Who really wants new jobs in America?

There's a rumor going around that Republicans are against job creation in America. People say because they opposed President Obama's so-called "American Jobs Act" that Republicans are the ones standing in the way of an employment rebound in America. Really.

The "Jobs Act" called for about $447 billion in new taxes to pay for it, and does nothing to actually create jobs. After all, the government cannot create jobs - that's the private sector's domain. The government can only take money from the private sector to pay for temporary employment within government branches. That is not job creation. That is spending other people's money. If the federal government has authentic interest in job creation, then the best thing it can do is get out of the private sector's way by reducing choking regulations and taxation so that private enterprise can thrive, invest, and above all, hire.

But two key opportunities America has had lately to create real, private sector jobs - The Boeing Plant in South Carolina and the Canada-Texas Keystone Pipeline project - were shot down by President Obama, citing union and environmental concerns, respectively. Apparently if a new job prospect doesn't give preference to a union worker or cost the American taxpayer anything to create, it must not be worthy of pursuit. Thankfully, 44 Senators - all Republican but one - are introducing legislation to allow for the Keystone Project anyway.

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), who introduced the bill yesterday, said in a statement, “It will create thousands of jobs, help control fuel prices at the pump and reduce our reliance on Middle East oil."

When it comes to getting people back to work - and helping America in other ways as well - it seems the Republicans, in this case, get it. Obama and the environmentalists, as usual, do not.

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

Obama swears to uphold the Constitution, but shows he's above the law

In its customary failure to report news that might actually cast President Barack Obama in a truthful light, the mainstream media have simply ignored the fact that Obama's presidential eligibility is being questioned and that he has blatantly blown off a legal subpoena to appear in court regarding the matter. No, this is not about his shady birth certificate, or the fact that he uses several Social Security numbers, including one of a deceased man in Connecticut.

This is about the fact that Article II, Section 1, of the US Constitution states that,  “No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President.” The Supreme Court defines “natural-born citizen” as a person born to two parents who were both US citizens at the time of the natural-born citizen’s birth. Obama’s father was never a U.S. citizen, so therefore, Barack Obama is not constitutionally fit to be president.

Because the state of Georgia requires that presidential candidates meet all eligibility requirements in order to appear on the ballot, and that such certification must be provided by the candidate's own party, the Liberty Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the Democratic Party for its failure to certify Obama's eligibility. Without this certification, the lawsuit contends, Obama cannot appear on any ballot in the general election. Of course, this certification has yet to be provided.

Deputy Chief Judge Michael Malihi issued a subpoena to President Obama to appear at a hearing on the matter, which our President, the one who took an oath to uphold the laws of our nation, simply blew off. The judge has the authority to issue a warrant for our President's arrest, since he has broken the law. But when we have a president who clearly believes he is above the law, it makes one wonder how serious he would take a warrant.

Despite the fact Obama is boldly thumbing his nose at our country, the ill-informed still sing his praises. They say ignorance is bliss, but eventually even the most clueless won't be shielded from certain truths. Those who have no idea what socialism and lawlessness do to a country will learn all too well if this lawbreaking, arrogant man currently in the White House continues to get his way.

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

How do feminists spell 'insecurity'? w-o-m-y-n

At the peak of the "Women's Movement" in the 1970s, the particularly angriest members of that movement hatched the brilliant idea of changing the spelling of "woman" to "womyn", to make clear that a woman is in no way a man. Well, thank you, feminists, for enlightening us. How else would we otherwise have ever known that men and women are different? Other spelling suggestions include "wimmin", "womban" and "wom!n".

Rightly so, this spurred a lot of eye-rolling at the time by the more logical members of society, but plenty of women embraced the idea. In Canada, one university named its women's center "The University of Waterloo Womyn's Centre". But in 2006, the student council actually voted to replace the "y" with an "e", returning it to the more conventional spelling, and by default, scored a major point for common sense.

Could this signal a new trend, that feminist hysteria is giving way to calmer, more rational thinking? One could hope. But if one local university is any example, that hope is quickly dashed. From the same university that recently expelled a student for her biblical views on homosexuality (which was overturned by a judge, thankfully), some students report that the advocacy of using the gender-neutral "womyn" is alive and well (and if that's the case at this school, it probably is the case elsewhere).

Feminists claim that dissociating themselves from men in all ways, including having any reference to "man" or "men" in certain words, will assert their independence and strength. But don't they realize that focusing on such unimportant matters actually only makes them look weak and insecure in who they are?

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

Obama and the environmentalists score one more victory for America's defeat

President Obama's recent decision to reject a permit for TransCanada Corp's Keystone oil pipeline (which would've stretched from Montana to the Gulf of Mexico) accomplished several things. It insulted our Canadian friends and secured our dependence on foreign oil from anti-American nations. It encouraged higher emissions in our waterways and it helped China. Most unforgivable, it appeased environmentalists at the expense of Americans in desperate need of jobs.

Canada Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has already invested US$1.88 billion in this project, a major portion of which he offered to America by building the pipeline through our country, through which an estimated 830,000 barrels of oil would've been transported daily. Rather than accept this opportunity, which would've provided an estimated 20,000 US jobs while reducing our unfriendly-foreign oil dependence, Obama thumbed his nose at our Canadian friend, claiming the pipeline would hurt our environment.

While the environmentalists cheered (and Obama conveniently secured more votes for his upcoming election), PM Harper simply decided to consider offering the deal to China. If environmentalists really are concerned about the world, their cheering should abruptly stop when they realize that shipping all that oil to China via tankers will produce substantially more emissions than a pipeline in America would have. Will the environmentalists challenge this though? Not likely. It's America they want to destroy, not the world they want to save.

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.

What's wrong with this picture?

Nothing. Except the fact that it barely made the news. This is a picture of just the front of the line of the hundreds of thousands of people who gathered peacefully in Washington, D.C., earlier this week in the annual March for Life to be a voice for the voiceless on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Every year this march is the largest demonstration in Washington and yet few people even hear about it. When the Occupy Wall Street protesters took over parks and sidewalks, threw trash in the streets, went days without bathing and made demands for things like student loan forgiveness, all in protest of wanting a better life, they received front-page, almost reverent media coverage. But the media ignore a massive gathering of people standing up for those who aren't even given a chance at life. On a scale of this magnitude, why is one group's concerns more worthy of coverage than another's, whether you agree with them or not? Is it only "approved" views that merit attention?

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

If the President really wants jobs, why does he stand in the job creators' way?

A global organization recently conducted a survey of over 1,200 CEOs from 60 different countries, in which the top three concerns most often cited by US-based CEOs surrounded economic uncertainty, deficit and debt burdens, and over-regulation. In last night's State of the Union address, about the only thing President Obama succeeded in doing was exacerbating, rather than alleviating, these concerns.

Throughout his speech he made clear his desire to increase spending and raise taxes on just about everything, from savings, to investments, and on those who provide jobs. For starters, his proposed "insourcing" program - which at first blush sounds like a great way to bring jobs home to America -- would actually only succeed in making it harder for American companies to compete in the global market, which in turn would impact jobs here. 

The program would require that US companies pay tax on the income they earn in foreign markets as they earn it, rather than being taxed on the income they bring back to the US. His thinking is that this will discourage US businesses from doing business overseas, and therefore, keep jobs here. Yet all it really does is punish US companies for trying to compete globally, which could hamper their strategies for succeeding here as well. Why would any American president support policies that make it difficult for American businesses to succeed anywhere?

President Obama acknowledged that US businesses already have the highest tax rate in the world. But rather than embrace meaningful tax reform that would make American companies more competitive here and on the global playing field, the President opts to place additional tax burdens on them. Clearly he doesn't understand that taking more money from private companies will not spur them to hire more people.

Meanwhile, Obama picks and chooses which industries or employees he feels deserve support. He gives subsidies to the green industry and bribes companies to hire veterans, which may sound compassionate, but what about letting the free market decide which products and services are most in demand, and which people are the best suited for a job? In the President's approach, any jobs created by his hands-on manipulations are basically government-funded and, therefore, only tenuously sustainable.

But as for jobs created in the private sector by free market pursuits, when Boeing announced plans to invest $1 billion in a new plant in South Carolina (which would've created many much-needed jobs), Obama allowed his friends at the National Labor Relations Board to squash the private company's plans because the new plant would've allowed non-union employees. Obama then rejected the Keystone Pipeline project, an undertaking that would also have provided thousands of real American jobs. 

As for another major challenge facing US businesses, nothing in the President's speech last night indicated plans to dial down the untenable regulations placed on so many private sector industries, such as the almost impossible Dodd-Frank regulations, the monstrous Obamacare, and the many job-stifling rules handed out by the Environmental Protection Agency without any oversight whatsoever.

The President's approach to jobs and tax reform is clear: it's not about jobs or reform. Instead, his plans are to continue taking more from private companies so he can give more to his chosen pet projects. During his 2008 campaign, the President was clear on his desire to "redistribute" wealth - and since he's been president, the "despised" wealthy have lost 40% of their wealth.  Unfortunately, what he doesn't understand - or seem to care about - is that when governments try to redistribute wealth, nobody gets richer, but everyone gets poorer. 
 
Judging by last night's speech, Obama has no plans to scale back his prosperity-crushing agenda. It was riddled with references to making the "wealthy" pay their fair share, as if the successful are evil people who deserve punishment, and despite the fact that the top earners pay the most in tax dollars, while the bottom 49% pay zero in federal income taxes.

The President's passion clearly lies not in improving America, but in fanning the flames of class warfare. He's doing a good job so far, too, judging by the Occupy Wall Street protest movement he encouraged across America. While our Commander in Chief pits class against class, he forgets that the people he's so fond of castigating are the ones who provide the jobs he feigns such interest in creating. 

How much more does the President think he can put on the shoulders of those creating the jobs before these companies are put out of business? Who'll pay for the President's chosen pet projects then?

Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.

Do we still have religious freedom in America?

The Obama Administration has made Obamacare even more oppressive with its latest U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines requiring insurance coverage of women's preventive health services that include a full range of reproductive health services, including all approved methods of contraception.

Up until this ruling, faith-based healthcare insurers and providers were exempt from being forced to cover or provide services that go against their religious beliefs. But HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said, "After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation."

In other words, Catholic and other religious institutions have a year to accept that they will be forced to violate the very tenets of their faith in order to obey a government ruling that's based on public officials' own ideology. That is, if they can convince the government that they are indeed a religious institution. Congratulations to the Obama Administration: It is now fully in charge of deciding what constitutes religion.

Does this Administration forget - or just reject - the First Amendment's guarantee of religious liberty without government interference? Does it have no regard for an individual's right to live moral codes and religious beliefs that are in keeping with his own conscience, as long as those beliefs bring no harm to others?

Forcing someone to go along with something considered to be personally morally wrong violates our freedom of conscience and the Constitution. It's one thing for government policy to dictate measures designed to prevent harm, such as safety codes, but forcing people to partake in actions they believe cause harm - whether physically or spiritually? That's unconscionable.

As for those who are in full support of contraception - and the "full range" of reproductive measures like abortion and sterilization -- don't be lulled into thinking it's okay the government is doing this, just because you're not personally opposed to the actions in question. The problem here is a government so out of control that it's imposing its will at the expense of our Constitutional rights. That is something every American should oppose.

View the full column in The Source.





Have a comment?  Click on the comments link in the bar below - no registration necessary.