"What an outrageous insult aimed at hundreds upon thousands of private U.S. citizens from the President of the United States!" Amber Pawlik



Amber Pawlik

Amber's Blog

Facebook Page

Amber Pawlik Books

Islam on Trial

Objectivist Sexuality

On Demand Side Economics

Didactic Method to Teach Economics

Obama Bares His Socialist Teeth

Last Friday, during a speech in Roanoke, Virginia, Obama said to supporters:

If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. […]  I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart.

What an outrageous insult aimed at hundreds upon thousands of private U.S. citizens from the President of the United States!  

Business owners, the object of attack from President Obama, assume an enormous risk to start a business. In doing so, they create jobs, new products, and increase the quality of everyone's life. They usually wear many hats: innovator, technical consultant, salesman. They work long hours and, at the end of it all, the success or failure of the business is on their shoulders. Yes, they “is smart.” And hardworking. I wonder if Obama would have said the same thing about his favorite football player, sneering at him as he scored a touchdown, “You just think you are so good don’t you?” 

I personally have been the victim of this kind of attack. I showed an older manager how to do something with a piece of software after he stumbled to figure it out. He sneered at me, “You only knew that because you took training!” I did not take training (not that it matters) but rather got the software earlier than others and had learned it on my own. Let me tell you: His comment made me feel great and not at all abused (Not). His attack, dripping in jealousy, was aimed at my ability—that I couldn’t have figured it out myself; I must have “had help.” 

That same manager would exploit me and a few other people on the team by loading us up with an extreme amount of work, much of which was grisly, such as 3rd shift work. He also hired several of his friends onto the same team, who were never loaded up with work, and were picked to go on trips to Europe. In short, the team had producers and moochers; the first of which were “taxed” heavier than the others, the latter of which enjoyed an easy paycheck.

When I pointed out to him the discrepancy, he played it off as if the other team members were “slow,” the way you would describe a mentally challenged person as slow, and that I can’t expect everyone to be A+ team members, some were just Bs or Cs. That these other members did not carry their weight, according to him, had nothing to do with their poor attitudes or lack of work ethic but unchangeable natural ability, i.e., luck.

This has extreme moral significance for the same reason Obama's statement has moral significance.

It is universally agreed that if someone works hard for something, it should be theirs. It would be unethical to take it. But if what people got was just pure luck and chance, let the looting begin. Obama's view of businessmen is a pre-condition to the abuse he has and will dish out to them.  

Like my manager's view of talent, Obama's view of talent will lead to exploitation and corruption. Put in the simplest way possible: In this world, there are wealth creators and there are moochers. Obama, having no appreciation for wealth creation, wants to take wealth from the wealth creators and give it to the moochers. And like in the case of the team I previously described, the beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth will be friends of those in charge. Systems such as this are corrupt. Anyone who voted for Obama thinking they would get free health care is to blame.

I have argued before that the philosophical identification that production leads to wealth is the cure to all evil. It is exemplified by the American dream: If you work hard, you can succeed. You don’t harm your neighbor and he doesn’t harm you while you both produce. You can live in perfect peace, just building and trading. If however, you see the economic “pie” as limited, then someone else’s success is a detriment to your own. The only way to get your share is to forcibly make them distribute their wealth. It leads to violence and war. This was the economics of Nazis, communists, and Islamic terrorists.

Similarly, if you see wealth as a product of random luck, again that no effort, i.e., no thought or production went into creating the wealth, then the lucky individuals with wealth need to be forcibly required to share it. I believe Obama is an outright socialist, and I don't think anyone who says this can be guffawed as a conspiracy theorist anymore.

In the article I linked to previously, I argued that, given the racial and gender politics of the 1960s and on, America would have also turned into a cesspool of class warfare, socialism, and civil war had it not been for individual rights and objective law in our country. Thinking about the recent Supreme Court ruling, which says the government has the power to force people into any activity whatsoever with its power to tax, sends a shudder down my spine. Particularly since this next election has the potential to stack the Supreme Court.  

I strongly encourage you to take with solemn seriousness your vote this November.

Amber Pawlik
July 17, 2012

This article is protected under the US Copyright Act of 1976. No part may be copied.

Home / About Me
Email: amber - at - amberpawlik - dot - com