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 4th, 2008

1, 215 Real Americans

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008

General Petraeus leads the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the U.S. military. The ceremony took place in the rotunda of the Al Faw Palace in Baghdad, Iraq on July 4, 2008. 1, 215 real Americans. Being an American is not a birthright, it is a state of mind. A set of ideas. The men and women in this video get it. Do you?

Posted in Other Links | 1 Comment »

Hate America Left Reveals Itself in a Series of “Don’t Celebrate the Fourth” Columns

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008


Don’t celebrate the 4th hate screeds are popping up all over the in the last couple of days.


Take this screed from The Progressive – a far left magazine: 

Why I’m Not Patriotic
By Matthew Rothschild, July 2, 2008

It’s July 4th again, a day of near-compulsory flag-waving and nation-worshipping. Count me out.
Spare me the puerile parades.
Don’t play that martial music, white boy.
And don’t befoul nature’s sky with your F-16s.
You see, I don’t believe in patriotism.
It’s not that I’m anti-American, but I am anti-patriotic.

Love of country isn’t natural. It’s not something you’re born with. It’s an inculcated kind of love, something that is foisted upon you in the home, in the school, on TV, at church, during the football game.  Yet most people accept it without inspection. 

For when you stop to think about it, patriotism (especially in its malignant morph, nationalism) has done more to stack the corpses millions high in the last 300 years than any other factor, including the prodigious slayer, religion.
The victims of colonialism, from the Congo to the Philippines, fell at nationalism’s bayonet point.
World War I filled the graves with the most foolish nationalism. And Hitler and Mussolini and Imperial Japan brought nationalism to new nadirs. The flags next to the tombstones are but signed confessions-notes left by the killer after the fact.The millions of victims of Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have on their death certificates a dual diagnosis: yes communism, but also that other ism, nationalism.

The whole world almost got destroyed because of nationalism during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


So those who are patriotic and display nationalism insofar as having pride in America’s traditions of freedom with responsibility are equated by the far left with the radical oppressive “nationalism” and communism and are given a moral equivalency to those who love America and celebrate the 4th of July. Of course bogus moral equivalencies are a staple of leftist propaganda and internal psychosis. 


Take a look at that last line about the Cuban missile crisis. To the far left, it is not that an evil Soviet empire, that had sworn to take over the world by force if needed, that placed put nuclear missiles just 90 miles off our shore that threatened the lives of Americans and our national security… OH NO… the problem is American nationalism… it’s OUR fault. Now you know why I refer to this type of thinking as the psychosis that it is.


The Progressive continues: 

When Americans retort that this is still the greatest country in the world, I have to ask why.

Are we the greatest country because we have 10,000 nuclear weapons?

No, that just makes us enormously powerful, with the capacity to destroy the Earth itself.

Are we the greatest country because we have soldiers stationed in more than 120 countries?

No, that just makes us an empire, like the empires of old, only more so.

How about this – we are the greatest country in the world because we unleashed the creative genius of man to a level greater than that of any other in the greatest experiment in freedom that the world has ever known. The United States gives more to global charities than the rest of the world combined. We invent the cures, we invent most of the great technology and we grow the most food to help feed the world. There are graveyards all over the world filled with the graves of our dead who fought for the freedom of others.


Indeed we have troops around the world, but not as conquerors, but as defenders of the peace, stability and freedom. We have saved Europe from itself in two world wars and the Cold War. We helped Japan to remake itself into the wonderful place it has become and we continue to defend it from nearby enemies. Those troops stationed overseas that The Progressive hates so much have saved the people of South Korea from the grim fate of rule by Kim Jong Il.


Leftist Robert Sheer shares his don’t celebrate the 4th screed with us too:

As we head into the Fourth of July weekend of patriotic bluster and beer swilling – but before we are too besotted by ourselves – might we also for once consider our imperfections? …

Any doubts as to this later governing impulse of our imperial ambitions were shattered with the recent news that U.S. advisers to our puppet government in the Green Zone of occupied Iraq have worked out agreements for American oil companies to gain control of Iraqi oil fields. But, then again, what did we expect when we elected a Texas oil hustler, and a failed one at that, to be our president?

Only in an America dumbed down by constant propaganda about our innate moral superiority will anyone any longer believe that we didn’t invade Iraq for the oil, even though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice came to the Bush administration from the board of directors at Chevron, where they named an oil tanker after her. Like Vice President Dick Cheney with those Halliburton contracts, Rice has stayed true to her corporate sponsors.

That’s what the U.S. invasion of Iraq accomplished – for the first time in more than three decades after Iraq joined a worldwide trend of formerly colonized nations gaining control of their own resources, Big Oil is getting it’s black gold back. It was always about the oil – that’s why “we” invaded Iraq – only “we” aren’t getting any, at least not at a reasonable price. The oil companies are.


Well you heard it. You’re a bunch of unsophisticated beer swillin’ hicks who are too stupid to have adopted his leftist “enlightenment”. I believe, as most Americans do, in the moral superiority of liberty; an ideal that the left has always rejected. Their ideal has always been central control, with themselves in control.


The far left, such as many college professors, are creatures of emotionalism, envy and ideology that has rendered them into some of the poorest critical thinkers in the country.


Hey Mr. Sheer, I have news for you, if all we wanted in Iraq was their oil Saddam Hussein would have been MORE than willing to sell us all they could produce at a discount to get around the sanctions imposed from violating the terms of the cease fire agreement.  That agreement ended the first Iraq war that started when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Speaking of Kuwait, pseudo-intellectual leftists like Sheer and many leftist academics, media pundits, academics and some politicians said we liberated/invaded Kuwait to take their oil. Now that history has proved them wrong many of them take credit for supporting it.


The first round of Iraq oil contracts did not go to even one U.S. Company. The Kurdish North of Iraq has signed a contract with one American company just recently and our companies are currently bidding on a new round of oil contracts in competition with the rest of the world. So much for the “we invaded to make Bush’s oil buddies rich” conspiracy theory.


Here is more of the same from a leftist Philadelphia Enquirer columnist.

A not-so-glorious Fourth,  U.S. atrocities are unworthy of our heritage.

By Chris Satullo

Put the fireworks in storage. Cancel the parade. Tuck the soaring speeches in a drawer for another time.

This year, America doesn’t deserve to celebrate its birthday. This Fourth of July should be a day of quiet and atonement.

For we have sinned.

We have failed to pay attention. We’ve settled for lame excuses. We’ve spit on the memory of those who did that brave, brave thing in Philadelphia 232 years ago.

The America those men founded should never torture a prisoner.

The America they founded should never imprison people for years without charge or hearing.

The America they founded should never ship prisoners to foreign lands, knowing their new jailers might torture them.

Such abuses once were committed by the arrogant crowns of Europe, spawning rebellion.


It is amazing to see the lengths of tortured “reasoning” the left has to go through to trash America.


Americadoesn’t torture its prisoners. The few people who have abused prisoners were tried and convicted. The U.S. Marines punished and expelled David Motari for abusing a dog in Iraq. There is an ongoing debate as to whether water boarding is torture or not. Our own soldiers are water boarded in escape and evasion school as a matter of training. We also expose our own soldiers to tear gas as a matter of training. Three high value intelligence targets were approved for water boarding by the president.


The next one I find most amusing, the left claims that Bush is evil because enemy combatants weren’t charged or given habeas corpus. Can anyone name me one country in WWI or WWII that gave enemy combatants or PoW’s habeas corpus, access to civilian courts, or charged all such prisoners with a crime? You can’t because no one has. No one has done that and before today in past wars United States has never done such a thing. No European country has ever given prisoners of war habeas corpus or access to civilian courts. You don’t hold a prisoner in war time to try him in court to be tried by tyour local prosecutor, you hold him to keep him secure from rejoining the war and as a source of intelligence.


The third statement by Satollo involves a similar deception, shipping prisoners to “foreign lands” and the “spawning rebellion” language is designed duplicate imagery of when the British would take Americans overseas to be tried for pretended offenses. It was in reality nothing more than political kidnapping.


Satullo is comparing this with the Rendition Program. A policy that started under President Clinton where terrorists are sent to their HOME countries to face terrorism charges at home so they could be judged by their peers and their own governments. These prisoners aren’t sent to a foreign land to be tried, they are sent to their home to be tried; a difference that Satullo was all too willing to ignore so long as it served to fuel his hate America rhetoric.


Anti-America rhetoric has been common staple of the far left. Here are some other examples.


Senator John Kerry in testimony to the Senate in 1971:  

At times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


Not only did Kerry attribute such behavior to our people in uniform, he alleged that this behavior was U.S. Policy. Kerry’s and the far left’s Winter Soldier project that told stories of constant American atrocities was proven to be nothing but lies .


More recently in late 2003 the Democratic Leadership and the far left could not retrain themselves any further and started the nonsense again and made every effort to ensure that America would lose the war:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the–of–the historical customs, religious customs. – John Kerry Dec 4, 2005


Senator Dick Durbin compared our troops at Guantanamo Bay to Nazi’s and Soviets in spite of the fact that multiple inspections of the facility prove that prisoners there enjoy very high standards of treatment. Here is the video.


Senator Harry Reid gave the enemy a propaganda coup when he declared that “the war is lost” and that the USA “can’t win”.


I could list these statements till I ran out of room on the page many times over. Countless statements by the far left that it was a war for Halliburton and that Bush lied us into war because he wanted to steal Iraq’s oil etc. Claims now laughed at by thinking Americans. Why? For Example: how could the Democratic Leadership claim President Bush  lied them into war when they were all saying the same thing from the Clinton’s Presidency until 2003. Examine the following video’s:


I am old enough to remember statements by the far left about the “real reason why we liberated Kuwait”. Of course now history judges that war as a success many of those same people now take credit for supporting it. Now that the latest Iraq war is nearly won – success has many fathers – more and more Democrats will adopt Bush’s position on the war and will start to claim credit for this success that they tried so hard to sabotage almost every step of the way since late 2003.


The far left believes that freedom, capitalism, and the Judaea-Christian ethic that the country is based on are all wrong. They believe that the United States itself in its foundations is flawed from its conception. Hence that is why the far left, such as many leftist American academics and radicalized students, wanted us to lose the war in Iraq (leaving before the job is done = lose. A concept even my teenager can understand). To them diminishing the role of the United States in the world is a good thing which is lie so many leftist academics sang the praises of the Soviet Union during the cold war and still practices apologetics for the likes of other murderous tyrants such as Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Yasser Arafat, etc. When Bill O’Reilly talks about the hate America left on his program, this is exactly who he is talking about. 


Happy 4th! God Bless America!

Chuck Norton


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

New York Times Throws Obama Under the Bus Over Flip-Flopping and Adopting of Bush Positions – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on July 4, 2008


The Vision always trying to keep the readers informed with the best news analysis, has been telling about the Obama flip-flops and other “typical politician” behavior for some time now. Today the New York Times editorial board, which is the tip of the spear of the far left, now tells its readers what we at The Vision have been telling you for a while and they are not happy about it in the least.

UPDATE SEE BELOW: NYT Op-Ed goes after Obama for flip-flops and Adopting Bush Positions


July 4, 2008

New and Not Improved


Senator Barack Obamastirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.

Now there seems to be a new Barack Obamaon the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

Even his own chief money collector, Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.

In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.

Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.

Of course, no national security surveillence of overseas communications requires a warrant. Every President since George Washington has monitored overseas communications in times of war. Mail to England was inspected before it left the country. President Wilson and FDR also monitored all communications that crossed the border. Of course the New York Times knows this, but like so much of the elite media now adays, the facts arent nearly important as the narrative they want to tell.

The NYT continues to “bash” Obama:

The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obamaon two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

Of course, as long as the government hands out money for services neutrally to denominations that can get the work done there is no establishment clause issue, the Supreme Court has made such a principle clear. The government as far back as the Second Congress gave money to church groups for a variety of purposes. It was always understood that as long as one denomination wasn’t overly favored there was no problem, but lets not confuse the NYT with the facts while they are “trashing”  their favorite politician with the facts on his reversals.


Washington insider Charles Krauthammer in today’s Washington Post also catalogues Obama’s flip-flops and the adopting of President Bush’s positions on a host of issues.

A Man of Seasonal Principles

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, July 4, 2008; A17


You’ll notice Barack Obama is now wearing a flag pin. Again. During the primary campaign, he refused to, explaining that he’d worn one after Sept. 11 but then stopped because it “became a substitute for, I think, true patriotism.” So why is he back to sporting pseudo-patriotism on his chest? Need you ask? The primaries are over. While seducing the hard-core MoveOn Democrats that delivered him the caucuses — hence, the Democratic nomination — Obama not only disdained the pin. He disparaged it. Now that he’s running in a general election against John McCain, and in dire need of the gun-and-God-clinging working-class votes he could not win against Hillary Clinton, the pin is back. His country ’tis of thee.

In last week’s column, I thought I had thoroughly chronicled Obama’s brazen reversals of position and abandonment of principles — on public financing of campaigns, on NAFTA, on telecomimmunity for post-Sept. 11 wiretaps, on unconditional talks with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — as he moved to the center for the general election campaign. I misjudged him. He was just getting started.

Last week, when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the District of Columbia’s ban on handguns, Obamaimmediately declared that he agreed with the decision. This is after his campaign explicitly told the Chicago Tribune last November that he believes the D.C. gun ban is constitutional.

Obama spokesman Bill Burtonexplains the inexplicable by calling the November — i.e., the primary season — statement “inartful.” Which suggests a first entry in the Obamaworld dictionary — “Inartful: clear and straightforward, lacking the artistry that allows subsequent self-refutation and denial.”

Obama’s seasonally adjusted principles are beginning to pile up: NAFTA, campaign finance reform, warrantless wiretaps, flag pins, gun control. What’s left?

Iraq. The reversal is coming, and soon.

Two weeks ago, I predicted that by Election Day Obamawill have erased all meaningful differences with McCain on withdrawal from Iraq. I underestimated Obama’scynicism. He will make the move much sooner. He will use his upcoming Iraq trip to finally acknowledge the remarkable improvements on the ground and to formally abandon his primary season commitment to a fixed 16-month timetable for removal of all combat troops.

The shift has already begun. Yesterday, he said that his “original position” on withdrawal has always been that “we’ve got to make sure that our troops are safe and that Iraq is stable.” And that “when I go to Iraq . . . I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.”

He hasn’t even gone to Iraq and the flip is almost complete. All that’s left to say is that the 16-month time frame remains his goal but that he will, of course, take into account the situation on the ground and the recommendation of his generals in deciding whether the withdrawal is to occur later or even sooner.



Just remember that The Vision beat all these guys to the punch in the analysis of what was starting to happen with the Obama campaign.

Chuck Norton

UPDATE !! July 8th New York Times Bob Herbert:

Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.

You would be able to listen to him without worrying about what the meaning of “is” is.

But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.

There has been a reluctance among blacks [read his leftist friends – isn’t it amazing that the left, not only mired in the idea of group think and group identity, claims to speak for all blacks – Chuck Norton] to openly criticize Senator Obama, the first black candidate with a real shot at the presidency. But behind the scenes, there is discontent among African-Americans, as well, over Mr. Obama’s move away from progressive issues, including his support of the Supreme Court’s decision affirming the constitutional right of individuals to bear arms.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Other Links | 1 Comment »