tea - ACTION - Command Center

What is the Answer

Posted by Thomas Coe on June 14, 2011 at 1:08pm

Personally I believe that part of the problem we face in this country is the motivation of our elected representatives. We have, for as long as I have been voting (40+ years) , been seeking term limits with no success. No surprise, most want to preserve their career first and foremost.

I believe the best thing the Tea Party could do is help to achieve term limits through a "Endorsement Contract" with candidates for office. The contract would state that the prospective candidate would agree to serve no more than 2 consecutive terms. Incumbents would agree to one additional term beyond their current term(s).

If they cannot agree to this I would urge the Tea Party to withhold endorsement. Our representatives will need to make some of the toughest decisions in this countries history in the coming years, we cannot afford to have indebted representatives with only their next election on their minds. An effective representative will need to make decisions that will make some angry if we are to get back on track.

Rajjpuut's Folly: Recent Poll Data Yields Surprising Portrait of TEA Party Voters

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on April 6, 2011 at 3:00pm

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress

TEA Party Voters Constitute

a Different Breed of Conservative

Wiser Research and Rasmussen Reports recently published new polls with intriguing depictions of TEA Party voters and society’s perceptions of them . . . . Of course, literally hundreds of surveys about the TEA Party have been conducted. Dozens more comparing TEA (“Taxed Enough Already” or “Taken Enough Abuse”) Party folks to typical conservatives or to typical Americans, typical Republicans or to Independents have also been done in the last year. Some of the most common claims of the mainstream media about the TEA Party were absolutely and quickly refuted by the mainstream polling organizations . . . the following “generic” poll information comes from numerous surveys on the subject which will be followed by the two recent and more specific surveys about the TEA folk from Rasmussen Reports; and Wiser Research . . . we’ll look far more closely at the Rasmussen and Wiser data. Here are the conclusions about the make up of the TEA Party that can be drawn from mainstream research thus far:

1) TEA Pary members were not stupid as liberal pundits suggested, but more highly educated than the general populace and than other conservatives.

2) They were not racists, but less likely to be hold racist views than the general populace.

3) They were more likely to be older than 45.

4) The other demographics of the TEA Party vary somewhat from region to region. However, in general they are older -- more than 150% as likely to be over 65 as under age 28. Men outnumbered women by about 56-44 among TEA Partiers. Blacks and Hispanics are represented among the TEA Party but around 50% less frequently than found in the general populace for both groups. Catholics are found among the TEA Party about 30% less frequently than in the general populace; Jews are found about 60% less frequently than among the general populace. Asians are found at about 10% less often than in the general populace. TEA Party events are often family events for younger couples that are involved.

5) TEA Partiers are more likely to be successful and enjoy higher earnings.

6) More likely to own a business or represent a profession such as doctor, architect, engineer, computer-programmer etc. than the general public.

7) The mainstream media were right about one thing: TEA Partiers were far more likely to watch FOXNews regularly and far more likely to question the “fairness” of other popular media sources of information such as the traditional broadcast networks.

8) They come from all over the political spectrum but typically described themselves as Republicans 54% of the time; as Independents or “Other” 28%; as Democrats 12%; and as Libertarians 6%.

9) Despite efforts to portray them as extremists, recent surveys show that 47% of the voters regard their own views as closer to the TEA Party then to those of our representatives or senators and 54% say the TEA Party views are closer to theirs than what they perceive to be the views of President Obama.

10) TEA Party people are far more likely than other voters to call themselves “Fiscal-Conservatives”; “Constitutional-Conservatives”; or “Libertarians.”

11) TEA Party people are far more likely to describe themselves as “well-informed on the issues” than regular conservatives 58% to 41% and than the general public where only 30% agreed with that self-description.

12) While studies by groups like the Huffington post seem to aim at portraying TEA Partiers as “trailer trash” and “100% sold on” the Republican Party: TEA Partiers “perhaps because of their age” come from a higher than average income levels and largely describe themselves as previously “inactive” politically.

13) Perhaps because of their age, TEA Party members are more likely than members of the general public to have owned or managed a business or to have served in managerial positions than the general public.

14) TEA Partiers are more likely to regard themselves as “very well-informed politically” and “economically” than the general public. About 78% of them agree with the statement “Lower taxes creates jobs.”

15) The single-most consistent aspect of the TEA Party that everyone agrees upon is that they are overwhelmingly conservative. Studies have shown that only 6-10% of TEA Partiers consider themselves “liberal” and only 22-25% consider themselves to have “centrist” political views. When the word “moderate” is used, however, a large amount of the TEA Party considers themselves to be fiscally-conservative moderates.

16) Under-represented professions among TEA Partiers include teachers and lawyers. Union involvement is found, but less than among average voters. Many are involved in the computer industry or information technology.

17) TEA Party people are far LESS likely to describe themselves as “Socially-Conservative” and more likely to call themselves “Social- Moderates” or even “Social-liberals” than regular conservatives. They are far less likely to think that total bans on abortion; absolute right to prayer in public schools; teaching creationism in public schools; or gun control are “major issues at this time” and far more likely to point to debt; jobs; runaway government spending; and expansion of government as the most serious issues of our day. While both types of conservatives are highly likely to oppose gay marriage, TEA Party conservatives are more likely to approve of or be neutral toward the gay lifestyle. These numbers and attitudes have been fairly consistent for the last year regardless of who’s doing the polling.

18) While we’ve seen no polling data on this, Rajjpuut has done a lot of “informal polling” and would describe the “level of violence” found at TEA Party demonstrations (perhaps in keeping with their age) as “virtually non-existent” especially compared with that of the left-wing activist and Union activist demonstrations he’s seen. Similarly examining the “rhetoric” found on signs at such demonstrations shows the TEA Party placards generally “staying on topic” and complaining about policies and events in comparison to left-wing activism (say in Wisconsin) as vitriolic and often aimed at personalities . . . which is diametrically opposed to the viewpoints expressed by mainstream pundits characterizing the two groups.

The only “violence” ever seen by Rajjpuut at a TEA Party event was when someone tried to infiltrate a TEA Party group (with photographers in tow) bearing a racist reference to Obama. The young man was physically conducted off the premises by four athletic-looking young TEA Party men and his racist sign destroyed completely. The mainstream media didn’t cover that on the nightly news, however. That’s concludes our broad outline of who the TEA Party is . . . .

http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics_research2011.html

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2011/48_say_their_views_closer_to_tea_party_than_congress

In the two surveys linked above, the pollsters zeroed in on some specific beliefs or specific impact of TEA Party conservatives compared to regular conservatives. The second link is to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll on the TEA Party which tracks the public perception of TEA Partiers very closely. The top link from Wiser Research really aimed to zoom in on a few areas where the TEA Party is claimed by the media to be “more extreme” than Republicans or other conservatives.

Rasmussen leads off his poll with this comment: “In the ongoing budget-cutting debate in Washington, some congressional Democrats have accused their Republican opponents of being ‘held captive’ by the Tea Party movement, but voters identified with the Tea Party more than Congress. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters say when it comes to the major issues facing the country, their views are closer to the average Tea Party member as opposed to the average member of Congress. Just 22% say their views are closer to those of the average congressman. Even more (30%) aren’t sure.”

Results of the Rasmussen polling added that 49% of likely voters see the TEA Party movement as “good for the country; while 26% see it as bad for the country; and 16% see the TEA Party as a neutral entity neither good nor bad. 78% of Republicans and 54% of Independents see the TEA Party as good for the country; while 48% of Democrats see it as bad for the country. 45% of likely voters believe the average TEA Party member has a better understanding of the problems (and their solutions?) facing the country than the average member of congress; while only 31% see the average member of congress having a better understanding.

At present 22% of the populace claim they are part of the TEA Party movement; 12% say that someone close to them is a TEA Party Member; and 14% say they aren’t sure. 94% of the political-class have no ties to the TEA Party and 69% of the political class believe the TEA Party is a bad thing. (Over the years depending upon the economy, between 6-15% of voters identify themselves as part of the political class by their answers to three specific questions from Rasmussen pollers, while 54-70% respond to those same three questions in keeping with “mainstream” views. 59% of mainstream voters see the TEA Party as good for the country.

The Rasmussen Reports poll concludes saying, “41% of all voters think the Tea Party will play a bigger role in the 2012 election campaigns than it did in 2010; 30% see the TEA Party’s role “about the same”; while 21% say they expect a smaller role in 2012. Voters see the words “Tea Party” a bit more positively as a political label these days, while the terms “liberal” and “progressive” have lost ground even among Democrats. “Conservative” remains the most popular description. While Rasmussen has earned a reputation for professionalism and accuracy and beaten all other polling groups in predicting the final vote percentages over the last three presidential election cycles . . . some have claimed that Rasmussen is “conservative-leaning.” For balance we’ll look at a recent poll on the TEA Party conducted by a supposedly independent and neutral survey group: Wiser Research . . . .

In the Wiser Research the survey concluded that it appears that there is “an emerging split among conservatives” and asked “how will this affect Republicans in 2012?” While admiring the polling’s ingenuity, Rajjpuut finds such conclusions, highly questionable largely because of the way the polling was conducted. Wiser sought responses to opinion statements from regular conservatives and from TEA Party conservatives and then sought to assess the differences in response. Since Wiser was looking for differences, it’s not at all surprising that they found them. Rajjpuut’s totally different conclusions are found below; here are the Wiser opinion-generating statements:

A) “Barack Obama is destroying the country.”

B) “Obama is a socialist.”

C) “I want to see Obama’s policies fail.”

D) “Obama is a practicing Christian/Muslim.”

E) “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate.”

As stated above, Wiser Research was looking for differences and found them. Except for the first three questions, however, they got a lot of “not sure” responses. Across the board the TEA Party members were more likely to agree with the statements and to believe that Barack Obama is a Muslim than regular conservatives were. First let’s look at those responses according to Wiser:

A) “Barack Obama is destroying the country” elicited a huge difference between regular conservatives and the TEA Party. 6% of regular conservatives agreed with the statement while 71% of TEA Party Conservatives agreed.

B) “Obama is a Socialist” showed another great divide, but not quite so marked this time: 75% of the TEA Party members believe Obama is a Socialist compared to 40% of regular conservatives.

C) “I want to see Obama’s policies fail” was agreed to by 76% of TEA Partiers, but only by 32% of non-TEA Party conservatives.

D) “Obama is a practicing Muslim” was agreed to by 27% of the TEA Party and 16% of other conservatives; and the corollary “Obama is a practicing Christian” was agreed to again by 27% of TEA Partiers; but 46% of other conservatives. Note: Among all voters various studies have shown that Obama is considered a Muslim by roughly 16% of the populace.

E) “Obama does not have a U.S. birth certificate” garnered 26% agreement from the TEA Party but only 17% from other conservatives. Note: study after study have shown that 18-20% of all American voters believe the president cannot produce a legitimate American birth certificate and that independents are far more likely than Democrats and only slightly less likely than Republicans to believe this is true.

The “self-fulfilling prophecy” aspect of human affairs (and human polling) has been documented for at least the last eighty years -- we tend to find what we expect to find and the truth be damned. Rajjpuut sees these Wiser numbers, especially in response to the first statement, to be far, far out of line with reality as he or anyone he knows has experienced it. He’d daresay that it would be impossible to find any group of self-described conservatives anywhere who’d respond to the statement “Barack Obama is destroying the country” with less than 30% agreement. If the statement was rephrased, “The policies of Barack Obama are destroying the country,” than it’s doubtful that less than 60% agreement could be found among any group of self-described conservatives in America. What exactly is this “opinion” of Rajjpuut based upon?

A) Despite attempts to portray America as a racist nation, Barack Obama got more White votes than John Kerry or Al Gore. Almost 48% of White voters supported him. In contrast less than 5% of Black vote backed McCain . . . racism, seems to come from the other direction or should we call it Black backlash?

B) Barack Obama got a huge benefit of the doubt after his election in 2008. 72% of Americans approved of his performance when polled on Inauguration Day including 45% who highly approved (in contrast only 15% of Americans highly disapproved of Obama’s performance at that time). Rajjpuut backed “the lesser of two evils” McCain-Palin ticket; but admits feeling good about the country electing a Black man as its president. Unfortunately, that feeling was gone within six weeks . . . .

C) Things have changed for Mr. Obama, his level of support has fallen dramatically. Mr. Obama didn’t somehow get “blacker” or otherwise racially objectional overnight; nor did White voters suddenly become more racist. Mr. Obama’s policies quite frankly and simply are hurting the country and the voters have noticed and become angry or at least disappointed about that.

As everyone knows, the honeymoon was over rather quickly. Almost immediately Obama’s actions made it clear that the man practiced highly dubious politics, especially his economic actions and policies. By mid-March of 2009, the TEA Party had arisen out of nowhere in objection to government policies these individuals regarded as anti-American; socialistic; anti-common sense; anti-Constitutional and expansive. That Barack Obama was at the center of these policies was obvious to all . . . so once the political opposition arose, it’s natural that he, personally, would be the center of the debate.

Again, if the statement “Barack Obama’s policies are destroying this country” had been used, it’s likely that very little rift would have been shown between conservatives. The TEA Party arose first against Mr. Obama’s policies while the entire nation didn’t think about repudiating them until a couple months before the last election. With eighteen extra months to crystallize their understanding, it’s natural that the TEA Party would be slightly more likely to see Obama as personally responsible. Rajjpuut would prefer not to impugn the motives of Wiser Research, but clearly sloppy interview technique and dubious methodology seem to be involved.

The task that Wiser Research took upon itself: to find major differences between TEA Party conservatives compared to all conservatives seems to have shown success. However, since in study after study . . . conservatives of all ilks regard protecting the Constitution and American Way of Life; growing the economy; stopping the growth in government; creating a balanced budget; dealing with the National Debt and unfunded liabilities; and ethics in government as the most important issues of our day -- and TEA Party conservatives have consistently shown themselves the most adamant in desiring the government to face up to these issues . . . .

The Wiser Research study’s final conclusions that a rift is developing between Republicans (notice their research was on self-identified “conservatives,” but their conclusion talks about Republicans) and the TEA Party may be of little import since currently fiscal-conservativism and Constitutional-conservativism seems to be the driving impetus of the broader electorate. IF such a wide rift actually exists it’s not likely to manifest itself when such a huge area of “easy” agreement lies before the two groups and the general voting public as well. Additionally, the central fallacy of the Wiser Research conclusion emerges from their polling technique in which clearly Barack Obama (and not his policies specifically; or progressive political policies in general) was the focal point. So long as the man’s policies are seen as antithetical to conservative values, no rift matters.

The one key finding of the Wiser study (that the TEA Party believes more strongly that “Obama is destroying the country” by a ratio of 71% to 6% over ordinary conservatives) puts their whole study in question in Rajjpuut’s mind until it can be replicated by a more respected polling organization. When it is further revealed that Wiser comes to this conclusion and another conclusion (from a different study) that the TEA Party harbors more racial resentment than other conservatives – something none of the other more accredited studies has ever shown . . . one cannot be blamed for suggesting that it looks likes Wiser went out of its way 1) to back the Obama administration’s “party line” about the largely “unsavory” nature of the TEA Party and 2) actually attempted to incite a rift amongs conservative voters which could only benefit Barack Obama. Rajjpuut would suggest that Rasmussen and other more respected polling outfits take up this Wiser study and conduct a similar one of their own. The numbers 71% and 6%, however, are so out of line with real life that, as mentioned, the whole Wiser study is made suspect.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

GOP Confronted with Insurmountable Opportunity

Posted by Ron Robinson on March 7, 2011 at 2:55am

Ron Robinson is author/founder of PROCINCT.net, the online app that broke the PDI/VoterVault monopoly for your precinct walk lists and is a GOP precinct committeeman/state delegate in California.)Rushing past us now like the windows of a fast train are the precinct, county and state caucuses/conventions where the GOP leaders for the next 2 years are chosen. If it's your intent to change the direction of the GOP, you need to get involved now.Obama used the metaphor of a car that had driven into a ditch in the last campaign. Of course, he had envisioned that the car had gone off into the ditch on the right. Tea partiers see the car swerving to the left. What do you do when your youngster is driving and drifting off the the left? Send a fax or email? Sign a petition? No! You grab the wheel and yank the car back over into the proper lane.That's just what more and more Tea Party types are doing this season as they show up at the precinct and county caucuses to choose the new GOP leaders - the new leaders who will put our party back on track. They are getting involved and taking over governance of their own party.We tried letter, faxes, protests and petitions. Not much help. But as the GOP swings back t the right bit by bit, we are learning that our work is taking effect.Take responsibility for the governance of your party today. If you don't know how, you can go to PROCINCT.net to learn.(headline h/t: Pogo)

FIRST TEA PARTY FLAG

Posted by mike miller on March 4, 2011 at 10:30am

Please go to the National Tea Party Fund LLC web-site. They have the FIRST TEA PARTY FLAG!

Go to: National Tea Party Fund. Com

Dixie Rising Check out my Blog above link, to see my daily blog posts for the Atlanta Tea Party Examiner.com

Posted by Tammy Dee Liles-Henry on January 11, 2011 at 6:23am

Dixie Rising

Check out my Blog above link, to see my daily blog posts for the Atlanta Tea Party Examiner.com

Open Letter To Tea Party

Posted by Stephen Banicki on January 1, 2011 at 7:00am

"The tea party's success has drawn hundreds of politicians and groups seeking to fasten themselves to the movement, steer it and speak for it. Millions of dollars have flowed in from corporations and rich donors, all of whom have their own ideas about what the tea party should be. This struggle for the soul of the movement has left many of its original activists facing agonizing decisions: Do they, should they, still belong?" Washington Post 12/31/10

The Tea Party claims to be pro business and anti big bureaucracy, including big government. It believes that government stifles entrepreneurship and destroys creativity of its citizens. There is too much power centralized in government and thus diminishes the power and freedom of our citizens.

Brooklyn Tea Party Platform VIDEO

Posted by John Press, Ph.D on December 26, 2010 at 7:14pm

Hello Tea Party Activists,

PLEASE WATCH AND SPREAD OUR GROUP VIDEO

of the

BROOKLYN TEA PARTY PLATFORM

SIGN THE PLEDGE at www.brooklynteaparty.org

It only takes a second.

Let's start a coalition.

Thanks for all,

John Press, Ph.D.

President - Brooklyn Tea Party

www.brooklynteaparty.org

www.culturism.us

PROCINCT Helps You Become the Most Powerful Public Official in the Nation

Posted by Ron Robinson on December 8, 2010 at 1:17pm

It's been said many times in many places: becoming a precinct committeeman makes you the most powerful public official in the nation. Why? Because it's mostly precinct committeemen who choose sounty and state party chairs, party candidates and delegates to state parties, the RNC and the presidential nominating convention.

If you are not a precinct committeeman, you are leaving your party ungoverned! Beleive it or not, most precinct committeeman seat in our country are unoccupied - empty - nobody is going that job or casting that vote for our party leaders. You should fill that empty seat.

As an example of just how much power a precinct committeeman ((PC) has, the PC in one tiny legislative district recently dumped (took out) the state chair for the party in AZ. How? Isn't the state chair for the entire state? Yes, but to qualify to be state chair, a person must be a state delegate. The home district of the state chair decided to give the state chairs delegate seat to someone else. Accordingly, the chair lost his basic qualification to occupy the chair. This guy was also the RNC Treasurer! So if you thinks PC is the bottom of the food chain and has no power, think again.

PROCINCT (as in Proactive Precinct) was started six months prior to the last election to provide precinct walk lists for Tea Party and 9/12 activists who could not get those walk lists from their local party. It was a splendid success providing walk list to activists in 20 sates, helping them reach 16 million voters. That aspect of PROCINCT is still available to you for your upcoming city/county elections or scholl board elections, etc.

But the good folks over at PROCINCT knew that more is required for long-term victory of conservative ideals. That's why they just put up a special resource so you can learn how to become a PC in your state. Using resources similar to here where you can post your opinions and questions (and get answers) and receive documentation on just how the process works in your state. The emphasis is on authoritative information that you can rely upon to be seated on your party central committee and actually govern your local party.

A good example of how PROCINCT is serving the needs of folks trying to join their party central committee comes from the state of New York: PC activists in NY discovered that the local Board of Elections had taken them off the ballot! PROCINCT researchers investigated. In the process of investigating the event, we discovered expert and native help right in NY that has been helping folks get elected to their PC seats for years, and we are connecting PC activists with that agency.

So it's not just about furnishing authoritative information, it's about removing obstacles - even unjust obstacles - wherever we find them.

The goal is to have our party governed by the true conservative grassroots - and PROCINCT connects the people who are trying to do that.

To Organize or Not.....

Posted by Russell Mac on November 6, 2010 at 3:48pm

I have been tossing the idea around in my head as of late, does the tea party formally organize or not? As I’m sure all of you have heard speculation of what the tea party is or what the tea party’s next agenda is and who they align or will align themselves with. Are they aligned with the Republican party will they be adopted by the Republican party. Will they force hot button issues like Social Security. Listen to what a blue collared American has to say about it.1. Right now the tea party has a lot of political power and there is no formal organization.2. If you organize you chance to lose that power through potential corruption.3. If we demand we can and will get our own watch dog seat in both the house’s. You can send people there though a volunteer selection. Get a list of potential volunteers place their names in a hat and draw names. Simple solution.4. Our government has run a-muck for so long and corruption runs so deep in Washington the only way to correct it, is to watch them 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, like we do with our own children. Governing is not rocket science and should not be viewed as such. Also I am tired of being told I don’t understand or I’m too stupid to understand government. I am not an angry American I've just had enough.So with that said I believe if you organize the movement somewhere someone will corrupt it. Why try to better something that is best left untouched. Keep the politicians and the media on their toes keep them wondering what we’ll do next that will keep them all in line and on track with what we tea party Americans want.

Navigating the Intellectual Flotsam of the Left

Posted by Dr. Jake Baker on October 30, 2010 at 9:30pm

I am breaking my own rules and responding to this Neanderthal by "arguing with idiots," if you will. This is the typical leftist rant, class warfare, hillbilly tea partiers, etc.

Politicus USA, in a post on October 20, 2010 by Sarah Jones, in an article titled, "Tea Party Oligarchy: Trust Fund Babies Are Good For Workers":

“Oh, didn’t they tell you? When they said 'grass roots movement' of the people, by the people…yada yada, they meant elitist oligarchs should be in power, either through ignorant puppets who don’t know better like Christine O’Donnell or the real live bona fide Oligarch types like we have here in John Raese of West Virginia (R-WV), cuz nothing says populism like inheriting somewhere around 79 million dollars….

“And liberty. Oh, sweet liberty of being born to the right parents like the founders intended. A nation built upon a system of oligarchs, don’t you dare tread on my trust fund you dirty ape and just in case, we have Sarah Palin the rude ingrate populist puppet to sell it all to you. Oligarchy first! Oh, land that I love….

“The Tea Party is running candidates who aren’t vetted and don’t know what they’re talking about when they puppet big corporate daddy lines or they’re just cuttin’ the puppets out and running the owners of said corporations. All of these things are being sold to you as populism. If you buy that, I’ve got some lovely land in Florida….Gold? A super hot book I wrote myself about myself?”

I'm trying to decide if you people are ill informed, naive, weak minded, or if you actually believe the drivel you write. When speaking of Republican money, you may not know that two-thirds of Wall Street CEOs are democrats. Let me quote the New York Times' article, "Democrats Retain Edge in Campaign Spending," by Michael Luo and Griff Palmer, Published: October 26, 2010:

“Lost in all of the attention paid to the heavy spending by Republican-oriented independent groups in this year’s midterm elections is that Democratic candidates have generally wielded a significant head-to-head financial advantage over their Republican opponents in individual competitive races.”

The fact is, the party of elitists is the Democratic party, whose leaders consist of the some of the richest politicians in the country, like the late Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Jane Harman, Jay Rockefeller, Mark Warner, Jared Polis, Frank Lautenberg, Dianne Feinstein, and Harry Teague. These Dems comprise 8 of the 10 richest senators and congressmen in D.C. Their combined wealth is approaching a billion dollars. Further, the Dems are funded by the largest unions in America. During this campaign cycle, the unions have contributed hundreds of millions of dollars. This, despite the fact the polls released this week, shows that union members preferred not to have their money spent this way.

I love the condescending attitude you leftists display mocking anyone who is not you. In your whitless diatribe you mock Christine O'Donnell and infer that she may not be a rocket scientist. I would much rather have her supposed naiveté, which in my estimation is honest patriotism, rather than the feigned intellectualism in D.C., than the scheming backroom, deal-cutting racketeers, which the dems proved themselves to be in the duplicitous handling of the health care package, which the public didn't want, doctors by better than a 2 to 1 margin decry, and economists say will cost trillions of dollars.

Perhaps some of you in the leftist brain trust can figure out how to pay for this latest round of Marxist palaver. Don't bother to come back with the “tax the rich” scheme. If you took every asset of all of the top 3% of the richest Americans, most of whom are democrats, you would affect the national debt by less than 1%. And taxing small business owners who declare more than $250K annual income will break the back of an Obama weakened economy and drive the nation to ruin quicker.

But, when you think about it, perhaps that's the real goal of leftists like you any. If you can collapse the economy and drive the system into the ground, you and your progressive ilk can step right in and lead us to a bright and shining new world order.

Personally, I've seen enough of New World Orders in my time. I have seen the result of Mr. Hitler's New World Order … seventy million dead and an entire race targeted for genocide; I’ve seen Mr. Stalin's New World Order … forty three million dead. And the communist revolution in China had its own special New World Order; which enlightened the world …in excess of one hundred million people murdered.

Then there was the progressive heroine, Margaret Sanger; a true bulwark and champion of American liberalism and founder of Planned Parenthood. Only problem is, she was a eugenicist, who believed that blacks should be eliminated because they were "breeding and swarming like rats in the streets." Today while blacks make up only 13% of the population, black children account for one-third of all abortions. While 40 million children have been killed in the womb, over 13 million of them have been black children. If any other nation on earth were to slaughter 13 million black children, we would be screaming genocide and sending in UN troops. Today, we give them government money to carry out this genocidal initiative championed by the left.

Then there is good liberal, Woodrow Wilson, another hero of you folks on the left. Only problem is, Wilson was open about his hatred for America. He too was a eugenicist, who thought blacks inferior. In fact, he re-segregated government workers, government offices, and the military.

Robert Byrd, the conscience of the Democratic Party and a former KKK leader, who on Fox News national broadcast, threw around the "N" word, like it was nothing. This, by the way, was not a baited interview. I saw the interview live and the tossing around of the "White N" and "Black N" phrases were in no way related to the conversation. The passages were a complete non-sequitur. What does that tell us about his hidden thoughts?

Might I suggest you, and the rest of the progressive lemmings, go meet some Tea Party folks before you stereotype them as “an assemblage of doltish hillbillies.” You will find that most are above average in intelligence, above average in education, and from all walks of life: independent business people, plumbers, physicists, educators, students, tradesmen, white collar workers, stay-at-home wives, career women, preachers and politicians. They are the face of America. They are not the bearded Marxists, so representative of you pseudo-intellectual elite, who are, in jolting candor, really the intellectually effete.

History has shown your ideology, while sounding high tone, is in fact tone deaf to life beyond the walls of the self-induced delusion of your bookish ivory towers, which are, in reality, an intellectual ghetto in which you subsist.

Socialism has never, and will never, worked. It is a moribund philosophy, with a built in death mechanism. Any political philosophy, which has as the basis of success taking by force, or force of law from one to reward the ineptitude or sloth of another, is doomed to fail. Driving the lazy, inept, or duplicitous to the trough, while telling them they deserve a place at that trough, is courting both moral and financial exhaustion. At some point there will be so many people at the trough that there is no one left to fill the trough. At some point you run out of other people's money. When the goal of socialism is finally achieved, and the stated goal of economic equality is achieved, history shows us that the equality created is intellectual, moral, and economic bankruptcy.

Please do us all a favor. Before you destroy our medical system, talk to the Brits, who are walking away from socialized medicine. They realize it is a complete failure. Study Romney care: it is bankrupting the state of Massachusetts. Before government decided to step in and treat us like we were helpless idiots, who couldn't survive without them, each of us, and all of us, took care of our own families, took care of our elderly, took care of the poor among us, and shunned the professional dead beats. Because we were personally involved, we knew that the neighbor down the road was a hard worker, who was just having a hard time, and we, as individuals, lent a helping hand.

Conversely, the guy living across the street, well, he was a drunk and lazy. He chose to pursue happiness in his way ... the bottle and sloth. He is free to pursue that happiness. And when he fails, and his relatives have to adopt his children, take care of his wife, and he is alone in his whiskey clouded world, he will have accomplished his pursuit. Perhaps then, and only then, can he make a choice to pursue happiness in another way.

In other words, those of us in the Tea Party are not a bunch of toothless, ignorant rubes, needing your beneficent guidance to make it through the day. We are not asking you to provide for us, think for us, help us, and certainly, don't try to control us, tax us, or attempt to live our lives for us. What we really need from all of you good, caring liberals on the left, is to be "left" alone.

But, because we understand that you are still concerned about the poor and the downtrodden, I have come up with what might be the perfect plan. About 15% of the population is living below the poverty line. By the way, this is the same number of poor we had at the start of the great society programs under Lyndon Johnson.

There are about 20% of Americans who admit to being liberals. For you guilt-ridden leftists, we need to create a special form, from the government, which will provide this service for all of you. On the form you will swear that you are a good liberal, concerned about the poor and downtrodden, and that you believe that these people should be taken care of by their fellow Americans. On the form you will have the opportunity to either have enough money taken from your paycheck every payday to support a poor person, or, if you prefer, government workers can actually deliver to your house a poor person. From that point on, you will be responsible for their care, feeding, hygiene, behavior, and outcome.

This takes all the cold bureaucratic treatment out of the equation and provides a one-on-one loving contact with your very own poor person, drunk, drug addict, or societal malcontent. It's akin to having a living Chia pet. Water them with your personal care, love, and concern, and watch them grow.

Similar programs could be conducted for illegal aliens. Just like the girl scouts, who ask, “How many boxes of cookies do you want this year?” the government can ask, “How many illegals will you take this year, Mr. Liberal? As you know, we now have 20 million of them, and only you can help us reach our goal of placing every one of them in their very own home!”

We can give this program high sounding name like, “The Human Chia-nome Project,” and each of you can save humanity … one person at a time.

Meanwhile, the rest of us, thanks to your personal involvement, can go to Washington D.C. and state capitals, and get rid of all of those failed social programs, dollar wasting boondoggles, and worthless, feel good government incursions, that are indebting our children to the third and fourth generations.

Isn't it amazing how much we can accomplish when we really sit down and communicate? Just look how angry my response to your intellectual flotsam was at the beginning of this response, and how conciliatory it is now. I really feel like we've connected on a spiritual level ... like we've brought light to your darkness.

I know I speak for all us when I say, “Thank you.”

Thank you from the bottom of our hearts that you are willing to put your empty-headed utopian dreams into practice. And just in case all of this doesn't go just exactly as planned, we'll just go ahead and build that wall down there on the border, make plans with Mexico to help their economy, so that they can support their own people, and tend to the unseating of the dogs inhabiting the seats of power in D.C., the governor's chairs in all of the states, and the leftist incompetents in counties and towns across America. Maybe we should do what we can to begin once again teaching our history, demanding constitutional government, working and contributing to campaigns that remove the corrupt and vulgar, thereby effectuating their replacement with the honorable and forthright.

Matapalo

Posted by Daniel Lechner on September 24, 2010 at 9:00am

Stepping Up To Preserve Freedoms! A new novel, "Matapalo," (written by just an average guy) illustrates just what the Tea Party Movement is all about. Fictional average people, in a fictional average medium-sized city, come to grips with an over-reaching Government, and slowly realize how guarantees strangely reduce freedoms. Who and why one individual steps up is a surprise. Available at Amazon.com.

Daniel Lechner

Donald Trump had smart thoughts on Fox Business

Posted by Dale Bulthuis on September 16, 2010 at 8:46pm

I wish I could find his exact words. He talked how America could tax China for imports freeing us from owing China for products that are not high quality saying we don't have free trade with China and he spoke about NATO and how corrupt what America has been defending these countries and yet our defense bills are so high.

OBAMA CAN RELAX; THE TEA PARTY IS JUST A FAD

Posted by Walt on August 31, 2010 at 8:42pm

Well, that is if you subscribe tocolumnist DeWayne Wickham’s way of thinking; which is possible if yousquint your eyes and twist your mind.

Wickham’s latestmasterpiece appeared today in USA Today (Aug. 31, 2010, p. 11A) and was,naturally, titled, “Jackson, Sharpton Rallies Carry More Influence ThanBeck’s.”

Which is why, I suppose, the media has spent so muchtime attacking Beck’s rally.

Anyhoo, the gist of Wickham’s littleessay is that suddenly old players like Jackson and Sharpton have theability to “spur” the “core constituency” of the Democratic Party,blacks, to get up off the couch and stop watching SportCenter (to borrowa phrase from obama) and head to the polls in November to rescue theDemocratic Party.

I use the term ‘black’ due to a Radio One pollin October 2008 that found 42% of those polled prefer to be called‘black’ rather than African American (www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/28/liggins.vote/index.html).

I’mall for giving this ultra-minority a voice.

While Wickham saysthe Jackson/Sharpton rallies will create Hope and Change V2.0, hepredicts that the Tea Party “will be short-lived.”

Where wereJackson, Sharpton, and their “core constituents” a month after obama’selection when Democrats were losing two seats in black districts inLouisiana – including New Orleans? Wickham’s charges were missing inGeorgia during a December 2008 Senate run-off election which was run by aRepublican by 15%. Why were Jackson, Sharpton, and Wickham notspurring their “core” to vote in 2009 during governor’s races inVirginia and New Jersey where surveys were showing drops in black voterturnout upwards to 40% as compared with the general election in 2008? (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/62967-democrats-ponder-a-big-drop-in-turnout-among-black-voters).

Wickhamis placing much faith in an unreliable voting block and two uninspiringmen with racial chips on their shoulders.

The Tea Party, Wickhamsays, is a “21st century incarnation of the anti-immigrationKnow-Nothing Movement of the 1850s.” Thus the crux of his death knell.

HereWickham, like so many, confuse the extreme nativist ideology of theKnow-Nothings with the reasonable, conservative anti-illegal immigrationbelief of the Tea Partiers.

The difference on this point is aswide as a Reagan victory over Jimmy Carter.

Due to the majoritytwo-party hold on our politics, and given the fact that members of bothmajor parties and states like Michigan are fighting to keep a formal TeaParty party off election ballots, we most likely will not be able tocompare electoral successes between the two movements.

TheKnow-Nothings, prior to imploding due to their extremism, did have someelectoral success.

Formally known as the American Party, theKnow-Nothings actually won 62 seats in the U.S. House of Representativesduring the 1854 midterm elections.

They made their way onto the1856 Presidential ballot with candidate Millard Fillmore, who receivednearly 1 million votes.

This, and more, from a party thatbasically morphed its way into being seen as a joke.

However, TeaParty support has led to more elective offices for their supportedcandidates than has the support of obama for his chosen candidates.

Wickhamwastes his time comparing a formal political party built on an extremeanti-immigration ideology with a group aligned to support candidatesthat support various conservative issues.

Wickham and Sharptonare filled with vigor when liberal groups march and coalesce for acandidate and a cause, but are threatened and become hypocritical whenconservatives choose a similar path to make their voices heard.

I’mjust surprised Wickham didn’t bring up Sarah Palin.

Pink Slip, what a bunch of Crap!

Posted by David Denman on August 30, 2010 at 6:49pm

I been on here for a few months now and after a while, this is all a bunch of crap. Hey Beck, sit down with me on TV so I can tell the real truth, cause you do not. I dare any of you jack assess to sit with me while American watches. Pink slips, Donations, buying t-shirts, you people are making no difference, but making someone wealthy who really dosn't have much to really say, just talk about problems. Freedom is free and you do not sell crap to get it and I will not pay to have it. You are all free men, if you think making donations or being part of some Mickey mouse club will give you want you want, let me know how that is working out for you, because a year from now, you will all be talking about the same crap and even worse, it will be worse.

"The Declaration of Independence" states that when your Government is no longer in the best interest of it's people, it is the right of the people to abolish them and re institute a new one. That means stop talking and do something, it means be Patriots you morons.

Your Government is coming! Your Government is coming! I don't have to be on a horse to know that.

hoosierboy43@yahoo.com You want to be real Patriots and honor and fight for your rights, give me a shout, otherwise, let me know how deeper the shit your in is getting and remember, just talk, no action, just talk.

Action is real results, talk is just that, Talk! I forgot, who is listening to you! no one right now, get a clue about what is real and what is just crap. Donald Duck is on face book, want to join or maybe you can help Mini with farm-ville...lol people really are out of touch.

Rajjpuut's Folly: Gutless Left-Wing NY Times, Makes Gutless N-Word "Retraction"

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on August 5, 2010 at 3:00am

“Say, Betcha Didn’t Know . . . .”

the Story Behind a NY Times “Retraction”

After her excellent comparison of the courage exhibited by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer compared to our wimpy President’s non-efforts to protect the nation’s borders, perhaps Sarah Palin ought to be making statements about the New York Times publishers, editors, reporters, columnists, op-ed writers, bloggers (and everybody but the janitors) all combined . . . lacking the “cajones” of a one-celled protozoan . . . Let’s talk about one “retraction” in the Times . . . .

Some months ago, the liberal media was alive with a story about TEA Party members yelling the N-word fifteen times (or twenty-nine times in one paper) at Black members of congress as they walked up the capitol steps on that sunny day in March when Obamacare was passed. This was considered BIG . . . front-page news cussed and discussed in every liberal broadcast for weeks to come. Only one problem, it never happened. The $100,000 reward offered to anyone who can show “verifiable video footage,” showing one instance (not fifteen or twenty-nine) of the n-word being used has been offered lo, these several months and no one has offered documentary evidence, much less collected the reward. Similarly, no video footage of any Black congressman or any congress member being spat upon on that day has ever emerged.

Just the other day, (and this is August 5^th) almost five months after it purportedly happened, the New York Times finally (having researched the story carefully – hah!) ran a retraction/correction . . . well, sort of . . . .

What they did actually was not even deign to draw attention to the retraction/correction by putting it off as a separate item at all. Instead they boldly went where few retractions/corrections have gone: they placed it inconspicuously at the bottom of another story. To wit:

“The Political Times column last Sunday, about a generational divide over racial attitudes, erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.”

“All the News that’s Fit to Print?” Really???? Perhaps the Times ought to change their motto to “All the Gutless Lies Obama Would Prefer We Print.” First of all, that, whatever else it is, is neither a correction nor a retraction. There is NO “we got it wrong and we apologize” aspect to that piece of garbage by the piece of garbage Times.

1. Notice that the actual event is left muddy, there’s no mention of the n-word or Mr. Lewis’ race . . . nothing that could make the “apology” meaningful.

2. Notice that the retraction/correction was certainly NOT page-one news like the original story was . . . .

3. Notice the retraction/correction refers to “one example” . . . when the Times -- by March, 2010 – had already been printing such accusations about the TEA Party and conservatives virtually non-stop without basis for over a year . . . and meanwhile has continued to spout out this nonsense ceaselessly since March, 2010.

4. The retraction/correction is over four months late and it’s not actually either a retraction or a correction and it does not apologize . . . it just says, “There is no evidence . . . epithets . . . came from TEA Party members” which is, at best a half-truth since . . .

5. The retraction/correction does NOT say “There is NO EVIDENCE any epithets with n-words were hurled by anyone at all.

6. The retraction/correction says “While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements,” but doesn’t say for every two thousand such accusations (not connections, but “accusations”) perhaps one** is true.

7. The retraction/correction talks about “a generational divide over racial attitudes” . . . that, my friends, is what has been known as a “weasel phrase” or possibly “a (or an) euphemism” . . . but which is actually just an old-fashioned LIE, not a half-truth, a LIE. It’s acting like . . . a) some sort of generation-gap exists and b) the TEA party (with older members?) treats differences in race one way that’s presumably at least a bit racist and c) the Times and its readers knows better because they are elite, intelligent, etc. but . . . RACISM, you Times morons, is RACISM, and lies are lies, and p_ss-poor journalism is pi__-poor journalism.

8. The Times seems to have never gone to the “horse’s mouth” for final verification of the event’s truth or falsity. Since Representative Lewis, a Black Democrat, is reportedly one of the few congressmen of either party, any race, any gender, any age who has been repeatedly and fairly called “honorable.” Yet Mr. Lewis has repeatedly refused to corroborate the stories about being spat upon or having the N-word hurled at him. Perhaps the Times should have asked Mr. Lewis, if his silence itself on this matter was “honorable” (since the only probable reason for this silence was to NOT gainsay his fellow Democrats)?

9. The Times has continuously run as straight-news, each and every liberal’s or left-wing Democrat’s accusation of RACISM as undeniable fact for at least the last ten years IF DIRECTED at CONSERVATIVES . . . but which has never attributed the barely 4% of Black votes going to Mc Cain while Obama received more and a larger percentage of White votes (almost 48%) than Kerry or Gore as having any racial significance at all. Isn’t it strange that the Times, which regards itself as so urbane and sophisticated in oh, so many ways, is so gullible that after ten years it has never figured out that the unending refuge for progressive (wanting to “progress” beyond the outdated and faulty Constitution) scoundrels is labelling all their opposition as “RACISTS.” How sophisticated is that? Just so the Times understands Rajjpuut clearly, he is saying the Times is guilty of not only abetting reverse-racism, but also of continuously and consistently falsely charging and abetting false charges of racism by others against Conservatives and conservative groups.

10. a) The Times recently OMITTED publishing news about a speech being applauded by the NAACP wherein a Black preacher and a couple of thugs who helped him beat up a Black entrepreneur (the man made a fortune in 2008 selling Obama buttons, but tried to sell “The audacity of dope” buttons featuring the president with a joint between his lips) were defended and lauded. The speaker repeatedly praised the preacher and the other thugs and called the entrepreneur repeatedly “an Uncle Tom.” b) the Times has also NOT investigated the story about the Black Panther voter intimidation suit being dropped nor c) the story about Obama appointee Deputy Attorney General Julie Fernandez ordering a roomful of Department of Justice employees to “forget about investigating voter intimidation and racism cases where the victims are White and the perpetrators are Black and d) nor have they run the story about Ms. Fernandez ordering DOJ employees to forget about “investigating violations of the Motor Voter Act” that is, e) like Ms. Fernandez, the New York Times is acting like racism is just something that Whites do to minorities, it can never happen the other way around.

The Times which, (in keeping with the “all-non-progressive’s are racists theme”) has ceaselessly slandered FOX News . . . but, in fact, the Times isn’t worthy of one-ten-thousandth the esteem which FOX’s real journalists earn every minute of every day. Cowardly, cowardly, cowardly, cowardly, cowardly New York Times. Until such time as the same New York Times effort that’s gone into propagating these lies is shown for dispelling them and pointing out those who so blithely and continuously speak them, until that day . . . cowardly, cowardly New York Times.

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

**Rajjpuut who has attended three TEA Party events and never seen one instance of hate or racism does know of two instances worth mentioning since March, 2009 (a year before the Obamacare passage) . . . .

#1 In a specious incident, a fellow was shown on FOX News carrying a sign partially clouded over by their editorial staff that presumably said something like, "F_ck the N_ggers." In that 20 second-incident he was quickly confronted by about five male TEA Party members, an argument ensued, his sign was torn from his hands trampled upon, and he was physically escorted from their midst. FOX also showed coverage of three other networks' newcasts which just showed the man holding his sign with the word “nigg_rs” clearly visible in a still photograph.

#2 Within a supposed TEA Party splinter faction, (Rajjpuut has seen evidence that makes him believe it was used by Harry Reid in Nevada to choose his least capable opponent, Sharon Angle, to win the Republican nomination -- but who knows it could be a valid organization pursuing TEA Party goals) known as the TEA Party Express , there was an upper echelon official who is supposedly "a shock jock" who on his personal blogsite spouted hate attacks on Barack Obama and referred to Islam as having "a monkey god." After, what Rajjpuut believes was an inordinate length of time the shock-jock was forced to resign. In any case the TEA Party express has zero credibility with any of the TEA Party membership outside themselves.

HOW DO WE DISPLAY MORE ASIAN, HISPANIC, NATIVE AMIERICAN, AND BLACKS ON OUR TEAPARTY.ORG WEBSITE?

Posted by Skeeter Farley on July 27, 2010 at 2:00am

MOST LIBERALS SPEW LIES THAT PORTRAY THE TEA PARTY AS A RACIST ORGANIZATION
*
TO COMBAT THESE CHARGES, WE COULD DO A FEW THINGS
*
WE CAN JUST STICK TO OUR MODEL AND JUST SAY THAT WE ARE A COLLECTIVE GROUP OF LIKE-MINDED AMERICANS THAT WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO STAY OUT OF THE LIVES OF AMERICANS AND ELIMINATE WASTE
*
WHAT I THINK WOULD BE MORE PRUDENT IS TO ENCOURAGE OUR BLACK, ASIAN, HISPANIC AND NATIVE AMERICAN EMPLOYEES AND THEIR FAMILIES TO SHARE THEIR TRUE CONSERVATIVE BELIEFS ON THE TEAPARTY.ORG WEBSITES.
*
I HAVE SEVERAL MINORITIES THAT WORK FOR US AND ARE HAPPY. THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO DO IT IF I ASKED THEM TO.
*
THESE ARE HAPPY WORKERS WHO ARE ALWAYS SMILING AND ARE NOT A BUNCH OF ANGRY LIBERALS
*
THEY WOULD LIKELY DO THIS FOR FREE AND WOULD ALLOW THEIR PICTURES APPEAR ON THE TEAPARTY.ORG SITE
*
REMEMBER THE "UNSHACKLED BLACK MAN"?
*
WE COULD HAVE "LIBERATED LATINO" OR THE "AMERICANIZED ASIAN" - ALL TO INCLUDE PICTURES OF THEM SMILING, ALONG WITH THEIR TESTIMONIALS.
*
HOW COULD I SOLICIT THE PARTY'S HELP?
*
THIS WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT STORY AND IT WOULD EMBARRASS THOSE LIBERALS WHO CLAIM THAT WE ARE AN ALL-WHITE ORGANIZATION INFILTRATED BY MILLIONS OF RACISTS!!
*
WHITE RACISTS ARE VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO FIND THESE DAYS, AND AS A WHITE MALE, I HAVE NEVER MET ONE IN MY ENTIRE LIFE.
*
I COULD BE A PART OF THIS STORY TOO
*
AGAIN, HOW COULD I SOLICIT THE PARTY'S HELP IN A FEATURE STORY ON MY EMPLOYEES AND OTHERS LIKE THEM OR THEIR FAMILIES?

Rajjpuut's Folly: TEA Party Taking Wrong Fork in the Road?

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 22, 2010 at 8:30pm

Tea Party Loses Way, Forgets King-making

Embraces Third-Party Status??

It’s beginning to look like many in the TEA Party have decided that acting in “its” perceived best interest and not in the nation’s best interest is the way to go . . . ho hum, ho hum just another political party that doesn’t understand the difference between winning and vainglory. Truly a sad state of affairs given the TEA (Taxed enough already) Party’s tremendous initial integrity and promise. Rajjpuut believes that thanks to the inclusion of the TEA Party in the affairs of the nation this November, the chances of the Democrats to maintain, or even advance their majorities in the House and Senate have dramatically increased. That is, the once great hope for America, for winning back the country, is proving to be just another short-sighted third party effort.

TEA Party candidates running in primaries, trying to get elected? Sounds like an enormous waste of time and money. Sounds like a sure way to become part of the corrupt system rather than to actually reform it. Rajjpuut would point all TEA Party folks toward the thoughtful example of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican statehood . . . no, no, we're NOT talking about Obama . . . .

The ultra-cynical Barack Obama would like to make Puerto Rico into the 51^st State. If he succeeds, he will actually have created real jobs for flagmakers, wow, the very first success of his misguided regime. Mr. Obama, however, is clearly NOT thinking about jobs for flagmakers or for anyone else. He has embarked on a desperate gamble. He needs to add about fifteen million Hispanics to the voting rolls, keep them in a riled up “revolutionary fever-pitch” and use their votes (expecting to win a split of about 80-20 or 85-15 for the Democrats at the ballot boxes) to dominate the elections of 2012 and 2014 and enshrine the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party as the permanent holder of the White House and both chambers of Congress. If you thought he’d brought us hell on earth in 2009 and 2010 . . . consider the specter of “President-for-life” Barack Obama – doesn’t that just thrill you?

Mr. Obama, passing his desired Immigration “Reform” bill into law and once he becomes “el dictador” (the dictator) here could than impose statehood on Puerto Rico from outside if he chooses to, but that’s the only way Puerto Rico would be dragged into the USA. You see, Mr. Obama doesn’t understand PR politics and the model of PR politics is also the model the TEA Party leadership does NOT understand either. The survival of the TEA Party and the utter defeat of the Obama regime depends upon the TEA Party wising up . . . QUICKLY and adopting the PR model. Let Ol’ Rajjpuut make this perfectly clear in case you're not aware of what goes in Puerto Rico . . . .

The single-most burning issue in PR politics for the last sixty years has been American Statehood. Like Hamlet’s vacillation, it’s a major question of “To be or not to be . . . .” In 1952, the Puerto Rican people made a huge deal of demanding (and getting) PR recognized legally with commonwealth status (in Spanish “un estado libre associado” or 'a free but associated state'). Puerto Rico is by law thus a free territory associated with the United States. This single issue has so dominated political thinking for the last six decades that three separate political parties arguing this issue more than any other, have risen up to dominate PR politics. These three sides have been arguing this issue and controlling the country until recently when another seemingly-intelligent fourth side has emerged. We’ll ignore the arising fourth party, its influence is not yet clear, except to say they have chosen perhaps the wisest ground of all, they refuse to get involved in statehood at all which could prove to be a very popular stand and devote themselves to more mundane matters in island life . . . oh, by the way, to be fully accurate there are nineteen political parties in PR but up till now on the most important question of all and on other very important questions only three of these parties have mattered. Understanding that the situation is very fluid in PR and that influence from one party flows easily to other parties within their nineteen parties, here’s what’s going on:

A. The right-wing organization los “Estadistas” believes that the future of Puerto Rico should be aligned with the United State, better yet within the United States. They say that everything good now going on will be amplified a hundredfold and all miseries would be reduced tenfold if PR becomes the 51^st state. Their strength from year to year varies from 30-37% with 33-34% of the people agreeing with them on statehood at a given vote. They're somewhat like our Republican Party.

B. There is a left-wing organzation los “Independentistas” that wants Puerto Rico to become a free nation. The most progressive among them actually hate the United States and paint the United States as an empire that dominates and exploits them. Think of them as our revolutionary-progressive Democrats here seeking to fundamentally transform their island. Depending upon economic conditions, their popularity oscillates between 32-38% with 35% of voters typically voting with them on the statehood issue.

C. The third major party when it comes to the big question of statehood is actually not so much a third party but a third way of thinking. They are officially the Commonwealth Party. Every time the issue of statehood comes up for a ballot (Puerto Ricans love voting on this issue far more than any other) their utterly INexpensive and utterly effective campaigning features a lot of volunteers parading around with a few signs emphasizing the beauty of “el estatus quo” or keeping things just the way they are. The Commonwealth Party membership varies from 27-34% with 30% being typical support on the issue of Statehood. While they are not always effective on other issues, the Commonwealth Party always wins the statehood vote because they stake out and dominate the middle ground and the other two positions are mutually exclusive. The common wealth party also does tend to enjoy a far greater domination in issues other than statehood despite their low numbers as they almost universally stake out the middle ground and later when a coalition government is formed, the commonwealth party is one of the few almost always invited to the table by the other parties. In so far as any nation with 19 parties can be dominated by one political party the Commonwealth Party dominates Puerto Rican politics . . . most importantly they exercise this domination by only winning on one issue: statehood.

Rajjpuut would suggest to TEA Party leadership that WINNING (and thus saving our nation) is far more important than just looking good. What does that mean?

For one possible example of the probable wrong course, Rand Paul, a nominal libertarian^^ just won a state primary over a heavily backed Republican candidate. Rand might win in November, but then again he might not. He’s not a Republican and will not have the fund-raising of the Republicans behind him -- NOR SHOULD HE, they've got their own troubles and their own candidates. Those in the know say it’s 50-50 Paul wins in November; Rajjpuut says its fairly unlikely he’ll win . . . votes follow money, unfortunately. While Rajjpuut would clearly prefer Rand Paul over 94% of Democrats and over 100% of progressive Republicans and/or progressive Democrats . . . politics is a profession built upon hard work and practicality which means "MONEY." And that is the dilemma of all third parties in America and all grass-roots movements everywhere: Piling up money and doing the hard work while never being tempted to make shortcuts to get that all-too-crucial monetary backing is essential but -- just as cleanliness is next to Godliness in politics, it's also next to impossible.

Why is the TEA Party even considering nominating candidates? Our early successes have gone to our heads. And the early successes have impressed Republicans and shocked and angered a few Democrats. The TEA Party integrity has also been a refreshing new addition to the American political scene – in fact, Rajjpuut would say the TEA Party integrity and winning . . . highlight the most favorable path ahead: like the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico let's be real conservatives on fiscal matters and the Constitution and possibly a few more associated matters (such as the TEA Party “Contract FROM America” perhaps the single-greatest political document since the Magana Carta and TEA Party leadership is letting it languish on the sidelines instead of relentlessly educating Americans (“This, this ‘Contract FROM America’ is what we are all about.”) Let’s say the TEA Party’s effectiveness in winning is right about 67-68%. That’s amazing for not having any money. But this figure needs to be tempted by reality and practicality: Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, for example, has done some minor good but sided with Obama on three critical issues so where does that leave us when Brown comes up for a vote? Rajjpuut suggests, it leaves us right where we should be . . . holding Brown's feet to the fire while comparing him to other candidates.

Imagine this lovely scenario: by staying a low-budget, deeply patriotic non-violent group who’s integrity comes to be admired by even the mainstream media (that's not appearing likely yet, eh?) that concentrates on conservative fiscal and constitutional matters (such as repealing Obamacare as a violation of the Constitution, especially the 10^th Amendment; and amending the Constitution so that all bills must delineate why and where they are justified within the Constitution) say we set as a goal: expanding our power and influence so that the TEA Party supported candidates and issues win 75% . . . the TEA Party becomes the nation’s kingmakers here in America just as the Commonwealth Party dominates in Puerto Rico. That’s an easily achievable and far more noble goal than becoming** another political party.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^ Rajjpuut is a Libertarian and Rand Paul truly does NOT FULLY understand the political thinking of libertarianism as seen by his comments on the civil rights law -- where he argued about angels on the heads of pins rather than just being "Libertarian practical" and saying (to himself) "it's the law of the land and I agree with 99% of it, so I'll keep my mouth shut." For all practical purposes the Civil Rights Law of '64 is as perfect as its ever going to be, shut up and move on to Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism as the only subjects you talk to reporters about. See Rajjpuut's critique of this issue here:

http://teapartypatriots.org/BlogPostView.aspx?id=6d256f4c-6826-442c-8f9c-4a694d49100b

similarly when abortion is brought up: "It's the law of the land" move on to talka about Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism, AMEN!

**This could change for the TEA Party in say, six or eight years as they gain America's esteem . . . and it might become desirable to become a vote-seeking party. But ask yourself this, if winning and advancing the two major conservative issues is all that matters (Rajjpuut says it is NOW and for the foreseeable future) than how much more effective can a political party be than 75%??? Not to mention that political parties and politicians tend to get corrupted. It’s more difficult at first, but after awhile they all lose their integrity. Isn’t it better to be the one holding feet to the fire, than being the one whose “vision slips”???? Better to strategically control the fray while staying apart from it and maintaining one's objectivity and integrity, NO?

We Agree On Most Points! Fight On!

Posted by Steve - Tea Party Founder on May 16, 2010 at 12:30pm

Most of the other TP's are afraid to make such a powerful stand. We tell the world we have Core Beliefs!

We don't step on toes, we step on necks! Hahahaha! :-)

Illegal Aliens Are Here illegally.
Pro-Domestic Employment Is Indispensable.
Stronger Military Is Essential.
Special Interests Eliminated.
Gun Ownership Is Sacred.
Government Must Be Downsized.
National Budget Must Be Balanced.
Deficit Spending Will End.
Bail-out And Stimulus Plans Are Illegal.
Reduce Personal Income Taxes A Must.
Reduce Business Income Taxes Is Mandatory.
Political Offices Available To Average Citizens.
Intrusive Government Stopped.
English As Core Language Is Required.
Traditional Family Values Are Encouraged.

Common Sense Constitutional
Conservative Self-Governance

True Racism and the Double Standard that Is Government.

Posted by Tommy Henderson on May 7, 2010 at 6:20pm

Ok, I have reached the point where Government and some minorities have taken complete control of this nations democratic process. How is it excepted that any black man or hispanic man can demand that equality be given to them while at the same exact moment seek to demonize whites by suggested everything we seem to do, has some racist motive or agenda to enslave non-whites. Like in one New England state where a black principle decided to only allow black students to go on a field trip while telling the white students they could not take part in that public runned facilities activity, but it's ok, it was "well intentioned". How is this not racism? How is this perfectly ok with government and local leadership? Where is Al Sharpton demanding equality or President Obama and his misguided rhetoric? Hmm? Good question. Or how about the incident where five white students who wore the American Flag on their shirts to school where some Mexican American students also wore their Mexican flag. Somehow only the white Americans were told to remove the flags from their person or face suspension. And one Mexican student actually came out her mouth and demanded the white students apologize for wearing their nation's flag in their nation. How is it equal to punish the white students and not say a word to any of the Mexican students? Al Sharpton? President Obama? Hmm... Still not here. I also find it funny that when those in the Tea Party voted for Obama they were not racist but somehow because they do not agree with his policies they become "Racist redkneck tea baggers"? Those on the left for some reason believe they can change the rules when it suits them but God forbid anyone else expressing their freedoms. Does anyone remember what happened when Bush was in office? Did the left not come out and do the same exact thing we are doing now? Were they called racist? were they called tea baggers? goodness..still no sharpton or obama. You see, this nation has become so double standard that we allow inequality and racism, existence. This legalized racism needs to be stopped before some real damage takes place. lets shine some light on real racism like Obama and Al Sharpton who intentionally create racist issues in order to advance a cause to seperate and unravel our free democracy. Yes, some whites are racist and I said some but let's not pretend that blacks or hispanics can't also be racist. And lets treat all racism the same with equal justice and not social justice. And I will be honest, I did vote for Obama. I saw hope in his promises, unforntunately I soon realized that this man carried no interest in protecting all americans and no intentions to keep America free and equal. He is a criminal who has violated his oath to protect the American People and the Constitution. He speaks in a socialist tone to divided the American people, increase our national debt, create socialist legislation, undermine state governments, pushing equal balance towards a racial preference, monetary theft from the rich and middle class to give to the poor, removing the seperation of powers to consolidate his one power, pushing government ever closer to a police state in which civil liberties no longer exist. I truly do not understand how this criminal racist man is allowed to remain in power? Why isn't he impeached? I do not know. The American people need to realize what is at stake. Lets end this double standard in our society, lets treat every American with respect and equality. Blacks,whites,hispanics need to stop hating each other and work together. Lets make American mean something again. If we are unable to live equal then this nation will collapse. Do the right thing, the just thing and remove Obama from power. So thats why I wrote this, to express my concerns about a government and ideals that portray equality but subvert it to a double standard. I wish everyone love and happiness and God Bless!!

Rajjpuut's Folly: What Does "Turn the Other Cheek" Really Mean?

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 6, 2010 at 7:15pm

Obama’s Great Blessing -- Christians Misunderstand

the Doctrine of “Turn the Other Cheek!”

One of the very few places where Rajjpuut agrees with Barack Obama occurred in 2007 when Illinois Senator Obama said, “The United States is NOT a Christian nation.” Some Christians get angry to hear that from Rajjpuut as well as from Obama. Nevertheless, Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, both Massachusetts Adamses and virtually the entirety of the founding fathers believed precisely that way, that it was important NOT to be a Christian nation but rather to be a nation where religious tolerance as well as true separation of church and state existed.

Of course, Obama, interprets the statement “ America is NOT (or, no longer) a Christian Nation” in a very negative and controversial manner and Rajjpuut interprets the statement in a very uplifting manner. Obama interprets that statement to mean that he can abuse Christians in this country virtually with impunity as he and his administration feel the need to side with other groups for political gain. More specifics on this will follow in a few paragraphs. Rajjpuut means it this way: the evils done to some adherents of some religions by others (for examples by Catholics and Protestants to each other in Ireland and Northern Ireland, to Non-Anglican Christians such as the Quakers by the Brits, Jews suffering in Russia and Germany, and Muslims in Bosnia, etc.) ; all the evils that have been done in the name of corruptions of Christianity historically to other religious and non-religious people; the evils that state-mandated religions all over the world have done; and all possible evils associated with BIG RELIGION . . . all of this is controlled by the law, by the Constitution, in America. No one in America can be forced to follow a given religion or dissuaded from following their own spiritual leanings in America.

As for Obama’s intolerance toward Christianity, lets examine just three incidents:

#1 After hosting 50,000 Muslims for three hours on Capitol Hill September 25, 2009, at the the National Day of Prayer for Muslims, today, May 7^, 2010,Mr. Obama cancelled the 2010 National Day of Prayer Ceremony at the White House saying “ . . . we don’t want to offend anybody.” Apparently Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims are not considered to be “anybody.”

#2 While liberally sprinkling about nasty terms ( racists, haters, stupid, Nazis, extremists, astro-turf, storm-troopers, hood-wearing; etc.) in reference to the TEA Party movement, Obama and his people have made an impossible-to-miss effort at a ridiculously extreme form of political correctness (for example in 70 pages discussing the Ft. Hood shooting, where not once were the words “Jihad,” “Terrorism,” “Islam” or “Muslim” to be found . . . that is, the core motivation for Major Hassan’s attack was literally impossible for them to put into “politically-correct” words while they have no trouble finding insults for the “extreme right,” insults they cannot back up with evidence ever. But who exactly is the “extreme right?” According to Mr. Obama? “…Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with their language of family values and moral responsibility.” In other words Christianity, at least as practiced by conservative individuals is his philosophical enemy.

#3 Back in 2006 while a senator and again when he was already campaigning for president, in 2007, Obama interrupted his activities to visit the homeland of his father, Barak (no ‘c’) Hussein Obama, Sr. in Kenya. He went nominally on fact-finding missions on taxpayers’ money but ‘paused’ while there to help the presidential campaign of Raila Odinga (purportedly the then-senator Obama’s cousin for which no verification could be found other than Odinga’s claim). Odinga was university educated in East Berlin some years before the fall of the Berlin Wall and is a non-apologetic communist, just like Barack’s father Barak (no ‘c’) was. Whether or not the two are cousins, both of their fathers were also unapologetic communists. In the top link immediately below, Barack’s birth dad in a well-known African periodical talks about the benefits of “100% taxes on the rich” and also describes his favorite political system as “scientific socialism” which he quickly clears up by saying “communism.”

http://www.politico.com/static/PPM41_eastafrica.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9610.html

Socialism and communism are, of course, closely related . . . far more importantly for this blog, in many communist regimes freedom of religion is very problematical if not impossible. Raila Odinga’s character and Obama’s actions are the question here, however . . . .

Obama made at least fifteen campaign stops for Odinga. Purportedly, he donated $950,000 to Odinga’s** campaign, Rajjpuut is still looking for a second confirmation on that one (if true, the next question is where did that money come from?). Mostly Obama wore a dress shirt and tie when campaigning. However, at least twice he dressed in traditional Muslim garb while addressing Muslim groups. Mr. Obama, despite his claim to be a lifelong Christian and to have “never practiced Islam” spent parts of five years of his youth attending a Muslim school^^ in Jakarta, capital of Indonesia and was reportedly a “prize student.” This is at best, a small issue. However, the character of Mr. Odinga is no small issue. Here’s what Rajjpuut means:

As a communist candidate, Mr. Odinga ran under the banner of “change,” but did not ever breach 50% popularity during the campaign. However, it appears he definitely LOST the election because of a secret deal he made with the Muslim community in Kenya that was reportedly leaked by a disenchanted aide.

Christians are the biggest worship group in Kenya, constituting 45% of the nation’s populace. Muslims are just about 11%. Odinga signed a letter of agreement with the Muslims to make Islam the nation’s official religion and institute “sharia” law. Beside instituting the traditional Muslim treatment of women that the two sides agreed upon, the law would have banned other religions’ access to TV or radio broadcasting. All person-to-person missionary work by other religions would have been banned . . . in short, Mr. Odinga would have curtailed religious freedom and freedom of speech while imposing hateful restrictions on women and girls and thus proved himself the lowest of scum and well- prepared to betray his country.

Within days, the content of the letter of agreement was known all over the country and Odinga was lambasted in the press and public opinion. Pretending the copy of the agreement “captured” was bogus propaganda from the incumbent, Odinga produced a much more “reasonable” agreement and said it was the only one ever negotiated between himself and the Muslims. Mr. Obama never commented when asked about Odinga’s shenanigans. Later as defeat loomed unmistakable, an e-mail from Senator Obama before the election purported telling how Mr. Odinga should handle the matter (violently) was published . . . Rajjpuut could NOT find a second source to confirm Jerome Corsi’s “The Obama Nation’s” claim that the copy of an Obama e-mail advising claiming election fraud and stimulating violence was a probably successful course of action for Odinga. In any case, however, when Odinga lost, Muslim violence coincided with his claim of “widespread election fraud.” An outbreak of violence (against Christians mostly but any non-Muslim) at this Odinga announcement against numerous Christians and Christian churches suffering attacks, maiming and death and wanton arson. Rape was one of the favorite expressions of violent disapproval by the Muslim perpetrators. Obama again claimed no connection. Odinga never apologized or showed regret. To quell the violence, Odinga was offered the newly created post of prime minister by the victor and accepted.

OK, Obama is not crazy about Christians, so what? The problem increasingly is that of Christian passivity in the face of clear and aggravated injustice. Rajjpuut’s reading of the Bible is that “turn the other cheek” is actually an act of courage and aggressive Christian expressionism and not merely crawling back toward some corner to hide. The best examples, one from a Christian and one from a Hindu, are the actions of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mohandas K. Gandhi which demonstrate non-violent but utterly courageous resistance to unjust behavior by one’s “enemy.” This is one reason that Rajjpuut is so enamored of the TEA (taxed enough already) Party – the fact that active resistance to injustice is adopted at every turn of events.

The evidence (often revealed by Rajjpuut on this blogsite) shows Barack Obama’s mother, grandfather and birth father were all communists (and opposed to Christianity and most religious expression); it also shows that his two longest serving mentors, Reverend Jeremiah Wright and poet Frank Marshall Davis are both communists; and it shows that he attended Muslim school for parts of five years and was highly regarded as a student. So, knowing that Barack Obama is an unjust enemy . . . active resistance by Christians and conservatives is called for every step of the way and non-violent dignified protest is the key.

Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

**http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/10/raila-odinga-obama-campaigned-for-odinga-violence-after-loss/

^^ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35402169/

tea (318)

What is the Answer

Rajjpuut's Folly: Recent Poll Data Yields Surprising Portrait of TEA Party Voters

GOP Confronted with Insurmountable Opportunity

FIRST TEA PARTY FLAG

Dixie Rising Check out my Blog above link, to see my daily blog posts for the Atlanta Tea Party Examiner.com

Open Letter To Tea Party

Brooklyn Tea Party Platform VIDEO

PROCINCT Helps You Become the Most Powerful Public Official in the Nation

To Organize or Not.....

Navigating the Intellectual Flotsam of the Left

Matapalo

Donald Trump had smart thoughts on Fox Business

OBAMA CAN RELAX; THE TEA PARTY IS JUST A FAD

Pink Slip, what a bunch of Crap!

Rajjpuut's Folly: Gutless Left-Wing NY Times, Makes Gutless N-Word "Retraction"

HOW DO WE DISPLAY MORE ASIAN, HISPANIC, NATIVE AMIERICAN, AND BLACKS ON OUR TEAPARTY.ORG WEBSITE?

Rajjpuut's Folly: TEA Party Taking Wrong Fork in the Road?

We Agree On Most Points! Fight On!

True Racism and the Double Standard that Is Government.

Rajjpuut's Folly: What Does "Turn the Other Cheek" Really Mean?

Note: this page contains paid content.