Today we see the once dubbed “great unifier” has predictably discarded that manufactured image. Obama has reverted to the manipulative and divisive politics of class warfare, blame-shifting and shameless distortions.

Sal Lewinsky would be proud. During the first half of his reign, Obama’s Democrat party owned a super majority in both houses of Congress. With the GOP on the sidelines, the keys to the kingdom were his. Subsequently the president now finds he cannot run on his rancid record of crony capitalism, deceptive Obamacare or squandered stimulus packages.

Keep in mind, it’s not Gingrich, Santorum or Romney responsible for $5 trillion in new debt these last three years, or the worst housing market in United States history, coupled with “unofficial” unemployment soaring to 17 percent (CBO estimates).

Neither is the rejection of the Canadian Keystone pipeline with its’ ensuing 20,000 new jobs.

It is Barack Obama.

His entire presidency centers around the distorted ideology that only continued governmental intrusion into the private sector coupled with a citizenry largely dependent upon entitlement programs can create “balance“ and thus a fair, utopian society.

In short, we too can stupidly become Greece and Spain.

Ironically, our wealthy president persistently rails against the alleged unfairness of a prosperous American Capitalist system. However GE (which paid zero taxes last year) was his biggest campaign contributor.

So much for “Republicans for the Rich.” Obama has brazenly proclaimed that “we all gotta have skin in the game.”

So exactly where is Mr. Obama’s sacrifice? Perhaps it lies within his frequent multimillion dollar, taxpayer funded vacations?

Maybe “sacrifice” equates to throwing 171 lavish White House parties (complete with $100 a pound steak) or going on 90 golf outings in 2011? Let them eat cake indeed!

Someone once wrote: “You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.”

Wise words lost on Obama.

Bob Golm,
Durand resident, CMU alumnus

David Oltean/Senior Reporter

As unemployment rates spike, gas prices rise and the monstrous United States national debt continues to quietly accumulate, many Americans have began to express a distrust toward Barack Obama and the current presidential administration.

Regardless of your viewpoints toward Obama, one aspect of his presidency is undeniable: The man can speak.

Poise, confidence and charisma all flowed out of the man’s mouth during his State of the Union address, unlike any of the continuous banter we’ve seen in recent weeks in Republican debates.

“Tax returns” this or “insider trading” that. We understand Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney — you two will do whatever it takes to earn the nomination. Just don’t swear by Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment, because thou has definitely spoken fairly ill of other Republican candidates.

While Obama delivers speeches with eloquence and energy, Gingrich looks like he could use a towel to wipe the sweat from his forehead after every defensive remark. While Obama tries his best to ensure he doesn’t offend particular societal groups, so does Romney, but only because he’s changed his mind enough times to appease whoever can take him to the White House.

Love him or hate him, the man has the ability to talk his way into the hearts of the American public — just look at the way he managed to not completely embarrass himself with the State of the Union “spilled milk” joke. His recent ode to Al Green while speaking in New York on Jan. 19 is hard not to smile at.

Sure, the old adage has always been “talk is cheap,” and the growing problems in the country may suit the phrase for Obama. However, it may be more applicable to a comparison of Obama’s $400,000 presidential salary to Gingrich’s for-profit consulting and production companies or Romney’s ties with Bain Capital.

It’s unfair to beat up on Gingrich, who has had his moments in recent debates and inspired cheers from Republican crowds in Southern states. Looking back at CNN’s Jan. 19 debate held in South Carolina, Gingrich managed to make Peter King look like the villain for asking a question about Gingrich’s infidelity.

I mean, how can asking about the man’s extramarital affairs or tendencies to divorce his sickly wives be fair game in a presidential debate? It’s not like America’s president is expected to display utmost character or that Gingrich has a firm stance protecting the institution of marriage from homosexuality or anything.

Let’s not forget the former candidate Gov. Rick Perry either. The only noteworthy comments that came out of his mouth during his candidacy were on YouTube when he managed to denounce the First Amendment and insult homosexuals, atheists and religions other than Christianity alike — all in 31 seconds.

Though speaking may be only a portion of presidency, isn’t a politician’s most valuable skill his ability to inspire?

Newt and Mitt — start getting in front of the mirror now.

Nathan Inks/Columnist

On Tuesday, President Barack Obama gave his third State of the Union address.

The President mentioned accomplishments in the Middle East, including removing combat troops from Iraq, something Democrats are happy about, even if it is later than his original deadline. He mentioned the killing of Osama bin Laden, a military accomplishment most Americans welcomed.

He touted the recovery of the automotive industry, saying, “the American auto industry is back.” In taking credit for this, however, he contradicted a principle later in his speech when he told financial institutions that “the rest of us are not bailing you out ever again.” Either you believe in bailouts or you don’t, otherwise it is just hypocritical.

He went on to encourage Congress to pass laws to limit and remove the foreign tax credits available to corporations, which is something that should have been done a long time ago, not only to help Americans secure jobs, but also to bring additional revenue to the government.

On the subject of jobs, he encouraged Congress to eliminate regulations that harm businesses without providing a useful purpose. This is long overdue, and members of both parties should be willing to do this to promote job creation.

Education played a smaller role in his speech than it has before, but he did mention the importance of keeping tuition low and told universities, “If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down.” Here in Michigan, the state government employed a similar tactic, and it worked in limiting the amount tuition went up.

On the topic of energy, he mentioned some positive steps forward in natural gas, battery and wind turbine technology, but highlighted that we still pay subsidies to oil companies. The President is right — we need to end these. Not only are they a waste of money, but they unnaturally lower the price of gas, meaning that Americans are more willing to remain dependent on it.

The last major domestic policy issue he addressed was eliminating “subsidies” for millionaires, something Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., addressed in a report he recently released. Obama and Coburn are 100-percent right — there is absolutely no reason taxpayers should pay millionaires unemployment and other benefits; that is not what the programs were designed for.

Obama then turned sights toward Congress, he first encouraged them to eliminate the ability to own stocks in industries they impact, then blast the overuse of the filibuster, and finally criticized “clinging to rigid ideologies.” All three criticisms are accurate, and fixing these would do wonders for the nation.

The biggest thing his speech lacked was how he plans to help the economy recover while lowering the deficit, and not including that was a huge mistake, since those will be the key campaign issues this year. That being said, the speech was his best so far, and his chances for re-election are looking higher than at this point last year.

Editor’s note: Nathan Inks is the president of the College Republicans.

Nathan Inks/Columnist

On Jan. 18, President Barack Obama directed the State Department to deny a permit for the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, an oil pipeline that would stretch from Alberta to the Gulf Coast states, allowing refineries there to process crude from Canadian oil sands.

The pipeline was supported by the conservative Canadian government, as well as most Republicans in Congress. Democrats were mixed on the issue; many unions were in favor of the project, as it would bring jobs to the region, while environmentalists remained opposed.

Where the pipeline issue got trickier was in Nebraska — both Republicans and Democrats there were opposed to the current proposed path, because it would pass over the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides water to most of Nebraska and a large portion of the Midwest. Because of their objections, new potential paths were explored. However, that required more environmental studies, and that could take up to a year to complete.

Republicans in Congress argued the project needs to go forward so jobs can be created as soon as possible and placed a section in a payroll tax cut bill that was passed last year ordering Obama to issue the permit, unless he found the pipeline would not serve the national interest.

Ultimately, Congress has no power to tell Obama to issue a permit, because Congress has no regulatory power over pipeline permits.

Instead of letting the proper process run its course so Obama could make an educated decision with all the facts, Republicans tried to force his hand — Obama refused to allow that. He rejected the permit, but in statements he has released, he appears open to considering the pipeline in the future.

TransCanada has expressed interest in reapplying for a permit. If they do so, the proper environmental studies can be done, and Obama will likely approve the project as long as no other problems are found.

Quite honestly, the Republicans caused serious harm here. The project is a good project, but it should not be approved until we know what the potential impacts are. They knew Obama would likely reject the permit if forced to decide.

What message does this send to Nebraskans: that Congress does not care about their concerns? Even if Obama issued the permit, Nebraska could still deny the construction of the pipeline if it was viewed as environmentally harmful. Republicans told TransCanada and the Canadian government they would rather play partisan politics than enhance international oil relations.

The Republicans are not solely to blame. Obama could have simply ignored Congress’ mandate and waited for the studies to be completed. Congress had no right to tell him what to do, and he would have easily won a court case if challenged.

This project is good for the economy, but if it is to go forward, both sides need to stop playing games.

Editor’s note: Nathan Inks is the president of the College Republicans.

Saline junior Chloe Gleichman was arrested Aug. 29, 2011 in Washington, D.C. in front of the White House for refusing to disperse during a protest against the Keystone XL project.

Gleichman, president of the Student Environmental Alliance, said she was pleased about the Obama administration’s decision but concerned about where the plan is headed next.

“All the celebration is good, however there are a lot of issues that will still come up,” she said. “It will go through the process again.”

Gleichman said she was worried that TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the proposed pipeline, would change the route and successfully resubmit a modified plan. She said the review process behind pipeline approval is extremely biased in favor of energy companies.

“It’s not an honest review,” she said.

She said the Keystone XL and other tar sands pipelines raise the risk of spills such as the 2010 Enbridge Energy Partners oil spill in the Kalamazoo River.

In addition to protests against Keystole XL and other pipelines from the Canadian oil sands, Gleichman said she and SEA are currently involved in issues involving corporate influence and lobbying in government and hydrolaugic fracturing, also known as “fracking,” a method used to extract natural gas from shale formations.

“I’m about about the decision, but I do think there’s a lot more coming,” she said. “I think this is just a small piece of the puzzle.”

(Photo Illustration by Tanya Moutzalias)

Local pharmacies in Mount Pleasant are feeling the pinch from prescription drug shortages affecting pharmacies and the patients that depend on them.

The shortages are not limited to any particular area and are hitting all different parts of the country.

Two local pharmacies, Cardinal Pharmacy, 2410 S. Leaton Rd., and Mission Pharmacy, 926 S. Mission St., are both facing shortages.

“You just don’t know anymore,” said Chris Tuller, a pharmacist at Cardinal Pharmacy. “I don’t know if it’s regulations or decreased manufacturing or what, but it’s tough now.”

Prescription drug shortages have been a national issue for the past few years, and things have been getting worse. According to a report by the Food and Drug Administration, the shortages are being caused by complex legal, economic and regulatory reasons. As generic drug companies consolidate, leading to less production, fewer drugs are being distributed to pharmacies across the country.

The FDA also reported the number of drugs in short supply has tripled since 2005. The most critical shortages involve medication to treat cancer, for nutrition and to treat electrolyte imbalances.

Another major shortage is medications for Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder.

“A big shortage we’re having is with Ritalin and Adderall,” said Sam Nunn, a pharmacist at Mission Pharmacy. “It’s tough when you get a shortage and customers can’t depend on what they’ve been using.”

The shortages cause pharmacists to change their approach to buying pharmaceutical drugs.

“People usually let you know ahead of time if there’s a shortage, and sometimes you buy a few extra bottles if you believe that’s going to happen,” Nunn said.

For thousands of patients, this means resorting to unconventional and more dangerous means of getting generic drugs online. Many of the replacement drugs patients buy online are unregulated and are sold without a doctor’s prescription.

Nunn said he is hopeful the worst of the drug shortages have past, but many experts believe things are going to get worse before they get better.

In an attempt to ease the crisis, President Barack Obama issued an executive order in October asking drug manufacturers to do more to report shortages to the FDA. He also announced plans to expand the FDA’s staff that investigates drug shortages.

In December, the Generic Pharmaceutical Association, a trade group that represents the generics industry, laid out multiple solutions to the crisis. One involved creating a team within the FDA to directly respond to shortages.

Sacred Heart Academy commemorated the anniversary on the morning of Sept. 9 by hosting several speakers including Kevin Cotter, R-Mount Pleasant, and members of the Mount Pleasant police and fire departments.

Following the speakers, elementary students recited the Pledge of Allegiance, a poem about peace and sang “Let There Be Peace on Earth,” with acoustic accompaniment from a teacher.

Students, alumni and staff members recalled their memories the day ten years earlier. Vincent Cavataio, Student Government Association president, thought nothing was out of the ordinary that morning when he was called down to his school’s office to meet his mother.

Maybe he was going out to eat with family, the seventh-grader thought, after all, Sept. 11 is his mother’s birthday.

Cavataio has relatives who live in Manhattan, and walked into the school’s office to see his mother “in hysterics.” There they watched CNN as the second plane hit the Towers.

“And I will always remember that moment — the look on my mom’s face, the gasp, the not knowing what to say, then looking at me,” the Shelby Township senior said. “She just looked at me, and she didn’t know how to explain what was happening.”

In his speech, Cotter reminded everyone that 9/11 was an “attack not only on buildings, but on our freedom and our way of life.”

About 250 students, with candles in hand, gathered on the evening of Sept. 11 outside the Charles V. Park Library to observe the anniversary.

The ceremony, organized by the Volunteer Center, began with the lighting of one candle, which shared its flame until more than 75 candles were lit.

Workers from the Volunteer Center opened the program by sharing their inspirations to hold the ceremony.

Later during the ceremony, students were given a opportunity to speak about what 9/11 meant to them. Some students spoke about how it affected them, while others spoke about what inspired them to attend the remembrance event.

The remembrance ceremony closed with a moment of silence followed by blowing out all the candles.

More than 170 students attended the first SUSO forum of the school year, “10 Years after 9/11: What Have We Learned?” held on Sept. 15. One of the discussion topics at the forum was the U.S. foreign and domestic policy in response to the terrorist attacks.

Political Science Associate Professor David Jesuit facilitated the forum. He said 9/11 was a transformative event for many CMU students who were only eight to 12 years old at the time.

The panel included Political Science Fixed-Term Instructors Prakash Adhikari, Justin Hoyle and Thomas Stewart; as well as Rochester Hills junior Jacquelyn Keenan and Falmouth junior Timothy Kimbel.

Central Michigan Life published a special section in commemoration of the attacks’ 10th anniversary.

General Manager Steve Cline, 24, of Lapeer sits in the middle of an empty Menna's Joint restaurant lobby in Mount Pleasant as he watches President Barack Obama's address the U.S. to inform the public of Osama bin Laden's death late on May 1, 2011. "It's crazy! It's really hard to fathom yet," he said. "For his involvement in 9/11, this brings justice to all of us since the war has been leading on for more than a decade. What a huge accomplishment. It needed to be done. It's a big victory for the U.S. It's all come full circle. I don't really consider myself patriotic, but this installs the best in all of us as Americans, and in me." (Jake May | Staff Photographer)

On May 1 President Barack Obama announced the death of Osama bin Laden, the man most directly responsible for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

Before Obama even made the announcement in a late-night televised speech from the East Room of the White House, news and speculation spread through Twitter and other social networks.

More than an hour before the speech, Keith Urbahn, chief of staff for the Office of Donald Rumsfield, tweeted, “So I’m told by a reputable person they have killed Osama bin Laden. Hot Damn.”

Social media continued to spread the news as Facebook exploded with posts about bin Laden’s death. According to CNN.com, within hours of the news, a new Facebook page “Osama bin Laden is DEAD” was created.

Obama said bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan following intelligence indicating his location in the country. There were no civilian casualties and no Americans were harmed, Obama said.

In addition to bin Laden, three men were killed during the 40-minute raid, one believed to be his son and the other two his couriers. A woman was also killed when she was used as a shield by a male combatant, and two others were wounded.

The body of bin Laden was later buried at sea.

The announcement of bin Laden’s death came nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks where about 3,000 people were killed.

Crowds gathered all across the United States in celebration of the demise of the well-known terrorist, as chants of,  ”U.S.A! U.S.A!” and flag-waving took place outside the White House, in Times Square and at the ground zero site.

Obama said the U.S. was first informed of a possible lead on bin Laden’s whereabouts in August. Obama said the capture or killing of bin Laden has been the top priority of the U.S. since he received the intelligence that bin Laden was in Pakistan.

The president said bin Laden’s death is the “most significant achievement to date in our effort to defeat al-Qaeda,” but cautioned that the terrorist organization would continue to pursue attacks against the U.S.

Many in the Republican Party are now strongly voicing opposition to the automatic cuts that will be made to the defense budget, totalling approximately $600 billion.

But do the Republicans have a legitimate reason to call “foul” and argue against the proposed defense cuts? To answer this question, the formation of the Supercommittee itself must be examined.

The Supercommittee was established by the Budget Control Act of 2011, which allowed Congress to raise the debt ceiling as long as they cut $1.2 trillion from the deficit. The Supercommittee was tasked with giving a proposal to cut at least $1.5 trillion, with a deadline of Nov. 23. If Congress fails to propose $1.2 trillion in cuts by Dec. 23, raising the debt ceiling — something necessary to keep our economy afloat — would result in automatic cuts evenly distributed between defense and non-defense programs.

The Supercommittee failed to submit a proposal, and unless a small miracle happens, Congress will not come to an agreement by Dec. 23.

Defense officials and many Republicans are now saying that such drastic defense cuts put our nation at risk, and many have committed to fighting to see that those cuts do not take place.

The problem with this is those same Republicans agreed to those automatic cuts back in August. They have been unable to reach an agreement they are happy with and now they want to renege on their agreement to make automatic cuts.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are to blame here. Both sides need to realize that if we are to reduce the deficit, there has to be some give and take. For Republicans, that is probably going to mean some kind of tax increase — whether it is ending a previous tax cut or adding a new source of revenue.

For Democrats, it will probably mean some sort of entitlement reform, whether that is to Medicare, Social Security or both.

Of all the blame-throwing going on, the person seeming to be getting hit the most is President Obama, which is ironic, as he deserves practically no blame. We have three branches of government, and the Executive Branch is not responsible for proposing laws; that job falls to Congress. Against the wishes of members of his own party, Obama did more than required by proposing one potential plan, and he has made it clear what he will and will not accept in the bill.

The rest is up to Congress. Right now the Republicans are squandering an opportunity to make gains in Congress by being unwilling to compromise, and stubbornness for the sake of stubbornness will not sit well with the American people come Election Day.

Editor’s note: Nathan Inks is the current president of the College Republicans.

“This will be the most expensive campaign we’ve ever seen,” said HIll, a professor of political science of Central Michigan University.

The Republican Party wants a candidate that is ideologically pure, Hill said.

“Right now the field is ABM, which stands for anybody but Mitt (Romney),” Hill said. “It’s been apparent Mitt doesn’t sit well with true conservatives or evangelicals and they are two important parts of the party.”

According to a FOX News poll taken from Oct. 23 to 25, Herman Cain leads Romney 24 percent to 20. In the same poll, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is third at 12 percent, followed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 10 percent, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, at 9 percent, with the remainder of the field all polling at less than 5 percent.

A RealClearPolitics poll taken in Michigan from late June to early September shows Romney leading the field by more than 16 points.

Hill said he thought Perry might have been a good candidate to oppose Obama until Hill heard him step up to the microphone and saw Perry could not debate.

“I listened to him and thought there wasn’t anything there,” Hill said. “He couldn’t debate and I think the whole party saw Barack Obama would make him look like an idiot.”

The recent surge in the polls of Herman Cain is a sort of litmus test Republicans have for candidates to see if they match the party’s views when put in the spotlight and Hill is certain he will fade.

“Herman Cain’s ‘9-9-9’ (tax) plan is a disaster,” Hill said. “If your theme is ‘9-9-9,’ your electoral score is going to be 0-0-0.”

The Republicans want a candidate who is a good fit for their beliefs, but Hill said their only passion stronger than finding a candidate who is a good ideological match finding one capable of beating Obama.

“These people are smart enough to realize it defeats their whole purpose to nominate someone who’s as ideologically pure as they’d like them to be but can’t beat Obama,” Hill said.
Hill said Romney will likely take the Republican nomination.

“The conservatives will probably end up holding their noses and supporting Romney,” Hill said. “A year is a lifetime in politics. But if things stay on this course, it seems Romney is the only candidate that will be able to beat Barack Obama.”

Rochester Hills sophomore Mericelle Fermin said she thinks Romney’s differences with conservatives will be irreconcilable.

“If Mitt Romney ends up being the candidate, with what their problems are with him right now, he doesn’t seem a viable contender in a race against Obama,” she said. “No matter what people say about Obama’s rates being low, Mitt Romney right now doesn’t seem a good contender.”

Fermin said she is a political science major and follows politics because she believes it affects every aspect of her life.

“I think that for anything to get done and for any improvement to happen in this country, the whole populace has to start paying attention rather than letting their country be run by people they feel powerless to,” she said.

Fermin said she thinks the public has been too hard on Obama.

“There’s such a sense of instant gratification in our society that America expected too much of him right from the get-go,” she said.