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 July 2nd, 2008


Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2008

UPDATE II: Pittsburgh Trib Review – “With McCain Women Make More” The Trib-Review points out that inspite of a new Obama ad saying that McCain opposes equal pay for women it is Obama is the one who doesn’t practice what he preaches:

Rogers points to Senate Records showing that women working in Sen. Obama’s senate office were paid an average of $9,000 less than men.

It appears that in the McCain senate office, the women on average are paid more than the men.

After you read this entire post, see the related post HERE


We all heard the speeches by Senator Obama in New Albany, Indiana and Albuquerque, New Mexico,  where Obama lectured us, and the McCain campaign on equal pay for women. Well CNS News decided to take a look at Obama’s campaign finance reports and come to find out that Obama pays women on his campaign less then what the men get paid. It gets better. CNS News checked McCain’s records and found out that McCain pays the women more money than he does the men.

But first, here is the New Albany lecture:

Here are the details from CNS News:

Obama’s for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males
By Fred Lucas Staff Writer
June 30, 2008

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

“Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer,” Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state. “It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family’s income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You’d think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay.”

On average, women working in Obama’s Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That’s according to datacalculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama’s Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one — Obama’s administrative manager — was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama’s staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama’s staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama’s staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729.The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain’s staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain’s office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The Obama campaign did not respond to written questions submitted on the matter Thursday by Cybercast News Service.

On this issue Obama talks the talk, but McCain walks the walk…and where is McCain’s campaign to inform people about this? Out to lunch as usual.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Obama Flips on Welfare Reform and on Faith Based Charities

Posted by iusbvision on July 2, 2008


The saga of reversals continues almost daily as of late… 

First it was we will withdrawal form Iraq immediately, then it was withdrawal conditional on the situation on the ground, recently it was the slow steady withdrawal ….

Iran isn’t a serious threat than it is.

Renegotiate NAFTA than lets not – then deny that I said lets not – then admit it after you got caught.

Negotiate without prior condition with Iran, than reversal, reversal again and reversal again.

The DC gun ban is constitutional, then it isn’t constitutional and went too far.

He says he doesn’t take money from big corporations and special interest – then he does in the millions.

He says he isn’t taking money from energy companies – too bad the FEC Reports prove otherwise.

He promises to abide by federal campaign spending limits – then reverses

Well now is the latest flip – this time on welfare reform via ABC News:

Obama Shifts on Welfare Reform

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Gregory Wallace Report: Barack Obama aligned himself with welfare reform on Monday, launching a television ad which touts the way the overhaul “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Obama leaves out, however, that he was against the 1996 federal legislation which precipitated the caseload reduction.

“I am not a defender of the status quo with respect to welfare,” Obama said on the floor of the Illinois state Senate on May 31, 1997. “Having said that, I probably would not have supported the federal legislation, because I think it had some problems.”

Obama’s transformation from critic to champion of welfare reform is the latest in a series of moves to the center. Since capturing the Democratic nomination, the Obama campaign has altered its stances on Social Security taxes, meeting with rogue leaders without preconditions, and the constitutionality of Washington, D.C.’s, sweeping gun ban.


Here is the video:


So now Obama takes credit for what he opposed; the Republican driven welfare reform of 1996 that President Clinton signed into law after opposing it. It seems there is truth to the old saying that “success has many fathers.”


And now for Obama’s reversal on faith based charities and missions.


I had missed this flip flop so I would like to thank our friends at for giving me a heads up on this one. I find this flip flop to be especially disturbing for reasons that I will elaborate on shortly.

After Obama was elected to the US Senate Obama made the following speech at a church on the subject of faith’s role in the public sector (follow the link below for the video):

A gangbanger has a hole in that mans heart, a hole that government alone cannot fix.

The work of Marion Wright Edelman is exactly how we should prioritize our resources. My Bible tells me that if we train a child as to how he should go he will not stray from it.

Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abe Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King…

The majority of great reformers in American History were not only motivated by faith but they repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their quote “personal morality” in to public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of our morality; much of it is grounded in the Judaea-Christian tradition.

Not every mention of God in the public is a breach of the wall of separation…[ for example] one can envision certain faith based programs targeting ex-offenders or drug abusers that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.


The position that Obama articulates here on faith based missions is the same position that the vast majority of Americans have. Faith based charities are more efficient and effective than other charities and government programs and those facts are not in dispute.


Today Obama delivered this speech on the subject that contains a subtle, legalistic, yet stunning and highly disturbing reversal:

Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.


Here is the rub…Obama says, “or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion.”

Constitutional Law and Supreme Court decisions make it crystal clear that religious groups CAN discriminate on who they hire. Why?? It’s called freedom of expressive association. It is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you are a Christian group for example, you do not have to hire radical Muslims or atheists or anyone who is hostile to your mission. Religious groups will not back down on this, they will sue. Obama knows it, after all Obama used to TEACH constitutional law, and after seeing this quote right from his mouth, religious groups who do charity now know that this means that he is out to destroy them. 

The Supreme Court decision in BSA v. Dale gives a great summary of the right of freedom of expressive association-


Our friend Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief of had this to say on the subject:

I agree with that Chuck; religious organizations are free, and should be free, to hire who they want. If they don’t want to hire people who aren’t of their religion, they’ve got every right to do so. After all, it’s a religious organization. What’s next? The Catholic Church will be sued for refusing to elect a Hindu as the new Pope?


And rest assured, sounds absurd, but leftist groups would certainly make such a case, and as I will outline below, already have. 


Our left of center friend Claudia at gave us the expected leftist talking point on the issue… and she was very aware of the freedom of expressive association issue when she made her comment (I am not picking on Claudia; her comments typify and serve as a quintessential example of what the left feels about this issue.):

Chuck and Michael, the non-discriminatory hiring practice rule is perfectly reasonable in the context of what he’s proposing. Religious organizations would be forced to be non-discriminatory in hiring ONLY in those activities that are receiving public funds. That is, if the Catholic Church wants to exclude women from the priesthood, that’s there business. Now, if they want to exclude them from a charity group that receives federal funding, that’s another matter. The government shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing activities with discriminatory policies. If the religious group simply can’t stand the idea of hiring or giving charity to groups or individuals on the basis of religious prejudice, fine (well, not fine, but certainly legal), they simply can go about their charity business without taxpayer money.


The giving of tax funded charity should be nondiscriminatory, that’s a given and isn’t a problem. Christian groups give aid all sorts of people in disasters all over the world and even have done so for disasters in Muslim countries. The rub again is in the hiring.

The far left, as I will demonstrate further below, does not believe in freedom of expressive association. How many other freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights should be surrendered by anyone participating in the public sector? So bye-bye Salvation Army and prison ministries that have the BEST offender non-recidivism rate of any prison program. No more faith based drug-rehab programs whose success rate is not in dispute.

The left claims to believe in separation of church and state, but doesn’t that separation go both ways? Obviously not if the government can tell church groups who they can hire.

How can the left make the case that a government who can tell charities and church groups who they can HIRE is in any way a limited one? (I have never heard a leftist extol the virtue of limited government, which is a primary staple of Americanism)

Allow me to explain my zeal on this particular issue. It is no secret that I have become a known activist in the matter of campus free speech. Most universities take taxpayer money to some degree. Leftist students and faculty/administration have repeatedly tried to take control of conservative student groups and religious students groups by force of numbers, and attempted to elect themselves to the leadership of those student groups, solely for the purpose of keeping them from expressing their message or having any campus activities.

When the victimized student groups resists, the student government and or university administration would cry “discrimination” and yank their funding and ban them from campus. This is a pattern of behavior that I have seen over and over in the research for my upcoming book. I have cataloged dozens of such cases. This has forced such groups to sue, and they win in court over and over because the First Amendment is clear. Here is one such case here:

The truth demonstrated by recent history again and again is that to force a group to take in members who are hostile to their mission is religious bigotry and/or an attempt to silence those with just such a mission. It is censorship and a violation of freedom of association.

Are not people of faith taxpayers as well? The position of the far left seems quite clear. People of faith should pay taxes up the wazoo, but groups of faith based citizens who pay taxes are not entitled to squat back unless they give up First Amendment freedoms and submit themselves to attack from the inside…. all in the name of “anti-discrimination”. So apparently the faithful should pay taxes, sit down and shut-up. The left claims the virtue of non-discrimination however there is not a clearer example of bigotry and discrimination than the examples outlined here.

Is it that the left cannot understand the difference between rational discrimination and irrational discrimination? Should day care centers be forced to hire former child sex offenders in the name of non-discrimination? Should women’s shelters be forced to hire radicalized Muslims who believe that “honor killings” are justified when a wife disobeys her husband or is seen going anywhere with a male non relative? Or is the discrimination card used as a tool to silence, harass, or destroy others whenever situational ethics makes it convenient and is the discrimination or bigotry card a tool used to let bystanders know that it is dangerous to side with the enemies of the far left?

Obama knows full well what the First Amendment means on this issue and that Supreme Court president backs it up clearly, Obama has now sided against the First amendment, but only when it comes to faith based groups. The Bill of Rights does not selectively end when any person or group enters the public sector.


Chuck Norton


Our friends at Hotair were on the ball today and gave us a heads up on yet another of a long string of reversals after reversals from the Obama camp. If the McCain camp ever wakes up and starts paying attention they might realize that they now have enough ammo to destroy Obama’s credibility even worse than how Kerry sabatoged his own 2004 campaign with his flip flops.

“You can’t open up negotiations unilaterally,” senior Barack Obama adviser Linda Douglas told Joe Scarborough this morning about NAFTA.  Really?  You could have fooled Barack Obama himself.  She claims that Obama made it clear that we cannot act to end a trade agreement without working with our partners … but Obama in fact made the opposite point during a February presidential debate.

Here is the video from the Obama Campaign on NAFTA this morning:

Senior Obama advisor Linda Douglass rewrites history saying:

You can’t open up negotiations unilaterally. What he has said, he certainly wants to speak when he’s president of the United States, to Canada and Mexico to see about strengthening NAFTA. There are concerns about NAFTA. But he has made it very clear, you cannot as the United States go in and unilaterally open up trade agreement like that. It’s very important to Senator Obama to see that all of our trade agreements are, both, he supports free trade. He supports fair trade. And he supports trade that has strong enforcement mechanisms. Trade that has labor protections, environmental protections. Those are the kinds of things that he’s going to be pushing for when he is president.

But that is quite the opposite from what Obama said to Tim Russert on Feburary 26th:

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 2 Comments »