Can Someone Please Tell Obama To Stop “Creating Jobs”?

"I've got your damn jobs but I need a break from all my hard work first!"

The latest from the president on the job front came on Tuesday as to the shock of the nation, Obama claimed to have a job plan that he would be unveiling in September. However, before he bothers with us little folk and our annoying little hunger and poverty issues, he’s off to Martha’s Vineyard for another well-earned vacation.

I’ve heard and read a lot of complaints over Obama’s decision to wait to roll out his master jobs plan however; I’m not among the disappointed. I get that the nation is hurting and needs help now but as I’m quite sure the president’s plan will do little to affect job creation, I can wait. The fact is, I would be much happier as I’m sure Obama would, if he were to wait until NEXT September to roll out his jobs plan. He’d be happier because everyone knows he’s gonna need all the help he can get to look competent and constructive going into the election, I’d be happier because I pay attention and therefore know what to expect of this big secret plan.

Obama’s approach to government is one that considers government to be an essential force in every aspect of the lives of the governed. Obama has no time or concern for the free market principles that have push the United States into a position of leading the free world. That’s exactly why we’ve heard over and over his countless unfulfilled promises to create jobs that have resulted in nothing more than increased national debt.

The president on one hand talks a good game on creating jobs while the paralyzing regulatory atmosphere his policies have created has all but ensured continued economic stagnancy. Herein lies the problem. It’s not the responsibility of the federal government to employ the American people. It is however the responsibility of a competent leader to ensure his actions are not counter-productive to an economy starving for some relief.

Obama’s focus should be on creating a business friendly atmosphere in America. Rather than the same old calls to tax the rich, spend trillions more in stimulus and a pseudo nationalist concept of creating short term construction jobs, the president should take a look at his administration’s 30 year record federal regulation in FY2010 and the obvious dismal effects.

Please get out of the “job creation” business Obama. You have no prior experience doing so, job creation IS NOT the responsibility of federal government and it should be clear to you by now that your approach is only making things worse.

Obama could send IRS thugs to the home of each and every millionaire in American to take all they have and he’d still not foster an environment where increased private profits are reinvested in growth. American business is holding on to all it currently has because we know this administration’s intent is to find a way to take it.

Advertisements

Mass Confusion Over The Second Amendment

The Constitution specifically names areas in which the Federal government MUST NOT infringe upon the rights of American citizens.

This is a point that most present day Americans are woefully unaware of. However, a simple reading of The Constitution leaves little doubt.

The 2nd amendment specifically states; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” seems to imply that the government should have no power to restrict private access to weaponry up to the point where the private citizens and The State find themselves on an even technological playing field. This of course would open the door to private ownership of advanced weapons systems such as tanks, aircraft carriers and ICBMs. Obviously due to national security among other concerns, this would not work well.

However, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, is far less dubious. This is a directive to the Federal government to stay out of the business of regulating arms to the citizens. 

So how then do the citizens of America provide for their own security against an oppressive government that is better trained and equipped? Clearly, one way to ensure our security is to be as well equipped as national security concerns will allow. So where is that mark? What is “as well equipped as possible” while still not posing national security risks? Where do we draw the line?

Current opposition to gun ownership tends to draw the line around what THEY consider necessary for hunting. This is a flawed approach as hunting and providing for a well regulated militia have NOTHING in common. They also like to draw the line at the point at which weapons are clearly created solely for the purpose of killing other people. Again, this approach is flawed unless it’s conceivable that the founders believed America might someday face attack from a force of something other than humans.

Freedom is not free. Civilizations throughout history have learned the hard way that our leaders are not necessarily always driven to serve the people. Often world leaders have sought to serve their religion, their twisted ideological aspirations for world domination and their own greed and thirst for power. In each of these instances civilizations caught totally unprepared for a sudden swing toward tyrannical government oppression have been quickly killed or enslaved. Those more equipped to defend their way of life have always been and will continue to be a thorn in the side of any potentially oppressive regime. Our founding fathers were well aware of this fact having just defeated England with an army of farmers and shop owners.  

We shouldn’t think that our liberties were secured for all time by a bunch of dead guys back in 1787. Especially with so many apparently willing to pick and chose which  rights they like and wish to keep and which rights they would like to have repealed for all based strictly on their personal beliefs. Those who chose not to own firearms are free to not purchase them. Our Constitution guarantees them that right. Those who chose to own firearms with which to hunt, sport and if the alarms are ever raised, answer the call to protect the freedom and sovereignty of the United States against whatever enemy might threaten it have the right to do so. Our Constitution guarantees that right and strictly forbids the Federal Government from infringing upon that right.

The bottom line on the gun rights argument is that like it or not, the right to own firearms is protected by our Constitution. Not only is that right protected along with the rights to free speech, to worship as you like, to peacefully assemble in public, to a fair trial, etc, but The Constitution itself was clearly written in such a way so as to make clear the document’s intent to restrict the Federal Government from imposing on the personal lives of all Americans. The Constitution was never intended to be a document with which to control the people. The Constitution was intended to ensure the unique liberties America offers her citizens are respected and upheld by the Federal Government. It does so by specifically detailing limitations on government intrusion into the lives of American citizens.  

 

Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” This famous quote has often been misquoted with the words “and are destined to lose both,” thrown in at the end. I’m not sure who originally modified Mr. Franklin’s common sense assessment but I truly wish the addition had been from the original quote as history has shown this statement to be remarkably accurate.

 

Those who would give up their 2nd Amendment rights have stepped over a line from which there’s little hope they’ll return. Once we devalue our rights and liberties to the point at which we allow government to give or take whatever they see fit they’ll do exactly that. Future leaders will have little trouble convincing a people of this slave like mindset to give up all that The Constitution guarantees as long as the politically illiterate can be convinced that doing so will somehow benefit them.