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, 2008

Obama Reverses Himself on Terrorist Surveillance Program – Adopts Bush’s Position Again – UPDATE: Obama reverses and adopts Bush position on Iraq withdrawal

Posted by iusbvision on July 3, 2008


The list of reversals from the Obama camp is so fast and furious that I am having great difficulty keeping up with them. I wont keep you waiting. Now that Obama has all but secured his primary victory, his campaign has rapidly reversed itself on issue after issue, abandoning his stance in the primaries and adopting President Bush’s position. 


UPDATE: As the WSJ predicted it is now official (even though his words have changed to “slow” or “steady” withdrawal recently), Obama has reversed himself and now has adopted President Bush’s position on Iraq withdrawal. Politico has the details:

Obama rewrites Iraq plan
By: Mike Allen
July 3, 2008 04:47 PM EST

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) promised primary voters a swift withdrawal from Iraq, in clear language still on his website: “Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.”

Not anymore. Heading into the holiday weekend, Obama and his advisers repudiated that pledge, saying he is reevaluating his plan and will incorporate advice from commanders on the ground when he visits Iraq later this month.

 Evening News Analysts had this to say during Special Report with Brit Hume in reaction:

Washington insider Fred Barnes had this to say, “Today we have learned that Barack Obama can hold two completely contradictory positions in his mind and hold allegiance to both of them.”

Roll Call Editor Mort Kondrake said, “Obama is trying to have it both ways on free trade. He has these investment bankers he is trying to impress. He is juggling two different groups.”


Today’s(July 2nd) Wall Street Journal has the details:

We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.

Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?

Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.

Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.

Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.

The article goes on to list many of the domestic policy issues that Obama has recently reversed himself on; changing his position from what it was in the primary race to now adopting President Bush’s position.  Leftist blogs such as the Huffington Post are saying the same thing.Be sure to read the previous posts on this blog outlining all of the flip-flops complete with youtube video to see the reverals for yourself.


Chuck Norton

Here are related posts on Obama’s reversals and such.

Pay for women.

Welfare reform, faith based charities, NAFTA.

Gun rights and the Heller court decision.

Campaign Finance and taking money from special interests and energy companies.

Energy policy and oil leases.

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


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 »

Obama Campaign Attacks McCain’s Military Record in Trial Balloon.

Posted by iusbvision on July 1, 2008


Sunday on Face the Nation, the CBS Sunday morning political talk show, Obama campaign minion, former General Wesley Clark, launched attacked McCain’s military record as not being one that helps him qualify to be Commander in Chief.

UPDATED: SEE BELOW – Another Obama campaign minion goes after McCain’s service.

UPDATED II: SEE BELOW  – Now other Democrats are piling on McCain over service.

UPDATED III: SEE BELOW – Democrats criticizing McCain for making military service a part of his campaign – themselves ran for office using their military service.

Here is the Video:


Of course it is the unspoken message that goes with Clark’s comments that generated the controversy and generated a rebuke of Clark in the blogosphere and in the media.

Most of the media is missing the big picture on purpose. Allow me to explain.

No campaign sends one of its guns to the Sunday morning talk shows without well scripted answers to imagined questions and talking points. Being the July 4th week patriotism was bound to come up. What we saw yesterday was a trial balloon to see if it is possible to hit McCain where he is strongest. Odds are internal polls show that when it comes to “patriotism” Obama has a problem. Obama has stated that this impression has been worsened by his own gaffes. After the no flag pin gaffe, the comments about “guns and religion”, the no hand over the heart gaffe, wanting to withdrawal (lose) in Iraq before this near victory we have now is secured, sitting in that pew for 20 years in Rev. Wrights church while he damns America, then getting caught giving thousands in donations to Pfleger’s church who is renown for his hate America rhetoric. 



So Obama’s campaign tried to float trial balloon to see if they could try to even the score by hitting McCain where he is strongest. When it didn’t work Obama triangulated against Clarke (who is a part of his own campaign) and has an excuse to make that speech with his pronouncements about patriotism, but carefully not naming Clark specifically. The media went nuts covering the speech making Obama look good, playing that clip over and over, thus raising his poll numbers when it comes to patriotism.  What we saw was a conflict set up between two people, Clark and McCain, then along comes Barack Obama to “take the high road” and get the press to go ape over it. This political maneuver is called “triangulation” and it was mastered in the 1990’s by political genius Dick Morris when he was the senior political advisor to the Clintons.

Here is the Clip:

Senator Obama with Wesley Clark.


Of course, Wesley Clark told the world that John Kerry’s military service made him more qualified to be Commander in Chief during his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention:

John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. 

CLARK: He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.

John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too.

John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.


Now you can see why what Clark did was a trial balloon. McCain’s service is well known to anyone in politics; it is one of the most told stories in politics since the 1980’s. For those who may be unaware here are a few of the details:

McCain was awarded a Silver Star Medal for resisting “extreme mental and physical cruelties” inflicted upon him by his captors from late October to early December 1967, the early months of his captivity, according to the citation. The North Vietnamese, according to the Navy, ignored international agreements and tortured McCain “in an attempt to obtain military information and false confessions for propaganda purposes.

“McCain was taken prisoner in October 1967 after he was shot down while on a mission over Hanoi. He wasn’t freed until March 1973, after the United States signed peace agreements with the North Vietnamese. His captors tortured him and held him in solitary confinement. Still, he declined an offer of early release until those who had been at the prison longer than him were let go.

That decision earned McCain a Navy Commendation Medal. Although McCain was “crippled from serious and ill-treated injuries,” he steadfastly refused offers of freedom from those holding him prisoner. “His selfless action served as an example to others and his forthright refusal, by giving emphasis to the insidious nature of such releases, may have prevented a possibly chaotic deterioration in prisoner discipline,” the citation says.He retired in April 1981 with the rank of captain. In that time he received 17 awards and decorations. Besides the Silver Star Medal, McCain also received the Legion of Merit with a combat “V” and one gold star, a Distinguished Flying Cross and a Bronze Star Medal with a combat “V” and two gold stars.

The citations refer to his “accurate ordnance delivery” and his “aggressive and skillful airmanship.” He earned his Bronze Star the day before he was shot down, for participating in a mission over an airfield in Phuc Yen, 11 miles north of Hanoi. The citation for his Distinguished Flying Cross sums up McCain’s misfortune the following day:”Although his aircraft was severely damaged, he continued his bomb delivery pass and released his bombs on the target. When the aircraft would not recover from the dive, Commander McCain was forced to eject over the target.”


Does anyone seriously believe that a retired general such as Wesley Clark genuinely believes that such service is not an asset to anyone running to be Commander in Chief? Didn’t Wesley Clark run for president on his own military record?

Obama has still not rebuked Clark by name.

For those who think that I am just shilling for McCain, I have made it clear that I will likely not be pulling the lever for him in November.

Chuck Norton


UPDATE: Obama campaign advisror Rand beers says that McCains military service “hobbles” him as a war time president (via ABC News):

While Barack Obama was urging supporters not to devalue the military service of rival John McCain, an informal Obama adviser ( Rand Beers) argued Monday that the former POW’s isolation during the Vietnam War has hobbled the Arizona senator’s capacity as a war-time leader.

The Beers remarks, which were made at the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund in Washington, D.C., drew a swift rebuke from a McCain spokesman who portrayed them as an example of Obama saying one thing and his supporters doing another.

“Mr. Beers’ remarks are part of a pattern of Obama supporters attacking John McCain’s military service, and a reminder of why it’s what Sen. Obama, his supporters and his campaign actually do that matters most,” McCain spokesman Brian Rogers tells ABC News.


Bob Dole released a statement today on the issue. It speaks for itself.

Here is another article about the far left’s attacks on McCain’s service, while not asscoiated with the Obama campaign itself it speaks volumes on the venom of the political extremes.


UPDATE II – Democrat Senator Jim Webb piles on. Says that McCain should “Calm Down” when it comes to his service:

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) waded into the debate over John McCain’s military service Monday to say that the Republican should avoid using military service in politics.

How interesting – Obama aids and supporters attack McCain’s service and its McCain who should calm down.  As Jim Webb started to run for Senate, did he say this about John Kerry who themed his night at the 2004 Democratic Convention based on his 3 months of service in Vietnam? Did Jim Webb ever say this about Wesley Clark who ran for president on his military record? If anyone wanted proof more that this is not a coordinated attack on McCain in one of the areas where he is strongest … I predict we will get more as the campaign continues.

Update III – Webb ran for Senate on his own military service. Here is the opening words of his first campaign ad:

RONALD REAGAN: One man who sat where you do now is another member of our administration, assistant secretary of defense James Webb, the most decorated member of his class. James’ gallantry as a Marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decorations…

ANNOUNCER: Soldier, scholar, leader. Now Jim Webb is running for Senate.



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