wants its newly arisen social-conservativism to become the new replacement for the long ineffectual Republican litmus test . . . I guarantee that will be the end of the T.E.A. Party’s ability to create meaningful change in meaningful areas such as those 10 planks of the Contract from America.  In each of these three over-involvement instances, the candidates seemingly refused to mention the Contract from America, but were certainly not reluctant to talk about abortion, creationism in schools, and prayer in schools.  By the way, very little progress has been made on the Contract for America precisely because the U.S. Senate was not won by the Conservatives.  So what’s to be done?
  4. A.      Politics is very expensive, messy and often is NOT conducive to a climate of change.  Avoid actual politics.   Educate, proselytize, be missionaries for the Constitution; for fiscal-responsibility; for small, effective government.
  5. B.      Next to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, the most remarkable document for freedom and capital R-type Republicanism from paragraph A before this was the T.E.A. Party’s Contract from America.  When the T.E.A.s virtually abandoned this key document, they abandoned their identity.
  6. C.      Right now 75% of the conservatives in politics are Republicans.  If and when, however, liberal Democrats cannot get elected and liberal Republicans cannot get elected and Progressive anythings cannot even win primaries, then the T.E.A. Party will need to shift to carefully monitoring both parties as fiscal- and Constitutional-Conservativism becomes a winning proposition in both parties.  Till then 75% of the time the T.E.A. Party should support the Republican and 25% support some version of a Blue-dog Democrat or Independent. . . but should NOT get involved with primaries, and elections directly.   Just help people learn about the Contract for America; and fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism don’t interfere.  Also T.E.A Party volunteers can serve a very big role in 1) helping to get out the Conservative voters and 2) serving as watchdogs at election precincts (do the job of election volunteer, but remain alert to potential voter fraud situations).
  7. D.     The T.E.A. Party can learn a lot from the Libertarian father-son combo of Ron and Rand Paul.  The Pauls’ stance on small government, fiscal-responsibility, low taxes, welfare, abortion and military excursions away from America’s shore’s are well-known.  What’s worked for the Pauls?  1) emphasizing the T.E.A. Party positions found in the Contract for America more than any other approach which covers low taxes, small government, fiscal-responsibility, and to a  lesser extent 2) welfare- reform. 

What’s sort of worked for the Pauls?  3)  Lumping both major parties together as irresponsible (and they sure are) on taxes and big government and fiscal responsibility and 4) pointing at one as champions of an evil and counter-productive welfare-state and at the other of a bloated and almost-imperialistic warfare state? 

What’s absolutely failed to work for the Rands?  5) Social-liberalism on matters like drug-legalization;   and abortion; and 6) any hint of criticism of the American military in war zones.  <when Ron Paul talks about military bases in 156 countries and 120 troops in Gemany and Japan combined – he finds many more sympathetic ears than when he criticizes military missions>.  The Libertarian position on items 5 and 6 virtually guarantees a maximum of 20% support and as little as a 10% following anywhere in the nation – very ineffective.  Ron Paul should realize where his power lies and refuse to comment ever on items 5) and 6).  If he did that, he’d largely be a T.E.A. Party man and find high-receptivity among 45% of the voters minimum.  I love the T.E.A. Party, but have been embarrassed by its gaffs with the three Senators in 2010 and with virtually everything since then.  What works for the T.E.A. Party?   The Contract for America.   Make a new one quickly that reflects 2012 reality.  Refrain from picking candidates until they are nominees.  Refrain from any and all social-conservativism.  Fiscal- and Constitutional- and small-government-conservativism is not only a winner . . . it’s also precisely what the nation needs right now.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…


Rasmussen:  79% of voters say the nation is “going the wrong way” while only 14% say the nation is “on the right track.”

TEA Party Abandons Core Concerns;
Hillary Clinton Poised to Contend:
2012 Political Waters Roiled, Muddy
            Two related stories springing up in recent weeks have greatly muddied the American political waters as the nation heads toward the 2012 campaign. Both stories owe the vigor of their credibility to recent polls at the eminently respected website. Scott Rasmussen’s polling group, which has outdone all other political surveys in accuracy over the last dozen years, ran the results of two surprising polls in the last week and information from several other polls contributed to the muddying. First the result of some related “normal polling” by Rasmussen:
A)   The generic congressional ballot shows Republicans getting 45% and Democrats 36% in prospective 2012 congressional voting. The highest seen was a 12-point differential favoring the Republicans a few weeks prior to the 2010 landslide midterm election.
B)   After the Obama administration moved to set the nation’s immigration laws aside and via regulatory fiat put Homeland Security in charge of deciding which illegal aliens are deported and who gets to stay (Republicans call the move “Backdoor Amnesty”) a Rasmussen poll showed the move was highly unpopular. 61% of American voters say that border security is vital while 31% say Amnesty is the correct policy, roughly a 2-1 margin opposed to the President’s move.
C)   While only 15% of the nation says that the economy is improving; 63% say it’s getting worse.
D) 79% of voters say the nation is “going the wrong way” while only 14% say the nation is “on the right track.”
E)    In a ranking of the top ten concerns voters worrying them right now, the Economy outranked all other concerns as it has for almost the last 38 months (Mr. Obama has been in office for 33 of those months). The surprise was that 84% of Americans ranked the Economy as “very important” well ahead of Government Ethics and Corruption (67%) and Health Care (65%).
F)   Finally, while only 29% of likely voters believe that President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy; 51% rank the President’s efforts as poor with 14% more ranking him as doing only a fair job with the economy.
In short, “it’s the economy, stupid!” is the watchword for 2012 politics and most Americans are unimpressed with Barack Obama’s decisions and results. Now let’s have a look at those two new and surprising Rasmussen polls alluded to in this blog’s first paragraph and headlines . . . .
1)      When voters were asked about the label “Tea Party candidate,” 43% regarded the label as “negative” and only 32% regarded it as a “positive” according to Rasmussen in a poll done yesterday.
2)    Besides a recent ABC poll which showed that Obama was in a statistical dead heat with Rick Perry, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Michele Bachmann; and besides the oft-quoted Rasmussen polls which now show a generic Republican beating Barack Obama 48% to 40%; and Obama leading Texas Governor Perry 43% to 40% . . . a recent Rasmussen poll showed Hillary Clinton has a higher approval rating by all Americans over Barack Obama by 47% to 43% and Hillary, as we all know has shown as yet, absolutely NO interest or inclination to run.
Looking at item #1, the Democratic leadership’s efforts to paint the TEA Party as extremists, racists, economic terrorists, stupid and just plain nuts is finally paying dividends for them. Of course Rajjpuut’s unwavering stance on the TEA Party’s raison d’etre shows exactly why this cynical ploy is working as the words and actions of TEA Party’s most prominent names are willfully sabotaging the movement   . . . .
I.                  Rajjpuut has long stated that the TEA Party can do far more good for the country as “kingmakers” rather than as a separate political party actually nominating or running candidates. For example, your blogster was highly critical for roughly four months of the senate candidacies of Sharon Angle in Nevada; Ken Buck in Colorado; and Christine (“I’m not a witch”) O’Donnell in Delaware which gave victories to three Democratic senators pinned on the ropes and which prevented the Republicans having a senate plurality (50-48 with two Independents) right now. Just as Ross Perot in 1992 guaranteed the defeat of G.H.W. Bush by Bill Clinton, any third-party pretensions by the TEA Party can only further mire the nation in progressive politicians with their tax-spend and expand government approach.
II.               The original TEA Party script is simple, powerful and vital to America’s interest and yet it’s being ignored totally. In the last six months there has been an explosion of high profile TEA Party people like Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul and Sarah Palin who have ignored Rajjpuut’s well-thought out advice and taken to free-lancing rather than following the TEA Party script that initiated the landslide effects of 2010 . . for example, they’ve . . .
A.    Made absolutely asinine remarks that reflect badly on the movement: Paul has looked like a 12-year-old on foreign affairs. Bachmann made a huge historical gaffe citing New Hampshire as the site of the start of the Revolutionary War; and she’s been getting into conservative social issues (submission to her husband; gay marriage; and several other “focus on family-type” social conservative comments). Palin continues to frequently express social conservativism issues (that do NOT play well in Peoria) like abortion**, school prayer and Creationism on an equal basis with fiscal conservativism and far ahead of Constitutional conservativism. Rick Perry who reaches out to the TEA Party has even made public statements about teaching Creationism in public schools alongside Evolution. In short, the TEA Party seems to have lost its way, forgotten its focus
B.    In an ideal world, the vast majority of Americans would believe (and have evidence backing up their belief) that the TEA Party is this and only this:
1.  Staunchly fiscally-conservative
2.  Staunchly Constitutionally-conservative
3.  Staunchly free-market conservative
4.  Staunchly in favor of smaller, less expensive and far less obstructive and intrusive federal government
5. A grass-roots movement tying together concerns of conservatives  whether Republicans, Independents, Democrats and Libertarians.
6. Has NO leader and no political agenda other than helping save America.
    C.  Meanwhile this important document has been totally ignored:
   Rajjpuut has repeatedly emphasized that next to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, no more important political document has ever been written in the English language than the TEA Party Contract from America. You’ll notice that the American people, not Republicans or TEA Partiers, who in early 2010 voted on the 28 issues raised by the TEA Party did not place a single social-conservative issue among the ten items in the contract . . . indeed every single one of the contract items refers only to fiscal responsibility, Constitutional fidelity, shrinking the size and interference and obstructive power of the federal government, and a just plain common-sense businesslike approach to running government. And yet, how often have you heard anyone other than Rajjpuut espousing the continued proclamation of these ideals** as the key to recapturing the three branches of elected federal government and beginning to restore America to her former greatness and character?
The TEA Party needs to get its act together:  that is clear. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton is looking more and more like a threat to Barack Obama’s hoped for hegemony. According to top Democrats who don’t want to be named, Clinton has been upset by the economic approach favored by Obama; and was angry about the country’s credit being downgraded. For her part, Clinton appears happy as Secretary of State (though less happy since Robert Gates retired he was her favorite “pal” at the White House) and seems content to serve out her full-term in that role. Bill Clinton, on the other hand sees Obama as weak and a danger to the Democrats’ goals. Clinton, the ex-President has recently been spending a lot of time in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and in Washington talking to Democratic operatives . . . as much as anything, Bill Clinton’s ambition for his wife and himself may be fueling the intensity and frequency of rumors that Hillary in 2012 is a strong possibility. There are also frequently quoted statements that Hillary and Barack have not had a single conversation outside of “office necessity” in three or four months. The United Kingdom’s well-reputed Telegraph blogsite recently ran a headline: “Democrats Doubt Barack Obama’s Re-election Chances” which emphasized the movement of thinking toward Hillary Clinton. The often spurious but always provocative political blogsite has in recent weeks cited several surveys of Democratic primary voters. In the most recent their numbers are 52% for Hillary and 45% for Obama with 3% undecided. Weeklyworldnews also claimed that James Carville, Paul Begala and, most intriguingly FOXNews analyst Dick Morris, “have all signed up to join the Hillary for President team.”
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
**The capacity of one single social conservative issue, abortion, to derail voters from voting for candidates interested in fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism canNOT be over-emphasized. Since Roe vs. Wade was passed in the early 70’s American opinion has by a 59-40% margin been opposed to anti-abortionism IF that meant denial of abortion “rights” in case of rape or incest; or for a very young girl; or where the mother’s life is deemed endangered. While the country as a whole identifies itself a “right-center” nation on fiscal and Constitutional issues . . . Americans are liberal or moderate on social issues and especially so on abortion . . . and the staunch anti-abortionists who dominate the extreme rightwing of the G.O.P. (and who have recently sought to usurp the TEA Party as their own as well) will not meet 60% of America halfway.

Read more…




                “Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices” (excerpt from the TEA Party Contract from America which is shown in full in the footnotes).


Rasmussen Polls Show Virtually Unchanged

Political Viewpoints over Last 40 Months



            Social-conservatives in the next few months will have to decide if they want to solve the problems that matter in this country and govern the United States of America and make her great again or if they'd prefer to feel themselves "right" within their own tiny-twisted minds and leave the power, control and tax money all in the hands of President Obama and his neo-Marxists.  They can be "right" or they can find peace knowing they've saved the country . . . they absolutely canNOT do both!  That is the point of this blog . . . .

                America was moved to a point of absolute crisis this week. Today the Obama administration made an “endrun" around Congress (and changed the Constitution’s rules on Naturalization without amending the Constition) by making legal aliens of illegals and proposing the use of regulatory means within the Department of Homeland Security “on a case-by-case basis” to allow amnesty for illegal aliens deemed NOT to be a threat (no criminal record). Meanwhile President Obama is on vacation considering a “bold new jobs initiative” including a brand new round of federal stimulus.  More insidiously, for the last eight months the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been moving (also by fiat regulatory powers) to covertly enforce the Cap and Trade bill that failed to pass Congress in 2009 and 2010 and has begun by closing down coal mines and restricting oil drilling.  In a nutshell, these examples well illustrate what’s wrong with the nation today and why fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism as demanded by the TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party is the only route to saving our country.

                Few clear-thinkers among us would deny that America stands at a crucial point in her history: most all obvious signs point to decline and potential ruin, but opportunity to realign with our greater earlier history also beckons us toward the future. If ever there was a time for a true statesman or stateswoman to emerge, now is such a time. What do we mean by a “statesman?” How might we recognize him? We will explore the “pros and cons” of this question in the paragraphs that follow . . . .

            Political work in many ways is like being a combination mechanic and back-slapper. Yes, the final “work” gets done by others who must be encouraged to do vast legwork -- but first of all there is a need for the ‘mechanic’s eye for reality’ so that real problems get dealt with in realistic fashion. For example the reality is that 95% of our present problems have fiscal and bureaucratic over-reach as part of their central cause. That truth must be honored, but then again it’s also clearly a people-business. So let’s talk today about the reality of the problems and more importantly about the reality of the people-perspective necessary for a new true statesman to emerge and to lead us out of these stagnant and dangerous 2011 waters . . . .

            Although a good 30% of Democrats deny that the country is facing any fiscal problems (that is, no problems at all with respect to National Debt; Debt Ceiling; Bond Downgrade; Excess Government Spending; Ongoing Deficits; UNfunded Liabilities in Major Entitlement Programs) or troubles with the size and scope of government . . . the vast majority of Americans know better. Poll after poll shows that roughly 72% of the total populace agrees that these two areas are the source of the nation’s problems.   Voters showed their recognition of these truths in the 2010 elections when they voted overwhelmingly for candidates favoring fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. So what tools does the statesman have at his disposal in facing these problems? And what approaches should be avoided?

            The good people at Rasmussen Reports (which has been the most accurate among pollsters for the last dozen years) periodically runs a poll concerning the make-up of the voting populace. That poll consistently confirms what has been reputedly true over the last forty years . . . the nation is “center-right” politically. And yet, you correctly observe, tax-and-spend progressive politicians have dominated the country since Calvin Coolidge left office. The eight years of Ronald Reagan mark the only true conservativism within the Oval Office during that 82.5 year span. Why?

            The problem is that while fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism are ultra-popular stances . . . social-moderation combined with social-liberalism dominates the American scene. Live and let live socially (that phraseology is sure to upset the anti-abortion folk, no?) is the predominant political stance in America. Reagan with his affability, his great sense of humor and his capacity for succinctly nailing the opposition to the wall with their own outrageous behavior and beliefs (“Tear down this Wall, Mr. Gorbachev!” “Government is NOT the solution to our problems, government IS the problem.” “Concentrated power has always been liberty’s greatest enemy.”) was precisely what American needed in 1980 and has needed for the last 82.5 years and indeed throughout the total 234 years of the nation’s existence.  And Reagan stayed out of people’s churches and bedrooms.  He was a no-nonsense fiscal- and Constitutional-conservative with an appealing and practical ability to work with people of almost any political stripe. What was Reagan’s secret weapon allowing him to appeal to voters while so many conservatives thoroughly “turn-off” the vast majority of voters? Tolerance!

            Reagan began as a New Deal Democrat, a huge fan of the person and policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  He served as the President of the very liberal Screen Actors’ Guild for several years . . . he only slowly came to conservativism. He realized that (within limits) there was a need for both “loading the cart” by (after national defense was taken care of) encouraging free markets and business and “unloading the cart” by taking care of infra-structure and people. What’s the correct proportion of the balance between loading and unloading? Perhaps a 90-10 split with government spending 10% of the nation’s resources (GDP)?  Reagan’s own numbers showed an 81.5% to 18.5% balance.  In any case rather than being an ideologue, Reagan was open to discussion on the issues and postulated an 80-20 rule when it comes to calling another politician “friend.” “If a man votes with me 80% of the time, I consider him my friend, my ally.” So he was big on getting consensus rather than running roughshod over other people’s positions.

            Let us look at what Rasmussen polling tells us of what we can expect when we find a new Reagan. Only two political descriptions are rated as more positive than negative by the voters: “conservative” and “moderate.” 42% of voters regard it as positive if a candidate is labeled as “politically conservative.” For a comparison:  only 24% of the electorate regards “progressive” (the current euphemism for “liberal”) as positive. Both “liberal” and “progressive” are regarded as far more negative than positive terms. So again the conservative viewpoint is affirmed but the country doesn’t elect conservatives with any consistency . . . 60% of the nation calls itself either “moderate” or “liberal” on social issues . . . and that 60% finds an awful lot to hate in social-conservativism . . . an awful lot to vote against and be turned off by.

            So we return to our clear and obvious thesis: while fiscal-progressives (a.k.a. liberals) and Constitutional-progressives (a.k.a. neo-Marxists) are killing the country with their socialistic policies . . . our own social-conservativism is sharpening the knife and putting it into their hands.  How? By polarizing the voting populace into social-conservatives vs. everyone else and watering down all respect for fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism. The reason the TEA Party was so effective in getting results in 2010, when they stayed out of politics and nominating and instead played kingmakers and idea salesmen, was that fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism was served and issues like absolute anti-abortionism, prayer in public school, evolution in the biology classrooms of public schools, etc. are not discussed. 

When the TEA Party went too far and got into running for office, however, candidates perceived as “extreme” and “weirdo” (such as Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck in Nevada, Delaware and Colorado respectively) emerged and totally turned off the voters and cost the Republicans a share of the Senate which would have made a huge difference in the last four key votes in Congress (debt-limit; Bush Tax Break Extension and budget for 2011 finally; finally passing a 2012 budget; and Cut-Cap and Balance legislation). All of these issues resulted in unsatisfactory legislation when a far more satisfactory result would have been possible if the G.O.P. controlled Congress. How important is this? 

Consider this, once Paul Ryan’s budget proposal was submitted and passed in the House, the Obama budget proposal was introduced into the Senate where Obama’s Democrats had controlling numbers. What was the result? Mr. Obama’s proposal was defeated in the Democrat-controlled Senate by a 0-97 vote. Even Obama’s Democrats understood the writing on the wall. Conservative thinking is ruling the day, but the public still strongly resents holier-than-thou social-conservativism and insistence by conservatives on their perceived-right to enter people’s religious or sexual sanctuaries will not be tolerated by the electorate. For a final proof of this: remember that 59% of the populace is 100% opposed to the ultra-social-conservative stance of ZERO abortions in cases of incest, rape, extremely young mothers, or a threat to the life or health of the mother while 76% of Americans believe there are far too many abortions in America.

We saw Rick Perry this week giving us a great example of why strict adherence to fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism is the only reasonable approach.   Serving as an extremely bad example, Perry preceded his recent entering the presidential fray with a big-spectacle event a “prayer-fest.” This played well in Iowa; it will NOT win him votes in the vast majority of states. Perry then goes to New Hampshire and cannot answer a simple schoolchild’s question about the age of the earth (4.5 billion years roughly) and, after tut-tutting to the kid that “there are gaps in the Theory of Evolution” (yes, there are, but nothing like the obvious contradictions and shortfalls of the sacred books of ALL our religions) tells the schoolboy that in Texas they teach both Creationism and Evolution in school. 

Mr. Perry, in short, is a fool proposing foolish things. Literal 7-Day Creationism is a religious tenet that should be confined to private schools funded by private and/or religious resources and NOT taught in public schools funded by the taxes of Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, agnostics, atheists,  Shintos and Rastafarians as well as Christians. Mr. Perry, is proving himself unable to keep his eye on the twin balls of fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism . . . indeed by advocating literal 7-Day Creationism be taught in public schools he is violating the tenets of the 1st Amendment. I don’t know about you, but Rajjpuut’s “God is way too large to fit into Mr. Perry’s tiny church.”** And that is exactly why, expect for Ronald Reagan, Conservativism has been such a failure over the last eight decades. 

If conservatives learn nothing from the TEA Party’s successes and failures . . . they need to learn this: there are no areas of an individual’s life more private or more sensitive than religion and the bedroom and any effort to tell that person how to believe or what to do in either the church or the bedroom will only foster the grossest of enmities.

Rajjpuut believes that the TEA Party, when it sticks to its ten listed principles in the Contract from America@@, is the strongest force for political good in the nation. When it abandons them a la Angle, Buck and O’Donnell only bad things are possible. There is no document greater and none more ignored at this time in America’s history than the Contract from America. This is the truth as Almighty God has allowed me to see it, ignore this truth at risk of ruin to our great nation.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,



** These are the very words Rajjpuut’s father spoke as he “ex-communicated” himself from church a long time ago after a priest avowed that Gandhi “would burn in hell along with all those other heathens because he didn’t welcome Christ into his soul” and then refused to “recant” under my father’s withering interrogation. When it comes to religion, the best advice of all is “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” Rajjpuut suspects that Christ would welcome Gandhi into his soul in any case.  As to their relevance today, we (you and I) didn't rule on the abortion issue in Roe vs. Wade in 1973, but we should also not be so stupid as to deny that it's the present law of the land and has been for almost 40 years now and is unlikely to change . . . mostly because of the stance of absolutists among the anti-abortion people.  Refusing abortions in case of rape, incest, for very, very young mothers and in cases where the mother's life or health are at risk deeply angers 60% of the American public.


In short:

1.        Protect the Constitution

2.       Reject Cap & Trade

3.       Demand a Balanced Budget

4.       Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

5.        Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government

6.       End Runaway Government Spending

7.        Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

8.       Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

9.       Stop the Pork

10.     Stop the Tax Hikes

In full:

The Contract from America

We, the undersigned, call upon those seeking to represent us in public office to sign the Contract from America and by doing so commit to support each of its agenda items, work to bring each agenda item to a vote during the first year, and pledge to advocate on behalf of individual liberty, limited government, and economic freedom.

Individual Liberty

Our moral, political, and economic liberties are inherent, not granted by our government. It is essential to the practice of these liberties that we be free from restriction over our peaceful political expression and free from excessive control over our economic choices.

Limited Government

The purpose of our government is to exercise only those limited powers that have been relinquished to it by the people, chief among these being the protection of our liberties by administering justice and ensuring our safety from threats arising inside or outside our country’s sovereign borders. When our government ventures beyond these functions and attempts to increase its power over the marketplace and the economic decisions of individuals, our liberties are diminished and the probability of corruption, internal strife, economic depression, and poverty increases.

Economic Freedom

The most powerful, proven instrument of material and social progress is the free market. The market economy, driven by the accumulated expressions of individual economic choices, is the only economic system that preserves and enhances individual liberty. Any other economic system, regardless of its intended pragmatic benefits, undermines our fundamental rights as free people.

Note: The percentages shown mark what percentage of the public respondents who thought this particular item belonged in the final “contract’ from among the 28 originally named principles created by the TEA Party . . . Hence the title Contract from America.

1. Protect the Constitution

Require each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does. (82.03%)

2. Reject Cap & Trade

Stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices, and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with virtually no impact on global temperatures. (72.20%)

3. Demand a Balanced Budget

Begin the Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority needed for any tax hike. (69.69%)

4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform

Adopt a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words—the length of the original Constitution. (64.90%)

5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government in Washington

Create a Blue Ribbon taskforce that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs, assessing their Constitutionality, and identifying duplication, waste, ineffectiveness, and agencies and programs better left for the states or local authorities, or ripe for wholesale reform or elimination due to our efforts to restore limited government consistent with the US Constitution’s meaning. (63.37%)

6. End Runaway Government Spending

Impose a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. (56.57%)

7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care

Defund, repeal and replace the recently passed government-run health care with a system that actually makes health care and insurance more affordable by enabling a competitive, open, and transparent free-market health care and health insurance system that isn’t restricted by state boundaries. (56.39%)

8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy

Authorize the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition and jobs. (55.51%)

9. Stop the Pork

Place a moratorium on all earmarks until the budget is balanced, and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. (55.47%)

10. Stop the Tax Hikes

Permanently repeal all tax hikes, including those to the income, capital gains, and death taxes, currently scheduled to begin in 2011. (53.38%)




Read more…


        “Besides Rasmussen, the often interesting Quinnipiac University polling a few months back showed that only 19% of the voting populace generally trust government to do the right thing “almost all of the time” or “most of the time; but among TEA Party members that number drops to only 4%. 




Rasmussen Poll Underlines

Conservative Voter Skepticism, Distrust



        The term bandied around most by the progressives and other left-wingers over the last 110 years of American history is their Marxist interpretation of the word “revolution.”  Those revolting people with the aim of bringing totalitarianism to our shores have ceaselessly talked about “the revolution” and derided the system created by America’s Founding Fathers, the system that has made America a shining beacon of hope around the planet for over 225 years. 

        However, throughout real American history it’s been the radical center that has led the way, who’ve brought great change to these shores . . . and right now, according to a recent Rasmussen Reports it is that same radical-center group that is most likely to “kick the bast_rds out” of the Oval Office and Congress until they get a government that truly represents their interests and highest standards. According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll of likely Republican voters, if you talk to 64% of them, they now see "the divide between the public and their government is the biggest since the American Revolution" began in 1775.

        In the Rasmussen survey of likely G.O.P. primary voters, 64% of them agree with that sentiment; only 16% disagree and 20% say they aren’t sure. In related questioning, 84% of Republican voters trust the judgment of the American people more than that of the nation’s political leaders and only 4% trust the political leaders more with 12% “undecided.” When Democrats and Independents are added in, overall 76% of the people today trust the people more than the politicians. The likely Republican voters deeply distrust their government:  87% say the federal government has become a special interest group with the power to advance its own interests to the public’s detriment. Only 6% of Republicans disagree with that view.  67% of G.O.P. voters think big business and the government often work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors; with only 13% disagreeing and 20% unsure.

       Rasmussen Reports founder Scott Rasmussen (who’s run the most accurate and trustworthy polling service in the country for the last dozen years; authored the book In Search of Self-Governance; and co-authored Mad as Hell: How the TEA Party is Fundamentally Remaking our Two-Party System with ex-Clinton aide Doug Schoen) said this in In Search of Self Governance: 

                                    “Throughout American History, voters tend to be a few decades ahead of the political leadership. Voters gradually adapt to changes in the real world while politicians defend the status quo.” 
        If he’s right, it explains why “Revolution” as it’s seen by the left hasn’t caught on. The dynamic in America is, according to Rasmussen, significantly different than it is in European, Asian or Latin American countries where Marxism has played out its hand.  Obviously, the status quo today is an unresponsive, big spending, ever-expanding federal government and gradually diminished freedoms -- all of which the larger part of the voters oppose.

       Rasmussen revealed that 43% of the G.O.P. considers themselves part of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement and 22% of all voters align themselves with the TEA Party.  The TEA Party reports that its makeup includes 9% Democrats; 18% Independents and 72% Libertarians and Republicans who are, of course, most likely to vote in the upcoming Republican primaries. The stereotype that the group belongs to “angry old men” is incorrect: 56% of TEA Party members are women and the average age is 44. 

       Polls by other groups have highlighted some of the problems that the recent Rasmussen’s poll shows Republicans excited about. For example, the often interesting Quinnipiac University polling a few months back showed that only 19% of the voting populace generally trusts government to do the right thing “almost all of the time” or “most of the time; but among TEA Party members that number drops to only 4% compared to 24% among non-TEA Party citizens. All this ties in to another Rasmussen poll showing that only 23% of the likely voting public now says the government has the consent of the governed in America.

      The main difference, of course between the progressive-radicals and the mainstream radicals is, of course, the question of bullets or ballots.  Many on the left such as Frances Fox Piven of Cloward-Piven** Strategy infamy have long advocated “bloody revolution.” The quiet revolution via the ballot box is the preferred method of the angry Republicans and TEA Party folk. Surveys of all Americans over the last four decades has shown that the breakdown of self-identification has remained very steady at or around: 44% calling themselves “conservative”; 42% self-labeling as “moderate”; and just 12% “liberal" or "progresssive.” 

      The area crippling conservatism’s power in Rajjpuut’s opinion is “social-conservativism^^” which includes items like strict anti-abortion stands; and desire for creationism and other religious beliefs being taught in public schools; singing religious Christmas carols in public schools, etc.  For example:  62% of all Americans are against the strictest anti-abortion views (absolutely no abortion under any circumstances) while only 37% support them.  When slightly softer anti-abortion views are expressed 55% oppose them and 44% support them.  Separation of Church and State doctrines, of course, are also very popular among voters who instinctively wish to confine religious utterances to churches and private religious schools.  On the other hand, “combined Constitutional conservativism and fiscal-conservativism” as advocated by the TEA Party seems to be an area that at least half of the Independent voters and about 15% of the Democrats can enthusiastically support.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,




^^ The demographic breakdown is that on social issues Americans say they are “conservative” 36%; moderate 31%; and liberal 30%. This indicates that the most tenable political area lies within the Libertarian’s fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism; and social-moderatism to social-liberalism. The reason that Libertarianism has never caught on, in Rajjpuut’s opinion is that Libertarian leaders have been genuinely impractical and also inclined to shoot their mouths off about ALL their views instead of confining their politics to fiscal- and Constitutional-conservativism only. Just get into office and dramatically shrink the size of the government and put the fiscal house in order . . . that’s what we need!


Read more…


TEA Party Continues Reagan Tradition
Time to Institute His Economic Bill of Rights
Just as Hall of Fame Denver quarterback John Elway became famous for a 98-yard drive through a snowstorm in the waning moments of a playoff game that won the game for his Broncos and came to be known as “The Drive,” so too in late 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a speech supporting Barry Goldwater’s presidential Bid. Goldwater’s famous book was called “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Reagan’s famous speech came to be known simply as “The Speech.”
During “The Speech” Reagan told the story of a Cuban refugee who had escaped Fidel Castro and that island’s communist tyranny. The refugee later became an American businessman and much later met two of Reagan's friends. Reagan described it this way in “The Speech” and considered even more powerful than Goldwater’s entire book.
“In the midst of his story my one friend turned to the other and said `we don't know how lucky we are' and the Cuban stopped and said `how lucky you are? . . . I had some place to escape to,' and in that sentence he told us the entire story,” Reagan continued, “If we lose freedom here there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people that it has no source of power except the sovereign people is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relationship to man.”           

Six months ago Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government, said,
“As the federal government continues to expand beyond its constitutional boundaries here in the early part of the 21st century, Reagan's timeless warning against the grand designs of centralized planners deserves renewed attention. In his speech, the future president also suggested that a forceful response was needed to reclaim the principles of the founding period otherwise ‘history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.’”
The TEA (Taxed Enough Already; or Taken Enough Abuse) Party movement coming one generation after Reagan’s first presidential election victory honors Reagan’s legacy and the legacy of our Founding Fathers. It’s no coincidence that TEA Party activism rose up shortly after our newest President passed his $787 BIllion stimulus program. Barack Obama’s progressivism (Marxism, actually) and the entire Obama agenda, seemingly all designed to rush the country down the path toward the abyss while spitting on the Constitution and all the principles that made this country great. The same principles that Reagan harkened to every day are the principles Barack Obama denigrates into oblivion.
In response to Obama’s nauseating socialism, Reagan nostalgia and Glenn Beck’s eye-opening revelations have created a whole new generation of Americans that Wilson said in the blog quoted above
“. . . are willing to take up Reagan's challenge and restore constitutional checks on federal power. The current administration's on-going efforts to “Europeanize” the American economy with new entitlement programs and coercive mandates has helped to focus public attention back onto the ideals of the founding period. Best seller lists are replete with references to the key figures responsible for the American Revolution.
“. . . on July 4, 1987, President Reagan delivered a radio address that discussed a series of proposed constitutional amendments aimed against deficit spending that would be folded into an “Economic Bill of Rights.” Reagan had discussed his plan at great length the day before during a ceremony held at the Jefferson Memorial. Although his comments were overlooked in the news media at that time, they are remarkably detailed and highly relevant to the fiscal challenges of 2010.
“It's about time we constitutionally mandate the Federal Government to do what every American family must do, and that is balance its budget,” Reagan said in his address. “That doesn't mean taking more out of your pocket by raising taxes. In fact, our Economic Bill of Rights suggests a balanced budget amendment should contain a provision requiring more than a mere majority vote in Congress -- which is all it takes now -- to raise your taxes.”
Voters, whether Republican, Independents, Democrats or Libertarians like Rajjpuut showed up en masse on Election Day, 2010, to express their outrage with tax and spend politicians . . . especially those with the gall to refuse to read and understand the expensive bills and entitlements they were passing. Rajjpuut’s suggests that the TEA Party and the Republican Party take this opportunity to revisit America’s Economic Bill of Rights which Ronald Reagan created out of his deep love for this country:
America's Economic Bill of Rights
July 3, 1987
The Founding Fathers of our country knew that without economic freedom there can be no political freedom. Their rallying cry of "No taxation without representation" reflects that fundamental precept. They knew that the right to earn your own keep and keep what you earn is central to America's understanding of what it means to be free. This country was built by people seeking to support themselves and their families by their own labor, people who treasured the right to work and dispose of their earnings as they saw fit, people who were willing to take economic risks.
Over the past 40 (now 64) years, however, the growth of government has left our citizens with less control over their economic lives. What America needs now is an Economic Bill of Rights that guarantees four fundamental freedoms:
• The freedom to work.
• The freedom to enjoy the fruits of one's labor.
• The freedom to own and control one's property.
• The freedom to participate in a free market.
To secure these freedoms, I propose the following initiatives:
The Freedom to Work: You have the right to pursue your livelihood in your own way, free from excessive government regulation and subsidized government competition.
1. To reduce subsidized government competition with private citizens, I will establish a bipartisan Presidential Commission on Privatization to identify government programs and activities that can be accomplished more effectively in the private sector. I will also instruct the executive branch to find additional ways for contracting outside the government to perform those tasks that belong in the private sector. As to those activities that should properly remain in the government, I have asked the President's Council on Management Improvement to accelerate its productivity improvement program by one year and to adopt private sector practices where they would promote efficiency.
2. To reduce the burden of government regulation, I have reconstituted the Task Force on Regulatory Relief, chaired by the Vice President, to root out unnecessary restrictions on the individual's pursuit of a livelihood.
The Freedom to Enjoy the Fruits of Your Labor: You have the right to keep what you earn, free from excessive government taxing, spending, and borrowing.
3. To protect you from over-borrowing by the government, I will ask the Congress to adopt a balanced budget amendment, a line item veto, and legislative changes that will restore integrity to the congressional budget process.
4. To protect you from over-taxing by the Government, I will propose as part of the balanced budget amendment submitted to Congress, a requirement for a supermajority vote by Congress before your taxes can be raised. This reform will help make permanent our recent progress in lowering your tax rates, broadening the tax base to ensure fairness, and indexing rates so that inflation cannot push taxes back up.
5. To protect you from excess spending by the Federal Government, I will propose Truth in Federal Spending
Legislation that will:
A. Require that every new program established by legislation increasing Federal spending be deficit-neutral by including equal amounts of offsets.
B. Require that every piece of legislation mandating an increase in private sector costs or imposing new regulations include a financial impact statement detailing:
—The impact on private costs;
—The impact on prices for the consumer;
—The effect on employment;
—The impact on the ability of U.S. industries to compete internationally.
C. Require that every piece of legislation forcing increased expenditures by State and local governments include an assessment of the spending impact, the likely source of funding, and the ability of these governments to fulfill the mandates of the legislation.
The Freedom to Own and Control Your Property: You have the right to keep and use your property, free from government control through coercive or confiscatory regulation.
6. To protect your right to own and use your property, my administration will pursue our successful efforts in the courts to restore your constitutional rights when the government at any level attempts to take your property through regulation or other means.
7. To protect intellectual property and to encourage creativity, I will urge that the Congress act on my proposals to provide adequate domestic and international protection to Americans who create new ideas and invent new goods and services.
Freedom to Participate in a Free Market: You have the right to contract freely for goods and services and to achieve your full potential without government limits on opportunity, economic independence, and growth.
8. To reform the present welfare system that promotes dependency and destroys families and communities, I have proposed a welfare reform initiative that will lift the least fortunate among us up from dependency by creating incentives for recipients to become independent of welfare as full participants in the American economy.
9. To prepare our youth for participation in today's economy, I will ask the Congress and the States to enact proposals that will protect the rights of parents to guide their children and select from a broad array of educational options that emphasize excellence, character, and values. I will also promote programs to assist problem students to complete their education and to encourage dropouts to return to school.
10. To arm American workers and businessmen for full participation in an increasingly complex world economy, I will press for the Congress to act on my trade, employment, and productivity proposals to:
—Increase job retraining and other initiatives which improve opportunity for the American worker.
—Encourage science and technology by increasing support for basic research and development.
—Enact antitrust, product liability, foreign corrupt practices, and other regulatory reforms that place American
enterprise on a level playing field with foreign competitors.
—Improve America's ability to secure free and fair trade without resorting to protectionist measures that destroy jobs and
harm the consumer.
            Makes a lot of sense doesn’t it? Truth in spending by the Obama administration alone would be a wonderful thing but all of our presidents and far more importantly all of our congresses have been guilty of excess taxation and super-excess spending. This is where our present $14.1 TRillion National Debt and current $112 TRillion in Unfunded liabilities (not including welfare programs but only Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid) come from . . . Truth in Spending; and requiring a “¾ super-majority” before any tax can be made law; or any present tax can be raised seems like simple, solid common sense. Rajjpuut would also insist that any tax can be cancelled and any old tax decreased by a simple majority. Reagan’s words bear repeating:
“We the people deserve to know that our jobs, paychecks, homes, and pensions are safe from the taxers and regulators of big government. Jefferson warned us of this threat 200 years ago,” he said. “Our Economic Bill of Rights is designed to protect the economic freedom of all Americans and to keep our country growing and prospering.”   AMEN!
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Read more…

Initial frustration with big spending Republicans drove Ryan Hecker and other fiscal conservatives to the creation of the TEA Party but it is the Democrats today who are the ones most worried by the grassroots disgust with business as usual in Washington, D.C. This week the TEA Party comes of age . . . as they flex their political muscle with a second survey called the "Contract FROM America . . . seeking to create a TEA Party platform consisting of ten planks . . . .

To date over 400,000 surveys have been completed and thus far the top three planks of the TEA Party movement appear to be:

#1 Protect the Constitution by requiring each bill to identify the specific provisions of the Constitution giving Congress the power to do what the bill would do. 82% of all survey responses included this plank.

#2 Reject “Cap and Trade Tax” Legislation and stop costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness with no measurable impact upon global temperatures. 70.8% of all surveys included this plank. Obama has not been able to push this bill through the senate and is now seeking to make an end run around the legislative process by having the EPA issue a directive in line with the provisions in the senate.
#3 Demand a balanced budget
by getting a Constitutional amendment process to require a balanced budget with a two-thirds majority required for any tax hikes. 69.6% of respondents approved of that plank.

The Contract From America is the brainchild of 29-year-old Houston attorney Ryan Hecker. Hecker invented the concept even before the tea party movement began in February 2009. Hecker says the ultimate objective is to “influence the outcome of the midterm elections” the way the Contract With America did in 1994, or even more.

"My dream, my hope," Hecker said, "is that economic conservative candidates and those who want to be economic conservatives in the future will sign on, and that we get a bunch of blue-dog Democrats and tons of elected officials onboard, and that they recognize that any document they craft themselves won't be as powerful as one coming from the people.”

Using the results of more than 5,000 surveys from members of the grass-roots movement, the Conservative Political Action Committee winnowed the ideas down to 21 proposals. Then they posted the list online in the as an extended survey, and directed voters to the ContractFromAmerica Web site to select the top 10 ideas.

The ten proposals that the grass-roots voters deem the most important will be included in the full ContractFromAmerica proposal, to be unveiled on April 15 during the massive Tax Day Tea Party rally being conducted in the nation's capital. Reflecting the widespread, de-centralized power of the tea party movement, the Contract From America also will be simultaneously revealed in Houston, Austin, Atlanta, and 80 other locations in the country. Hecker’s idea was based upon the Republican Party’s Contract with America in which the G.O.P. successfully passed nine of the ten contract items into law and forced Bill Clinton to abandon his liberal agenda and govern from the center.

"The Contract From America was a great document," Hecker says, "but ths time it's not top down, it's bottom up . . . It comes from the people, and it's how representative government should work."

"It started with my recent frustration with the Republican Party's lack of legitimacy on economic-conservative issues," he explains. "They no longer represented for me a proxy for my beliefs on the economic front. So this idea came from that. I thought, 'How do we move this country back into an economic conservative direction if that's not where it seems either party is headed. And then it just fit perfectly within the TEA party movement." To which Rajjpuut says, AMEN!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,


Read more…