415-unit housing complex would be home to Chinese business people.
By Steve Bennish, Staff Writer, Dayton Daily News
The southeastern Michigan city of Milan, a 40-minute or so commute to Toledo or Detroit industrial centers, might become the new home for a 200-acre or larger “China City” that would house Chinese business people.
Milan, a city of 6,000 surrounded by farm fields, is the locale for an unusual deal in the industrial heartland as the rocky relationship continues between the People’s Republic of China and the United States.
A group of mainland Chinese known as Sino-Michigan Properties LLC paid $1.9 million for 200 acres of farmland on Milan city limits in purchases this year and in 2011, according to local officials and property records.
Milan (pronounced MY-lan) is located on U.S. 23 a half-hour from the Ohio border and a short drive from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor — a destination favored by Chinese students.
The city straddles the border of Wastenaw and Monroe counties and is best known regionally for the Milan Dragway race track and a federal prison that can be seen from the highway.
The investors intend to build a 415-unit housing complex complete with artificial lakes and up to 6,000-square-foot homes, as well as a cultural center, Michigan officials briefed on the project said.
As yet, the project hasn’t been formally reviewed by two townships that must approve it, and questions abound.
A presentation last month to the Milan City Council by the city administrator said the project “would be marketed to Chinese business people who want to start companies in the United States,” reported the Milan News Leader newspaper.
Attorney Arthur Dudley II, of the Detroit firm Butzel Long, the registered agent for Sino, declined comment.
He also declined to put a reporter in touch with the investors. “I can’t comment on anything about that,” said the attorney, who in 2008 was selected by Crain’s Detroit Business as a top-three finalist for “Deal Maker of the Year.”
But Doug Smith, senior vice president for business and community development for the Michigan Economic Development Corp., met with the investors.
“It’s a group that wants to build a China city, starting with housing over there in Milan,” Smith said.
A veteran of efforts to attract Chinese investment who led a trip to China last year with Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, Smith said proximity to the auto industry is a potential plus for the group, as is closeness to the University of Michigan. “One of the big reasons they come here is to put kids in school,” he said.
Smith also noted an uptick in interest by China to locate factories in the U.S. to avoid tariffs and transportation costs.
“If they want to be in the American market, they have to have manufacturing here. They want to get out ahead of that,” Smith said. Local Michigan township approval awaits action and will require much more information if it is to happen, said township and Milan city elected officials.
Phil Heath, 57, Milan Twp.’s supervisor since 2008, said he has more questions than answers at this point, such as how local schools could handle the influx.
“People got questions, people want answers. It will be an interesting topic for the next six months. I hope somebody comes up with some answers and facts. All I know is they want to propose this development. There is a pretty little map and that is where it ends,” Heath said.
Milan Mayor Kym Muckler, who said she has not met with the project principals, said she understands the deal to be from “a conglomerate” of Chinese businessmen who paid cash.
Muckler, a former reporter at the local newspaper, said approving the project requires extending water and sewer from the city to the township.
How natural wetlands on the property are handled could also be an issue.
“Township residents have many concerns with this project,” Muckler said. “I have my concerns and many are the same that the folks in the township have. The political climate is sensitive — we are the city and have services, but townships are where the land resides.”
Analyst Thilo Hanemann of the research analysis firm Rhodium Group, a close tracker of Chinese business activity, said he’s never heard of anything similar to the Milan proposal.
“I have not seen a project of this large scale targeting Chinese businessmen,” he said. Real estate inflation in China is pushing investors to low-cost places to place money, he added. “You can be sure the price of property in Shanghai is a multiple of what it is in Michigan.”
There have been no meetings, or hearings, or any other official action scheduled on the project, London Twp. Supervisor Barb Henley said Wednesday. “My only question is, ‘Why Milan?’ ”
Concluded township supervisor Heath: “In this economy, it’s unusual for anybody to say they want to build something.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, May 14, 2012
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Is The President Being Honest About The “Student Loan Crisis?”
by Austin Hill
Is President Obama right about a looming student loan debt crisis?
'It depends on how you define “crisis.” But, yes, there is an actual problem.
What remains to be seen is whether or not the President – or anybody else, for that matter – is willing to face the real problem in higher education. Financing an education is not so much the issue, as is the stark reality that the cost of tuition consistently goes up, even when the prices of other things decline.
It is a fact that over the last decade many “adjustable rate” student loans were issued, both by private lending institutions and government agencies. Just as they were intended to, the rates on those loans “adjust” upward.
On this point, the problem of student loan debt is similar to the mortgage crisis. Just as many Americans bought more home than they could afford, so also did many students “buy” more education than they could afford, or, at least, they bought their education under financial terms that eventually either have become or will become unmanageable.
But why is it that the price of college and university tuition generally only moves in one direction – upward? And why does the price of higher education rise, even when the prices of other goods and services in our economy decline?
Most reports indicate that college tuition rates have continued to rise over the past four years. Yet during this same period, overall prices have mostly been flat or have dropped, even to the point where many economists have expressed fear about a looming deflationary cycle (the recent spike in global oil prices and the corresponding rise in consumer prices have been about the only exception to this rule).
The answer to these qestions is found in a very important fact. It is a consistent agenda item within institutions of higher learning to offer as many low cost, and even “free” tuition programs as possible.
Whether you’re examining state run colleges and universities, or private institutions, look in to the details of school’s budgets and the agenda becomes clear. It is a point of pride if, year after year, when institutions can report that they issued more “scholarship” programs that are doled-out according to ‘financial need.”
A glaring admission of this came to light back in 2009, shortly after President Obama took office. In one of his first college commencement addresses that he would deliver as President, Mr. Obama traveled to Tempe, Arizona, home of Arizona State University. In a speech that discouraged what the President labeled as the “selfishness” of business and for-profit enterprise, Barack Obama admonished the students to instead deny themselves the pursuit of the “corner office” and pursue government employment, and charitable non-profit work.
These remarks from the President were not surprising, and were consistent with his disdain for private enterprise. What was a bit shocking, however, were the comments from the man to precede him at the podium, ASU President Dr. Michael Crowe.
Dr. Crowe began his speech of introduction with glowing remarks about President Obama. “No national leader before you,” Dr. Crowe said as he turned to look directly at the President, “has fully understood the role of education, knowledge and learning, in fulfilling the American ideal..”
This was a bit stunning, in and of itself. “No national leader” had understood education prior to Mr. Obama being elected?
From there, however, Dr. Crowe tipped his hand on the financial agenda of ASU. “Mr. President, we join you today by committing to you and to the people of Arizona that we will continue building ASU as an egalitarian institution of advanced teaching and learning, and we commit to you also that no Arizona student will be left out of this institution and what we have to offer, because of his or her family’s income..”
There was the President of Arizona State University being quite clear about the school’s economic model. Arizona State Unversity's goal – at least one of the school’s goals – was to extend low-cost or now-cost tuition to as many “deserving” students as possible.
After President Obama left town, Dr. Crowe’s remarks stirred a backlash among ASU students, parents, and alumni. This was the Arizona State University President who, in 2009, presided over no less than a 15% increase in tuition rates in less than seven years, and was about to implement yet another tuition increase on cash-paying students. Yet there he was telling the President of the United States that the goal was to be "egalitarian," and in essence, to give it away for free to more students.
This illustrates the not-so-little secret about the rising costs of higher education: colleges and universities are often set up to function like their own little economic re-distribution systems. And while the goal of getting lower income Americans enrolled in college is noble – education is indeed a key to lifting people out of poverty – the cost of enrolling lower income students is often balanced on the backs of middle class students and parents. If a student isn’t “poor enough” to qualify for needs-based tuition assistance, then, too bad – the student will likely face ever-rising tuition rates.
This needs-based thinking has now begun to apply to non-citizens. In 2011, the bankrupt government of California nonetheless found money to fund scholarships to illegal immigrant students, and just last week, in the midst of the current student loan debate, USA Today reported several additional colleges and universities are also now contemplating illegal alien scholarship programs.
Will President Obama – or any other politician – dare to address this stark reality?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Is President Obama right about a looming student loan debt crisis?
'It depends on how you define “crisis.” But, yes, there is an actual problem.
What remains to be seen is whether or not the President – or anybody else, for that matter – is willing to face the real problem in higher education. Financing an education is not so much the issue, as is the stark reality that the cost of tuition consistently goes up, even when the prices of other things decline.
It is a fact that over the last decade many “adjustable rate” student loans were issued, both by private lending institutions and government agencies. Just as they were intended to, the rates on those loans “adjust” upward.
On this point, the problem of student loan debt is similar to the mortgage crisis. Just as many Americans bought more home than they could afford, so also did many students “buy” more education than they could afford, or, at least, they bought their education under financial terms that eventually either have become or will become unmanageable.
But why is it that the price of college and university tuition generally only moves in one direction – upward? And why does the price of higher education rise, even when the prices of other goods and services in our economy decline?
Most reports indicate that college tuition rates have continued to rise over the past four years. Yet during this same period, overall prices have mostly been flat or have dropped, even to the point where many economists have expressed fear about a looming deflationary cycle (the recent spike in global oil prices and the corresponding rise in consumer prices have been about the only exception to this rule).
The answer to these qestions is found in a very important fact. It is a consistent agenda item within institutions of higher learning to offer as many low cost, and even “free” tuition programs as possible.
Whether you’re examining state run colleges and universities, or private institutions, look in to the details of school’s budgets and the agenda becomes clear. It is a point of pride if, year after year, when institutions can report that they issued more “scholarship” programs that are doled-out according to ‘financial need.”
A glaring admission of this came to light back in 2009, shortly after President Obama took office. In one of his first college commencement addresses that he would deliver as President, Mr. Obama traveled to Tempe, Arizona, home of Arizona State University. In a speech that discouraged what the President labeled as the “selfishness” of business and for-profit enterprise, Barack Obama admonished the students to instead deny themselves the pursuit of the “corner office” and pursue government employment, and charitable non-profit work.
These remarks from the President were not surprising, and were consistent with his disdain for private enterprise. What was a bit shocking, however, were the comments from the man to precede him at the podium, ASU President Dr. Michael Crowe.
Dr. Crowe began his speech of introduction with glowing remarks about President Obama. “No national leader before you,” Dr. Crowe said as he turned to look directly at the President, “has fully understood the role of education, knowledge and learning, in fulfilling the American ideal..”
This was a bit stunning, in and of itself. “No national leader” had understood education prior to Mr. Obama being elected?
From there, however, Dr. Crowe tipped his hand on the financial agenda of ASU. “Mr. President, we join you today by committing to you and to the people of Arizona that we will continue building ASU as an egalitarian institution of advanced teaching and learning, and we commit to you also that no Arizona student will be left out of this institution and what we have to offer, because of his or her family’s income..”
There was the President of Arizona State University being quite clear about the school’s economic model. Arizona State Unversity's goal – at least one of the school’s goals – was to extend low-cost or now-cost tuition to as many “deserving” students as possible.
After President Obama left town, Dr. Crowe’s remarks stirred a backlash among ASU students, parents, and alumni. This was the Arizona State University President who, in 2009, presided over no less than a 15% increase in tuition rates in less than seven years, and was about to implement yet another tuition increase on cash-paying students. Yet there he was telling the President of the United States that the goal was to be "egalitarian," and in essence, to give it away for free to more students.
This illustrates the not-so-little secret about the rising costs of higher education: colleges and universities are often set up to function like their own little economic re-distribution systems. And while the goal of getting lower income Americans enrolled in college is noble – education is indeed a key to lifting people out of poverty – the cost of enrolling lower income students is often balanced on the backs of middle class students and parents. If a student isn’t “poor enough” to qualify for needs-based tuition assistance, then, too bad – the student will likely face ever-rising tuition rates.
This needs-based thinking has now begun to apply to non-citizens. In 2011, the bankrupt government of California nonetheless found money to fund scholarships to illegal immigrant students, and just last week, in the midst of the current student loan debate, USA Today reported several additional colleges and universities are also now contemplating illegal alien scholarship programs.
Will President Obama – or any other politician – dare to address this stark reality?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Is America Moving “Forward” With Barack Obama?
By Austin Hil
“Forward!”
It seems like a sufficiently innocent, positive word – doesn’t it?
It’s been a week since the Obama re-election team unveiled “Forward” as the President’s new campaign motto. And it’s been a week of commentators noting the similarity between Obama’s “Forward,” and liberal tv network MSNBC’s slogan “Lean Forward;” Communist Chinese Dictator Mao Zedong’s “The Great Leap Forward;” and ”Spring Forward,” the slogan used by communist Russia Dictator Vladimir Lenin.
Some have insisted that the Obama campaign’s similarities to Chinese and European communism are only rhetorical, and, therefore, the choice of this word was simply an unfortunate mistake. Others suggest that this is a flagrant display of the true philosophical colors of our President, and those of the people by whom he’s surrounded.
But there have been multiple Obama Administration appointees who have spoken favorably and eloquently about communism. And President Obama has for years been promising to use government power to improve people’s lives – just like communist dictators do.
So is America comfortable with communists advising the President? And is Obama improving anything, as he gobbles up more control of our lives with executive mandates and big-government policies?
Since taking office in 2009, there have been at least three Obama Administration appointees who have expressed their fondness and appreciation for communism. Van Jones, President Obama’s former “Green Jobs Czar,” is perhaps the most widely known communist appointee who didn’t last long at the White House. After being appointed by the President in March of 2009, Jones became embroiled in “controversy” when it was discovered that he had previously identified himself as an “avowed communist,” and had ties to a Marxist group back in the 1990’s. After this came to light in the media, Jones was terminated by President Obama with less than four months on the job.
Then there was former Obama White House Communications Director (now a Democrat Party political strategist) Anita Dunn. Ms. Dunn, whose White House career dates back to the Carter Administration, was the subject of a brief moment of controversy in 2009 when it was discovered that in a speech she had noted that Mother Theresa and Mao Zedong were two of her “favorite political philosophers.”
As if that isn’t sufficiently accommodating to communism, President Obama’s former “Manufacturing Czar” had similar accolades to his name. During his tenure at the White House, Czar Ron Blum became famous for noting that “the free market is nonsense,” and that “Chairman Mao” had it right with idea that “political power comes largely from a gun…”
A communistic campaign slogan and three Administration appointees with affections for communism – accidental or not, there has nonetheless been a recurrent theme with the kinds of people with which our President surrounds himself. And then there are the policies and the promises, with the accompanying loss of individual liberty.
After less than two years at the White House, President Obama had successfully put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. By the middle of 2010, the President had become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced. Insurance companies, car manufacturers, lending institutions and energy producers – President Obama has forced his will upon them, and they have reacted.
So where has the President’s agenda led us thus far? Forward to $13 trillion of government debt? Forward to government spending that outpaces GDP? Forward to a government debt downgrade? Forward to skyrocketing healthcare prices?
When Chairman Mao rose to power earlier last century, he implemented what he called his “First Five Year Plan,” noting that the first three years would be difficult but thereafter things would go well. His reign over China, as we know today, brought about the deaths of somewhere between fifty and eighty million “peasants,” and eventually gave way to the more westernized “People’s Republic of China” – still a communist government, yes, but with more private control of economic resources instead of less.
Will President Obama be implementing a second “four year plan?” We, the people, will make that decision and not the President himself. For now we’d all do well to consider whether or not the President’s plan has moved us “forward” at all.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“Forward!”
It seems like a sufficiently innocent, positive word – doesn’t it?
It’s been a week since the Obama re-election team unveiled “Forward” as the President’s new campaign motto. And it’s been a week of commentators noting the similarity between Obama’s “Forward,” and liberal tv network MSNBC’s slogan “Lean Forward;” Communist Chinese Dictator Mao Zedong’s “The Great Leap Forward;” and ”Spring Forward,” the slogan used by communist Russia Dictator Vladimir Lenin.
Some have insisted that the Obama campaign’s similarities to Chinese and European communism are only rhetorical, and, therefore, the choice of this word was simply an unfortunate mistake. Others suggest that this is a flagrant display of the true philosophical colors of our President, and those of the people by whom he’s surrounded.
But there have been multiple Obama Administration appointees who have spoken favorably and eloquently about communism. And President Obama has for years been promising to use government power to improve people’s lives – just like communist dictators do.
So is America comfortable with communists advising the President? And is Obama improving anything, as he gobbles up more control of our lives with executive mandates and big-government policies?
Since taking office in 2009, there have been at least three Obama Administration appointees who have expressed their fondness and appreciation for communism. Van Jones, President Obama’s former “Green Jobs Czar,” is perhaps the most widely known communist appointee who didn’t last long at the White House. After being appointed by the President in March of 2009, Jones became embroiled in “controversy” when it was discovered that he had previously identified himself as an “avowed communist,” and had ties to a Marxist group back in the 1990’s. After this came to light in the media, Jones was terminated by President Obama with less than four months on the job.
Then there was former Obama White House Communications Director (now a Democrat Party political strategist) Anita Dunn. Ms. Dunn, whose White House career dates back to the Carter Administration, was the subject of a brief moment of controversy in 2009 when it was discovered that in a speech she had noted that Mother Theresa and Mao Zedong were two of her “favorite political philosophers.”
As if that isn’t sufficiently accommodating to communism, President Obama’s former “Manufacturing Czar” had similar accolades to his name. During his tenure at the White House, Czar Ron Blum became famous for noting that “the free market is nonsense,” and that “Chairman Mao” had it right with idea that “political power comes largely from a gun…”
A communistic campaign slogan and three Administration appointees with affections for communism – accidental or not, there has nonetheless been a recurrent theme with the kinds of people with which our President surrounds himself. And then there are the policies and the promises, with the accompanying loss of individual liberty.
After less than two years at the White House, President Obama had successfully put in to place a system of tremendous governmental control over the otherwise private economy. By the middle of 2010, the President had become a de-facto C.E.O. over huge chunks of the economy, with the power to hire and fire executives, establish compensation limits for executive management, and to determine what products and services are produced. Insurance companies, car manufacturers, lending institutions and energy producers – President Obama has forced his will upon them, and they have reacted.
So where has the President’s agenda led us thus far? Forward to $13 trillion of government debt? Forward to government spending that outpaces GDP? Forward to a government debt downgrade? Forward to skyrocketing healthcare prices?
When Chairman Mao rose to power earlier last century, he implemented what he called his “First Five Year Plan,” noting that the first three years would be difficult but thereafter things would go well. His reign over China, as we know today, brought about the deaths of somewhere between fifty and eighty million “peasants,” and eventually gave way to the more westernized “People’s Republic of China” – still a communist government, yes, but with more private control of economic resources instead of less.
Will President Obama be implementing a second “four year plan?” We, the people, will make that decision and not the President himself. For now we’d all do well to consider whether or not the President’s plan has moved us “forward” at all.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Hope & Change, Not So Much
By ICB (Idaho Conservative Blogger)
I found myself on a web page recently, “Obama Mythbusters” (now you know what I do in my free time, Ha!) I found this interesting. Under one of the Obama Myths it read, “Barack Obama's Kenyan Grandmother, Sarah, also lives in abject poverty, and her wealthy grandson hasn't given her anything either.” It stated this is a myth because, “Barack recently sent her an autographed campaign poster.” Wow! What a great Grandson! Honestly I don’t think this is a serious webpage but it was funny.
President Obama ran on “Hope and Change” but it seems most Americans have much less hope these days, especially the 45 million Americans on food stamps. But I will give the President credit for change. He has done what no President had ever done before.
He has more Czars than any other previous President and given them unprecedented unaccountable power.
I’ve read he has held more fundraisers, over 122, played more rounds of golf, 94, and taken more vacations, 17 than any other President at this point in their presidency.
He has tried to intimidate the United States Supreme Court over National Health Care.
He sued the state of Arizona over passing a State law to enforce federal law.
I could be wrong but I believe he is the only President who has submitted a budget that didn’t even get one vote. Not even one from his own party.
Recently he opened up the top secret White House Situation Room to NBC’s Brian Williams to talk about the killing of Osama bin Laden . Have you noticed the President opposed the Intel used to capture Osama Bin Laden and then just this week he is spiking the ball and taking credit for the killing of Bin Laden. He’s against water boarding but is alright with killing unknowns with drones.
Going back to the “Change” theme. Obama promised change in Washington DC but more and more is acting like a typical politician. Recently He pledged to veto any deficit reduction plan that didn’t raise taxes. This from the same president who agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
Remember “Pay-Go”? The promise President Obama made not to increase any government spending with it being paid for. Neither does the President it seems.
In an act sounding very Nixonesque the President, it’s been reported has a re-election Hit List.
After the Gabby Giffords shooting I gave the President credit for saying, “But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together. ” That didn’t last long. Have you heard some of the name calling coming out of the White House and from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed?
He bypasses congress and makes recess appointments when Congress isn’t even in recess.
He has an Attorney General who is about to be held in contempt of Congress over stonewalling on Fast and Furious.
The President promised to hold unemployment under 8 percent; currently it sits just over 9 percent.
But what do you expect from a man who once gave the Queen of England an iPod holding videos of his speeches. (WOW, nice gift. Can you say narcissist?)
Remember when he said there were 57 States in the union? In Mexico he called Cinco De Mayo Cinco De Cuatro.
He uses his teleprompter at press conferences.
I’m wondering if this is what Obama supporters were expecting when they drank the Obama Kool-Aid in 2008. After 3 ½ years Obama has come up pretty short on Hope and the change I’m looking for is a new President in 2012.
Comments are invited!
Seen feedback to: WatchDog
.
I found myself on a web page recently, “Obama Mythbusters” (now you know what I do in my free time, Ha!) I found this interesting. Under one of the Obama Myths it read, “Barack Obama's Kenyan Grandmother, Sarah, also lives in abject poverty, and her wealthy grandson hasn't given her anything either.” It stated this is a myth because, “Barack recently sent her an autographed campaign poster.” Wow! What a great Grandson! Honestly I don’t think this is a serious webpage but it was funny.
President Obama ran on “Hope and Change” but it seems most Americans have much less hope these days, especially the 45 million Americans on food stamps. But I will give the President credit for change. He has done what no President had ever done before.
He has more Czars than any other previous President and given them unprecedented unaccountable power.
I’ve read he has held more fundraisers, over 122, played more rounds of golf, 94, and taken more vacations, 17 than any other President at this point in their presidency.
He has tried to intimidate the United States Supreme Court over National Health Care.
He sued the state of Arizona over passing a State law to enforce federal law.
I could be wrong but I believe he is the only President who has submitted a budget that didn’t even get one vote. Not even one from his own party.
Recently he opened up the top secret White House Situation Room to NBC’s Brian Williams to talk about the killing of Osama bin Laden . Have you noticed the President opposed the Intel used to capture Osama Bin Laden and then just this week he is spiking the ball and taking credit for the killing of Bin Laden. He’s against water boarding but is alright with killing unknowns with drones.
Going back to the “Change” theme. Obama promised change in Washington DC but more and more is acting like a typical politician. Recently He pledged to veto any deficit reduction plan that didn’t raise taxes. This from the same president who agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts while Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.
Remember “Pay-Go”? The promise President Obama made not to increase any government spending with it being paid for. Neither does the President it seems.
In an act sounding very Nixonesque the President, it’s been reported has a re-election Hit List.
After the Gabby Giffords shooting I gave the President credit for saying, “But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together. ” That didn’t last long. Have you heard some of the name calling coming out of the White House and from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed?
He bypasses congress and makes recess appointments when Congress isn’t even in recess.
He has an Attorney General who is about to be held in contempt of Congress over stonewalling on Fast and Furious.
The President promised to hold unemployment under 8 percent; currently it sits just over 9 percent.
But what do you expect from a man who once gave the Queen of England an iPod holding videos of his speeches. (WOW, nice gift. Can you say narcissist?)
Remember when he said there were 57 States in the union? In Mexico he called Cinco De Mayo Cinco De Cuatro.
He uses his teleprompter at press conferences.
I’m wondering if this is what Obama supporters were expecting when they drank the Obama Kool-Aid in 2008. After 3 ½ years Obama has come up pretty short on Hope and the change I’m looking for is a new President in 2012.
Comments are invited!
Seen feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Are We Still Serious About Our Republic?
By Austin Hill
“….Are you serious?”
Those are three simple words that form one simple question. And the question has led us to this moment in time.
Recall in October of 2009, when then-Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was asked about the formulation of the Obamacare bill, and she asked that very question of a reporter. “Madam Speaker,” a reporter from CNSNews.com said to her, “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Ms. Pelosi seemed surprised. Her indignant “are you serious?” response was followed with a slight bit of nervous laughter, as she then repeated herself. “Yes,” the reporter answered Ms. Pelosi, “yes I am."
Pelosi’s Press Secretary Nadeam Elshami stated that the reporter’s inquiry was “not a serious question,” Pelosi shook her head in disbelief, and they both moved on to address another reporter, completely ignoring the question about “constitutionality.”
And after ignoring concerns about constitutionality for over three years, Democrats are now watching the Administration of their party Leader, Barack Obama, struggling to answer serious questions before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The left’s disregard for the limitations of government has been apparent for decades – President Obama himself was on record years before his election lamenting that the Constitution only stipulates what the government cannot do to you, instead of specifying what the government should do for you.
But now a moment of truth is staring all Americans in the face, as the Supreme Court will soon determine if the government can force you to buy something, along with determining whether or not the distinction between “citizen” and “non citizen” (as in Arizona’s illegal immigration law) matters any longer. As President Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright once famously said, “ America ’s chickens… are comin’ home to roost..”
The fact is that when Presidents and members of Congress dismiss the Constitution as Mr. Obama and his party have, the only thing standing between the individual citizen and the raw, brutal force of governmental power is the Supreme Court itself. The American founders understood some things about the history of the world, as it existed leading up to our nation’s birth, and they recognized the natural human tendency of those in power to control and ultimately brutalize those beneath them. This is why our Constitution stipulates that we are governed by three co-equal branches of government (not just one or two), and why those branches intentionally create a “check and balance” between each other.
So what if the Supreme Court says that Barack Obama is wrong? What if the Justices collectively determine that our government cannot force the individual citizen to buy something, and that the distinction between being a citizen and an illegal immigrant is real? The Democrats would prefer a Supreme Court stacked with Obama appointees, who would then presumably approve of everything that Obama wants, but (thankfully) they haven’t achieved this yet.
If Democrats must campaign for the final months of this year’s election against a backdrop of Obama failures at the Supreme Court, we may see a well-financed P.R. assault against the Supreme Court Justices themselves. History provides a lesson about this matter, because President Obama is not the first White House occupant to desire more power than the Constitution allows.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”) programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country, famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling them as the “9 Old Men.” Additionally, as a means of overcoming the “separation of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” the old, antiquated Supreme Court system by adding up to six new justices – justices that would all be selected and appointed by himself.
Thankfully FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform legislative proposal (the checks-and-balances phenomenon worked again), and the American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the Constitution.
But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important “Obamacare” law.
Who would stand with Obama in a campaign of Supreme Court bashing? Start with the entire AFL-CIO. Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring” uprising, and eventually one could include all the prevailing powers of the Democrat Party.
Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare, education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that stuff to citizen and non-citizen alike, and by whatever means.
So is America serious about a constitutional government? Many of us are far more serious about receiving “things” from our government than the idea of a constitutional republic.
Depending on how the high court rules this summer, we may see Democrats campaigning on an agenda of “constitutional and judicial reform” before November arrives.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
“….Are you serious?”
Those are three simple words that form one simple question. And the question has led us to this moment in time.
Recall in October of 2009, when then-Speaker of the U.S House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi was asked about the formulation of the Obamacare bill, and she asked that very question of a reporter. “Madam Speaker,” a reporter from CNSNews.com said to her, “where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?”
Ms. Pelosi seemed surprised. Her indignant “are you serious?” response was followed with a slight bit of nervous laughter, as she then repeated herself. “Yes,” the reporter answered Ms. Pelosi, “yes I am."
Pelosi’s Press Secretary Nadeam Elshami stated that the reporter’s inquiry was “not a serious question,” Pelosi shook her head in disbelief, and they both moved on to address another reporter, completely ignoring the question about “constitutionality.”
And after ignoring concerns about constitutionality for over three years, Democrats are now watching the Administration of their party Leader, Barack Obama, struggling to answer serious questions before the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. The left’s disregard for the limitations of government has been apparent for decades – President Obama himself was on record years before his election lamenting that the Constitution only stipulates what the government cannot do to you, instead of specifying what the government should do for you.
But now a moment of truth is staring all Americans in the face, as the Supreme Court will soon determine if the government can force you to buy something, along with determining whether or not the distinction between “citizen” and “non citizen” (as in Arizona’s illegal immigration law) matters any longer. As President Obama’s former Pastor Jeremiah Wright once famously said, “ America ’s chickens… are comin’ home to roost..”
The fact is that when Presidents and members of Congress dismiss the Constitution as Mr. Obama and his party have, the only thing standing between the individual citizen and the raw, brutal force of governmental power is the Supreme Court itself. The American founders understood some things about the history of the world, as it existed leading up to our nation’s birth, and they recognized the natural human tendency of those in power to control and ultimately brutalize those beneath them. This is why our Constitution stipulates that we are governed by three co-equal branches of government (not just one or two), and why those branches intentionally create a “check and balance” between each other.
So what if the Supreme Court says that Barack Obama is wrong? What if the Justices collectively determine that our government cannot force the individual citizen to buy something, and that the distinction between being a citizen and an illegal immigrant is real? The Democrats would prefer a Supreme Court stacked with Obama appointees, who would then presumably approve of everything that Obama wants, but (thankfully) they haven’t achieved this yet.
If Democrats must campaign for the final months of this year’s election against a backdrop of Obama failures at the Supreme Court, we may see a well-financed P.R. assault against the Supreme Court Justices themselves. History provides a lesson about this matter, because President Obama is not the first White House occupant to desire more power than the Constitution allows.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, angered when the Supreme Court overturned some of his “new deal” (read “big government”) programs that he believed were unquestionably necessary to save the country, famously began maligning the Justices of the Supreme Court, publicly labeling them as the “9 Old Men.” Additionally, as a means of overcoming the “separation of powers” obstacle, he proposed to “reform” the old, antiquated Supreme Court system by adding up to six new justices – justices that would all be selected and appointed by himself.
Thankfully FDR didn’t get his way. The Congress rejected his court reform legislative proposal (the checks-and-balances phenomenon worked again), and the American people took a dim view of Roosevelt trying to circumvent the Constitution.
But that was the America of 1937. Today, it’s not difficult to imagine that President Obama could curry the favor of millions of Americans, if he chose to campaign against the Justices who may vote to overturn his all-important “Obamacare” law.
Who would stand with Obama in a campaign of Supreme Court bashing? Start with the entire AFL-CIO. Then add the entire “occupy” movement, and the burgeoning “99% Spring” uprising, and eventually one could include all the prevailing powers of the Democrat Party.
Put them all together, and you’ve got a critical mass of Americans who neither care nor understand a wit about history, “limited government,” the U.S Constitution, or the Separation of Powers. They want “stuff” – “free” healthcare, education, or whatever – and they want raw power in Washington to deliver that stuff to citizen and non-citizen alike, and by whatever means.
So is America serious about a constitutional government? Many of us are far more serious about receiving “things” from our government than the idea of a constitutional republic.
Depending on how the high court rules this summer, we may see Democrats campaigning on an agenda of “constitutional and judicial reform” before November arrives.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
If I Wanted America To Fail
And
If you want America to fail--
Vote for Obama in November
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Obama Administration: The War On Terror Is Over!
A State Department official told the National Review, “The war on terror is over! Now that we have killed most of al Qaida, now that people have come to see legitimate means of expression, people who once might have gone into al Qaida see an opportunity for a legitimate Islamism”.
Would the initials of the State Department official be Hillary Clinton?
The announcement was not made at an official news conference. There were no White House officials slapping each other on the back, nor were there any other signs of celebration. In stead, it was leaked to the National Review by “an anonymous, highly placed source in the State Department“.
So, according to the Obama Administration, the War on Terror is over.
Has anyone asked the Islamic terrorists about this? Who surrendered on their behalf?
Perhaps someone should point out to Obama and the other idiots that make up his administration that Islam considers us to be Infidels!
According to Koran, the war won’t be over until ALL of the infidels are converted, pay the dhimmi tax or are beheaded! The Islamic “WAR” on Infidels has been going for nearly 1400 years and is not going to end anytime soon.
There is of course the possibility that Obama has cut a deal with his Islamic buddies and he has secretly signed an Executive Order that requires each of us to convert to Islam!
But you stammer, “That’s un-Constitutional!” When has Obama let the Constitution get in the way? He has usurped the powers granted to Congress ands has ignored courtorder after court order.
By declaring an end to the War on Terror, the Obama Administration is just acknowledging what most of us had figured out long ago; that this president has no intention of fighting against Islamic imperialism, or standing up for Western principles of freedom and justice.
This pronouncement was leaked is because the mindless and spineless administration is a terrified of the public backlash!
The announcement wasn’t needed; we all know that Obama has never been at war with the terrorist. Hell, he won’t even admit that they exist. He would not apply the terrorist label to any of the attackers over the past 3+ years. With most of the attackers, there was no room to doubt that they were are terrorists. However, to Barack they were just misguided 'Boy Scouts' that meant no harm. The fact that they cried out that their actions were being taken for Allah must have been related to some obscure Merit Badge.
In his book "Audacity of Hope", Obama states,
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
While in fairness, this quotation is taken slightly out of context; Obama has lived up to it for the three plus years that he has been president.
He sure as hell hasn’t supported any Christens or Jews. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Would the initials of the State Department official be Hillary Clinton?
The announcement was not made at an official news conference. There were no White House officials slapping each other on the back, nor were there any other signs of celebration. In stead, it was leaked to the National Review by “an anonymous, highly placed source in the State Department“.
So, according to the Obama Administration, the War on Terror is over.
Has anyone asked the Islamic terrorists about this? Who surrendered on their behalf?
Perhaps someone should point out to Obama and the other idiots that make up his administration that Islam considers us to be Infidels!
According to Koran, the war won’t be over until ALL of the infidels are converted, pay the dhimmi tax or are beheaded! The Islamic “WAR” on Infidels has been going for nearly 1400 years and is not going to end anytime soon.
There is of course the possibility that Obama has cut a deal with his Islamic buddies and he has secretly signed an Executive Order that requires each of us to convert to Islam!
But you stammer, “That’s un-Constitutional!” When has Obama let the Constitution get in the way? He has usurped the powers granted to Congress ands has ignored courtorder after court order.
By declaring an end to the War on Terror, the Obama Administration is just acknowledging what most of us had figured out long ago; that this president has no intention of fighting against Islamic imperialism, or standing up for Western principles of freedom and justice.
This pronouncement was leaked is because the mindless and spineless administration is a terrified of the public backlash!
The announcement wasn’t needed; we all know that Obama has never been at war with the terrorist. Hell, he won’t even admit that they exist. He would not apply the terrorist label to any of the attackers over the past 3+ years. With most of the attackers, there was no room to doubt that they were are terrorists. However, to Barack they were just misguided 'Boy Scouts' that meant no harm. The fact that they cried out that their actions were being taken for Allah must have been related to some obscure Merit Badge.
In his book "Audacity of Hope", Obama states,
“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
While in fairness, this quotation is taken slightly out of context; Obama has lived up to it for the three plus years that he has been president.
He sure as hell hasn’t supported any Christens or Jews. -- WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Monday, April 23, 2012
Why Are The Rich Still Enamored Of Obama?
By Austin Hill
A question for the rich: if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?
And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?
We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?
The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.
As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.
But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.
And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?
Consider the recent unemployment data. Thus far this year the U.S. Department of Labor has issued 14 reports on unemployment benefits claims, and 14 times the Department of Labor has revised the number upward, after the initial report was released. The Obama Administration grabs headlines with what appears to be a decrease in government benefits, then after the fact reports that the dependency is increasing. Is this what attracts the rich folks?
And how about the sharp decline in the number of people who are actually trying to work? The labor pool is shrinking (not just the number of available jobs) and the President’s solution to the problem is clear: more “free” services for the lower and middle class, and higher taxes for the rich. But is this our pathway to prosperity?
Reports about fewer people wanting to work have been dismissed as “right wing spin.” Yet it was none other than the Congressional Budget Office that predicted this phenomenon, after the Obamacare bill was signed in to law.
Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, predicted 2 years ago that, given the generous enhancements to Medicaid and the supposed “universal coverage” of Obamacare, lots of us would simply choose to no longer work for a living.
Elemendorf said as much at a little noted conference in October of 2010, held at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. Nobody paid much attention to him then, but it appears now that what he predicted then is now beginning to happen.
Less productivity and higher taxes on the rich – what part of this spells “success” for rich folks? It’s perplexing that there aren’t more wealthy Americans like Steve Wynn, the successful C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Last July, Wynn caught national attention for daring to disagree with the President’s agenda.
The headlines at the time stated “Wynn Slams Obama On Business,” but if you had read or listened to any of Wynn’s actual remarks at the time, you would have concluded to that there really wasn’t much of any “slamming” going on.
More accurately, Wynn’s comments seemed very accurate, rational and fair – as if he was simply stating the obvious.
Speaking with a calm tone during a corporate conference call with his associates, Wynn said, among other things: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
More government entitlements and less productivity. Is this good for rich Americans? Is it good for anyone?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
A question for the rich: if President Obama successfully breaks the backs of the working middle class, is that really good for you?
And how about this: if over half of your fellow Americans pay no income taxes and are quite happy to have you foot the bill for our wasteful bloated government, will that be good for your portfolios– or anybody else’s?
We’re less than seven months away from selecting either four more years of Barack Obama, or a new President named Mitt. At this point President Obama isn’t running on his track record, so much as he is running against his own characterizations of Congress and his Republican presidential opponent. But is that the stuff that leadership is made of?
The President portrays the Congress as though it is inept and obstructionist. Despite his own party’s control of the entire U.S. Senate, “Congress” is preventing further progress, Mr. Obama tells us, and it is threatening the hope and change that he has already created.
As for Mitt Romney– well, he’s a creature of wealth and privilege, according to President Obama, a man defined by his greed. Ivy League law school grad’s Barack and Michelle understand the struggle of the middle class, but Mitt and Ann are incapable.
But look who’s funding the President’s campaign – overwhelmingly it’s the richest among us. According to a New York Times report last year, Obama’s top donors included many Silicon Valley executives, hedge fund managers, entertainment executives, and former supporters of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Today the President’s campaign is aggressively seeking low-dollar donors, soliciting contributions as little as $3.00 and raffling “dinner with the President” opportunities. Yet his financial support among middle and lower income Americans is miniscule, while wealthy Americans who are willing to pay up to $40,000.00 for dinner and a photo continue to flock to his side. Yes, there’s been a slowdown in the big-dollar donations, as the headlines indicate, but Barack Obama is still the presidential candidate of choice for rich folks.
And why? Are wealthy Americans so easily charmed by the thrill of “hanging” with a U.S. President that they’re ambivalent to the agenda they’re funding? And what part of the Obama agenda do rich people believe is strengthening our country – or even their own personal fortunes?
Consider the recent unemployment data. Thus far this year the U.S. Department of Labor has issued 14 reports on unemployment benefits claims, and 14 times the Department of Labor has revised the number upward, after the initial report was released. The Obama Administration grabs headlines with what appears to be a decrease in government benefits, then after the fact reports that the dependency is increasing. Is this what attracts the rich folks?
And how about the sharp decline in the number of people who are actually trying to work? The labor pool is shrinking (not just the number of available jobs) and the President’s solution to the problem is clear: more “free” services for the lower and middle class, and higher taxes for the rich. But is this our pathway to prosperity?
Reports about fewer people wanting to work have been dismissed as “right wing spin.” Yet it was none other than the Congressional Budget Office that predicted this phenomenon, after the Obamacare bill was signed in to law.
Douglas Elmendorf, the Director of the non-partisan C.B.O., a federal agency within the legislative branch of our government that employs people to analyze government policies, predicted 2 years ago that, given the generous enhancements to Medicaid and the supposed “universal coverage” of Obamacare, lots of us would simply choose to no longer work for a living.
Elemendorf said as much at a little noted conference in October of 2010, held at the University of Southern California’s Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics. Nobody paid much attention to him then, but it appears now that what he predicted then is now beginning to happen.
Less productivity and higher taxes on the rich – what part of this spells “success” for rich folks? It’s perplexing that there aren’t more wealthy Americans like Steve Wynn, the successful C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd. Last July, Wynn caught national attention for daring to disagree with the President’s agenda.
The headlines at the time stated “Wynn Slams Obama On Business,” but if you had read or listened to any of Wynn’s actual remarks at the time, you would have concluded to that there really wasn’t much of any “slamming” going on.
More accurately, Wynn’s comments seemed very accurate, rational and fair – as if he was simply stating the obvious.
Speaking with a calm tone during a corporate conference call with his associates, Wynn said, among other things: “… This administration is the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime…my customers… are frightened of this administration… Everybody complains about how much money is on the side in America…those of us who have business opportunities and the capital to do it are going to sit in fear of the President. And a lot of people don't want to say that. They'll say, God, don't be attacking Obama. Well, this is Obama's deal and it's Obama that's responsible for this fear in America…”
More government entitlements and less productivity. Is this good for rich Americans? Is it good for anyone?
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
