SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: RMF who wrote (32285)6/28/2008 10:52:16 AM
From: Geoff Altman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
What about Paris Hilton?

That Mr and Mrs Hilton choose to squander their money on their pepper headed daughter is no business of mine or yours or anyone else.

The fact that someone has money is NOT a viable reason to tax them more. The fact that a business is highly successful is NOT a reason to tax them more. Did you read that speech by Huey Long? Course, you probably would have voted for him for president if he'd made it that far.

Since you're obviously unfamiliar with Libertarian thought, here's a taste of Larry Elder, show me were you think he's wrong:

Letter to: Congresswoman MAXINE Waters
By Larry Elder

August 16, 2001

Congresswoman MAXINE Waters
10124 S. Broadway
Suite 1
Los Angeles, CA 90003

Dear Congresswoman Waters:

I write this letter directly to you. No one else received copies.

Your power in America, and especially in the black community, is substantial. I honestly, and sincerely, urge you to rethink your positions on several issues. I have, so far, kept this letter private. I hope that after you read this letter, you will agree to have a one-on-one, sit-down, private conversation with me about the future and direction of black America.

But given the stakes, our personal feelings towards each other are inconsequential. I reach out in good faith, based on my sincere concern for the black community. I see an erosion of community standards, values, hopes and aspirations.

By the way, despite my acknowledged harsh criticisms of you, I never once attacked you personally. I said, on many occasions: I don’t question her heart, but I question her head. I called you a hardworking, tireless warrior for your views.

I’m not grandstanding, not doing this for ratings. Again, at least, until I hear from you, I am reaching out. I hope to hear from you soon.

I recently received an invitation to an event at a private residence to celebrate the election of Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn.

Frankly, the invitation surprised me, given my harsh criticism of the then-candidate Hahn’s position on several issues. Nevertheless, I accepted, only to receive a phone call, dis-inviting me. I understand that the host received pressure from you, among others, that I be barred from the event.

Again, as I said, the invitation surprised me, and I don’t blame you or others for not wanting me there. After all, this presumably celebrated your hard work in getting Hahn elected.

I hoped, by accepting, to finally talk with you and other black "leaders" about problems in the black community. My producer called your office on several occasions to get you on my show, but each time you refused. Recently, a caller to my show said that she called your office in hopes that she might convince you to appear on the show. She said your office told her that "you had never heard of Larry Elder." Again, I think I understand the tactic—the tactic of ignoring me, in hopes to minimize that you perceive what I suspect you perceive as a growing influence. Again, I understand.

I write this letter, however, to issue a call. Your position on major issues affecting the black community is simply, and flat out, wrong. Not only do your positions fail to advance the interests of blacks, but also, in many cases, they actually hurt them. Let’s go over them.

Gun Control
You, the NAACP, and the majority of the "black leadership" routinely call for more gun control legislation. Powerful evidence, however, indicates that restrictive gun laws do nothing to deter bad guys, while making it more and more difficult for good people to defend themselves. Violent crime rates have fallen faster and further, for the most part, in the thirty-two states allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, vs. non-carry states. Japan and England now see crime rates increasing, despite bans on private ownership of guns. Washington, D.C., a city with perhaps the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, ranks No. 1 in per capita murders. As former D.C. mayor Marion Barry once incredibly put it, "Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest rates in the country."

Crime in America remains disproportionately an urban affair. Therefore, those who most need protection from bad guys remain—due in large measure to your policies—most vulnerable to crime.

Affirmative Action
In America in Black and White, Stephen and Abigail Thernstrom clearly show that the black middle class preceded affirmative action. Moreover, it insults the hardworking black men and women of this country who, since slavery, built the black middle class, day by day, brick by brick, backache by backache. The first black member of the Federal Reserve Board, Arthur Brimmer, studied affirmative action’s impact. By affirmative action, I mean preferences, the lowering of standards to achieve "diversity" or "multi-culturalism" or "inclusion." I do not include outreach, or using efforts to inform others, irrespective of race, gender, etc., of available opportunities. Brimmer concluded, "I would say that most blacks I know did not get [their jobs] because of affirmative action, but it’s impossible [to determine the exact number]."

In 1962, Ebony magazine ran a series of motivational articles called, "If I Were Young Today." Each month, they asked a black achiever—Federal District Judge Herman Moore, union leader A. Philip Randolph, famed Los Angeles architect Paul Williams—to provide advice to today’s youth. Each spoke of drive, vision, hard work, and preparation. Not one even implied the need or desire for preferential treatment.

In 1963, Whitney Young, then head of the Urban League, proposed a kind of a "Marshall Plan" for blacks. A member of the league, however, objected to what he called "the heart of it--the business of employing Negroes [because they are Negroes]." Moreover, Whitney Young suggested his "Marshall Plan" for a period of ten years. This means, if Young prevailed, affirmative action would have ended in 1973!

The Detroit News recently wrote that, at seven Michigan colleges and universities, blacks within six years graduate at a rate of 40% compared to 61% for whites and 74% for Asians. Blame lowered standards to achieve campus "diversity." This mismatching of students—placing someone in a major league school when he or she would have been better at Triple A ball—causes, according to one study a loss of $5 billion a year to the black community. Moreover, affirmative action, in the educational field, masked the real problems, substandard education K-12. Yet you, the Democratic Party, and the unions all resist many changes urban parents want, including vouchers.

Besides, hard work wins. Back in 1901, thirty-six years after slavery, Booker T. Washington said, "When a Negro girl learns to cook, to wash dishes, to sew, to write a book, or a Negro boy learns to groom horses, or to grow sweet potatoes, or to produce butter, or to build a house, or to be able to practise medicine, as well or better than some one else, they will be rewarded regardless of race or colour. In the long run, the world is going to have the best, and any difference in race, religion, or previous history will not long keep the world from what it wants.

"I think that the whole future of my race hinges on the question as to whether or not it can make itself of such indispensable value that the people in the town and the state where we reside will feel that our presence is necessary to the happiness and well-being of the community. No man who continues to add something to the material, intellectual, and moral well being of the place in which he lives is long left without proper reward. This is a great human law which cannot be permanently nullified."

Welfare
You fight any attempt to roll back the welfare state, and voted against the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. This act caused a 50% reduction in the welfare rolls, without a corresponding increase in abortion. It reduced teen pregnancy, without a corresponding increase in abortion. Census records from 100 years ago found blacks, in some cases, more likely than whites to marry and have children within a traditional family structure. As recently as 1960, 22% of black children were born to unwed parents. Today, the figure stands at 70%, with 85% spending at least some time living without a father in the house, at least for part of their lives. Racism? Blame Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, coupled with a "you-owe-me" victicrat mindset that creates dependency and fosters irresponsibility.

In 1985, the Los Angeles Times conducted a poll, asking poor people whether poor young women "often," or "seldom," have children in order to get on welfare. More poor people (64 percent) than non-poor (44 percent) agreed that welfare recipients "often" have children to get additional benefits. More poor people than non-poor people agreed that welfare fosters dependency.

War on Drugs
You recently condemned the CIA for its alleged role in the creation of urban America’s drug problem, bellowing at a Town Hall meeting: "If I never do anything else in this career as a member of Congress--I’m gonna make somebody pay for what they’ve done to my community and to my people." Never mind that the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Los Angeles Times all wrote stories debunking the notion that the CIA had played anything other than an incidental role in the creation of a drug war. Furthermore, what about personal responsibility? Did some strange mystical racist force cause black people to ingest or inject drugs?

Many young blacks, convicted of drug-related offenses, waste away in jail. Many never committed violent crimes. Yet, you do not call for the end of the War on Drugs.

You claim you condemn drugs, but you wrote a letter to Janet Reno to back off of a joint federal joint Justice Department local DEA probe. The probe centered on James A. Prince, a childhood friend of your husband’s. The authorities suspected him of drug trafficking, and some DEA agents working on the probe suddenly got yanked off. Some, on the record, accused you of interfering with a legitimate probe. For all these reasons, I suspect that you question the legitimacy of the government’s War on Drugs. Why not, then, publicly call for an end to this expensive, unfair, corrupting War on Drugs?

In 1979, former Black Panther, Joanne Chesimard, gunned down a New Jersey State Highway Patrol Officer. A jury convicted her of murder, and sentenced her to life in prison. In a daring breakout, Chesimard escaped from prison and fled to Cuba. Congress passed a unanimous resolution urging Castro to send Chesimard back to America and face charges. You, however, wrote Castro a letter, urging him to let her stay, stating "she was persecuted as a result of her political beliefs and affiliations." You further likened her to Martin Luther King!

The War on Drugs requires a growing use of informants, thus compromising the integrity of our criminal justice system. Under the guise of fighting the War on Drugs, President Clinton authorized more wiretaps and asset forfeitures than under the Bush and Reagan administrations combined. Economist Milton Friedman said, "Today in this country, we incarcerate 3,109 black men for every 100,000 of them in the population. Just to give you an idea of the drama in this number, our closest competitor for incarcerating black men is South Africa. South Africa—and this is pre-Nelson Mandela and under an overt public policy of apartheid—incarcerated 729 black men for every 100,000."

Janet Reno estimates that nearly half of all street crime is directly related to criminals seeking money to support drug habits. I urge you to take a courageous stand and publicly pressure the government to end this war.

Racism
Black leaders refuse to acknowledge the good news: Racism no longer remains a potent threat in American life. Most blacks remain solidly middle class, with blacks forming businesses at a faster rate than whites. The black domestic product, were it a separate country, makes it one of the fifteen wealthiest nations in the world.

Harvard’s Orlando Patterson, a liberal Democrat, said, "The sociological truths are that America, while still flawed in its race relations…is now the least racist white-majority society in the world; has a better record of legal protection of minorities than any other society, white or black; offers more opportunities to a greater number of black persons than any other society, including all those of Africa…"

In one recent year, three out of four blacks, with SAT scores between 1250 and 1300 received admissions into the nation’s 28 most elite colleges. Only one in four whites with comparable SAT scores received admission.

SAG, the Screen Actors Guild, reports roles going to blacks equal the percentage of our population in the nation. Unemployment rates for married black men just about equal those for married white men.

Yes, black net worth remains but a fraction of white net worth, but government programs cannot close that gap without forcibly taking money away from somebody and giving it to someone else. Instead, hard work, personal responsibility, avoiding slovenly behavior, getting an education, and focus create growth and opportunity. You display precisely these qualities in your life and career, and form the basis for your success.

As mentioned before, 70% of today’s black children are born outside of wedlock. Nearly 25% of young black men possess criminal records. In many urban schools, the dropout rate exceeds 50%. Because of these problems, there are only 100 eligible, marriageable black men for every 111 eligible, marriageable black women. Nearly three-quarters of inner-city kids at the elementary school level fail to read, write, and compute at grade level.

In America, we see two black Americas. The majority black world reflects increased prosperity, growing homeownership, and steady asset accumulation. The other, the so-called black underclass, remains disturbing. Quite simply, we see too many children having children. It stands, far and away, as America’s No. 1 problem. Whatever role racism played, the complete abolition of white racism would leave these problems unresolved.

I await your response.

Sincerely yours,

Larry Elder
LAE/ph

larryelder.com



To: RMF who wrote (32285)6/28/2008 11:21:55 AM
From: Geoff Altman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
1.0 Personal Liberty

Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices.

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

1.3 Personal Relationships

Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the rights of individuals by government, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships.

1.4 Abortion

Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.

1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.

1.6 Self-Defense

The only legitimate use of force is in defense of individual rights — life, liberty, and justly acquired property — against aggression. This right inheres in the individual, who may agree to be aided by any other individual or group. We affirm the right to keep and bear arms, and oppose the prosecution of individuals for exercising their rights of self-defense. We oppose all laws at any level of government requiring registration of, or restricting, the ownership, manufacture, or transfer or sale of firearms or ammunition.

2.0 Economic Liberty

A free and competitive market allocates resources in the most efficient manner. Each person has the right to offer goods and services to others on the free market. The only proper role of government in the economic realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal framework in which voluntary trade is protected. All efforts by government to redistribute wealth, or to control or manage trade, are improper in a free society.

2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.

2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.

2.3 Energy and Resources

While energy is needed to fuel a modern society, government should not be subsidizing any particular form of energy. We oppose all government control of energy pricing, allocation, and production.

2.4 Government Finance and Spending

All persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor. We call for the repeal of the income tax, the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service and all federal programs and services not required under the U.S. Constitution. We oppose any legal requirements forcing employers to serve as tax collectors. Government should not incur debt, which burdens future generations without their consent. We support the passage of a "Balanced Budget Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution, provided that the budget is balanced exclusively by cutting expenditures, and not by raising taxes.

2.5 Money and Financial Markets

We favor free-market banking, with unrestricted competition among banks and depository institutions of all types. Individuals engaged in voluntary exchange should be free to use as money any mutually agreeable commodity or item. We support a halt to inflationary monetary policies, the repeal of legal tender laws and compulsory governmental units of account.

2.6 Monopolies and Corporations

We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association. We seek to divest government of all functions that can be provided by non-governmental organizations or private individuals. We oppose government subsidies to business, labor, or any other special interest. Industries should be governed by free markets.

2.7 Labor Markets

We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.

2.8 Education

Education, like any other service, is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Schools should be managed locally to achieve greater accountability and parental involvement. Recognizing that the education of children is inextricably linked to moral values, we would return authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. In particular, parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

2.9 Health Care

We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions.

2.10 Retirement and Income Security

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. We favor replacing the current government-sponsored Social Security system with a private voluntary system. The proper source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.

3.0 Securing Liberty

The protection of individual rights is the only proper purpose of government. Government is constitutionally limited so as to prevent the infringement of individual rights by the government itself. The principle of non-initiation of force should guide the relationships between governments.



To: RMF who wrote (32285)6/28/2008 10:22:50 PM
From: Geoff Altman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
RMF, this is why I think Obama is absolutely the wrong
person to lead this country:


Two Americas
Posted on June 28, 2008

John Edwards was right, or at least half right, anyway.

There are two Americas fighting for dominance in this country and they aren't the America of the wealthy and the America of the downtrodden. If the wrong America wins it will be just that and then John Edwards will look like a seer.

The first of the two Americas I speak of is Classic America, the one most folks on the Right think of when they think of America. It's the one we are fighting so hard to keep from slipping into the dustbin of history.

It is the America of John Wayne, Audie Murphy, Frank Sinatra and countless other Real Men who knew honest work was a good thing for a man's soul, and that accepting or relying on charity, no matter how freely given, lessened a man. Men used to do everything they could to avoid having to accept charity.

It is the America of June Cleaver and the stay at home mom, the America of women who knew their highest calling was to raise the kids and take care of the home and her husband. Generations of women just like this raised up generations of great men and women. They were the women that raised the children that went on to beat the Brits in the Revolution, save the Republic in the Civil War and beat down Hitler and Tojo in WW2. It was women such as this who raised the men that built this country into the greatest country yet seen on this little blue globe.

It is the America of the self made man and The Buck Stops Here instead of the America of begging for the government's help for each little bump and bruise and blaming everyone and everything for all of the ills that befall you in life.

Life Is Not Fair, and to steal a great quote from a famous flick, anyone that tells you differently is trying to sell you something.

Now we have another America vying to BE America and all she stands for.

This New America, or America Lite, is represented by folks such as Sean Penn, Janeane Garafalo, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and countless other empty headed cretins that push a socialist agenda on this country using false, unearned guilt.

It is an America where the government takes care of all your needs, instead of you taking care of yourself.

It is an America where the Government controls your access to healthcare, instead of you deciding which healthcare you wish to buy, or if at all.

It is an America where the government regulates everything: the emissions from your car, what kind of paint a store can sell and how you must act as an adult by forcing you to wear helmets and seat belts.

There once was a time when this country was filled with citizens who understood that you reap what you sow, you get what you earn, good or bad, that actions had consequences and you paid the price for them either way.

Die in a motorcycle accident from not wearing a helmet?

Sorry you're dead, but dude, you asked for it.

End up crippled because of that accident? It's the responsibility of you and your family to take care of you, not the government's (i.e. everybody else)

As a result of this, people acted more responsibly, because they knew there were consequences to be paid for their actions.

Get a girl pregnant? You will suddenly find yourself with a wife. Not to mention in-laws who probably don't think much of you and probably won't for many years but you took responsibility for your actions and stuck it out and you raised your children into good citizens because that's what was expected of you.

In America Lite, dads leave without a second thought. This situation has gotten so bad that deadbeat dad laws will utterly destroy a man's life if his children's mother decides to go the easy route and take welfare and he doesn't take responsibility by paying for his progeny.

Once upon a time in this country men did the right thing because it was the right thing to do, not because the law threatened to destroy their ability to make a living.

Now, when something bad happens to somebody the questions immediately fly about "Why wasn't something done to avoid this?" and "Where was the government?" when the questions that should be asked are "What can I do to help this poor soul?" and "What was that person thinking?" and maybe even "Did you see what happened to that dumbass? He sure got what he had coming, huh?"

The America I know and love, the America whose return MUST occur, is in a pitched battle with the America Lite, which is a country that sports the Stars and Stripes but whose Faith, Patriotism and Freedom rings hollow to this mans ears. America Lite chooses instead a socialist path that steals Liberty and crushes the greatness of the Human Spirit, making away with the Rights granted by our Creator like a thief in the night. The end result of this vileness is a population who are simply wards of the state, children to be taken care of at each turn, from cradle to grave.

The America I know and love, Classic America, the America where a man is known for his actions, where he takes pride in his work and his word, where he chooses the most menial work if that's all that is there instead of demanding to be taken care of by his fellow man by threat of government force is slowly dying off. As each succeeding generation is brought up in a school system that teaches them a test, skims the great history of this country and pounds guilt for being a citizen of the best country ever into their little mush filled skulls, we get people so empty headed as to follow the most inexperienced, liberal, anti-American person to ever run for the White House on a major party ticket as if he is the second coming of the Christ.

Is there hope?

Maybe.

If that American Spirit can be brought back to full bloom, If people once again are taught that having pride in themselves and taking responsibility for their lives is the way to succeed in life. If people are once again taught that success is not measured by how large a house one has, or how expensive your car or clothes are, but rather how you live your life and how you treat other people.

The theft of my liberty for your comfort, no matter how necessary that comfort may be, is still the theft of my liberty. Three generations of Americans don't seem to understand that, and they demand that our government do more for them, never realizing that with each thing the government does, someone's liberty has been stolen in their name and vice versa.

These are the Two Americas.

In November you get to choose which America you want to have. Classic America, the America that Saved the World (twice at least) and is mostly responsible for the current amenities and freedoms the world enjoys or America Lite, a pale and ugly shadow that is bound to failure and the destruction of True Freedom and the Greatness of Man.

It is that simple.

Choose wisely, my friends. If you remember the scene in Indiana Jones and the Holy Grail where the American chose the wrong Grail and instantly withered away to dust, then you get an idea of what will happen if you choose poorly.

We are that man, and we are standing in front of two cups, but only one can bring us back to the greatness we once knew, the Freedom we once would fight to defend, the Pride in simply BEING an AMERICAN. The other will certainly cause us to whither away to dust.

As I said, choose wisely.

stoptheaclu.com



To: RMF who wrote (32285)6/28/2008 10:41:41 PM
From: Geoff Altman  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
RMF here's another flash for you. A vote for Obama is a vote for income redistribution, and that's something that I and over 3/4 of Americans disagree with, hat tip to Brumar:

Gallup: Americans Overwhelmingly Support Conservative Economic Policies
Patrick Casey

As the GOP in Congress appears about to be taking an "every man for himself" strategy for the fall elections, Gallup has just given the Republicans another gift (Americans Oppose Income Redistribution to Fix Economy). The results of this poll show that if the GOP ever gets back to preaching and adhering to the simple message that they used to have -- one that they've previously ridden to victory on -- they'd be shoe-ins in 2008. Whether or not the Republicans have cleaned their own house enough to take advantage of something like this remains to be seen.
Barack Obama is running on an economic platform that promises to "restore fairness to the tax code". On the same page of his campaign website that that quote came from, Obama also refers to Bush's "Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class". Put the two of them together and the message that Obama is sending to the public is that he wants to take money from the wealthy and give to the middle class - the very definition of the "Income Redistribution" that this Gallup poll measures public opinion on. Obama doesn't even have to actively do much for this redistribution to happen - all he has to do is let the Bush tax cuts expire.

The numbers in this poll are staggering. Overall, Americans are against the core principle behind Barack Obama's domestic economic policy -- income redistribution -- by an astounding 84% to 13%. Republicans oppose it 90%-9%, Independents oppose it 85% to 13%, and even Democrats oppose it 77% to 19%.

Gallup has been the gold standard of polling for Democrats for decades. These days, the media is continually promoting Obama's theory of "bringing back fairness" to the tax code. In fact, the "tax fairness" war-cry has been at the core of the Democrats' message machine, and has been endlessly promoted by their minions in the media, since 2000. With those facts in mind, these particular poll results are breathtaking. To give you an idea of how important even Gallup thinks this poll is, the explanatory narrative that goes along with the results were written by Dennis Jacobe, Gallup's Chief Economist:

PRINCETON, NJ -- When given a choice about how government should address the numerous economic difficulties facing today's consumer, Americans overwhelmingly -- by 84% to 13% -- prefer that the government focus on improving overall economic conditions and the jobs situation in the United States as opposed to taking steps to distribute wealth more evenly among Americans.

Americans' lack of support for redistributing wealth to fix the economy spans political parties: Republicans (by 90% to 9%) prefer that the government focus on improving the economy, as do independents (by 85% to 13%) and Democrats (by 77% to 19%). This sentiment also extends across income groups: upper-income Americans prefer that the government focus on improving the economy and jobs by 88% to 10%, concurring with middle-income (83% to 16%) and lower-income (78% to 17%) Americans.

In this poll, Gallup also asked another question - is the government, in general, doing too much or too little? While the results on this question aren't quite as dramatic as the results on the income distribution question, the poll still shows that a majority of Americans believe that the government is doing too much (read: screwing it up) as opposed to too little.

A separate question finds Americans more likely to believe government is doing too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses (50%) as opposed to saying government should do more to solve the country's problems (43%). This broad question is not directed specifically at the economy, but reinforces the general idea that many Americans are leery of too much direct government intervention in fixing the country's problems.

Americans of all incomes, social strata, and political affiliations get it -- we can't tax our way out of this, and the government isn't the right entity to save us. The Republican message to Americans -- before the Congressional GOP became the party of pork, earmarks, and corruption -- was to keep taxes low and focus on improving both the economy and job creation by encouraging business to do what they are designed to do and do best - employ people and make money. As for the old "limited government" question - a subject of heated debate even within the ranks of conservatives today -- this poll shows that the public clearly thinks that less government is better government.

Unless I'm mistaken, all of these results show support for - dare I say it - Reagan-brand conservatism. Even after all this time -- after all the liberal garbage that the Democrats and the media relentlessly shove in our faces -- when the public is faced with an economic crisis, Reagan's conservative message of low taxes and limited government still wins.

This poll clearly shows that the conservative message, especially on the economy, has gotten through. What's still unclear, however, is if the current group of Republicans are the right ones to take the GOP back to majority status. The Republicans in Congress have to be united and show some guts, something that they seem reluctant to do. For instance, the report in today's New York Times on the expansion of earmarks (Earmarks Persist in Spending Bills for 2009), especially coming after the Democrats rode to victory in 2006 promising to end them, is particularly embarrassing for the GOP. A true no-brainer, an earmark moratorium by the Republicans would send out a signal of fiscal responsibility to the public during a time of economic crisis that the Democrats would never be able to match, and the media would never be able to cover up. Coupling that with a promise to submit requests for funding all future non-emergency local projects to the appropriate committees to be inserted into the appropriate bills -- where they can be seen and debated by all, including the public -- is a political winner. Why the Republicans haven't taken these simple steps this year is beyond my comprehension.

I don't know what else can be said to convince the GOP to take such logical actions and re-embrace their conservative values, other than to point out the fact that if this bunch of Republican Senators and Congressmen don't get it, perhaps the next bunch will...

americanthinker.com