Ignornace is NOT bliss. Something which used to surprise Rajjpuut, but which no longer does, and which goes on pretty much unchanged year after year is the ignorance of the American voter about the simplest matters involving political thinking. Roughly 45% of them do not truly understand, for example, the terms “left” and “right.” At least half cannot give a reasonable explanation of the terms “liberal” or “conservative.” And, most dangerously, at least 75% do not know what the term “progressive” ^^ means. Is it any wonder we, as a people, almost always elect the government and people that give us virtually the opposite of what we need and want? For that matter, with the exception of Ronald Reagan, we’ve elected either the most youthful and photogenic or the most well-known candidate (often both) in every election since 1952 which takes a lot of political savvy, eh?
If the reader were to visit the link above he would find a website proclaiming the “World’s Smallest Political Quiz.” Rajjpuut recommends every thinking American take and understand this little test and revisit it often putting the words and actions of our elected and would-be elected officials to the test. Running the quiz, the reader would then receive a score for the politician that would be graphed automatically upon a diamond-shaped chart. Then taking the test oneself, it would be duecedly easy to decide how much the candidate truly represents your own views and desires for the country . . . .
Looking at the chart of someone everyone knows, Sarah Palin, for example, we see that she scores a 10 on social issues and a 60 on economic issues according to the same chart transmigrated to the bottom of her own website’s first page (Rajjpuut recommends you visit the site):
It is the 10 score on social issues that makes Sarah Palin so very unpopular with all Progessive Democrats and feminists. It is that 10 and especially the 60 (low in Rajjpuut’s eyes) score she gets on economic issues that would have Rajjpuut thinking, “Is Sarah Palin really what we need?” Her scores reveal her to be far more statist (she labels it “populist” . . . but that’s NOT accurate), far-far more statist than Rajjpuut likes to see . . . in his not-so-humble opinion only action along the lines of Harding and Coolidge (cutting taxes and spending both by 50% in the first years of their combined administration) can begin to save us from our economic quagmire. Now Palin has talked a great game, but typically semi-statists such as her and statists likeJohn Mc Cain do NOT cut taxes and spending 50%.
Let’s look at someone else you know . . . Rajjpuut has declared himself a Libertarian on this blogsite and elsewhere in life. When he visits the website and takes the test . . . lo’ and behold, he scores a 70 on social issues and a 90 on economic issues: not a pure Libertarian but a slightly Conservative-Libertarian. Purity of view-point like that would probably make it very difficult for Rajjpuut to be elected dogcatcher. Let’s now look at a probable ranking for Ronald Reagan. If we score Reagan by his words and deeds as Rajjpuut just did, we’d find most likely a score of 50 on social issues and 100 on economic ones. Perhaps this is why Reagan helped create 21 million jobs during his two terms. The fact that Reagan scores a “knight’s jump on the chessboard” away from Rajjpuut’s own views explains the two men’s compatibility. Reagan’s scoring@@ rates right on the line between Libertarianism and Conservativism on personal issues and makes him ultra-Conservative on economic ones. Now looking at our present president, we get a huge surprise to many, but not to Rajjpuut . . . .
If we took to scoring Mr. Obama, using his words and actions as Rajjpuut interprets them we’d see a 10 on social/personal issues and a 20 on economic issues which would rank him as an ultra-Statist. Knowing his Marxist upbringing which the liberal media never vetted, Obama is precisely what should have been expected and virtually diametrically opposed to everything that Rajjpuut sees as good and honest and necessary.
For the liberals and other Democrats who mainly voted him into office, (themselves typically scoring about 30-60 on the chart) many did NOT get what they expected. And as Mr. Obama in a certain sense campaigned in a Ronald Reaganesque manner, the conservatives who wanted anything but a Republican, especially a progressive John Mc Cain, after G.W. Bush’s big-government moves, these conservatives, (themselves scoring typically 60-30 on the chart . . . ) 100% didn’t get what they wanted either. So that accounts for about 75% of the electorate voting for exactly the worst of two evils (Rajjpuut likes to call it “choosing between Tweedle-dumb and Tweedle-dumber” and it’s mostly what happens in November every four years). Ah, humanity!
So now that we’re all pretty well versed on political thinking, what about America’s present constitutional and economic crisis, eh?
At present it appears the Conservative force is attracting a huge national following in fiscal-matters owing to the nation’s runaway spending, deficits, monstrous UNFUNDED obligations (Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid with $109 TRillion) and national debt and the growing opposition to Progressive programs to expand government. The Progressives, of course, (having the votes in the House and Senate plus owning the Oval Office) are calling all or virtually all the shots in law-making and spending. The important law-making they control includes burdensome taxes; expAnsive new expEnsive programs that impinge upon individual freedom and the free markets and place the government into the dominant realm of our nation’s activities rather than in its naturally-expected realm of being subservient to the people’s wishes.
The feeling of the Conservative element is that the Progressives are running roughshod over the country and the Constitution. Where formerly there was a Moderate element, now tinges of Moderation are found in the tiny proportion of liberals who vote bi-partisan opposition to the President’s sweeping programs but no real moderation is found, mainly polarity. The Democratic Party under the gross and ill-advised Progressive leadership of Pelosi, Reid and Obama and their loyal followers has unquestionably moved the nation into deep socialist waters. The underpinnings of this socialism is a powerful forcible re-distribution of wealth: that is, THEFT.
The most basic principle of our American government is freedom. The American experience, the American constitution and the spirit of America are tied to freedom. That means the citizen is in charge of the government and not the other way around. Liberals and progressives tend to see the citizen as the always available FUNDING Source for the federal legislators. Pure progressives see the citizen as an obstruction, a bump in the road to their efforts to create (their version of) a perfect world. There are only 17 specific powers allotted to the federal government by the government and there are ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) limiting the power of the federal government over both the states and the individuals.
All too often lost in the nonsensical arguments raised by Progressives (those who see the Constitution as “flawed” and who say we “MUST PROGRESS BEYOND” the Constitution), is that there is a gross difference between rights and needs. We all have needs and it is our own responsibility as individuals to employ our rights and our self-will to take care of those needs. The “NANNY-STATE” advocated by Progressives sees an unending number of basic needs (they call them rights) which the Federal Government is OBLIGATED to fulfill . . . the cost of fulfilling this cradle-to-grave catalog of needs is the loss of our real rights and our real freedoms to the increasingly powerful all-controlling federal government.
Rights are not negotiable they come to us from God and not from the government; it is the responsibility of the government according to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights to protect these individual rights. They belong to the individual as an inheritance for being human. Rights are NOT needs, however. For example, there is no natural right to health care; no natural right to have the government bail you out if your business fails; no natural right to the resources of others just because you are needy. Taking resources such as money and labor or goods by legal force from the individuals and the individual states **is theft by the federal government. It is power from the barrel of a gun used to hold up some citizens for the benefit of others. The federal government has no right to deny freedoms to any group of people to advance the well-being or to benefit others. There is NO natural right to EQUALITY, except the equality of opportunity. The Federal Government has an obligation to defend the freedoms of each and every one of us and to protect us when our rights are violated but no right to force all of us into EQUALITY of means. Freedom means equality of opportuntiy to be free, it does not mean forced equality.
The most basic rights and freedoms protected by our Constitution against the infringement of the Federal Government are the freedoms guaranteed by the 10th Amendment, the last Amendment within the Bill of Rights and clearly the most important. The Obama administration has willfully stomped all over the 10th Amendment while stomping all over the American Dream on the one hand and willfully ignoring their obligations under the Constitution. In other words, they have done everything that they shouldn’t do, and very little (for example, protecting our borders) that they are required to do. In fact, according to a leaked document in the news today, they are plotting to within nine months make 13-20 million illegal aliens into citizens because they believe that they will receive 80-85% of those new citizens’ votes and will be permanently locked-into the halls of power. This cynical attempt at permanent power, they say, is based upon the fact that our Immigration laws are “broken.” Over 220 years our immigration and naturalization laws have faithfully served the nation. They cannot be changed willy-nilly to benefit one political party over another, they must be amended in the Constitution and only in that may they be changed. The cynicism and Marxist grab for power of Barack Obama constitutes the single most damming threat to our nation in its 221 year history.
That is the most important thing that voters need to understand about what Progressives want to steal from all of us: our American freedom and the Constitutional American traditions that have made this the greatest most powerful and most just nation on earth by eternally defending and renewing our freedoms to pull from each of us the intrinsic strengths that Americans has thrived upon for over two centuries.
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
^^ Notice the value of the charting above: people can be conservative economically and liberal socially and vice versa (which they often are) . . . rather than the cookie-cutter liberal and conservative that the mainstream media seems to expect. But let’s make sure everyone understands these crucial terms . . . .
Liberals, as they are generally understood, advocate lots of freedom on social issues and oppose traditional restrictions there while believing that government ought to intervene early and often in economic matters and government restrictions there are exactly what’s best for the country.
Conservatives show great deference to the Constitution on economic matters but seem to like restrictions on personal behavior in line with traditional religious values. Hence the criticism that conservatives “want to be in everybody’s bedroom.”
The “left” refers to people who are liberal-oriented and score on the left side of the diamond. The “right” refers to people who are conservatively-oriented who scored on the right side of the diamond. The origin of the term is disputed some say it arose during the French Revolution and others refer to the British Parliament where, in either case, the distinctions were pretty much along class lines. In any case NOT understanding these terms puts one in the realm of politically-ultra-ignorant, not the place to be when electing presidents and congressmen.
Progressives are in favor of “progressing well beyond the constitution” (which they see as an outmoded and flawed document) toward really big ultra-controlling government. In Rajjpuut’s wide experience, ultra-progressives tend to be Marxists, but do everything imaginable to hide it. Barack Obama is a Marxist and an ultra-Progressive as are virtually all the Czars and many of the members of his cabinet and inner circle. They are seeking to progress well beyond the Constitution and create their version of a Marxist Utopia for us. The most well-known American progressive presidents and presidential candidates were Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Franklin Roosevelt, Thomas Dewey, Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Al Gore, John Mc Cain and Barack Obama. Certainly Theodore Roosevelt and George H.W. Bush would qualify as “semi-progressives.” The only true conservatives in the oval office in the last ninety years were Warren G. Harding, Calvin Coolidge, Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan. Semi-conservatives were Harry Truman and John Kennedy. You’ll note that Rajjpuut’s monthly Truman-Reagan-Kennedy award honors the memories of two semi-conservatives and the only true conservative of the last 50 years.
** right now Obamacare will temporarily ease the Medicaid burden upon the individual states, however, that changes quickly and the increasing share of Medicaid forced upon the states by Federal Medicaid requirements commanded by federal law will in due course bankrupt each and every one of them.
@@ Some would complain, "21 million jobs, but he ran up some pretty big deficits, too." Remember the Democrats largely controlled both chambers of congress during the Reagan years so a lot of the laws they passed which Reagan didn't veto were compromises including tax-decrease measures Reagan wanted but spending progams that the Dems were after. Reagan unlike Harding, was never offered a chance to both cut spending and cut taxes so he only cut taxes . . . nevertheless, his legacy is enormous: the fall of monolithic communism; 21 million new jobs and worldwide respect for the country.