The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for April, 2010

Byron York Takes Arizona Law Critics to School

Posted by iusbvision on April 28, 2010

Byron York:

More information HERE and HERE.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: I have never had a real private sector job.

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

….and it shows. How much has the dollar tanked with Tim at the helm?

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Iran strikes secret nuclear mining deal with Zimbabwe’s Mugabe regime

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

When Bush was president the left was saying that Bush was making this up to look for an excuse to invade….

UK Telegraph:

Iran has struck a secret deal with Zimbabwe to mine its untapped uranium reserves in a move to secure raw material for its steadily expanding nuclear programme.

The agreement was sealed last month during a visit to Tehran by a close aide to Robert Mugabe, the Zimbabwean president who last weekend celebrated 30 years in power, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

In return for supplying oil, which Zimbabwe desperately needs to keep its faltering economy moving, Iran has been promised access to potentially huge deposits of uranium ore – which can be converted into the basic fuel for nuclear power or enriched to make a nuclear bomb.

“Iran secured the exclusive uranium rights last month when minister of state for Presidential affairs, Didymus Mutasa visited Tehran,” said a Zimbabwean government source. “That is when the formal signing of the deal was made, away from the glare of the media.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Profiles in the Obvious: New Survey of Economists Says Stimulus Bill Didn’t Work

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

Amazing. Congratulations Mr. Obvious. Of course we have said this since minute one. Anyone with competent rudimentary economics training understood this from the get go. In fairness to NABE though, they have been saying this for some time. But that doesn’t excuse Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Christina Romer and other pinheads the elite media talked to who said the stimulus would work great. Things like this almost never do

CNN:  

In latest quarterly survey by the National Association for Business Economics (NABE), the index that measures employment showed job growth for the first time in two years — but a majority of respondents felt the fiscal stimulus had no impact. 

  

When politicians spend money, it is for the purpose of achieving a political outcome, not an economic one. 

A new survey shows private employers shed 23,000 jobs in March, but many expect tomorrow’s Labor Department report to show overall job growth thanks to increasing government employment. 

A study by the George Mason University shows: 1) no statistical correlation between unemployment and how President Obama’s failed stimulus was spent; 2) Democratic districts received one-and-a-half times as many awards as Republican ones; and 3) an average cost of $286,000 was awarded per job created. 

  

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Famed Scholar Dr. John Lott Confirms IUSB Vision Analysis on Arizona Law

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

It is just like we said HERE.

Dr. John Lott:

Fears of Arizona’s Immigration Law Are Bogus

It’s hard to argue that the requirements of Arizona’s new immigration law will impose an undue burden.

When Arizona’s new law was signed on Friday, Hispanics demonstrated outside the state capitol in Phoenix, fearful of what it would mean for them. “If a cop sees them and they look Mexican, he’s going to stop me,” a 18-year-old Hispanic told the Associated Press. “What if people are U.S. citizens? They’re going to be asking them if they have papers because of the color of their skin.” The young man claimed that he was that even though he was a U.S. citizen he risked being arrested and put in jail.

Other news stories discuss Hispanics believing that they will have to have to carry multiple IDs to avoid prison. “Even if you’re legal, you’re in fear that maybe your driver’s license isn’t going to be enough or if you’re walking down the street and the police stop you,” a 21-year-old University of Arizona college student told CNN. “It’s a constant fear we’re living in and even legal citizens are afraid to go out.”

But it is a dangerous game stirring up fears of people being hunted down and put in jail because of their race or nationality. The law specifically bans picking up someone just because they are Hispanic or even because the person was originally from Mexico or any other country you can read a copy of the law right here. Anyone arrested for a crime must have their immigration status determined before they are released. Thus, it is not just Hispanics who will be required to provide evidence of citizenship, but so will all whites, blacks and Asians. If the eligibility for public services depends on citizenship, again, everyone who applies, regardless of race, will have to provide an ID. In other circumstances, law enforcement officials must have reasonable suspicion, not based simply on the person’s race or origin, that the individual is an illegal alien before they can ask to check someone’s ID.

Police today already have to deal with the “reasonable suspicion” standard all the time in other areas of law enforcement, and most understand very well how this standard limits what they can do. Police know that they can’t pull over drivers for fear that they are smuggling drugs just because they are black. “Reasonable suspicion” requires that the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to convince a person of “reasonable prudence” that a crime has been committed. Obviously in a state such as Arizona, with an estimated half a million illegal immigrants, the vast majority OF illegal aliens are going to be Hispanic. But the reasonableness standard used by Arizona specifically requires something other than just race or national origin.

The ID requested is hardly draconian: a driver’s license, a non-operating identification license, valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification, or “any valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification.” Rather than requiring multiple IDs as some fear, the law clearly says that “any” of the IDs is sufficient. And the notion of having to carry IDs is not something unique to Arizona. President Obama and many Democrats, such as Senator Charles Schumer, support a national ID card, so it hard to argue that Arizona’s requirement will impose an undue burden.

Even if a person does not present the required ID, that doesn’t necessarily mean the person faces problems. The new Arizona law requires that “a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.” Today, this is not hard to accomplish quickly as computer records have photographs and other identifying details for people who have state-issued IDs. The only exception to making “a reasonable attempt” is if making that investigation would “hinder or obstruct” a criminal investigation. That isn’t going to effect many cases.

Obama has now instructed the Justice Department to find some way to challenge the new law. It seems very unlikely that they will succeed in stopping the law’s primary requirements. Sadly, the president and others are unjustifiably stirring up extreme fears. This might be good short-run politics, but those stoking these fears must realize that their credibility is on the line. Unless some federal law will quickly be rammed through Congress, it will soon become evident that U.S. citizens and legal residents have absolutely nothing to fear.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Retired CBS News Man Bernie Goldberg on Elite Media Smears and Hypocrisy

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »

How Barack Obama’s Closest People & Goldman Sachs Stand to Make Billions in Profits from Government Cap & Trade

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

If you want to get an idea about the depth of government corruption. Glenn Beck challenges anyone to prove the following wrong.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

More Violent Incitement from the Left. FreedomWorks Releases Their Voice Mail.

Posted by iusbvision on April 27, 2010

In light of recent accusations, we’re taking the opportunity to set the record straight. For a side so concerned with Tea Party hate speech, they sure seem full of rage.

DISCLAIMER: Full of harsh language and violent rhetoric. Emails and voicemails are only edited to remove names and phone numbers.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »

Video: Pro-Illegal Immigration Protestors Turn Violent, Attack Counter Protestors, Throw Rocks and Bottles at Police – UPDATED! Fox Goes Nuclear on Elite Media Lies

Posted by iusbvision on April 26, 2010

Arizona: They also used refried beans to smear swastika’s on government buildings….. but nothing to see here .. move along, move along… and don’t forget the state-run media mantra, the Tea Party is violent, the Tea Party is violent…

How do I know this group isn’t really a bunch of crazed Tea Party people out to smash Arizona? Well you see the lovely Michelle Malkin has pictures.

 

UPDATE I – Famed Scholar Dr. John Lott Confirms IUSB Vision Analysis on Arizona Law

UPDATE II – Via Hotair.com – Rasmussen: Majority of Latinos in Arizona support letting cops check for immigration status?

UPDATE IIIFox News goes after ABC and elite media over outrageous bias.

Video: (Hat Tip HotAir) Whose protests are more violent?

By the way, the John Lewis who said it happened in spite of a dozen videos of the event that proved otherise, is the same guy who in October 2008 said that John McCain is a racist and compared him with George Wallace who tried to use force to keep black children from going to school. But why take my word for it. Here is THE PROOF

UPDATE IVByron York Takes Arizona Law Critics to School

More: Beck Blasts Eliet Media Double Standard, Shows Video

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 2 Comments »

Is “Law & Order” to blame for pedestrians walking by corpse of dead good Samaritan?

Posted by iusbvision on April 26, 2010

Are shows like “Law & Order” combined with highly publicized instances of police/prosecutorial misconduct partially to blame for the behavior we witness in this video; pedestrians walking by corpse of dead good Samaritan?

Whenever someone sees a video like this we always ask ourselves what could be in the minds of the people involved? They see something has happened, and it looks like they wish they would help, but they don’t. Why?

I have some thoughts about what narrative may be in these people’s minds. The TV show Law & Order has been on the air for about 20 seasons with 10 seasons of its spin off show “Special Victims Unit”. I find myself watching these shows when nothing better is on and I noticed a pattern of behavior among the police and prosecutors in the show and it goes like this:

1. SVU arrests suspect A, who SVU is certain is guilty. He is grilled and mistreated by police and is given no presumption of innocence whatsoever until whoops, they accidentally uncovered a piece of evidence that gets suspect A off the hook.

2. SVU arrests suspect B, who SVU is certain is guilty, the prosecutor says find me XX amount of evidence and I can get you a nice conviction, so the cops set out to prove suspect B guilty. Oh whoops, they ran across a piece of evidence that clears suspect B.

3. SVU arrests suspect C, who SVU is certain is guilty, they really grill him this time, call him names and rough him up a little in the interrogation. Why keep investigating? After all SVU knows suspect C is guilty and they are professionals and who are you to question them? The prosecutor gets ready to go for trial and then… you guessed it, whoops suspect C’s lawyer, when tangling with the prosecutor, comes up with the magic piece of evidence that either gets suspect C off so no one gets nailed or implicates suspect D, who SVU never thought could have been guilty and suspect D is prosecuted and found guilty.

4. Suspect A, B and C’s lives are damaged, if not ruined, they are often smeared in the press as criminals, they are often out lawyer fees and does SVU compensate them? Nope SVU still thinks you’re a scumbag so you don’t even get an apology, in fact don’t give them an excuse to bust you again. 

After a couple of decades of that top rated narrative can you blame anyone for not wanting to get involved?

Don’t get me wrong; ultimately people are responsible for their own actions, but can anyone deny that this narrative of inner city police exists in the minds of millions of Americans?

Real life can make this worse. How many of us have run into the cop who behaves as if he has some magical superiority and he is your master? I have run into a few just like that. Most cops are ok but there are too many like the former out there and when cases of abuse happen it is in the news in a big way. We have catalogued such cases of abuse right here:

Video: Police Beat Innocent Man, Manufacture False Charges.

Phoenix Police Raid Homes of Blogger & Officer who Spoke Out.

VIDEO: Police Shoot Handcuffed Man on the Ground

Ending the Biggest Lie Against Palin – Called Troopergate: Hey Ladies How Would You Deal With a Violent, Reckless, Out of Control Rogue Cop Who Threatened Your Family’s Life and Stalks Your Relatives – All While His Fellow Cops are Covering for Him.

Sometimes the ones who are given the most public trust and responsibility are the ones who most brazenly violate it…

In each one of these cases multiple police lied, manufactured testimony and/or failed in their duty to uphold not just the law, but basic common decency. I am by no means anti-police, but the facts are the facts that there are too many cases of mass police misconduct.

And of course it is not just police misconduct, it is prosecutorial misconduct:

A case study in prosecutor abuse.

More Traffic Camera Fraud from LAPD.

Idiot Indiana prosecutor goes after old woman for buying two cold medicines.

Senator Stevens May Walk: Prosecutorial and FBI Misconduct Could Get Stevens Conviction Overturned

The Duke rape case, the Ted Stevens trial, the Randy Weaver trial, Tom Delay persecution, Kay Baily Hutchinson persecution, Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby and the list goes on. All cases of gross prosecutorial misconduct where elements of the government conspired to manufacture evidence, hide exculpatory evidence, tamper with witnesses etc. 

The case of Martha Stewart perhaps has the biggest impact on regular people. Martha Stewart was charged with the crime of lying to the FBI by proclaiming her innocence about a crime the FBI never even attempted to charge her with.  In essence they said that by proclaiming her innocence which is everyone’s right, she was guilty of lying about a crime, but they never attempted to charge her with that crime, much less prove that a crime actually occurred.  

So if the FBI comes knocking on your door and they ask you questions, they can send you to jail for lying to them err telling them something they do not want to hear such as proclaiming your innocence. What if you are just a witness and not a suspect? That doesn’t matter. What if they ask you questions and you answer as best you can but you were just mistaken, or it was so long ago your memory wasn’t perfect, or what if the FBI has their narrative wrong and your recollection is correct; in any case you can end up in jail. So why would anyone talk to the FBI ever? Under such crazy legal circumstances many smart lawyers would advise you to say nothing. 

Like I said, I am not anti-police and I would hope that people would cooperate with the police, but in the minds of a great many people as we have seen in the video, doing the right thing can lead to trouble or make you a prime suspect when there is no one else to convict. Those people did not know there was a camera there. I am sure several of the people in the video stopped and thought about doing the right thing, only to have a narrative like the ones I described above run through their head. What if one of the pedestrians had a criminal record? What would doing the right thing potentially cost him? These feelings people have may be wrong, they may be immoral, but in some circumstances, to them their fears are justified.

More and more people fear the government and recent polls reflect that harsh reality.

[Editor's Note: In spite of all my caveats about my thoughts in this article I am well aware that some people will use this piece to demonize me as "anti-government" or such nonsense. So in case I was too subtle when I said it in the article let me be as clear as clear can be; I would hope that people would cooperate with the police and be a good Samaritan. This article is a thought exercise that has some very real world impact to help us to possibly understand why the people in that video behaved as they did. Perhaps such a frank thought exercise will cause some in the government to have a dialogue on the relationship with the citizenry, who is according to our form of government, the boss.]

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild | 1 Comment »

“Where were you when George Bush was President?”

Posted by iusbvision on April 26, 2010

Liberty Chick has a great article today that responds to the elite media and the far left saying , you are complaining now but where were you when Bush was president. Of course those who know the IUSB Vision editor know that I was fighting the good fight, but what about everyone else?

Well here is your answer:

“Where were you when George Bush was President?” You know that question well. It’s been asked of each of us more times than any of us would care to count. Do you know how I usually answer it?

I was home, enjoying my life. I went to work every day and focused on doing the best job that I could do. When I wasn’t working, I hung out with family and friends. I went to baseball games, and barbecues, and obscure little hole-in-the-wall joints to hear some of my favorite live music over a couple of Guinnesses. Yum.

Why? Because while George Bush was president, we had a media establishment that was challenging our government, not our citizens.

I wasn’t necessarily happy with the direction of the country in those days. But I could sleep at night, knowing that we had media that pressed George Bush and our Congress on every single issue. I could know at any given moment what the “death count” was in Iraq because just about every channel splashed a persistent counter in the bottom corner of the television screen. When bills like the Patriot Act were first introduced in Congress, I never lacked for any detail on the dangers of the legislation. There was barely a single detail that went uncovered in the daily political grind. When there was a scandal to research and report, I certainly never had to do that myself. There were reporters who did all that.

Yep, I’m actually missing the Bush days now. I had so much more free time. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve always done my homework and researched issues on my own anyway. I recognize that all media is biased to some degree (and has been for quite some time). But I could always count on the media to challenge the government in the days of George Bush. I wrote my fair share of letters, I called and complained about the spending, even attended a few protests, but I can’t say that I ever felt there just wasn’t anyone challenging the president in the mainstream media. Quite the contrary, there was never any lack of DC pushback from the collective press in those days.

But we live in extraordinary times today. There now exists this giant, open cavity where that healthy pushback against government used to be. And when the mainstream media stepped away from that opening in 2008, two things happened:

  1. The laws of nature pulled everyday American citizens in to provide that cover, and
  2. The political machine took notice – and it assembled its sledgehammers

Read the rest HERE.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Democrat Plans in 2010: Rig It So Illegals Can Vote?

Posted by iusbvision on April 26, 2010

This site as well as some others have been predicting that this would be the move by the Democrats and today it is a big step closer to being confirmed via Senator Lindsay Graham.

Mini-Update: The elite media and the far left talking heads are creating a stir over the new Arizona illegal immigration law. Here are the facts:

1.  The Supreme Court since 1984 has said that police can enforce federal immigration law and can inquire about immigration status if probable cause and/or during a legal law enforcement encounter.  

2. All the new Arizona law does is take the existing federal law and incorporate it into state law, so that it is no longer an option for Arizona to enforce it. So is the federal law racist and all that nonsense the far left has been saying? Is Obama’s Homeland Security Department racist for adding persons to the border patrol? 

3. Sheriff Joe Arpiao has been enforcing the federal law under constant investigation from the Obama administration and so far the feds can find no violations. We should thank the Obama Administration for confirming that local law enforcement can perform their duties within the bounds of federal civil rights laws.

Mini-Update IIFamed Scholar Dr. John Lott Confirms IUSB Vision Analysis on Arizona Law

 

Washington Examiner:

Saturday afternoon, a clearly angry Graham decided to go public with his version of what happened, releasing an extraordinary open letter accusing Reid and other Democratic leaders of engaging in “phony” and “cynical” political maneuvering by dumping energy and climate in favor of immigration. Reid, of course, is in deep trouble in his re-election fight in Nevada, where about 26 percent of the population is Hispanic. President Obama hopes to increase Hispanic voting and fire up the Democratic base to avert potentially disastrous Democratic mid-term losses across the country. Pushing aside the energy and climate bill — which had at-best iffy prospects in the Senate, anyway — for “comprehensive” immigration reform might possibly save a few Democrats. Or at least Reid. Of course, at the moment there’s no bill and no real probability that one could pass, but some Democrats apparently believe even a losing fight could help them politically by motivating the base.

So Graham was out of luck. “I am very disappointed with this turn of events and believe [the Senate Democratic leadership's] decision flies in the face of commitments made weeks ago to Senators Kerry, Lieberman and me,” Graham wrote in his open letter Saturday. “I deeply regret that election year politics will impede, if not derail, our efforts to make our nation energy independent.”

“Moving forward on immigration — in this hurried, panicked manner — is nothing more than a cynical political ploy,” Graham continued. “Let’s be clear, a phony, political effort on immigration today accomplishes nothing but making it exponentially more difficult to address in a serious, comprehensive manner in the future.”

Graham’s angry words — senators don’t usually throw “phony” at each other — suggest a man who believes he’s been double-crossed. And indeed, a talk with aides familiar with what happened reveals a senator who thought he had deal only to find out — mostly from press reports — that he didn’t.

For several days leading up to Saturday’s meltdown, Graham had been trying to secure a commitment from Reid that energy and climate legislation would go forward. “There were flurries of phone calls since Thursday, Friday, even Saturday, trying to get assurances from Reid that we were going to take up energy instead of immigration,” one Senate aide says. “This wasn’t one or two phone calls. We’re talking dozens and dozens of phone calls.”

Reid, who formerly seemed committed to moving the legislation forward, would no longer agree. “There were multiple chances — multiple chances — for them to give the assurances that were necessary,” the aide continues. But nothing came. And Democrats left Graham — one of their best Republican friends in the Senate — fuming.

Reid’s about-face left many in the GOP amazed. Democrats appear to be tossing aside one difficult-to-pass issue in favor of an impossible-to-pass issue. The likelihood is that neither will pass. “There will be no immigration and no energy,” says another Senate aide. “They can do some sort of an energy bill, but it won’t be cap-and-trade. Graham-Kerry-Lieberman won’t pass. The support is just not there, even among Democrats. And on immigration — after having voted for a health care bill that’s toxic, voted for the biggest deficits ever, Democrats are then going to turn around and vote for an amnesty bill?”

Unlikely. The fact is, many Democrats are just as afraid of the immigration issue as Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that immigration reform efforts of 2006 and 2007 split the GOP. They did, but they split the Democrats, too. In the Senate vote that killed the 2007 effort, 34 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted to move the measure forward, while 37 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted to block it.

And that bill was the result of long and painstaking bipartisan work. “In 2007,” Graham writes, “we spent hundreds of hours over many months with President Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, and nearly every member of the U.S. Senate searching for a way to address our nation’s immigration problems. Unlike this current ‘effort,’ it was a good-faith attempt to address a very difficult national issue.”

Now, Reid says he would like to have a bill in three weeks. It’s a laughable idea except for the fact that the majority leader is becoming desperate and might do anything to improve his chances of re-election.

But even if Democrats can cobble together some sort of legislation in the next few weeks, they can forget about having the sort of Republican support that existed in 2007. The watered-down border security measures in that bill — the “virtual fence,” for example — have been dumped. Temporary guest worker measures are gone, too. There is no way many Republicans would go along with a new Democratic measure. Even the famously pro-reform GOP Sen. John McCain campaigned for the presidency in 2008 by repeating thousands of times that he “got the message” that the U.S. should “secure the border first.” Now in a primary fight with hardliner J.D. Hayworth, McCain won’t be touching a Democratic immigration reform plan.

Nevertheless, it appears the Democrats’ “cynical political ploy” will go forward. For Reid and his party, it’s a high-risk base-strategy gamble. Maybe it will work. But if it doesn’t, it could mean a Republican victory in November that’s even larger than GOP optimists predict.

Related Story:

Smart Girl Politics sponsored a border cleanup activity to pick up trash along the border.

Smart Girl Politics sponsored a Border Clean-up in honor of murdered rancher Robert Krentz. Some of us went to the border fence and saw first hand how illegals get over the fence quickly. Also how children are being placed in harms way either by parents or human smugglers.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Krauthammer: Obama Tries To “Denigrate, Cast Out and Delegitimize” Opposition

Posted by iusbvision on April 25, 2010

This is of course no surprise. Call people names, denigrate them, lie about them, create false narratives (like they do to Tea Party), mischaracterize the arguments of others, but almost never takes on an opponents arguments straight on and on the merits; this is what the left does. Just ask anyone who has run a blog, debates the left regularly, or writes on politics. Academia are among the worst offenders when it comes to this. Is this a generalization, sure it is, but is a generalization that has been witnessed millions of times and fits like a glove. It is their normal pattern of behavior. Of course there are exceptions, but one does not define a rule by the exceptions, one defines it by the common pattern.   

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Kick-Ass is the sleeper hit film of the year

Posted by iusbvision on April 24, 2010

Kick Ass  

First of all. In spite of the awful title, this movie was very entertaining. It is a good time with several caveats.  

Kick Ass is likely the most violent movie I have ever seen and the violence is as realistic as the violence in Saving Private Ryan; there is even a quite realistic torture scene. The violence in the clip below is among the mildest in the film.  This is absolutely NOT a kids movie.  

Hit Girl Taking Out A Bad Guy

This level of violence serves a valuable purpose. It lets the audience know that violence is not pretty, it is not fun and the hurt goes both ways. When people die it is permanent. Fighting bad guys is not fun and it is not to be taken lightly. Don’t let the music in the trailer below fool you, the mood is not quite so light hearted.   

As a piece of literature the story has multiple plots, subplots, twists and turns and is most excellent at keeping the audience a little off-balance, surprised and cheering.  

The story is a contrast between Kick-Ass, a morally ambiguous young man with mostly good intentions who quite foolishly decides to play super hero (though occasionally rises to the occasion) and his unlikely counterpart named Hit Girl.    

Hit Girl is a one girl killing machine who is a complete moral absolutist; she also likes comics and Hello Kitty. A prodigy of both the mind and body Hit Girl is a cross between Jackie Chan and The Punisher. Hit Girl will brutally kill a drug dealer or thug without hesitation in ways that would send The Terminator crying home to mommy. Hit Girl amasses a fortune in the millions by confiscating drug money and has the equipment to show for it. Big Hollywood.com got it quite correct when they said that Hit Girl exemplifies the moral gulf between those who target the innocent and those who target those who target the innocent. Hit Girl plays for keeps, she most certainly does get hurt and injured in the film but she keeps on fighting. Most importantly, Hit Girl is not eroticized in the film as so many young females are in Disney shows (which I always found to be just a tad creepy). Hit Girl also has the virtue of offending all of the right people.  

Seven studios turned this movie down because of the role of Hit Girl. I doubt that the role would have seen this trouble if the role was a male character. No one would bat an eye if a male character used the C word in a movie or stabbed a bad guy (sexism ticks me off almost as much as racism does).  

Hit Girl in action:   

Hit Girl in training (these people are professionals, DO NOT try this at home):

Kick Ass, while a bit over the top as all super hero movies are, likely has the most compelling storyline of any super hero movie since Richard Donner’s brilliant rendition of Superman in 1979. While the film is incredibly violent, the trailer above does not do a well done story justice. This is the sleeper hit of the year. My hat is off to the writers.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck on University Indoctrination

Posted by iusbvision on April 24, 2010

Spot on.

I love it, Brandeis U. couldn’t back-pedal fast enough after Beck went after them.

The Mouth in the South has details.

This is a microcosm of the state of leftist academia, when a blogger called Mouth in the South has more common sense and can get it right and the faculty of a university cannot until the light is shined upon them and is humiliated into using a residue of common sense. 

After this economic and corruption thing gets closer to being fixed, radicalized academia is going to have to deal with Glenn Beck and Andrew Breitbart having students wire themselves up to show the world just how so many academics can’t tell the difference between the mission of a classroom and a political party.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War | 1 Comment »

Police Relax Tea Party Security Restrictions Because Tea Party Participants So Peaceful.

Posted by iusbvision on April 24, 2010

Via Christian Science Monitor and NewsBusters:

On Monday, the Christian Science Monitor bucked its mainstream peers by reporting something truthful about the TEA party movement: police officials have begun to relax security requirements at conservative rallies because of the remarkable absence of violence.

Yes, you read that right: despite nonstop media warnings about hateful protests, violence from TEA party attendants is so nonexistent that police feel safe allowing them to bring large items and sometimes even guns.

The Monitor was compelled to check things out when a TEA party in Raleigh, North Carolina, persuaded officials to overturn a ban on flag poles. Such items are typically banned because a flag pole is really just a very big stick that could be used as a weapon. The Monitor’s research led the paper to admit that conservative protests are far less threatening than many past demonstrations.

Patrik Jonsson’s article drew a refreshing contrast between violent rallies of the Vietnam era versus the new model of peaceful civil uprising:

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis: “If you say you are a socialist you are alright with me – The Tea Party is a Bowel Movement”. ACORN Renames Itself. Glenn Beck Responds.

Posted by iusbvision on April 24, 2010

Via Verum Serum:

Bertha Lewis speaking at the Winter Conference of the Young Democratic Socialists on March 25, 2010:

Now wait I thought that anyone who said that they were socialists or even lurching towards socialism was a racist evil psycho?

Glenn Beck has a ball with this. 

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama Considers Job Killing VAT National Sales Tax

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

For those who are the working poor/students and retirees this  amounts to kissing almost 30% of your income goodbye in the form of lost buying power. In essence it will means that the dollars you have will buy you almost 1/3rd less.

Here is how a VAT works. We all know what t a state sales tax is. You see it on every receipt when you buy something. A VAT doesn’t work quite that way. It is a tax on an item at every stage of production.

A farmer grows the wheat 20% tax, sends it off to be ground into flour  20% tax, it gets turned into dough and baked 20% tax, it gets packaged 20% tax, it is sold to you at the store 20% tax.

That becomes one very expensive loaf of bread and none of the cost appears on your receipt, it just costs one hell of a lot more.

So how will businesses who produce good avoid the tax at each state of production for as many steps as it can? Easy, produce it in Mexico or China that way it is only taxed when it is sold to you. You wonder why socialist Europe has permanent 11% unemployment and 25% youth unemployment? This is a big part of the reason right here. Who would want to produce anything in such an environment.

These taxes lead to corruption as well. Industries will use their lobbyists and donations to get subsidies from the government at the threat of leaving. The subsidies will return much of the VAT a manufacturer pays to the government back to them and those smaller businesses without the political clout will not be able to compete.

This idea must be stopped as it is an economic declaration of war against those who work and those who produce.

Yahoo/AP News:

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.

Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, “I want to get a better picture of what our options are.”

After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding “sense of the Senate” resolution that calls the such a tax “a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America’s economic recovery.”

The sense of the Senate resolution means nothing.  If the Democratic leadership wants it, they will buy off with bribes to get the votes it needs and use reconciliation to avoid the filibuster. The Democrats know they are sunk in November and have to go for broke soon.  The only hopes Democrats have to win is to pass amnesty for all illegal aliens, give them access to all services such as medicare, protected/preferred status in EEOC hiring rules, social security, unemployment, food stamps etc in hopes that it will translate into 12-20 million new votes for them. Of course, such an effort to rig the election could have unforseen consequences.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

BROKEN PROMISES: CBO AND CMS CONFIRM HIGHER COSTS AND HIGHER TAXES FOR OBAMACARE!

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

And after the New York Times and the Dept of HHS confirmed that we conservatives were right all along…

Via Paul Ryan:

WASHINGTON – House Budget Committee Ranking Republican Paul Ryan (WI) highlighted the latest evidence that the recently enacted health care overhaul exacerbates the problems in health care and violates the President’s central promises.

Yesterday, the Congressional Budget Office [CBO] released an analysis that estimates large tax increases will hit millions of Americans making well below $200,000. The CBO findings stand in stark contrast to President Obama’s promise not to tax any individual making less than $200,000 a year. According an analysis analysis by the House Ways and Means Committee Minority Staff, the President has already signed into law 14 separate violations of his tax pledge.

Adding insult to injury, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services [CMS] issued another damaging blow to the President’s central case for health care reform: the need to get a grip on sky-rocketing costs. In a detailed analysis, the CMS Chief Actuary made clear that the new health care law will further drive costs upward, increasing national health expenditures by an additional $311 billion above projected costs. The new law would adversely impact Medicare providers and reduce Medicare Advantage enrollees by 50%, according the government report.

Following the release of the CMS and CBO reports, Ranking Member Ryan issued the following statement:

“As Washington is moving fast to takeover other sectors of our economy, we are learning more about the costly consequences of their most recent overreach on health care. President Obama reiterated a number of false promises throughout the partisan health care campaign, including a pledge that his overhaul would lower health care costs and would not increase taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 a year. This week’s double-whammy from CMS and CBO exposes the emptiness of the President’s rhetoric, confirming what Americans feared throughout the debate.”

“Rather than fix what’s broken in health care, this deeply flawed law will exacerbate the problems in health care. Two independent, nonpartisan analyses make clear that the onslaught of mandates, controls, taxes, and entitlement spending will impose a heavier burden on American families, including those already struggling to make ends meet. We must begin anew to mitigate the disaster from this health care debacle: let’s repeal this costly misstep and replace it with patient-centered, fiscally-responsible reform.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

OOPS AGAIN: IPCC scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits…

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

HotAir.com (via Yid with Lid) found out an interesting little tidbit that the elite media hid from us:

It’s hard to believe that it’s been more than a month since the latest example of intellectual collapse at the IPCC. Now added to the fraudulent claims about Amazon rain forests, African crop harvests, and Himalayan glaciers comes the exposure of a very large error in the UN body’s warnings about flooding in Bangladesh. Turns out that the scientists screeching about the cataclysmic effects of sea-level rises forgot to consider sedimentary deposits (via Yid with Lid):

Scientists in Bangladesh posed a fresh challenge to the UN’s top climate change panel Thursday, saying its doomsday forecasts for the country in the body’s landmark 2007 report were overblown.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), already under fire for errors in the 2007 report, had said a one-metre (three-foot) rise in sea levels would flood 17 percent of Bangladesh and create 20 million refugees by 2050.

The claim helped create a widespread consensus that the low-lying country was on the “front line” of climate change, but a new study argues the IPCC ignored the role sediment plays in countering sea level rises. …

But IPCC’s prediction did not take into account the one billion tonnes of sediment carried by Himalayan rivers into Bangladesh every year, which are crucial in countering rises in sea levels, the study funded by the Asian Development Bank said.

“Sediments have been shaping Bangladesh’s coast for thousands of years,” said Maminul Haque Sarker, director of the Dhaka-based Center for Environment and Geographic Information Services (CEGIS), who led research for the study.

Even if the sea level rises that far — a claim which is itself greeted with increasing skepticism — most of the coastline for Bangladesh won’t be affected. The study concludes that sedimentary deposits would rise in the same proportion as sea levels, providing protection for almost all of the coastline.

Ouch…

Ed Morrissey rubs it in with this:

That’s hardly the only error discovered in the IPCC’s claims and in the AGW industry over the last few months, either:

Pachauri continues to insist that the emperor wears clothes at the IPCC, when he’s been naked for months.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

End of Cultural Era: Spock Retires

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Yahoo News:

Leonard Nimoy, the actor who has famously portrayed “Star Trek’s” original alien Spock for over 40 years, has announced he’s officially hanging up the pointy Vulcan ears for good.

Nimoy, 79, plans to retire shortly from show business and the “Star Trek” convention circuit, according to the Canadian newspaper Toronto Sun.

The actor, director and photographer will be attending the Calgary Comic and Entertainment Expo this weekend, and told the paper that beyond this event he only has a few more public appearances scheduled.

Nimoy also currently guest stars on the television show “Fringe,” produced by J.J, Abrams who directed last summer’s re-launched “Star Trek” film franchise chronicling a younger original series cast on their first mission on the starship Enterprise.

The retirement announcement all but guarantees that an elder, “from-the-future” Spock (at least played by Nimoy) will not make an appearance in the next “Star Trek” movie.

“I want to get off the stage. Also, I don’t think it would be fair to Zachary Quinto,” Nimoy told the Toronto Sun, referring to the actor who portrays young Spock in the new Trek film. “He’s a terrific actor, he looks the part, and it’s time to give him some space. And I’m very flattered the character will continue.”

Boldly going from Boston to the bridge

Nimoy, born in Boston, Mass. in 1931, began his acting career at the age of 20, taking on roles in a number of campy science fiction. In the early and mid-1960s, he appeared in episodes of major series including “Bonanza,” “Perry Mason” and “Get Smart” in 1966.

Also in that year, Nimoy landed a role in a new series created by Gene Roddenberry called “Star Trek.” Nimoy played Commander Spock, the half-human, half-Vulcan first mate and science officer aboard the U.S.S. Enterprise, helmed by Captain James T. Kirk, played by William Shatner.

Nimoy donned fake, pointy, elvish ears, some swooping eyebrows, an early-Beatles hairdo, and a poker face to play the half-human, half-alien character.

Spock – for the most part – maintained a stoic demeanor per his Vulcan ancestry and his green-tinted blood ran cool in his veins. But this uber-“logical” side of Spock occasionally struggled with his more emotional half and was torn at times between the two cultures.

“Star Trek” ran until 1969 and despite low ratings the show garnered a cult-like following on syndication in the years ahead.

Nimoy, for his part, went on to star in a number of made-for-television movies and theatrical productions in the 1970s, his Star Trek days apparently behind him. But when studio executives green-lit a proposed new television series instead as a feature film with the original crew, Nimoy found himself back in his Starfleet uniform. 

A career at warp speed

The character of Spock would continue his journey in all six original series movies, as well as episodes of “Star Trek: The Next Generation” episodes in 1991, and then in an alternate timeline established in last summer’s Abrams-directed flick. Nimoy also lent his voice to Trek-themed video games and other products over the years, adding to the legend of his character.

Nimoy also directed the third and fourth “Star Trek” movies, the latter of which, 1986’s “‘Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home,” has been roundly received by audiences and critics alike as perhaps the best Trek film of all for its humor and, oddly enough, humanity. (The plot involved time-traveling back to late 20th century Earth to bring humpback whales, extinct in the future, to the 23rd century when “Star Trek” takes place to answer the calls of a devastating alien probe seeking the intelligent makers of whale song whispers heard across space eons before.)

“I felt like ‘Star Trek IV’ was my personal statement on ‘Star Trek,'” Nimoy told the Toronto Sun.

In two autobiographies, 1975’s “I Am Not Spock,” followed by 1995’s “I Am Spock,” Nimoy shared his coming-to-grips of being constantly associated with his famous Star Trek character.

In addition to this work, Nimoy has also made musical recordings and done voiceovers for documentaries and as Spock and himself in cartoons such as “The Simpsons” and “Futurama,” and of course “Star Trek: The Animated Series” in the 1970s.

“Live long and prosper”

Among his many memorable on-screen moments as Spock, Nimoy came up with the now-iconic, V-shaped hand gesture often accompanied by the Vulcan axiom “live long and prosper,” both inspired by his Jewish heritage.

The albeit-less-friendly Vulcan nerve pinch – an incapacitating touch to a neck but more civilized than one of Kirk’s wildly exaggerated-for-TV haymaker punches – was also an on-set invention by Nimoy for his character.

Overall, Nimoy’s retirement is sure to leave a hole in many “Star Trek” fans and others’ hearts. But when pushing octogenarian-hood, retiring – as Spock himself might say – perhaps is the only logical thing to do.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War | 1 Comment »

Limbaugh: Liberals and the Violence Card

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Rush Limbaugh in Wall Street Journal:

The latest liberal meme is to equate skepticism of the Obama administration with a tendency toward violence. That takes me back 15 years ago to the time President Bill Clinton accused “loud and angry voices” on the airwaves (i.e., radio talk-show hosts like me) of having incited Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. What self-serving nonsense. Liberals are perfectly comfortable with antigovernment protest when they’re not in power.

From the halls of the Ivy League to the halls of Congress, from the antiwar protests during the Vietnam War and the war in Iraq to the anticapitalist protests during International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings, we’re used to seeing leftist malcontents take to the streets. Sometimes they’re violent, breaking shop windows with bricks and throwing rocks at police. Sometimes there are arrests. Not all leftists are violent, of course. But most are angry. It’s in their DNA. They view the culture as corrupt and capitalism as unjust.

Rush Limbaugh

Now the liberals run the government and they’re using their power to implement their radical agenda. Mr. Obama and his party believe that the election of November 2008 entitled them to make permanent, “transformational” changes to our society. In just 16 months they’ve added more than $2 trillion to the national debt, essentially nationalized the health-care system, the student-loan industry, and have their sights set on draconian cap-and-trade regulations on carbon emissions and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Had President Obama campaigned on this agenda, he wouldn’t have garnered 30% of the popular vote.

Like the millions of citizens who’ve peacefully risen up and attended thousands of rallies in protest, I seek nothing more than the preservation of the social contract that undergirds our society. I do not hate the government, as the left does when it is not running it. I love this country. And because I do, I insist that the temporary inhabitants of high political office comply with the Constitution, honor our God-given unalienable rights, and respect our hard-earned private property. For this I am called seditious, among other things, by some of the very people who’ve condemned this society?

Former President Bill Clinton broadened his warning that Tea Party protesters could fuel violence reminiscent of the Oklahoma City bombing. Video courtesy of Fox News.

I reject the notion that America is in a well-deserved decline, that she and her citizens are unexceptional. I do not believe America is the problem in the world. I believe America is the solution to the world’s problems. I reject a foreign policy that treats our allies like our enemies and our enemies like our allies. I condemn the president traveling the world apologizing for America’s great contributions to mankind. And I condemn his soft-pedaling the dangers we face from terrorism. For this I am inciting violence?

Few presidents have sunk so low as Mr. Clinton did with his accusations about Oklahoma City. Last week—on the very day I was contributing to and raising more than $3 million to fight leukemia and lymphoma on my radio program—Mr. Clinton used the 15th anniversary of that horrific day to regurgitate his claims about talk radio.

At a speech delivered last Friday at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C., the former president said: [T]here were a lot of people who were in the business back then of saying that the biggest threat to our liberty and the cause of our domestic economic problem was the federal government itself. And we have to realize that there were others who fueled this both because they agreed with it and because it was in their advantage to do so. . . . We didn’t have blog sites back then so the instrument of carrying this forward was basically the right-wing radio talk show hosts and they understand clearly that emotion was more powerful than reason most of the time.”

Timothy McVeigh was incensed by the Clinton administration’s 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas. It’s no coincidence that the bombing took place two years to the day of the Waco siege. McVeigh was not inspired by anything I said or believe and to say otherwise is outright slander. In the aftermath of the bombing, I raised millions of dollars for the children of federal employees killed in that cowardly attack through my association with the Marine Corp Law Enforcement Foundation.

Let me just say it. The Obama/Clinton/media left are comfortable with the unrest in our society today. It allows them to blame and demonize their opponents (doctors, insurance companies, Wall Street, talk radio, Fox News) in order to portray their regime as the great healer of all our ills, thus expanding their power and control over our society.

A clear majority of the American people want no part of this. They instinctively know that the Obama way is not how things get done in this country. They are motivated by love. Not hate, not sedition. They love their country and want to save it from those who do not.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

New York Times Now Admits Conservatives Right About ObamaCare – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

…but only after they called us names, called us liars in the face of clear evidence that showed were were/are correct….and of course, after the bill was passed.

UPDATEBROKEN PROMISES: CBO AND CMS CONFIRM HIGHER COSTS AND HIGHER TAXES FOR OBAMACARE!

We said that the O-Care bill would raise premiums, health care costs and insurance premiums. We were not alone. Caterpillar, John Deere, AT&T, and all sorts of small businesses issued new reports (which in some cases are required by law after new tax legislation estimating the new costs of the law.

Its Starting Already – John Deere: We will take $150 million hit from healthcare reform; Caterpillar: We will take $100 million hit just this year. UPDATE AT&T says ObamaCare bill will cost $1 billion per year! – UPDATED!

Davanni’s Pizza: New ObamaCare taxes and mandates will cost us $200,000 a year. May have to close three locations to get around costly regs.

Joe Lieberman said it would raise taxes and some even listed all the new taxes for all of you to see. The CBO said that O-care would increase premium cost by an estimate of $2,100 a year.  The Oliver-Wyman study concluded that the bill would make premiums go up for some by as much as 54%.

If you believed the New York Times narrative we are all liars who were only interested in health providers insane profits. I am still waiting for my check. Of course the NYT wasn’t the first among Obama supports to realize that we were right.

Of course the NYT did not just come out and say we were right, instead they are now reporting all of these problems that we said are going to happen as if they had just discovered them; SHAZAM!

Read this carefully -

New York Times April 18, 2010:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.

The problem stems in part from the state’s high medical costs and in part from its stringent requirements for insurance companies in the individual and small group market. In 1993, motivated by stories of suffering AIDS patients, the state became one of the first to require insurers to extend individual or small group coverage to anyone with pre-existing illnesses.

New York also became one of the few states that require insurers within each region of the state to charge the same rates for the same benefits, regardless of whether people are old or young, male or female, smokers or nonsmokers, high risk or low risk.

Healthy people, in effect, began to subsidize people who needed more health care. The healthier customers soon discovered that the high premiums were not worth it and dropped out of the plans. The pool of insured people shrank to the point where many of them had high health care needs. Without healthier people to spread the risk, their premiums skyrocketed, a phenomenon known in the trade as the “adverse selection death spiral.”

“You have a mandate that’s accessible in theory, but not in practice, because it’s too expensive,” said Mark P. Scherzer, a consumer lawyer and counsel to New Yorkers for Accessible Health Coverage, an advocacy group. “What you get left clinging to the life raft is the population that tends to have pretty high health needs.”

Since 2001, the number of people who bought comprehensive individual policies through HMOs in New York has plummeted to about 31,000 from about 128,000, according to the State Insurance Department.

At the same time, New York has the highest average annual premiums for individual policies: $6,630 for single people and $13,296 for families in mid-2009, more than double the nationwide average, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, an industry group.

Read carefully:

The new federal health care law tries to avoid the death spiral by requiring everyone to have insurance and penalizing those who do not, as well as offering subsidies to low-income customers. But analysts say that provision could prove meaningless if the government does not vigorously enforce the penalties, as insurance companies fear, or if too many people decide it is cheaper to pay the penalty and opt out.

Under the federal law, those who refuse coverage will have to pay an annual penalty of $695 per person, up to $2,085 per family, or 2.5 percent of their household income, whichever is greater. The penalty will be phased in from 2014 to 2016.

Now here are the main problems that we and many others who understand economics have reported for a year:

1. Since the sick and those with pre-existing conditions cannnot be denied coverage, they can drop the coverqage and pay the much smaller fine till thyey need treatment, buy coverage, have the coverage pay the bills and then drop the coverage.

2. While on paper this makes it so that more people with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, in reality they have less access because much fewer people can afford the skyrocketing premiums this law forces on the system. Just as has happened in New York, the amount of people with coverage dropped dramatically.

3. Mandating that people buy a commercial product (health insurance) as a condition of citizenship is unconstitutional and about half the states are challenging the new law in court.

New York Times April 19, 2010:

William Mann of Pittsburgh earns just enough to get by. He is 46, doesn’t own a car, hasn’t taken a vacation in three years and hasn’t had health insurance for most of his adult life.

He is just the kind of person who should benefit from the health care overhaul, and he is, in fact, eligible for heavily subsidized insurance that will cost him an estimated $1,845 a year, while the government contributes about $2,756.

But Mr. Mann says he still can’t afford it. He lives too close to the edge, and won’t be buying insurance, even though he will face a fine under a provision called the individual mandate, which penalizes most Americans who don’t buy coverage starting in 2014. The requirement is one of the most controversial aspects of the overhaul.

“I just can’t put that kind of money out for a ‘maybe’ — maybe I’ll get sick and use it,” said Mr. Mann, who makes just over $25,000 a year as an administrative assistant at a small wine distribution company. “That’s a lot of money.”

“The people who make all these decisions don’t live like the way I do,” Mr. Mann added, echoing other uninsured people in his income group. “They don’t live like the rest of us.”

Legal questions about the individual mandate aside, the choices made by people like Mr. Mann are crucial. One reason the individual mandate was created was to attract as many healthy people as possible to the individual market to offset the demands of the many sick people who will be buying in, and who have medical needs that drive up costs.

 

Amazing isn’t it? Where have the been for the past year. This is classic journalistic malpractice.

On Wednesday HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius testified to congress that the doesn’t know how much a kep provision of the ObamaCare plan will cost. Just 4 weeks ago they were absolutely certain and now they are already expecting massive shortfalls. See the testimony HERE at Breitbart News.

New York Times April 21, 2010:

Senate Bill Sets a Plan to Regulate Premiums

WASHINGTON — Fearing that health insurance premiums may shoot up in the next few years, Senate Democrats laid a foundation on Tuesday for federal regulation of rates, four weeks after President Obama signed a law intended to rein in soaring health costs.

After a hearing on the issue, the chairman of the Senate health committee, Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, said he intended to move this year on legislation that would “provide an important check on unjustified premiums.”

Mr. Harkin praised a bill introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, that would give the secretary of health and human services the power to review premiums and block “any rate increase found to be unreasonable.” Under the bill, the federal government could regulate rates in states where state officials did not have “sufficient authority and capability” to do so.

Now why do we need that after all Obama told us that premiums for a family would end up costing $2,500 less per year:

So insurance costs are going to go up big time, because of government imposed anti-market forces and new taxes across the spectrum of health care. Democrats promised that this wasn’t the case, but they knew that was a lie because now they are moving into slap price controls on health providers.

So what happens when you drive up the cost with new taxes and an inability to expand the risk pool? The cost of medical insurance and care goes up, so now the government will impose price controls. This will drive providers out of business leaving the government to say “see we told you that free markets and capitalism fails, now we will impose the public option”.  

First, we here at IUSB Vision said that the ObamaCare bill was designed to raise costs and blow up the system so that the people would “cry out for a public option“, then Real Clear Politics echoed the same and confirned we were right.  

Then Nancy Pelosi herself said that the bill would make them cry out for a public option. See the video at the bottom of the page HERE.

Today the AP has a story about an analysis from the Department of Health and Human Services Medicare Actuary. AP left out the most damning parts of the report but still reported a key component:

President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law is getting a mixed verdict in the first comprehensive look by neutral experts: More Americans will be covered, but costs are also going up.

Economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department concluded in a report issued Thursday that the health care remake will achieve Obama’s aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million to the coverage rolls.

But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president’s twin goal of controlling runaway costs, raising projected spending by about 1 percent over 10 years. That increase could get bigger, since Medicare cuts in the law may be unrealistic and unsustainable, the report warned.

It’s a worrisome assessment for Democrats.

In particular, concerns about Medicare could become a major political liability in the midterm elections. The report projected that Medicare cuts could drive about 15 percent of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red, “possibly jeopardizing access” to care for seniors.

Hmmm, and when they start going out of business and/or when more and more health providers stop accepting any payment from of government health care and government pools because of the costs, mandates and restrictions, people will cry out… Just like we told you so many months ago. They will blame freedom as the culprit and a leviathan state as the cure.

Now I am waiting for the elite media to tell us how ObamaCare creames public university education because the unfunded mandates to state run Medicaide which are so expensive that education is getting a very painful squeeze. That goes double for California.

UPDATE –  NY Times April 26, 2010,

When major companies declared that a provision of the new health care law would hurt earnings, Democrats were skeptical. But after investigating, House Democrats have concluded that the companies were right to tell investors and the government about the expected adverse effects of the law on their financial results.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Medved on the Top 5 Capitalist Myths

Posted by iusbvision on April 23, 2010

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101 | Leave a Comment »

Palin: Dodd Bill Institutionalizes Corrupt Crony Capitalism

Posted by iusbvision on April 22, 2010

We all want to see some better policing of the financial sector and some enforcement of good faith laws, but this bill invites corruption, kick backs and special favors.
 
Institutionalizing Crony Capitalism
 
By Sarah Palin
 
In the wake of the recent financial meltdown, Americans know that we need reform. Not only have many individuals learned lessons about personal responsibility through this, but we’ve been able to engage in a discussion about government’s appropriate role.

The current debate over financial reform demonstrates what happens when political leaders react to a crisis with a raft of new regulations. First off, the people involved in writing government regulations are often lobbyists from the very industry that the new laws are supposed to regulate, and that’s been the case here. It should surprise no one that financial lobbyists are flocking to DC this week. Of course, the big players who can afford lobbyists work the regulations in their favor, while their smaller competitors are left out in the cold. The result here are regulations that institutionalize the “too big to fail” mentality.

Moreover, the financial reform bill gives regulators the power to pick winners and losers, institutionalizing their ability to decide “which firms to rescue or close, and which creditors to reward and how.” Does anyone doubt that firms with the most lobbyists and the biggest campaign donations will be the ones who get seats in the lifeboat? The president is trying to convince us that he’s taking on the Wall Street “fat cats,” but firms like Goldman Sachs are happy with federal regulation because, as one of their lobbyists recently stated, “We partner with regulators.”

They seem to have a nice relationship with the White House too. Goldman showered nearly a million dollars in campaign contributions on candidate Obama. In fact, J.P. Freire notes that President Obama received about seven times more money from Goldman than President Bush received from Enron. Of course, it’s not just the donations; it’s the revolving door. You’ll find the name Goldman Sachs on many an Obama administration résumé, including Rahm Emanuel’s and Tim Geithner’s chief of staff’s.

We need to be on our guard against such crony capitalism. We fought against distortion of the market in Alaska when we confronted “Big Oil,” or more specifically some of the players in the industry and in political office, who were taking the 49th state for a ride. My administration challenged lax rules that seemed to allow corruption, and we even challenged the largest corporation in the world at the time for not abiding by provisions in contracts it held with the state. When it came time to craft a plan for a natural gas pipeline, we insisted on transparency and a level playing field to insure fair competition. Our reforms helped reduce politicians’ ability to play favorites and helped clean up corruption. We set up stricter oversight offices and ushered through a bi-partisan ethics reform bill. Far from being against necessary reform, I embrace it.

Commonsense conservatives acknowledge the need for financial reform and believe that government can play an appropriate role in leveling the playing field and protecting “the dynamism of American capitalism without neglecting the government’s responsibility to protect the American public.” We’re listening closely to the reform discussion in Washington, and we know that government should not burden the market with unnecessary bureaucracy and distorted incentives, nor make a dangerous “too-big-to-fail” mentality the law of the land.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

New Obama-Dodd Bill Makes for Unlimited Wall Street/Bank Bailouts

Posted by iusbvision on April 22, 2010

UPDATE - Goldman Sachs supports New Democrat “Wall Street” Bill. Of course they do. If you didn’t see this coming you must be a registered Democrat. – LINK. Karl Rove explains some of the reasons Goldman Sachs would benefit from the bill HERE.

UPDATE II – Sen. Jim DeMint confirms IUSB Vision analysis of bill:

We talk about crony capitalism and picking winners and losers, this takes it to such a corrupt and foolish extreme that it blows way beyond a mere fracture of the public trust into full blown criminality. See our previous post HERE.

I try to avoid quoting partisan sources, but in this case not only are the GOP critisisms absolutely right, they are in fact understating the damage this kind of legislation can do.

1. Obama-Dodd Bill Creates $50 Billion Permanent Bailout Fund That Senate Democrats Plan To Keep. (Page 277, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act Of 2010, Introduced 4/15/10; Carrie Budoff Brown, “Dems Stand By $50B Fund,” Politico, 4/19/10)

2. Obama-Dodd Bill Could Lead To More Taxpayer-Funded Bailouts By Expanding Federal Reserve’s Power To Establish “Policies And Procedures Governing Emergency Lending.” (Page 1365, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act Of 2010, Introduced 4/15/10)

3. Obama-Dodd Bill Could Make Taxpayer-Funded Bailouts Even More Expensive By Allowing FDIC To Make “Additional Payments” To Firms That Backed Failed Financial Companies. (Page 245, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act Of 2010, Introduced 4/15/10)

4. Obama-Dodd Bill Uses Taxpayer Dollars To Guarantee Debt Of Banks And Bank Holding Companies Through The Power Of The Federal Reserve And FDIC. (Page 1379, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act Of 2010, Introduced 4/15/10)

5. Obama-Dodd Bill Could Institutionalize Bailouts By Allowing A New Financial Oversight Council To Determine Which Companies Are “Too Big To Fail.” (Page 35, S. 3217, Restoring American Financial Stability Act Of 2010, Introduced 4/15/10)

6. Federal Trade Commission Fears That Obama-Dodd Bill Could Have “Overall Result” Of “Less Protection For Consumers, And Fewer ‘Cops On The Beat.’” (Federal Trade Commission, Letter To Sen. Hutchison, 4/16/10)

Posted in 2012, Big Bizz Loves Big Govt, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Glenn Beck with Dr. Alveda King and Ted Nugent on Peace

Posted by iusbvision on April 22, 2010

Dedication to peace. Great show.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Watch political spin pro Julie Menin change the subject with the skill of a Romulan. UPDATE – McCain responds!

Posted by iusbvision on April 21, 2010

Read carefully -

In this scene Sean has just played a clip from a new DNC attack ad that blamed the mortgage crisis on John McCain. Of course McCain was part of a team of GOP Senators who tried to get mortgage reform done since 2003 and the Democrats filibustered it including Barack Obama.

Democrat talking head Julie Menin (not wishing to defend such a preposterous ad) then blames Republicans for “chipping away” at the Glass-Steagall Act for the crash. This is a lie. The changes that were made to Glass-Steagall were fully bi-partisan (38 Democrat Senators voted for the changes), fully supported by Bill Clinton and the changes were made to make our banking laws more in line with the rest of the world. It was by no means the mass deregulation Democrats are now saying it was.

Bill Clinton rightly said that the reforms helped because they allowed some healthy banks to buy out weaker banks so that the Fed and the government wouldn’t have to (WSJ Oct. 1, 2008 and HERE).

So after being called on falsely blaming Republicans, Julie Menin then criticizes the Republicans for always trying to place blame… EXCUSE ME JULIE – The DNC attack ad tried to put the blame on McCain and JUST SECONDS AGO you just tried to put the blame on Republicans for a good bill that was fully bi-partisan. Menin performed an instant hypocritical 180 degree reversal as smooth as silk.

See how quickly she changed the subject and moved the goalpost? From the DNC ridiculously blaming John McCain, to falsely blaming a good bipartisan law on Republicans, to “Hey lets not put blame”, to “the GOP is the party of NO and has no solutions” when it was the GOP who worked to get mortgage reforms passed year after year with Democrats fighting for the status quo.

UPDATEHere is McCain on the record in 2008 about these same bogus accusations –

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Mortgage Crisis, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Paul Ryan on CNBC – Fannie Mae and Crony Capitalism

Posted by iusbvision on April 21, 2010

Paul Ryan and the financial pro’s at CNBC tell you the exact same story we have been telling you for over a year. Much of this regulation in government is not designed for the safety and benefit of the public. It is designed to create “Crony Capitalism” to use regulation and policing to tip the scales of competition; to pick winners and losers while politicians get rich and you and I lose.

Another term for this type of corrupt behavior is “political market economics”. Another term os “corporatism”. Another term is fascism, but most people have stopped using this term because of its pajorative baggage.

Related:

Real Capitalism vs. Political Market Capitalism

Corporatism in action: Feinstein routes government money to firm doing business with husband – UPDATED!

Fallacy upon fallacy, ignorance upon ignorance…

Crony Capitalism – Obama’s Legacy

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis | 2 Comments »

Obama Lied about Reason to Renege on Eastern European Missile Shield

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

[Editor's Note - The video link that we posted is no longer working, so I had to find something to put here about Obama & Eastern Europe so we would have something here, and look at what we just discovered, see the special Editor's Note below.]

Polish news.com:

By Krystyna Teller

A controversial move by President Barack Obama has Eastern European states, notably Poland, questioning America’s commitment to stand by them. In a poorly timed statement, Obama announces an end to the missile defense shield plan, initiated by the Bush Administration, on the 70th Anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. For the global Polish population, the timing of this announcement is particularly insensitive, with many of them seeing this as a “stab in the back”.

Adam Andrzejewski, Republican candidate for Governor whose grandparents emigrated from Poland, weighs in on the decision; “Not only are we leaving an ally in the lurch, we left them hanging on the 70th Anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. That’s like releasing an Al Qaeda terrorist on 9-11, and it’s a profound insult to all Poles.”

Illinois, home to the second-largest Polish population outside Warsaw, also produced politicians like Barack Obama and many of his subordinates.

 

Georgia Joins Growing List of Snubbed U.S. Allies.  Washington Post:

Forty-seven world leaders are Barack Obama’s guests in Washington Tuesday at the nuclear security summit. Obama is holding bilateral meetings with just 12 of them. That’s led to some awkward exclusions — and some unfortunate appearances, as well.

One of those left out was Mikheil Saakashvili, president of Georgia, who got a phone call from Obama last week instead of a meeting in Washington. His exclusion must have prompted broad smiles in Moscow, where Saakashvili is considered public enemy no. 1 — a leader whom Russia tried to topple by force in the summer of 2008. After all, Obama met with Viktor Yanukovych, the president of Ukraine and a friend of the Kremlin. And he is also meeting with the leaders of two of Georgia’s neighbors — Armenia and Turkey, both of which enjoy excellent relations with Russia.

So is Saakashvili — a democratically elected leader whose ambition is to lead his country into NATO — being snubbed in order to please Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev? The White House would insist no. The summit is about nuclear security; Yanukovych got an appointment because Ukraine agreed to give up 60 tons of highly enriched uranium that it now uses in research reactors. Turkey and Armenia are seeing Obama because the administration hopes to press them to move forward with an agreement on opening borders — a deal that would benefit everyone in the Caucasus.

Still, Saakashvili’s exclusion from the bilateral schedule is striking considering his strong support for U.S. interests, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Georgia sent as many as 2,000 troops from its tiny army to Iraq. It will soon have nearly 1,000 in Afghanistan; 750 are being sent to fight under U.S. command. U.S. envoy Richard Holbrooke noted last month that Georgia’s per capita troop contribution would be the highest of any country in the world.

 

Lech Wałęsa talks about missile shieldWarsaw Business Journal:

Former Polish President and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Lech Wałesa, has spoken out about media reports that the US has scrapped plans to install a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic.

“Americans have always cared only about their interests, and all other [countries] have been used for their purposes. This is another example,” Mr Wałęsa told TVN24. “[Poles] need to review our view of America, we must first of all take care of our business,” he added.

“I could tell from what I saw, what kind of policies President Obama cultivates,” the former president added. “I simply don’t like this policy, not because this shield was required [in Poland], but [because of] the way we were treated,” he concluded.

 

Poles, Czechs: U.S. missile defense shift a betrayal

by Vanessa Gera ASSOCIATED PRESS:

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama’s decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

“Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back,” the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama’s new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous “gray zone” between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

Recent events have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.

The Bush administration’s missile defense plan would have been “a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world,” Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in Fakt that also was carried on his presidential Web site.

Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1991 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Obama’s decision.

Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

“This NATO region cannot be an exception and its defense is not less important compared with others,” she said.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague. Kaczynski expressed hopes that the U.S. will now offer Poland other forms of “strategic partnership.”

Later Friday, U.S. ambassador Victor Ashe stressed that “the United States counts Poland among its closest allies and friends.”

“Consultations on the way forward for missile defense will continue between our two governments,” Ashe said in a statement. “The role Poland would play in the new, phased, adapted approach is as crucial now as in the past.”

In Prague, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout said he made two concrete proposals to U.S. officials on Thursday in hopes of keeping the U.S.-Czech alliance strong: for the U.S. to establish a branch of West Point for NATO members in Central Europe and to “send a Czech scientist on the U.S. space shuttle to the international space station.”

An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: “an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid.”

The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.

The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat.

“No Radar. Russia won,” the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.

[Now read this next paragragh very carefully - IUSB Vision Editor]

Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.

 

Now the facts have gotten out that the Obama Administration KNEW that wasn’t true….

Fox News:

“With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015,” says a new 12 page unclassified report prepared by the Department of Defense on the Iran Military Threat.

The report says Iran’s military strategy is designed to defend against external or “hard” threats from the United States and Israel. “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy,” according to the report.

Now what was that about Iran not wanting long range missiles????

World Tribune:

LONDON — Iran is said to have been constructing a new rocket launch facility that could later accommodate an intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a nuclear warhead.

Iran's new launch site is 4 km northeast of the existing facility at Semnan. IHS Jane's imagery by DigitalGlobe

IHS Jane’s reported that Iran was building a launch site with help from North Korea. Jane’s said the launcher was detected by commercial remote-sensing satellites in the Semnan province east of Teheran.

“It [rocket launch facility] contains a gantry tower, which is 13 meters wide, approximately 18-20 meters tall and has a cliff-side flame bucket nearly as high as the tower itself,” Jane’s said on March 5. “It appears midway towards completion.”

This is about as busted as busted gets. Obama lied about his reasoning to strip Eastern Europe of their promised missile shield. It seems that the analysts have been proved correct, that we threw our allies under the bus to show good will to Putin and Russia. 

Maybe the administration can claim ignorance from just a few months ago. Of course that is unlikely in the extreme, but assuming that is true, it cannot be ignored that Iran has been test launching longer and longer range missiles for how long now?  

The BBC Reports Iranian long range missile tests in Sept 2009, when Obama was saying that Iran “was less focused” on long range missile plans.

BBC – 28 September 2009:

Iran has successfully test-fired some of the longest range missiles in its arsenal, state media say.

The Revolutionary Guards tested the Shahab-3 and Sajjil rockets, which are believed to have ranges of up to 2,000km (1,240 miles), reports said.

The missiles’ range could potentially permit them to reach Israel and US bases in the Gulf, analysts say.

The tests come amid heightened tension with the big international powers over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

 

The BBC link even has a video of the launch. – Editor

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Russia | 2 Comments »

Caught: White House Political Collusion in SEC Investigation. White House Wants Unlimited Bailout and Siezure Power. Can anyone be trusted with that much power? UPDATE – All the president’s Goldman Sachs men

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

[Editor's Note - This is a bit of a complex story. Please read the following story carefully. After you are done go HERE for a story update.]

The SEC (Securities Exchange Commission) is supposed to be an independent agency. This may be the scandal that brings an administration down. When the GOP takes Congress back they will have subpeona power and the investigations are going to fly.

Barack Obama took nearly a million dollars from Goldman Sachs and four million from Wall Street.

Barack Obama worked to prevent mortgage reform and to prevent reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Barack Obama took the second highest amount of money from the mortgage giants in the Senate.

Now Barack Obama is making political hay out of an SEC investigation of Goldman Sachs (of which, believe it or not they might actually be innocent in this one case).

There is evidence that the White House knew about the coming SEC investigation in advance. The timing for Obama’s new financial regulation bill seemed just a little too sweet. The White House (who insists that it didn’t know about this in advance) bought the advertising for the Google search term “Goldman Sachs SEC”. The SEC in a highly unusual party line move decided to sue Goldman Sachs just now at the beginning of Obama’s push for this legislation.

Financial News:

The Securities and Exchange Commission decided to sue Goldman Sachs Group over the objections of two Republican commissioners, suggesting an unusual split at the agency that could politicise one of its most prominent cases in years.

The legislation gives the White House near unlimited bailout power (unlimited Wall Street bailouts) and the ability to sieze any private business without any check and balance. That is the kind of power you see in Stalinistic regimes, not the United States. The legislation also has no provisions to reform the two biggest players in the mortgage scandal, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who funded almost $200 million to partisan activities, and whose multimillion dollar bonuses were protected by Democrat legislation.

[Editor's Note - Ok who wants to say that this is not the biggest power grab and opportunity for corruption of our lifetimes? Does anyone know a mainstream Democrat or Republican voter who would trust any man with this kind of power? But do not be fooled, this "lawsuit" is for public release only (PR purposes). It will either go away or Goldman Sachs will get a slap on the wrist and gladly pay, as Goldman has made a fortune since the economic collapse and the Obama Administration continues to be a revolving door for Goldman employees, lobbyists and influence peddling.]

Rush Limbaugh played some of the evidence the media has discovered so far. In spite of what you think of Limbaugh he is very factual here in what he presents and it is worth watching (Hat Tip Rightscoop for the video):

Charlie Rose to Rahm Emanuel: How is it that the New York Times knew about the SEC Investigation Before Goldman Sachs did….

By the way I did a Google on “Goldman Sachs SEC” and sure enough….

There it is on the very top, “Help Change Wall Street” and it goes to this:

.. amazing…

Real Clear Politics: Limbaugh: White House Had Advanced Knowledge Of SEC Suit Against Goldman Sachs

In the mean time even MSNBC criticized Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid for dodging questions on Goldman Sachs/Wall Street fund raisers hosted by the president of Goldman Sachs. Video:

Charles Krauthammer discussing the Obama Administration’s “Financial Reform Bill.” He said it would provide “no check, no balance” for Executive power: 

Brad Sherman Congressman (D-Calif.), member of House Financial Services Committee (Via Politico):

But there are serious problems with the Dodd bill. The Dodd bill has unlimited executive bailout authority. That’s something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn’t dare ask for. The bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.

House Republicans put out this statement about this power grab:

Washington, Apr 19 -

With a new national survey showing that nearly eight in 10 Americans say they don’t trust the federal government, Washington Democrats are getting ready to force through Congress a permanent bailout bill that establishes an unelected council of federal regulators with the power to seize any U.S. business and do with it as they see fit.

The permanent bailout bill authored by Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) creates a Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) made up of federal regulators – including representatives from the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve, the CFTC, FDIC, and the SEC.  In other words: the government bureaucracies asleep at the switch the last time around.

This clique of regulators could – by a 2/3 vote – deem any firm (financial or non-financial) “systemically significant,” which is merely jargon for other jargon: “too big to fail.”  At that point, according to economist Larry Lindsey, the Council would “authorize the FDIC and Treasury Secretary to treat each of the firm’s shareholders and creditors as they choose, without regard to bankruptcy law.”  Any institution could be ordered to “break itself up, stop selling certain products, or even go out of business,” according to the Heritage Foundation.

INSTITUTIONALIZING “TOO BIG TO FAIL,” HURTING SMALL BANKS.  Senior Atlantic editor Clive Crook sees the council of regulators as a major factor in how Washington Democrats’ permanent bailout bill institutionalizes “too big to fail”:

Sen. Dodd’s bill “adds new bodies … a Financial Stability Oversight Council to coordinate the policing of systemic risks.  Overall, after much shuffling of duties among this expanded list of regulators, the plan makes the system more complicated, not less. … Under the Dodd plan, although the senator denies it, many big financial firms would indeed be declared too big to fail. The market would put banks that meet the assets threshold for Fed supervision into this category.  Other financial firms would be viewed the same way if the Financial Stability Oversight Council designates them as ‘systemically significant.’” (National Journal, 3/20/10)

Once these firms are deemed ‘systemically significant,’ they will be seen as safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government-backed.  The result will be a permanent market distortion, favoring large companies over small ones.  This will hurt small businesses and smaller banks at the worst possible time for our economy.

ENDLESS BAILOUTS FOR WALL STREET. In a speech last month, SEC Commissioner Troy Paredes outlined how Washington Democrats’ financial bailout bill would grant this council of regulators “unbounded power” to intervene in U.S. businesses:

“…[E]ach of the proposals I took time to reference would, in my view, result in just this sort of open-endedness.  For example, by allowing the new regulator to consider so many factors in deciding whether a firm is systemically significant, the bills in Congress go far to empower the regulator.  The council of regulators could readily find some basis, among the host of factors it is permitted to consider, to justify designating a financial firm for heighted prudential oversight.

“Equally uncertain are the extent and character of the more restrictive standards that may be imposed to bind the size or activities of a systemically-significant firm; there are no clear limits on the degree of government intervention that could be expected. … I do not welcome the prospect of such unbounded power, even if exercised with the best of intentions.  It would inject too much uncertainty into the system and aggregate government authority to a worrisome degree.”PROTECTING BANKERS, NOT TAXPAYERS.  Carnegie Mellon economist Allan Meltzer sees the new bureaucracy as “just another way to pick the public’s purse” given how regulators are historically inclined to protect bankers, not taxpayers:

“So setting up an agency to prevent systemic risk, as Mr. Dodd has just proposed, is just another way to pick the public’s purse.  Systemic risk will forever remain in the eye of the beholder.  Instead of shifting losses onto those that caused them, systemic risk regulation will continue to transfer cost to the taxpayers.  The regulators protect the bankers.  They continue to lose sight of their responsibility to protect the public.(The Wall Street Journal, 3/19/10)

POLITICS.  Manhattan Institute fellow Nicole Gelinas examines how the council of regulators would inevitably “fall victim to politics”:

“In a bubble, more people are over-exuberant than not. The new Financial Stability Oversight Council would not escape this fact.  It would also fall victim to politics. Imagine that the Fed and other agencies had restricted all but the plainest-vanilla mortgages back in 2000…. The regulators would have tempered the bubble–but the politicians wouldn’t have seen it that way. Instead, they’d have accused bureaucrats of roping off citizens from the American dream. … We need politicians and regulators to implement simple rules that don’t require faith in omniscient, micro-managerial government planning.” (Forbes.com, 3/29/10)

In his Cooper Union speech in March 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama said, “Reshuffling bureaucracies should not be an end in itself.”  Instead of protecting taxpayers by crafting reforms that are regulator-proof, Washington Democrats have devised a system that is regulator-reliant.  Republicans believe we should stop endless bailouts for Wall Street and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government mortgage companies that sparked the meltdown by giving high-risk loans to people who couldn’t afford it. For more information on the House Republican plan, click here.

UPDATEMalkin: All the president’s Goldman Sachs men – LINK

Posted in 2012, Big Bizz Loves Big Govt, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Fannie and Freddie Amnesia: Taxpayers are on the hook for about $400 billion, partly because Sen. Obama helped to block reform.

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

We have said this since the scandal broke. In fact if you go back to the earliest posts of our mortgage crisis coverage you wills ee that we were saying this before some of the big newspapers. Today the Wall Street Journal gives us a much-needed reminder of recent history.

By the way Democrats in Congress made sure that Fannie Mae got millions in bonuses with our money.

Transparency, Congress & Corruption: AIG and Fannie Mae Bonuses

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paying $210 million in bonuses with your money and no outrage why…..

Wall Street Journal:

Now that nearly all the TARP funds used to bail out Wall Street banks have been repaid, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stand out as the source of the greatest taxpayer losses.

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that, in the wake of the housing bubble and the unprecedented deflation in housing values that resulted, the government’s cost to bail out Fannie and Freddie will eventually reach $381 billion. That estimate may be too optimistic.

Last Christmas Eve, Treasury removed the $400 billion cap on what the government might be required to invest in these two GSEs in the future, and this may tell the real story about the cost to taxpayers. In typical Washington fashion, everyone has amnesia about how this disaster occurred.

The story is all too familiar. Politicians in positions of authority today had an opportunity to prevent this fiasco but did nothing. Now—in the name of the taxpayers—they want more power, but they have never been called to account for their earlier failings.

One chapter in this story took place in July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. [Including Obama who took the second highest amount of cash from these people in the Senate - IUSB Vision Editor] The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.

These authorities were necessary to control the GSEs’ risk-taking, but opposition by Fannie and Freddie—then the most politically powerful firms in the country—had consistently prevented reform.

The date of the Senate Banking Committee’s action is important. It was in 2005 that the GSEs—which had been acquiring increasing numbers of subprime and Alt-A loans for many years in order to meet their HUD-imposed affordable housing requirements—accelerated the purchases that led to their 2008 insolvency. If legislation along the lines of the Senate committee’s bill had been enacted in that year, many if not all the losses that Fannie and Freddie have suffered, and will suffer in the future, might have been avoided.

Why was there no action in the full Senate? As most Americans know today, it takes 60 votes to cut off debate in the Senate, and the Republicans had only 55. To close debate and proceed to the enactment of the committee-passed bill, the Republicans needed five Democrats to vote with them. But in a 45 member Democratic caucus that included Barack Obama and the current Senate Banking Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), these votes could not be found.

Recently, President Obama has taken to accusing others of representing “special interests.” In an April radio address he stated that his financial regulatory proposals were struggling in the Senate because “the financial industry and its powerful lobby have opposed modest safeguards against the kinds of reckless risks and bad practices that led to this very crisis.”

He should know. As a senator, he was the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, behind only Sens. Chris Dodd and John Kerry.

With hypocrisy like this at the top, is it any wonder that nearly 80% of Americans, according to new Pew polling, don’t trust the federal government or its ability to solve the country’s problems?

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin Tells Joke on What is the World’s “Oldest Profession”

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

Via Freeedom’s Lighthouse:
Here is video of Gov. Sarah Palin speaking at a Women of Joy Conference in Louisville, Kentucky, where she opened her remarks with a joke about what is the world’s “oldest profession.”

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Dick Morris: Janet Reno Threatened Clinton with Spilling the Goods on Waco

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

This is no surprise at all.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were both completely avoidable. In the Davidian Church trial the survivors were acquitted of charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder by the jury. At Waco military equipment was used against civilians. The Posse Comitatus Act forbids the military to be involved in civilian law enforcement. Federal agents violated federal law in both incidents and in the case of Ruby Ridge the government was caught illegally manipulating evidence. When it was over, it was the federal government paying the Randy Weaver family for the unlawful deaths of his son and his wife.

In both trials the governments case fell apart. To say this was a complete mess is an understatement. No matter how much one may dislike or like the people involved, government should rightly be expected to show restraint and obey the law.

Dick Morris: “It’s never been said before” …Janet Reno to Clinton: “If you don’t appoint me, I’ll tell the truth about Waco”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Violence | 1 Comment »

U.N.’s $732 Million Haiti Peacekeeping Budget Goes Mostly to Its Own Personnel

Posted by iusbvision on April 20, 2010

Ahh yes the lovely UN in action…

Fox News:

The United Nations has quietly upped this year’s peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The United Nations has quietly upped this year’s peacekeeping budget for earthquake-shattered Haiti to $732.4 million, with two-thirds of that amount going for the salary, perks and upkeep of its own personnel, not residents of the devastated island.

The world organization plans to spend the money on an expanded force of some 12,675 soldiers and police, plus some 479 international staffers, 669 international contract personnel, and 1,300 local workers, just for the 12 months ending June 30, 2010.

Some $495.8 million goes for salaries, benefits, hazard pay, mandatory R&R allowances and upkeep for the peacekeepers and their international staff support. Only about $33.9 million, or 4.6 percent, of that salary total is going to what the U.N. calls “national staff” attached to the peacekeeping effort.

Click here to see the supplementary budget document.

Presumably, the budget also includes at least part of some $10 million that the U.N. has spent on renting two passenger vessels, the Sea Voyager (known to some U.N. staffers as the “Love Boat“) and the Ola Esmeralda, for a minimum of 90 days each, as highly subsidized housing for some of its peacekeepers and humanitarian staff. The tab for the two vessels, which offer catered food, linen service and comfortable staterooms and lounges, is about $112,500 per day.

Under a cost-sharing formula, the U.S. pays a 27 percent share of the entire $732.4 million peacekeeping tab for Haiti during this 12 month period, or about $197.7 million.

The ultimate size of the peacekeeping bill for Haiti this year has been a source of much concern among the three dozen or so of the U.N.’s 192 members who pick up roughly 96 percent of the U.N.’s overall peacekeeping bill.

That concern rose sharply about a month ago, when U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s office issued an updated peacekeeping estimate that used a $700 million figure strictly as a placeholder for the final Haiti post-quake number.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers