Gallup poll: 64% see big government as biggest threat to country


Obama in Osawatomie, Kansas 12-6-11

Obama loves to bash big corporations.  He also loves to expand government.

In Gallup’s latest poll, it appears that Obama is clearly out of touch with what Americans want.

An overwhelming 64 percent of people surveyed said big government was the biggest threat  to the country, compared to just 26 percent who said big business is their  gravest concern and 8 percent who picked big labor.

That kind of leaves a mark on Obama’s campaign plans to associate Republicans with big, BAD business and to continue his “tax the rich and everything that moves” expansion of government.

The Republican nominee would do well to hammer home just how extensively Obama has expanded government and, hopefully, what drastic measures that the GOP nominee would take to reverse it.

In his first 4 months alone as President, Obama did this:

Obama has firmly planted government’s fingers into the healthcare of every American (if the Supreme Court and/or Congress decide for Obamacare).
The stimulus was a slush fund for Obama’s cronies and instead of creating jobs, has left us with fewer jobs and fewer people seeking work.
The Democrats have failed to pass a budget and spending by the federal government has increase significantly.

And, according to his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas this week, Obama fully plans to seek even further control of our lives and money.  From

If U.S. history is a painting on a giant canvas, President Barack Obama’s speech this week in Osawatomie, Kansas, is a thick coat of whitewash layered all over it, and the failure of the last three years lies underneath. The President’s pretense is that, no, it’s not Obamanomics that has caused persistent unemployment, stunted growth and record deficits–it’s supply side economics!

Talk about audacity.

The President’s speech was a naked portrayal of his vision of America–one where inequality runs rampant, where the American dream is nearly dead, where the rich oppress the poor, where education is undervalued. As Charles Krauthammer observes this morning in The Washington Post, “That’s the kind of damning observation the opposition brings up when you’ve been in office three years.”

Indeed, what was glaringly absent from the President’s portrait was the fact that his economic policies have failed to put Americans back to work and his absolute inability to lead Washington toward combating rampant government spending. His solution, moreover, was more of the same stuff that has failed spectacularly for him: government as the great savior.

But in President Obama’s mind, it is others who offer ideas that don’t work, not him. He points to “a certain crowd in Washington” that argues for tax cuts and reduced regulations, calling it “a simple theory” that “fits well on a bumper sticker” but “has never worked.”

Obama thinks capitalism doesn’t work.  Individualism doesn’t work.  He thinks our money is his.  He panders to unions for power and he is as corrupt as they come in Washington.

Republicans are not perfect, but they better see that they must run against “big government”.  It is a winning strategy and not hard to comprehend.  The GOP better stop pandering to the “middle” and the media….and start pandering to the 64% that fear what our founders fought hard to overcome.


4 Responses

  1. Americans are slowly but surely learning that compromising and building consensus to make the government “work” is what got us where we are. Not a desired or desirable outcome or goal…

    I believe Maggie Thatcher said that consensus is lack of leadership.

    Republicans have not done a very good job implementing their agenda of limited and open government, free trade, strong national security, and respect for human rights (abroad because we already have it in the U.S.).

    Welcome back, SRT!

  2. Boria,
    thanks…..I have been very busy with other things, but will keep trying to get on here. I appreciate that you are so loyal to the blog!

  3. From Investors Business Daily

    Derrick Bell: The Jeremiah Wright Of Harvard

    Posted 06:54 PM ET

    [Comment: The tape was available at a PBS station since 1991… A Harvard Law Professor hid it until after the 2008 election. He says so himself… ]

    Presidential Vetting: Obama’s days at Harvard have been shrouded in secrecy. But a new video lifts a corner of the veil, revealing his creepy embrace of the “Jeremiah Wright of academia.”

    It turns out his favorite law professor was the late Derrick Bell, a black radical who taught classes trashing the Constitution as racist.

    He liked Bell so much he led a law school “strike” in support of him in 1991, when the professor went on unpaid leave to protest the lack of affirmative-action hiring on campus.

    A video clip posted by captures Obama praising Bell for “speaking the truth” and hugging him.

    Not long before this show of affection, Bell had been called into the university president’s office to explain why he had sent him a letter filled with violent fantasies — including their own death from a bomb planted in his office by white racists. Bell explained that such extremism is what it would take to get the administration to agree to grant more affirmative-action programs.

    Harvard’s honcho wasn’t amused. Bell groused he just didn’t get it. But who would? Apparently his star pupil. And that’s what’s so unsettling.

    Bell’s nutty ideas — including that America is a “racist nation” carrying out a “quasi-genocide in the inner cities” — were well known to Obama. Bell came highly recommended by Obama’s America-hating preacher Rev. Wright. He and Bell were pals. In fact, Obama just traded Wright’s pews for Bell’s desks.

    At the pro-Bell rally, Obama took to the mike as if he were his spokesman. He commended Bell’s “excellence in scholarship,” adding that he “changed the standards of what legal writing is about.”

    His legal writings included this gem published in the Connecticut Law Review around the time Obama was defending him: “The whole (classical) liberal worldview of private rights and public sovereignty mediated by the rule of law needed to be exploded.”

    Obama lapped it up. This was not some misguided youth flirting with radicalism. He was 30, and Harvard Law Review editor.

    Bell’s tirades against racism were really against classism. In 2007 he intimated to a Southern Illinois University professor that he saw “value in Marxist and other writings.” Like Marx, he argued that capitalism creates a racially polarizing battle over property, and that the cure was wealth redistribution. To that end, Bell proposed an “equality” tax on business profits.

    In 2002, he told C-SPAN that America is racist because it’s “built on property.” He complained that our free market “increasingly puts some people at the top of the economic scale and most of the rest of us at the bottom.”

    So here we have yet another anti-capital class warrior as role model for Obama.

    Over his entire adult life, through his academic, legal and political careers, the president has lived in a theoretical bubble divorced from reality. His mind and psyche have been marinated in radical academic notions and conspiracy theories that insist upon hatred for capitalism and the American way of life.

    Is it any wonder his agenda is so anti-American?

    “Perhaps as president,” Bell hoped in 2008, “Obama can take on the tough issue of the intentional harms our policies have done both here and abroad.”

    The student certainly has not disappointed his old professor.

    For more:

  4. This is the best counter to that phony issue. And yes, Limbaugh was out of line….


    A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.

    Last week Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University Law Center, went to Congress looking for a handout. She wants free birth-control pills, and she wants the federal government to make her Catholic school give them to her.

    I’m a graduate of Georgetown Law and former chief counsel of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution. Based on her testimony, I wonder how much Ms. Fluke really knows about the university or the Constitution.

    Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student at Georgetown University, testifies during a hearing before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on February 23.

    As a law student 20 years ago, I wasn’t confronted by crucifixes in the classroom or, in truth, by any religious imagery anywhere. In that respect the law school has a different “feel” than the university. The law school chapel was an unadorned, multipurpose room in the basement used for Mass when it wasn’t used for Gilbert and Sullivan Society rehearsals and club meetings. Among the clubs while I was there, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance was particularly vigorous.

    I was not Catholic when I attended Georgetown Law, but I certainly knew the university was. So did Ms. Fluke. She told the Washington Post that she chose Georgetown knowing specifically that the school did not cover drugs that run contrary to Catholic teaching in its student health plans. During her law school years she was a president of “Students for Reproductive Justice” and made it her mission to get the school to give up one of the last remnants of its Catholicism. Ms. Fluke is not the “everywoman” portrayed in the media.

    Georgetown Law School has flung wide its doors to the secular world. It will tolerate and accommodate all manner of clubs and activities that run contrary to fundamental Catholic beliefs. But it is not inclined to pay for or provide them. And it has the right to do so—to say “this far and no further.”

    When congressional committee counsels plan hearings, they look for two kinds of witnesses: “experts” and “victims.” The experts are typically lawyers or law professors who can explain the constitutional authority for the new law and its legal impact, and the victims illustrate why the law is needed.

    At the hearing of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee chaired by Nancy Pelosi, Sandra Fluke testified as a victim. Having to buy your own contraception is a burden, she said. She testified that all around her at Georgetown she could see the faces of students who were suffering because of Georgetown’s refusal to abandon its Catholic principles.

    Exactly what does the face of a law student who must buy her own birth-control pills look like? Did I see them all around me and just not know it? Do male law students who must buy their own condoms have the same look? Perhaps Ms. Fluke should have brought photos to Congress to illustrate her point.

    In her testimony, Ms. Fluke claimed that, “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.” That’s $1,000 per year. But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month’s worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. “That’s the price without insurance,” the employee said. (It’s also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)

    What about Rush Limbaugh? I won’t defend his use of epithets (for which he’s apologized), but I understand his larger point. At issue isn’t inhalers for asthmatics or insulin for diabetics. Contraception isn’t like other kinds of “health care.” Yes, birth-control pills can be prescribed to address medical problems, though that’s relatively rare and the Catholic Church has no quarrel with their use in this circumstance. And the university’s insurance covers prescriptions in these cases.

    Still, Ms. Fluke is not mollified. Why? Because at the end of the day this is not about coverage of a medical condition.

    Ms. Fluke’s crusade for reproductive justice is simply a demand that a Catholic institution pay for drugs that make it possible for her to have sex without getting pregnant. It’s nothing grander or nobler than that. Georgetown’s refusal to do so does not mean she has to have less sex, only that she has to take financial responsibility for it herself.

    Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.

    Ms. Ruse, senior fellow for legal studies at the Family Research Council, received her J.D. from Georgetown Law in 1989.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: