Obama Doesn’t Seem Like Someone I’d Want to Have a Beer With

And I certainly don’t want him anywhere near my property.

Imagine relaxing at a backyard barbecue enjoying an adult beverage. While you’re answering a question about how you started your business, your neighbor interrupts to scold you in a mocking tone. He says you over-valued your role in starting your own business. Further, he calls you an ungrateful braggart for not mentioning your third-grade teacher or the highway department worker who “helped you” build your business.

It’s annoying if it’s your neighbor, but you can always un-invite him to future parties. It’s alarming when it’s the President of the United States and he’s angling for another four years to preside over this economy.

Every time his now infamous Roanoke, Virginia speech, dubbed the “You didn’t build that” speech, is played and read, we get a deeper sense of President Barack Obama. He doesn’t sound like someone you’d like to have a beer with. He doesn’t sound likeable at all. Beyond that, he doesn’t remotely sound like a leader.

This speech was not just an honest peek into the beliefs of the President regarding the economy, the role of government, and his commitment to collectivism versus individualism. “You didn’t build that” has drawn a line in the sand and defined the split of the left and right in 2012 America.

The left dreams of and schemes for a government-centered, heavily regulated society where private property rights are minimal. Discrediting individual effort and initiative is central to their advancement of collectives over private enterprises.

For the state to be accepted as the dominant factor in every aspect of life requires tearing down the individual and what he or she owns. It requires the remaking of the American point of view regarding individual and private property rights.

“You didn’t build that” is also a full-frontal attack on legitimate pride stemming from hard work, financial risk and faith in self and self-interest.

True conservatives encourage individuals to find their own path, to invest in their own unique dreams based on their own unique talents and desires. It has been proven over the last 250 years that this path is the best way to earn a living and acquire wealth, or said another way—private property.

Collective ideologies conflict with free markets and wealth creation. Private property represents power and that is a threat to the state.

And that’s why the conflict is so powerful. Conformity and individuality are like oil and water. Whether we are subjects or free people is what is at stake.

The United States is still a country that honors individual achievement. We are not clamoring for more Chevy Volts. We are not enamored with the Solyndra’s of the world. The state created those things. “We” didn’t build those. “We” wouldn’t be that careless with our own futures and money.

“We” as individual Americans embrace the right and the joy of individuals making their own choices to pursue success and yes, fail also. We call it, “the pursuit of happiness.” Not the guarantee of success and happiness. The pursuit.

When the President denigrates individual achievement, we know in our gut he’s advocating a society where conformity to government is the new norm.

Liberty and property rights are under attack, and the President’s language has finally been delivered without disguise.

“You didn’t build that” is not just an insult; it’s a battle cry for radical change.

The reason “You didn’t build that” is so powerful is we instinctively know what lies just around the corner. We’re being conditioned for a subservient role. We’re being minimized and set up to willingly lose our private property.

The President, who never held a meaningful job in the private sector, has reached a conclusion shared by other anti-capitalists: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Simply put, it is the belief that the state should dictate the terms of co-existence with the individual and not vice versa.

And this is why ideology matters. Our way of life is under assault, and it’s deeper than just higher taxes, spending and more regulations. It’s all that, but there’s a philosophical foundation for anti-Constitutional, anti-free market, anti-American convictions.

In the minds of people like President Obama, there is no individual success, thus they can claim there is no individual failure.

This is how the left justifies their position that the state is entitled to private property. They may seize it and regulate it because, in their perverse view, the state creates wealth, thus can redistribute wealth to “prevent poverty.”

You and I know that never happens, but billions of people throughout history have been susceptible to this lie. The government knows best—they know best about food, about cars, about health insurance, about everything.

This kind of thinking is the end of the founding truth that God gave us all unalienable, individual rights. Barack Obama believes the state is the holder of all rights and privileges and dispenses them when deemed in our best interests.

The recent Supreme Court decisions regarding Arizona and Obamacare went further to reduce the sovereign nature of the individual and the 50 states.

Obama’s overtly hostile declaration of “You didn’t build that” undermines the legal, moral and ethical underpinnings of the individual working in a free-market economy. Forget the concept of “rugged individualism.” Forget the concept of “every person is unique and can make a difference.” And forget the plain meaning of “innovation.” According to Obama, “innovation” results from partnerships with the government.

“You didn’t build that” is a clear warning: President Obama, in a second term, will further increase the dominant role of the federal government in our lives. This is how the Constitution is rendered meaningless.

The latest, disgusting behavior from elected officials toward Chick-fil-A is broader evidence of the state’s disregard for the individual. If the government has the power to stop Chick-fil-A from doing business in a city as a result of having different views than the city or state, then the government has the power to ban a radio show for the same reasons. Or this publication.

The Constitution was written as a firewall to protect individuals from having their guaranteed rights (Bill of Rights) infringed upon by their government. The left in this country has no tolerance for such a construct. The Constitution gets in the way of the left imposing their will on the rest of us.

We are in the midst of hostility towards basic civil rights that this country hasn’t seen in quite some time. The country as founded is under assault. This isn’t simply Chick-fil-A’s problem, or a few small-business owners’ problem. It is an existential problem for all of us. Is the individual sovereign in the United States, or are we subjects of the state?

That’s what on your ballot in November.

You can listen to Chris Stigall on Talk Radio 1210, WPHT, weekdays from 5:30 to 9 a.m., and follow him on Facebook and Twitter @ChrisStigall.

Around The Web

Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to ban impersonators and remove comments that contain personal attacks, threats, or profanity, or are flat-out offensive. By posting here, you are permitting Philadelphia magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.

  • usmcnole1

    “That” refers to infrastructure. Individuals came toether as a society built “that”. Individual businesses need “that” to prosper

  • usmcnole1

    And the government doesn’t have the legal power to block chick-fil-a or any other legal business from operating as a result of having different views than the city or state. That was just idiot politicians playing verbal politic games. The consumer will decide the fate of chick-fil-a….just like a free market should and does

  • wiggum826

    Check out the definition of a “slippery slope” argument. Heres a link just in case:


    Note the first word: fallacy.

    Also, listen to the whole speech instead of taking the one quote out of context. usmcnole1 has put it into some context for you with his/her first comment.

  • suburbdog1

    Way to be topical. Wasn’t this quote from 3 weeks ago and directed by the right address nauseum to misdirected from Romney off- shore bank accounts? I guess it took the author that long to type the article in a straight jacket. Bottom line: 1 in 4 American businesses fail in 3 years. In under developed nations its closer to 1 in 10.

  • peter1

    While I’ll agree with you that the Chick-fil-A stuff is idiotic, I’ll also say that so is the remainder of your piece.

    Context, genius. How about if he said, “you didn’t build that by yourself,” which is clearly what he meant.

    The people such as yourself who are so breathless over this parsing of words are, ironically, PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER OWNED A BUSINESS.

    I own a business, I know I didn’t build it by myself. I owe my success to my own hard work, but also to our government for keeping the streets paved and safe, to the other companies whose goods, services and utilities (also government originated) I use in order to be successful, to my teachers, who helped me gain the tools needed to succeed, and to my employees, whose good work I profit off of.

    Rugged individualism only works if you live in a shack in the woods and grow and kill your own food.

  • peter1

    And by the way, do your homework…

    “General Motors Co. said sales of its extended-range electric Chevrolet Volt rose again in July to 1,849, up over the 125 the company sold in July 2011 and over the 1,760 sold in June.

    For the first seven months, GM has sold 10,666 Volts, up 270 percent over the same period last year.”

  • sjmcintyre335

    Anyone who actually read/heard the entire speech realizes that it was absolutely not a slap in the face to anyone who tells you that they’ve worked hard all their lives, pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, or did whatever else it took to be successful. Anyone you know who is “successful” may have achieved that by hard work, but not one of them did it by living alone in a cave. And that was the point.They did it with any number of support systems, whether it was loving parents, an encouraging teacher, or an employer who took a chance on them. We all live and work within an infrastructure and that’s just the way it is. Being born in America is the biggest leg up there is. I’m sure there are many hardworking, ambitious individuals in third world countries who will never get a break not because they “didn’t build it” but because there’s no infrastructure to support them. You are so, so off the mark, Chris. (And I’d be happy to have a beer with President Obama.)

  • bill k

    Obama seems more like a real guy than Romney- that’s for sure. Obama plays poker, shoots pool and follows sports. Romney’s idea of fun is hiding his money.

  • ecp 18

    The statement by sjmcintyre335 is false. If one reads the large section of Obama’s speech in which he asserted “you did not create that”, it is self-evident that he was explicitly attacking the concept and moral significance of individual achievement. Obama meant exactly what he has been severely and deservedly criticized for stating, even though he and his supporters are now attempting to disown his remarks by falsely claiming they have been taken “out of context”. Obama set up a straw man (the false idea that to deserve any credit one must create ex nihilo, in a vacuum) to argue that businessmen and women do not deserve credit for building their businesses. His remarks show us the essence of Obama and highlight why it is crucially important that he be defeated in November.

  • 1happydog

    “You didn’t build that”. Even if you add “yourself'” (“You didn’t build that yourself”) — what kind of loose grammar is that? Notice that the president leaves equivocation on his meaning wide open. Ecp is right – it’s a straw man. Notice Obama doesn’t even know how to use the simple term, “D-i-v-i-s-i-o-n of l-a-b-o-r” — !! It’s as if even the most mediocre of economists or businessmen in an American capitalist society (or once was – now mixed corporate welfare state) who have heard of and can use the term — well, our President has no awareness of it, doesn’t know how nor when to use it, and hope’s we don’t think in those terms either! It’s just not in his mental repertoire, is it? This is an observant and helpful article. I say, ” Thank you”, to it’s author.