By Austin Hill
Dogma – a prescribed doctrine proclaimed as unquestionably true by a particular group; a belief system that remains largely unchallenged.
Sometimes dictionary definitions can seem vague or esoteric. But as it pertains to understanding President Obama and his devotees, it’s best to try and understand them through the lenses of left-wing dogma.
And the Anne Romney has “never worked a day in her life” flap is just the latest example of left-wing dogma colliding with mainstream America. Granted the strategic insulting of Mrs. Romney last week originated from Hillary Rosen, a liberal Democrat pundit, and not President Obama himself (although Ms. Rosen claims that she’s received numerous calls from the White House echoing support for her efforts to malign Mitt Romney’s wife). Yet it in the week prior, President Obama noted at a White House forum on women that in the early days of his marriage and career, he and his wife Michelle didn’t “have the luxury for her not to work.”
To those of us in “fly over country,” it may seem far-fetched to believe that two graduates of elite private east coast universities and an Ivy League law school, and who are stalwarts in what they call the “pro choice” political agenda, were left struggling without any economic choices when they started a family. But this is to view matters in overly literal, concrete terms. On the left side of the aisle, dogma comes first; reality is secondary, and one’s perception of reality is always shaped by that dogma.
Thus, the attitude reflected by President Obama and Hillary Rosen is illustrative of at least a couple of those “prescribed doctrines” understood to be “unquestionably true.” For one, women never freely choose to not be on a career track. Male oppression keeps women out of the marketplace, and, therefore, women who are only mothers are actually victims, and are in need of government programs (think affirmative action, “anti-discrimination” laws, etc..) to correct the injustices done to them.
If you live outside the confines of this dogma as I do, you may be thinking “but wait! Some women actually choose motherhood before career, and some husbands make tremendous sacrifices to allow that stay-at-home mom thing to happen.” But this leads us to another item of “unquestionably true” dogma: any woman who was truly being “herself” would never freely choose motherhood above all else.
On the contrary, a woman who thinks this way is being held hostage to ancient, patriarchal, male-dominated ideas – we’ll call it “ideological victimization” that probably happened within the context of an unenlightened religious setting – and she is need of a swift rebuke, if not more government intervention. Left-wing dogma always tells us that mere motherhood is not really working. That may be painful for some women, but such confrontation is really for a woman’s own good, and certainly adds to the “collective good” of the dogmatic community.
Are you beginning to understand how left-wing dogma works? Here’s another example of it: one should always assume the worst about the U.S. military, except when it is being commanded by a Democrat President and when it is participating in a multilateral mission (U.S. troops deployed side-by-side with troops from other countries).
Because of the “unquestionably true” nature of these assumptions, left-wing America was always going to hold a grudge about having troops in Iraq. The mission in Iraq began with Republican President George W. Bush, and while the “troop surge” was implemented by Barack Obama, it nonetheless was George W Bush’s idea (gasp!).
While not-so-dogmatic Americans may be wondering what is happening to American interests in Iraq since the troop draw-down there, left-wing America is satisfied that our foreign policy is more in line with proper dogma – and current conditions in Iraq don’t matter.
And recall from last month the very dogmatic visit to Afghanistan by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Before American military personnel were permitted to enter the room where Secretary Panetta spoke, they were forced to disarm, and leave their weapons outside. The Administration later noted that the reason for this was because there were Afghani troops in the room who were required to disarm, so therefore the U.S. troops needed to be treated equally with the Afghani’s.
The multilateral mission in Afghanistan is, itself, in line with left-wing dogma – Barack Obama said during his first campaign that the mission Afghanistan was the “real war” we needed to be engaged in, rather than Iraq (so it must be true). And by virtue of being “multilateral,” well – suffice it to say that the Afghanistan mission fulfills two dogmatic requirements.
Yet it would violate another component of dogma if U.S. troops were treated as though they were superior, or more trustworthy, than the members of any other military. Thus, the U.S. military was treated exactly the same as the Afghani troops when Mr. Panetta visited, so it was all dogmatically good.
President Obama’s dogma is often met with opposition on main street America. But until we elect a new President, expect the “disconnect” to continue.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Did You Know That Muslims Discovered America? Or That Jerusalem Is An Arab City?
Did you know that Muslims discovered America, that Jerusalem is an Arab city, that Jesus was a “Palestinian,” or that the state of Israel never existed?
That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years
The problems with America's education system are not too little time in the classroom! It is the fact that we teach crap and nothing but crap because the administrators, the NEA and politicians want it that way and the teachers don't know any better or don't care!
Blessed are the homeschoolers; their children shall inherit the earth! --WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
That’s just some of the “history” that students in America’s K-12 classrooms have been taught in recent years
The problems with America's education system are not too little time in the classroom! It is the fact that we teach crap and nothing but crap because the administrators, the NEA and politicians want it that way and the teachers don't know any better or don't care!
Blessed are the homeschoolers; their children shall inherit the earth! --WD
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Do Social Conservatives Care About Capitalism?
By Austin Hill
The Republican primary races are underway, and pundits are abuzz about whether or not religious social conservatives will embrace Mitt Romney.
That’s an interesting and worthwhile question. But here’s another interesting question: do religious social conservatives care about the free market economy, and capitalism?
I’ve pondered this question over the years, in previous columns and in various talk radio venues. When I do, I usually get very angry, visceral answers – responses like “of course we do,” and “how do you dare even ask?”
Despite the anger and discomfort, this is an important question to be asking. Religious social conservatives are large in number and can influence the outcomes of elections. And as our nation is currently at an economic crossroads, it remains to be seen what our country and our country’s economic system will be like in the future.
But before we think about capitalism, ponder this for a moment: who are “religious social conservatives,” anyway? According to research from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 70 Percent of American adults identify with some form of evangelical Protestant Christianity, mainline denominational Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, or Mormonism.
Obviously, adherents to these various faith traditions do not all think alike on issues of culture and public policy. However many members of these religious groups share common, strongly-held beliefs and values, so it is not surprising that over the past several decades they have often exhibited similar responses to public policy concerns amid America’s changing cultural landscape.
This is to say that not every individual who practices one of these religious traditions necessarily qualifies as a religious social conservative. However, the religious social conservative movement is comprised of members all of these various faith communities, while the movement is most certainly dominated by Evangelical Protestant Christians.
The earliest beginnings of this movement can be traced back to the social upheaval of the late ‘60’s and early ‘70’s youth culture, and the 1973 Roe versus Wade Supreme Court decision. After decades of non-participation in elections and public policy debates, many devoutly religious Americans became alarmed by a “hippie” generation that was determined to overthrow our culture’s authority structures, and by their government arbitrarily determining that unborn children were not really human beings.
Thus, “social conservatism” emerged as a movement that was focused on the most basic of all social structures– the traditional family. Over the past several decades, concerns about the life of the unborn child, the rights of parents, and the definition of marriage have all taken center-stage among social conservatives, while each of these concerns have been openly regarded as “moral issues” that are worthy of religious peoples’ attention.
While the long-standing concerns of social conservatives remain in-play today, the United States now finds itself at another turning point. Will our country continue as the “most free” among the world’s free market economies? Or will the U.S. devolve in to more of a European-styled, socialistic economy, where private individuals and businesses make fewer decisions with their own economic resources, and politicians and government bureaucrats make more of those decisions?
Given our nation’s economic crossroads, and given that social conservatives are so influential among the American electorate, the religious social conservative movement needs to look within itself and answer this question: should economics be regarded as one of the “moral issues” that is worthy of our attention? And if it is, then which economic system do social conservatives prefer – our free market capitalistic system, or a more socialistic, government-controlled system?
Economic systems and policies are, after all, an expression of how a society regards both its weakest and most powerful members and everybody else in between. Likewise, economic policies often play a key role in determining who “wins” and who “loses” in a society, and they can either encourage or discourage positive, productive behavior.
Social conservatives can begin addressing economic issues by first confronting a very common assumption that is widely held as true – the assumption that capitalism is an economic system built on greed and selfishness, while socialism is a system based on generosity and “fairness.”
Despite its prevalence, this is a false assumption. When properly understood and implemented, capitalism is an economic system that allows every willing participant the opportunity to gain entry into the marketplace; demands that every participant abide by a uniform set of rules; rewards people according to a system of merit; and allows private individuals and organizations the freedom both to succeed, and to fail. Special governmental favors – bailouts and so forth – are an anathema to a capitalistic economic system.
Socialism, however, places in the hands of politicians and governmental bureaucrats the power to take away increasing amounts of wealth from certain individuals (generally the more wealthy in a society), and re-distribute that wealth to people that are believed to be “deserving” of it. In such an economic system, personal responsibility, a system of merit, and one’s freedom to succeed and to fail, are all undermined.
Economics is absolutely a “moral issue,” and our nation’s economic dilemmas are numerous and profound. Will the influential social conservative movement have a voice in setting the course for our nation’s economic future?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Mormonism Or Marxism: Which Would You Prefer In The White House?
By Austin Hill
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Is a Romney nomination inevitable?
No.
But former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is looking very strong in Iowa and New Hampshire, where presidential primary voting begins this week. Likewise, a current Rasmussen poll shows Romney with a six percentage point lead over President Obama in a hypothetical election match up.
So things are looking very good for Mitt Romney, as he seeks the Republican nomination for the presidency. And this means that Americans will likely have to answer an important question in 2012: which would you prefer at the White House -Mormon theology, or Marxist liberation theology?
I wish I didn’t have to ask this question. But as Romney gets closer to the presidency, the criticisms of his church affiliation and theological convictions will get louder. And if you’re troubled by Mitt’s Mormonism, you should be even more concerned about the religious affiliations of our current President.
As for Mr. Romney, he has thus far run a good campaign and has managed to mostly stay out of theological debates. But in the last presidential election cycle the “Mormon thing” proved to be unavoidable, and as primary voting begins in religiously conservative regions of the country, his Mormonism will become a big deal again.
Given this certainty, here’s some advice for Governor Romney: don’t repeat your mistake of 2008 of trying to convince “them” that you are one of “them.” The more you stand in front of conservative Evangelical and Catholic audiences and ascribe terms like “born again” and “Christian” to yourself, the more they’ll be saying “oh no you are not!”
Leave the theological battles over “who is really a Christian” to other people, Mr. Romney, and talk to us instead about the values and policy ideas that America so desperately needs.
When questions arise about your church, tell us, Mr. Romney, why your Mormonism matters: your church informs your understanding of why our society must uphold the dignity of every human individual; it teaches you about the profound importance of human liberty (I love your church’s “Choose The Right” motto – try telling us why it is so important that each of us have the freedom to “choose”); and it affirms to the world that marriage is good for society. Try to convey that, while our theological differences are real, our values are more universal and uniting.
On this point, you might borrow from former President George W Bush. In a little-known March 2001 speech, Bush spoke at the opening of the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center in Washington. Bush, of course, is a Methodist-turned-Evangelical, yet he was still warmly received at the ceremony by the Catholic hierarchy.
And Bush didn’t try to pretend that he was Catholic, either. “I may not be a parishioner…” he stated as he began his remarks, “but I’m a sojourner with you…” He then brilliantly went on to say that we are “one” with our values, and that the Pope was a great teacher of those values. To those who would prefer to bash Romney’s church rather than seriously considering who should be our next President, I would ask this: have you scrutinized President Obama’s theological affiliations the way you’ve scrutinized Mormonism?
For the record, Barack Obama hasn’t been known for regular church attendance since moving-in to the White House (this puts him in good company with many of our previous Presidents). Yet his decades-long affiliation with the radical Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, a central outlet of liberation theology, is quite well documented.
This is to say that President Obama has been steeped in a theological worldview that essentially takes the economic and “class struggle” teachings of Karl Marx, and superimposes Bible verses over it. It preaches that successful people are oppressors who need to be conquered, and that the “oppressed” should live off of other people’s largess. These sorts of ideas -which are inherently economic in their nature -are prevalent in governments throughout the third world, Latin America, and parts of Europe. And they are blessed and affirmed in churches that espouse liberation theology – which is all a part of our President’s religious background.
Are there theological differences between Mitt Romney’s Mormonism, and the Evangelicalism and Catholicism that a majority of Americans embrace? Yes, there absolutely is.
But it is also true that the Mormon Church movement is an American-born religious movement, and teaches that freedom is something that is sacred and to be safe-guarded.
President Obama’s liberation theology, on the other hand, is at war with Western values. It teaches that freedom is inherently problematic (it inevitably leads to a society of oppressors and victims), and only through the power of government control can the evils of a free society be corrected.
I’d be delighted to see Mormonism replace the Marxism that presently inhabits the White House. But will Americans be willing to honestly examine them both?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Senator Lugar (Rino-IN) attacks Tea Party
“The Tea Party destroyed the chances for a Republican majority in the Senate at the last elections” – Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN)
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Lugar further claims that if the Tea Party wants a Republican majority, they will have to support the “Old Elitist” like himself, who have experience at “politics as usual”
Why would the Tea Party want to return the likes of Lugar to the Senate?
Would it be that he supports federal gun control? Or that he voted for the dream act? Or that he votes for huge agriculture support programs, including Ethanol for fuel? Or that he supported Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court? Or that he voted for TARP? Or that he voted to include criticism of sodomy in the definition of a “hate crime.”? These are all reasons to oppose the elestion of Rino's!
The Tea Party goals are not about a Republican majority in either branch of the Congress. The Tea Party’s goal is to elect Congressmen and a President that believes in and obeys the Constitution and will reign in government spending. If a candidate is a true Conservative, The Tea Party will support that candidate, regardless of party affiliation.
When Senator Lugar claims that the Tea Party prevented a Republican majority in the Senate, he is making reference to the fact that the Tea Party supported true Conservatives in opposition to Rino incumbents like himself.
The facts are that a Republican controlled Senate, led my Mitch McConnell and a number of RINO’s will be no different than what we have now.
If the Tea Party movement is to succeed at saving this nation, the “Old Elitists” like Lugar, Rove, the Bush’s and others have to go! "Politics as usual" is what is destroying this nation and what has crippled the Republican Party.
The elections of 2010 have shown that Conservatives win when they stop trying to look like “that other party”.
Let us pray that God still blesses America.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
Note To Harry Reid: We Found Some Unicorns
By Austin Hill
What was the leader of the United States Senate thinking?
For months Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats have been pushing for higher taxes on upper income earners. Congressional Republicans have argued that this is a bad idea, because people with wealth often start their own businesses and hire workers in the process – and government shouldn’t create disincentives for business and job growth.
So, facing a failure of his tax hike proposal, Harry Reid took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and responded to the critics who opposed his scheme, declaring: “Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don't exist."
They don’t exist? Really? Nobody with wealth ever starts a business and hires people to work at it? No, not in the insular political world of the leader of the United States Senate. As far as Mr. Reid was concerned, these "fictitious millionaire job creators" are mostly just "hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers that don't do much hiring."
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were even remotely in-touch with the nation he is paid to serve, he’d know that wealthy job creators have been trying to get his attention for nearly two years, crying for a reprieve from the oppressive Obama government for which he has been carrying the legislative water. But it’ll be another five years before Harry stands for re-election, so why bother with the realities of public policy? The short-term political gain Harry can reap by publicly demanding more punishment for “rich people” is all that matters right now – or so he likely thinks.
But, as if to produce a “teachable moment” for the bumbling Reid, none other than USA Today stepped-in three days after the Senator’s absurdities and provided a bit of a tutorial. You might say that, despite Harry’s certainty that they “don’t exist,” a writer at USA Today found a few “unicorns.”
In a December 15th article entitled “Economic optimism grows, but risks remain,” USA Today writer Paul Davidson provides examples of how private individuals with wealth are starting businesses, and - shocking- creating jobs! And here’s what else Davidson’s reveals: public policy emanating from Congress and the White House directly impacts business owner’s decisions about whether or not to expand. For Harry and Nancy and Barack it may all be a political game, but they nonetheless wield a lot of power over us and they’re playing with our livelihoods and futures. A quick perusal of Davidson’s article provides a snapshot of how things work in the real world – a world outside of the Obama gamesmanship.
In Evanston, Ill., Davidson notes, a guy described as a “serial restaurant entrepreneur” Mitch Dulin opened a shop called “Central Street Café” last summer. Dulin jumped in to his new venture, according to Davidson, largely because his instincts told him that the local economy was improving, and, so he reasoned, if he had waited much longer then the rock-bottom lease rates that were available would likely begin to rise. "I saw things getting better," Dulin was quoted as saying, and "if I were to wait a year, the lease would cost me 20% more." Imagine that – without direction from Harry Reid or Barack Obama, Mr. Dulin sought to use his money wisely – and his pursuit of wisdom led to business expansion.
But wait, there’s more! As Davidson reports, “Dulin says he paid cash for the renovation of the space — at a cost of $500,000 to $1 million — and (he) might not have gone ahead with the project if he had needed to get a loan.” Uh-oh! Looks like we found a unicorn here! Mitch Dulin had hundreds of thousands of his own dollars to spend on his own business start-up, which likely qualifies him as one of those dastardly “millionaires” from whom Harry Reid wants to confiscate more money. And Dulin’s new restaurant employs 14 full time workers, all of which were previously employed.
Elsewhere in Davidson’s article we learn of “Nurse Next Door,” a franchised in-home healthcare business based in Canada. The company was moving ahead with plans to expand in the United States, but then stopped last summer when the Congress and the President raised our government debt ceiling higher and our government debt was downgraded. “NND” has since begun moving again on their expansion plans, but the point remains clear: as Senator Reid and President Obama play short-term political war games with our nation’s fiscal and monetary matters, real-life “unicorns” are operating in the real world, trying to make prudent decisions with their capital. The more punishment that Reid and Obama dole-out to the money people, the more likely the money people are going to simply hold on to what they’ve got, and not risk and invest.
As Senator Reid and President Obama continue with their gamesmanship, America remains starved for sound fiscal and economic policies. How much longer can the “unicorns” last with them?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What was the leader of the United States Senate thinking?
For months Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats have been pushing for higher taxes on upper income earners. Congressional Republicans have argued that this is a bad idea, because people with wealth often start their own businesses and hire workers in the process – and government shouldn’t create disincentives for business and job growth.
So, facing a failure of his tax hike proposal, Harry Reid took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and responded to the critics who opposed his scheme, declaring: “Millionaire job creators are like unicorns. They are impossible to find and don't exist."
They don’t exist? Really? Nobody with wealth ever starts a business and hires people to work at it? No, not in the insular political world of the leader of the United States Senate. As far as Mr. Reid was concerned, these "fictitious millionaire job creators" are mostly just "hedge fund managers or wealthy lawyers that don't do much hiring."
If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were even remotely in-touch with the nation he is paid to serve, he’d know that wealthy job creators have been trying to get his attention for nearly two years, crying for a reprieve from the oppressive Obama government for which he has been carrying the legislative water. But it’ll be another five years before Harry stands for re-election, so why bother with the realities of public policy? The short-term political gain Harry can reap by publicly demanding more punishment for “rich people” is all that matters right now – or so he likely thinks.
But, as if to produce a “teachable moment” for the bumbling Reid, none other than USA Today stepped-in three days after the Senator’s absurdities and provided a bit of a tutorial. You might say that, despite Harry’s certainty that they “don’t exist,” a writer at USA Today found a few “unicorns.”
In a December 15th article entitled “Economic optimism grows, but risks remain,” USA Today writer Paul Davidson provides examples of how private individuals with wealth are starting businesses, and - shocking- creating jobs! And here’s what else Davidson’s reveals: public policy emanating from Congress and the White House directly impacts business owner’s decisions about whether or not to expand. For Harry and Nancy and Barack it may all be a political game, but they nonetheless wield a lot of power over us and they’re playing with our livelihoods and futures. A quick perusal of Davidson’s article provides a snapshot of how things work in the real world – a world outside of the Obama gamesmanship.
In Evanston, Ill., Davidson notes, a guy described as a “serial restaurant entrepreneur” Mitch Dulin opened a shop called “Central Street Café” last summer. Dulin jumped in to his new venture, according to Davidson, largely because his instincts told him that the local economy was improving, and, so he reasoned, if he had waited much longer then the rock-bottom lease rates that were available would likely begin to rise. "I saw things getting better," Dulin was quoted as saying, and "if I were to wait a year, the lease would cost me 20% more." Imagine that – without direction from Harry Reid or Barack Obama, Mr. Dulin sought to use his money wisely – and his pursuit of wisdom led to business expansion.
But wait, there’s more! As Davidson reports, “Dulin says he paid cash for the renovation of the space — at a cost of $500,000 to $1 million — and (he) might not have gone ahead with the project if he had needed to get a loan.” Uh-oh! Looks like we found a unicorn here! Mitch Dulin had hundreds of thousands of his own dollars to spend on his own business start-up, which likely qualifies him as one of those dastardly “millionaires” from whom Harry Reid wants to confiscate more money. And Dulin’s new restaurant employs 14 full time workers, all of which were previously employed.
Elsewhere in Davidson’s article we learn of “Nurse Next Door,” a franchised in-home healthcare business based in Canada. The company was moving ahead with plans to expand in the United States, but then stopped last summer when the Congress and the President raised our government debt ceiling higher and our government debt was downgraded. “NND” has since begun moving again on their expansion plans, but the point remains clear: as Senator Reid and President Obama play short-term political war games with our nation’s fiscal and monetary matters, real-life “unicorns” are operating in the real world, trying to make prudent decisions with their capital. The more punishment that Reid and Obama dole-out to the money people, the more likely the money people are going to simply hold on to what they’ve got, and not risk and invest.
As Senator Reid and President Obama continue with their gamesmanship, America remains starved for sound fiscal and economic policies. How much longer can the “unicorns” last with them?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Nero in the White House
The following was reprinted from the WorldNetDaily.com. The old WatchDog is in full agreement and thinks that it should be required reading for every potential voter.
Emphasis was added by Me! -- WD
Nero in the White House
by Mychal Massie (8/8, 2011)
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him some even more harshly than this essayist but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of Epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero who was only slightly less debauchery's than Caligula with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Mychal S. Massie is a syndicated op-ed columnist and former host of the top-rated talk show on the Rightalk Radio Network, "Straight Talk with Mychal Massie." He is a former self-employed business owner of 30-plus years. Mychal is a frequent inspirational / motivational speaker and a regularly featured guest on national and regional TV / talk-radio programs. The online version of his column is carried exclusively by WorldNetDaily.com and enjoys a loyal, supportive readership from around the world.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Emphasis was added by Me! -- WD
Nero in the White House
by Mychal Massie (8/8, 2011)
Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.
I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him some even more harshly than this essayist but they have called for him to step down.
Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.
Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.
Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.
As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of Epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.
Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.
The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?
What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?
Like Nero who was only slightly less debauchery's than Caligula with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.
Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.
Mychal S. Massie is a syndicated op-ed columnist and former host of the top-rated talk show on the Rightalk Radio Network, "Straight Talk with Mychal Massie." He is a former self-employed business owner of 30-plus years. Mychal is a frequent inspirational / motivational speaker and a regularly featured guest on national and regional TV / talk-radio programs. The online version of his column is carried exclusively by WorldNetDaily.com and enjoys a loyal, supportive readership from around the world.
.
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Is This What Democrats Want For Our Future?
By Austin Hill
Terrorist threats are on the rise, government debt threatens the world, and the value of our currency is being questioned almost daily. Is this the “fundamental change” that Democrats wanted from President Barack Obama?
Like it or not, President Obama sets the agenda for the Democrats. And it’s time for every elected Democrat – especially those in Congress – to answer some questions. Is this your idea of the American future? Is this your vision for the United States? We should be asking these questions in light of two broad areas of domestic policy:
National security policies that ignore trends of murderous behavior:
Within the first eighteen months of the Obama presidency, the United States sustained no less than three terrorist attacks on American soil. The first one quickly became known as the “Ft. Hood Massacre,” an inside job wherein Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist – and a devout Muslim - killed 13 Army service members and wounded 29 others, all within the confines of the otherwise “secure” Fort Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas.
At the memorial service for the murdered service members, President Obama noted that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts” – implying that the Islamic faith had nothing to do with Mr. Hasan’s murderous behavior – this, despite the fact that Hasan himself claimed that he was acting in accordance with his religion.
Weeks later Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was permitted to board a Northwest Airlines jet in Amsterdam and fly to Detroit on Christmas Day, despite repeated warning signs that the passenger intended to do harm in the U.S. While the explosives that the now-famous “underwear bomber” was able to smuggle on to the flight did not detonate to their intended extent, they did nonetheless cause an in-flight explosion.
After the attack – and after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that “the system worked” (she admitted a day later that our air security system had failed), we were to learn that the man about whom repeated warnings were ignored was a “devout Muslim” and claimed to be operating at the direction of Al-Qaeda.
On May 1st 2010, NYPD officers were able to disarm an ignited bomb planted in a parked vehicle in Times Square. Two days later federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with the attack, whereupon federal agencies rushed to point out that Shahzad was an American citizen and that the attack was “home grown.” The authorities also tried to downplay the fact that Shahzad had only been a U.S. citizen for 14 months, was originally from Pakistan, and was also a self-described Muslim.
While seemingly ignoring the proliferation of terrorist attacks carried-out by people who call themselves Muslims, President Obama and members of his Administration have largely refused to acknowledge the pattern. Even this past week the Obama Administration officially classified the Fort Hood Massacre as merely a matter of “workplace violence,” as though the immense security breaches of a military compound were to be taken no more seriously than an angry outburst at any other business establishment.
Economic policies that encourage dependency and malign productivity:
President Obama’s speech at Osawatomie high school in Kansas last week is being heralded by some as his most profound speech thus far. But few of the President’s supporters have bothered to question if his rhetoric bares any resemblance to reality.
Prior to his inauguration, he claimed, America had been a nation where “those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments…but everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”
Really? Do the President’s supporters realize that over half of the American population has private investment and savings accounts, and that such items are not merely luxuries afforded only to those “at the top?”
Elsewhere in the speech, the President noted that the upcoming election will be, in part, about “whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.” Yet the very fact that any of us can even hope for these things demonstrates the functionality of American-styled capitalism over the past many decades.
The President, of course, ignores these economic realities. Instead, he insists that our pathway to prosperity is higher taxes, and more governmental spending of our resources – in short, more of his control over our nation’s wealth. Policies of these sorts have been painful failures for years in Venezuela, Indonesia, and his father’s homeland of Kenya. Yet the President who has positioned himself as a de facto CEO of huge chunks of the economy – with authority over everything from banks to car companies – is still vying for more control. Is this what Democrats envision for another four years – an economy that revolves around the selfish needs and desires of one man?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
end feedback to: WatchDog
.
Terrorist threats are on the rise, government debt threatens the world, and the value of our currency is being questioned almost daily. Is this the “fundamental change” that Democrats wanted from President Barack Obama?
Like it or not, President Obama sets the agenda for the Democrats. And it’s time for every elected Democrat – especially those in Congress – to answer some questions. Is this your idea of the American future? Is this your vision for the United States? We should be asking these questions in light of two broad areas of domestic policy:
National security policies that ignore trends of murderous behavior:
Within the first eighteen months of the Obama presidency, the United States sustained no less than three terrorist attacks on American soil. The first one quickly became known as the “Ft. Hood Massacre,” an inside job wherein Nidal Hasan, a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist – and a devout Muslim - killed 13 Army service members and wounded 29 others, all within the confines of the otherwise “secure” Fort Hood Army Base in Killeen, Texas.
At the memorial service for the murdered service members, President Obama noted that “no faith justifies these murderous and craven acts” – implying that the Islamic faith had nothing to do with Mr. Hasan’s murderous behavior – this, despite the fact that Hasan himself claimed that he was acting in accordance with his religion.
Weeks later Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was permitted to board a Northwest Airlines jet in Amsterdam and fly to Detroit on Christmas Day, despite repeated warning signs that the passenger intended to do harm in the U.S. While the explosives that the now-famous “underwear bomber” was able to smuggle on to the flight did not detonate to their intended extent, they did nonetheless cause an in-flight explosion.
After the attack – and after Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that “the system worked” (she admitted a day later that our air security system had failed), we were to learn that the man about whom repeated warnings were ignored was a “devout Muslim” and claimed to be operating at the direction of Al-Qaeda.
On May 1st 2010, NYPD officers were able to disarm an ignited bomb planted in a parked vehicle in Times Square. Two days later federal authorities arrested Faisal Shahzad in connection with the attack, whereupon federal agencies rushed to point out that Shahzad was an American citizen and that the attack was “home grown.” The authorities also tried to downplay the fact that Shahzad had only been a U.S. citizen for 14 months, was originally from Pakistan, and was also a self-described Muslim.
While seemingly ignoring the proliferation of terrorist attacks carried-out by people who call themselves Muslims, President Obama and members of his Administration have largely refused to acknowledge the pattern. Even this past week the Obama Administration officially classified the Fort Hood Massacre as merely a matter of “workplace violence,” as though the immense security breaches of a military compound were to be taken no more seriously than an angry outburst at any other business establishment.
Economic policies that encourage dependency and malign productivity:
President Obama’s speech at Osawatomie high school in Kansas last week is being heralded by some as his most profound speech thus far. But few of the President’s supporters have bothered to question if his rhetoric bares any resemblance to reality.
Prior to his inauguration, he claimed, America had been a nation where “those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments…but everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t.”
Really? Do the President’s supporters realize that over half of the American population has private investment and savings accounts, and that such items are not merely luxuries afforded only to those “at the top?”
Elsewhere in the speech, the President noted that the upcoming election will be, in part, about “whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure a retirement.” Yet the very fact that any of us can even hope for these things demonstrates the functionality of American-styled capitalism over the past many decades.
The President, of course, ignores these economic realities. Instead, he insists that our pathway to prosperity is higher taxes, and more governmental spending of our resources – in short, more of his control over our nation’s wealth. Policies of these sorts have been painful failures for years in Venezuela, Indonesia, and his father’s homeland of Kenya. Yet the President who has positioned himself as a de facto CEO of huge chunks of the economy – with authority over everything from banks to car companies – is still vying for more control. Is this what Democrats envision for another four years – an economy that revolves around the selfish needs and desires of one man?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
end feedback to: WatchDog
.
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Obamanomics And Bill The Crane Shop Owner
By Austin Hill
What could possibly be wrong with Obamanomics?
Just ask Bill the crane shop owner.
Bill Looman is the owner of U.S. Cranes L.L.C., a Waco, Georgia-based company that sells and services cranes and hoists. He has apparently found it difficult to hire new workers because of the dramatic increase in governmental regulations placed upon small businesses in recent years, and the overall sluggishness of the economy.
Not being able to expand one’s business is an unfortunate thing. But being harassed because you dare to speak your mind about current economic conditions is something different. And it wasn’t until Bill the crane shop owner actually went public with his assessment that our government was impinging on his business, that things got really dicey.
Six months ago, Looman began posting signs on his company vehicles which read “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.” This wasn’t a political statement from Looman, so much as it was a statement about the current business and economic climate, and his belief that things won’t improve until Barack Obama exits the presidency. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it,” Looman noted in a recent television interview. “And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."
According to Looman, initial reaction to this message was mostly favorable – responses were positive by about a ’20 to 1” ratio, he claimed. But last week, a photo of one of these signs went viral on the internet. This led Bill the crane owner to temporarily shut-off his telephones, Facebook account, and company website, to protect himself from a barrage of threatening calls and web postings.
The fact that an American business owner puts himself at risk simply by having financial struggles – and that he makes matters worse by daring to speak his mind about those struggles - is a very disturbing thing. It tells us that Americans have lost sight of even the most basic principles of both economics, and the “right to free speech.”
First, let’s think economically about Bill’s situation. What is the purpose of his crane business? Does it exist simply for the sake of ‘hiring people,” or is “hiring” the result of Bill’s business first having successfully fulfilled a series of other purposes?
Basic economic understanding tells us that U.S. Cranes, L.L.C. exists for the purpose of providing valuable products and services to its customers, and in the process of delivering those valuable products and services, to produce a profit for its owners. As such, “hiring” is a function of “supply and demand:” as demand for U.S. Cranes’ products and services grows, the company will eventually need to hire additional workers as a means of supplying what their customers need.
This is both a very basic, but also a very essential understanding of how our economy works, yet basic and essential economic understanding is in short supply right now. Americans all across our country – and even in the White House – falsely assume that businesses exist first and foremost to “create jobs” and that “not hiring” is evidence of greed and wickedness.
But let’s assume for a moment that Bill the crane shop owner is wrong, and that he has no legitimate concerns about the economy or his ability to hire workers. Is Bill free to express his views of such things, even if they are inaccurate?
For far too many Americans, the answer to this question is a decisive “no.” For them, Bill’s “right to free speech” (and yours and mine as well) ends, where Barack Obama’s agenda begins. The President has told small businesses to hire, so they should hire; the President has said that conditions are right for hiring, and one ought not to disagree with him.
What the President and his antagonistic supporters seemingly fail to understand is that the more belligerent they become with business owners, the less productive those businesses become. As Steve Wynn, C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd noted last summer on a conference call with his investors, “… 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…”
Americans have a big decision to make in the year ahead. Will we give President Obama another four years to have his way with us? Or will we affirm the right of each individual in our country to find their own way – even Bill the crane shop owner?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
What could possibly be wrong with Obamanomics?
Just ask Bill the crane shop owner.
Bill Looman is the owner of U.S. Cranes L.L.C., a Waco, Georgia-based company that sells and services cranes and hoists. He has apparently found it difficult to hire new workers because of the dramatic increase in governmental regulations placed upon small businesses in recent years, and the overall sluggishness of the economy.
Not being able to expand one’s business is an unfortunate thing. But being harassed because you dare to speak your mind about current economic conditions is something different. And it wasn’t until Bill the crane shop owner actually went public with his assessment that our government was impinging on his business, that things got really dicey.
Six months ago, Looman began posting signs on his company vehicles which read “New Company Policy: We are not hiring until Obama is gone.” This wasn’t a political statement from Looman, so much as it was a statement about the current business and economic climate, and his belief that things won’t improve until Barack Obama exits the presidency. "I've got people that I want to hire now, but I just can't afford it,” Looman noted in a recent television interview. “And I don't foresee that I'll be able to afford it unless some things change in D.C."
According to Looman, initial reaction to this message was mostly favorable – responses were positive by about a ’20 to 1” ratio, he claimed. But last week, a photo of one of these signs went viral on the internet. This led Bill the crane owner to temporarily shut-off his telephones, Facebook account, and company website, to protect himself from a barrage of threatening calls and web postings.
The fact that an American business owner puts himself at risk simply by having financial struggles – and that he makes matters worse by daring to speak his mind about those struggles - is a very disturbing thing. It tells us that Americans have lost sight of even the most basic principles of both economics, and the “right to free speech.”
First, let’s think economically about Bill’s situation. What is the purpose of his crane business? Does it exist simply for the sake of ‘hiring people,” or is “hiring” the result of Bill’s business first having successfully fulfilled a series of other purposes?
Basic economic understanding tells us that U.S. Cranes, L.L.C. exists for the purpose of providing valuable products and services to its customers, and in the process of delivering those valuable products and services, to produce a profit for its owners. As such, “hiring” is a function of “supply and demand:” as demand for U.S. Cranes’ products and services grows, the company will eventually need to hire additional workers as a means of supplying what their customers need.
This is both a very basic, but also a very essential understanding of how our economy works, yet basic and essential economic understanding is in short supply right now. Americans all across our country – and even in the White House – falsely assume that businesses exist first and foremost to “create jobs” and that “not hiring” is evidence of greed and wickedness.
But let’s assume for a moment that Bill the crane shop owner is wrong, and that he has no legitimate concerns about the economy or his ability to hire workers. Is Bill free to express his views of such things, even if they are inaccurate?
For far too many Americans, the answer to this question is a decisive “no.” For them, Bill’s “right to free speech” (and yours and mine as well) ends, where Barack Obama’s agenda begins. The President has told small businesses to hire, so they should hire; the President has said that conditions are right for hiring, and one ought not to disagree with him.
What the President and his antagonistic supporters seemingly fail to understand is that the more belligerent they become with business owners, the less productive those businesses become. As Steve Wynn, C.E.O. of the publicly traded Wynn Resorts, Ltd noted last summer on a conference call with his investors, “… 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…”
Americans have a big decision to make in the year ahead. Will we give President Obama another four years to have his way with us? Or will we affirm the right of each individual in our country to find their own way – even Bill the crane shop owner?
Email: Austin Hill
Comments are invited!
Send feedback to: WatchDog
.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
WVU Salutes Armed Services
West Virginia University Mountaineer Marching Band
Salutes the
Armed Services (2011)
Back in my younger (much younger) years,
there was a radio program called,
"Say It With Music"
In this halftime show
The West Virginia University University marching band did a great job of
Saying with Music and Formations--
"We salute all branches of the United States Armed Forces!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
