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 October 1st, 2008

Ann Coulter on Couric & Biden

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

We do not quote Ann Coulter very often, Ann is often cryptic and uses a great deal if literary device that is designed to make a point that isn’t clear in the plain text. Quite frankly, most people are not smart enough to understand the nuanced reasoning in her work so quoting it doesn’t often relay the entire point she is making.

This column by Ann Coulter is plain English and a devastatingly accurate analysis. This article’s factual sting outshines Ann’s usual rhetorical sting.  

I tried to just find an excerpt but each paragraph hits like a Mac truck on I-5. HERE is the link to her site.

Ann Coulter: 

While Gov. Sarah Palin is being grilled on her position on mark-to-market accounting rules, the press can’t bother to ask Joe Biden if he could give us a ballpark estimate on when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president — or maybe take a stab at guessing the decade when televisions were first available to the public.

Being interviewed by Katie Couric on the “CBS Evening News,” Biden said: “When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn’t just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, ‘Look, here’s what happened.'”

For those of you who aren’t hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed a president who wasn’t president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs.

Other than that, the statement holds up pretty well. At least Biden managed to avoid mentioning any “clean” Negroes he had met.

Couric was nearly moved to tears by the brilliance of Biden’s brain-damaged remark. She was especially intrigued by Biden’s claim that FDR had said the new iPhone was the bomb!

Here is Couric’s full response to Biden’s bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and (b) going on TV in 1929: “Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden’s strong suits.”

But when our beauteous Sarah said that John McCain was a better leader on the economy than Barack Obama, Couric relentlessly badgered her for evidence. “Why do you say that?” Couric demanded. “Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama? … Can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?”

The beauteous Sarah had cited McCain’s prescient warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Couric, the crackerjack journalist who didn’t know FDR wasn’t president in 1929, demanded more examples from Palin.

We are currently in the middle of a massive financial crisis brought on by Fannie Mae. McCain was right on Fannie Mae; Obama was wrong. That’s not enough?

Not for the affable Eva Braun of evening TV! “I’m just going to ask you one more time,” Couric snipped, “not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?”

This would be like responding to someone who predicted the 9/11 attacks by saying: OK, you got one thing right. Not to belabor the point, but what else?

Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae — the government-backed institution behind our current crisis.

How does the Democratic ticket stack up on other major issues facing the nation, say, gas prices?

Shockingly, Sen. Joe Biden was one of only five senators to vote against the first Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973. This is like having been a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. If Sarah Palin does nothing else, she has got to tie that idiotic pipeline vote around Biden’s neck.

The Senate passed the 1973 Alaskan pipeline bill by an overwhelming 80-5 vote. Only five senators voted against the pipeline on final passage. Sen. Biden is the only one who is still in the Senate — the other four having been confined to mental institutions long ago.

The stakes were clear: This was in the midst of the first Arab oil embargo. Liberal Democrats, such as senators Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church and Hubert Humphrey, all voted for the pipeline.

But Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.

The only argument against the pipeline was that it would harm the caribou, an argument that was both trivial and wrong. The caribou population near the pipeline increased from 5,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 by 2002.

It would have been bad enough to vote against the pipeline bill even if it had hurt the caribou. A sane person would still say: Our enemies have us in a vice grip. Sorry, caribou, you’ve got to take one for the team. But when the pipeline goes through and the caribou population sextuples in the next 20 years, you really look like a moron.

We couldn’t possibly expect Couric to ask Biden about a vote that is the equivalent of voting against the invention of the wheel. But couldn’t she have come up with just one follow-up question for Biden on FDR’s magnificent handling of the 1929 stock market crash?

Or here’s a question the public is dying to know: “If Obama wanted a historically delusional vice president, why not Lyndon LaRouche?” At least LaRouche didn’t vote against the Alaskan pipeline.

Awesome work Ann, you hit a mega home run with this one.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad, True Talking Points | 1 Comment »

Clinton Says that Obama is Wrong About Economic Crisis

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

As we have written about HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE. We have explained the current financial crisis in detail, how it happened, who got paid and who is responsible.

We have also written about how Barack Obama has been saying that there is no regulation, that capitalist free wheeling with no oversight led to this problem. Those who have taken the time to read the material know that such claims are nonsense. Bill Clinton, who bears a lesser amount of responsibility for this mess than Congressional Democrats on the banking committees do, properly and accurately stated the facts in some interviews lately about banking and mortgage regulations he signed into law. As we have said, if the regulations, while flawed, were followed in the spirit of the law, this mess might not have ever happened.

As we have shown in the previous posts linked above, a money train in an influence peddling scandal made sure that the spirit of the law was not followed. Congress was warned, some people tried to fix it, but most Democrats just said no and most of the elite media is ignoring this story and public record.

Bill Clinton sets the record straight on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was not the deregulation Obama is saying it is, and it had little to do with the mess we see ourselves in now:

A running cliché of the political left and the press corps these days is that our current financial problems all flow from Congress’s 1999 decision to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 that separated commercial and investment banking. Barack Obama has been selling this line every day. Bill Clinton signed that “deregulation” bill into law, and he knows better.

In BusinessWeek.com, Maria Bartiromo reports that she asked the former President last week whether he regretted signing that legislation. Mr. Clinton’s reply: “No, because it wasn’t a complete deregulation at all. We still have heavy regulations and insurance on bank deposits, requirements on banks for capital and for disclosure. I thought at the time that it might lead to more stable investments and a reduced pressure on Wall Street to produce quarterly profits that were always bigger than the previous quarter.

“But I have really thought about this a lot. I don’t see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn’t signed that bill.”

One of the writers of that legislation was then-Senator Phil Gramm, who is now advising John McCain, and who Mr. Obama described last week as “the architect in the United States Senate of the deregulatory steps that helped cause this mess.” Ms. Bartiromo asked Mr. Clinton if he felt Mr. Gramm had sold him “a bill of goods”?

Mr. Clinton: “Not on this bill I don’t think he did. You know, Phil Gramm and I disagreed on a lot of things, but he can’t possibly be wrong about everything. On the Glass-Steagall thing, like I said, if you could demonstrate to me that it was a mistake, I’d be glad to look at the evidence.

“But I can’t blame [the Republicans]. This wasn’t something they forced me into. I really believed that given the level of oversight of banks and their ability to have more patient capital, if you made it possible for [commercial banks] to go into the investment banking business as Continental European investment banks could always do, that it might give us a more stable source of long-term investment.”

We agree that Mr. Clinton isn’t wrong about everything. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed the Senate on a 90-8 vote, including 38 Democrats and such notable Obama supporters as Chuck Schumer, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, John Edwards, Dick Durbin, Tom Daschle — oh, and Joe Biden. Mr. Schumer was especially fulsome in his endorsement.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122282635048992995.html?mod=todays_us_opinion

Hotair.com commented on this issue HERE

UPDATE: Investors Business Daily and Human Events Magazine came out with an analysis (albeit they are a bit more strident in their partisanship) that verifies much of what President Clinton has stated. These two articles, especially the one from Human Events, has much evidence demonstrated or linked too. They also are similar to the analysis we wrote on September 21 HERE.

Chuck Norton

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Mortgage Crisis, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

The text of the Senate Bailout is out & it tells us that we need fundamental changes in Congress

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

Ok all here is the text of the Senate version of the bill. It is much like the flawed House version that was shot down earlier.

And you bet that they have added a bunch of pork winners to it.

New Tax earmarks in Bailout bill
– Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
– Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
– 6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax earmark “extenders” in the bailout bill.
– Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Section 308)
– American Samoa (Sec. 309)
– Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
– Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
– Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
– Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
– Railroads (Sec. 316)
– Auto Racing Tracks (317)
– District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
– Wool Research (Sec. 325)

The House version was 102 pages long, the Senate version is 451 pages… what’s next?

McCain has promised to put an end to this nonsense, Obama hasn’t. This nonsense, corruption and influence peddling in Congress is THE issue of our time. Notice that there is no outrage form the left. In fact the left has no outrage over Congress’ role in this economic scandal, the largest financial scandal in world history. Of course to be fair, there is some outrage on the right, but not enough and that goes for the elite media too.

Special thanks to the Senate Conservatives Blog and Hotair.com.

UPDATE: MUST SEE – Senator DeMint video from the floor – http://blip.tv/file/1313122
Hat Tip Senate Conservatives Blog

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

My Advice for Palin in the Debate

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

After watching the interview with Katie Couric, Palin is trying too hard to not offend the interviewer and she is trying to avoid specifics to avoid gotcha questions. It also seems that Palin, like Reagan in his first debate with Walter Mondale, is trying to fit too much into each answer. In the following debates Reagan ignored his staff and just was himself; crushing Mondale. There are many times such as in the “Tear Down This Wall” speech, the “Evil Empire” speech and Reagan’s insistence on human rights as a part of arms negotiations that Reagan’s staff opposed it and Reagan did his own thing anyways.

Governor Palin took on both party machines in Alaska. Tell me, what political advisor would advise someone to do that? Advisors often seek consensus, leaders lead. Palin needs to get back to her roots. We need Alaska’s Sarah Palin, not the post convention Palin that the McCain campaign is hamstringing. In debates in Alaska, Palin destroyed two former governors. Palin is the only politician that the Anchorage Daily News says, comes to Editorial Board discussions and interviews with no advisors or lackeys. This is the Palin America loves.

So my advice is for Governor Palin to ignore McCain’s will to be reserved and non-partisan in tone and to just go to town and be yourself. Ignore the advisors around you. However, get to know Biden’s foreign policy history, which is a history that he can’t win on.

As we have said before, Biden has been wrong on the cold war and many other foreign policy successes over time. This piece from the WSJ says much of what needs to be said. Excerpts:

Decade after decade and on important issue after important issue, Mr. Biden’s judgment has been deeply flawed.

In the 1970’s, Mr. Biden advocated defense cuts so massive that both Edmund Muskie and Walter Mondale, both leading liberal Democrats at the time, opposed them.

In the 1980’s Mr. Biden was a leading opponent of President Ronald Reagan’s efforts to fund the Contras. He also opposed Reagan’s efforts to send military assistance to the pro-American government in El Salvador, which at the time was battling the FMLN, a Soviet-supported Marxist group.

Throughout his career, Mr. Biden has consistently opposed modernization of our strategic nuclear forces. He was a fierce opponent of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative. Mr. Biden voted against funding SDI, saying, “The president’s continued adherence to [SDI] constitutes one of the most reckless and irresponsible acts in the history of modern statecraft.” Mr. Biden has remained a consistent critic of missile defense and even opposed the U.S. dropping out of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was the co-signatory to the ABM Treaty) and the end of the Cold War.

[How can anyone oppose a missile defense system to protect our cities from nuclear missiles – its nothing short of nuts – Editor]

Mr. Biden voted against the first Gulf War, asking: “What vital interests of the United States justify sending Americans to their deaths in the sands of Saudi Arabia?”

In 2006, after having voted three years earlier to authorize President George W. Bush’s war to liberate Iraq, Mr. Biden argued for the partition of Iraq, which would have led to its crack-up. Then in 2007, Mr. Biden opposed President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, calling it a “tragic mistake.” It turned out to be quite the opposite. Without the surge, the Iraq war would have been lost, giving jihadists their most important victory ever.

On many of the most important and controversial issues of the last four decades, Mr. Biden has built a record based on bad assumptions, misguided analyses and flawed judgments. If he had his way, America would be significantly weaker, allies under siege would routinely be cut loose, and the enemies of the U.S. would be stronger.

There are few members of Congress whose record on national security matters can be judged, with the benefit of hindsight, to be as consistently bad as Joseph Biden’s. It’s true that Sarah Palin has precious little experience in national security affairs. But in this instance, no record beats a manifestly bad one.

Chuck Norton
Editor, IUSB Vision

Update: Hotair.com gives it’s advice for Palin.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

American Thinker Magazine Catches Up With IUSB Vision: Tells McCain to Name Names

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

On September 18 and 19 the editor of the IUSB Vision, Chuck Norton, told the McCain campaign to start naming names with what is now the largest financial scandal in the history of the world (see links HERE and HERE). The American people want blood for this and when you name the key people who caused this to happen most are Democrats. Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, James Johnson, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd etc.

Today American Thinker Magazine sends the same message HERE. American Thinker points out that the Democrats are trying to put the blame on McCain when in fact they have themselves to blame. It is no different than the blame for Hurricane Katrina, when the money for the levies and other disaster preparedness funds were misspent by local Democrats, when the Democrat Governor Kathleen Blanco did not even attempt to follow the states disaster action plan, when Governor Blanco resisted help from the feds and the Red Cross and the Salvation Army by ordering the State Police to keep their convoy’s of relief supplies out of the area.

This election is winable for the McCain campaign, but they are just not willing to really get into the fight against the elite media and the Democrats. The Republicans, wanting to appear more “gentlemanly” are allowing their enemies to define them with a long series of deceptions.

Excerpt from American Thinker:

When folks are this angry, there is hell to pay and “hell to pay” includes figuring out who to blame. For all of McCain’s wanting to stay “above the fray” and his too-clever-by-half comment that now is not the time to assign blame, he is not hearing the public. It is indeed time to assign blame. With this kind of financial destruction on the part of most American families, someone is going to get blamed. You can count on it.

Let me repeat. Someone will get blamed. You will either enter that debate or you will lose that debate. Period.

And short of properly assigning blame to the liberal policies and politicians who are responsible for this mess, the blame will automatically fall to the current Presidential administration and by extension, his party. Right or wrong, that’s how our politics play out. McCain simply has no choice now. He will start doing what he claims he loves to do related to government corruption — naming names — or he will be thrown on the ash heap of electoral shame alongside Bob Dole, George H. W. Bush and so on.

The good news for McCain, should he decide to grasp it, is that the party against which he is (supposed to be) running can easily be pegged with the lion’s share of the blame regarding our economic meltdown. There is no doubt that liberal policies on energy and housing have combined to put the country in this situation, and only unwinding these policies will lead the nation out of this problem. Naming names properly will name a whole lot of folks with “D” beside their names.

So today we are going to toot out own horn. We tell our readers that we provide some of the best news and analysis anywhere. We deliver on that promise.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

Good News: VP Debate Moderator Releasing (Pro-)Obama Book

Posted by iusbvision on October 1, 2008

UPDATE VI: The Colombia Journalism Review takes the same position as IUSB Vision (Hat Tip Hotair.com):

Conflict of interest is often about appearances. There appears, to us, to be a conflict in Ifill moderating tomorrow night’s vice presidential debate. Here’s why…

Update V: Hit Michelle Malkin’s link below after you read the story. Ifill is pulling the race card today over thie criticism and she did not tell the Commission on Presidential Debates about her conflict of interest. Any first year journalism student can see that this is royally inappropriate even if Ifill plays it straight. Journalistic ethics are dead.

UPDATE IV: Ed Morrissey has a nice post at Hotair.com called “Defining Moderator”.

According to Websters Dictionary, the word refers to a mediator, someone unaffiliated or neutral between two or more positions to facilitate discussion and negotiation. 

UPDATE III: A best selling book sells about 100,000 copies. An author often gets about 15% of the cover price of the book, less so from Amazon and some discount book sellers. If Obama is elected the book will likely sell over 100,000 copies for a paycheck of $350,000 if Obama wins. If someone bribed Ifill to be biased for $350,000 people would have a cow. This is no different. – Best selling Author Dick Morris

UPDATE II: PBS and Ifill are refusing to take calls from reporters and refuses to comment. Bill O’Reilly just said that he called Ifill on the phone and she refused to take the call. This is ridiculous. 

UPDATE: PBS did not tell McCain Campaign about Ifill’s book! Link HERE. Another Update: Obama refuses interview ith Greta Van Susteren. Greta is an out of the closet center left Democrat, but she doesn’t let that taint her coverage and usually does a great job (link HERE). Hmmmmm.

Michelle Malkin once again has the scoop.

My first syndicated column of the week, filed this afternoon, shines light on PBS anchor Gwen Ifill, who will moderate Thursday’s only vice presidential debate. Try as she might to deflect questions about her impartiality, her biases — and her conflict of interest — are clear. But don’t you dare breathe a word about any of this. You know what will happen if you do…

RACIST!

Sidenote: TVNewser reports that Ifill has broken her ankle, but she’s still going to do the debate. But will she disclose her conflict of interest? Inquiring minds want to know.

Ask the Commission on Presidential Debates if she will acknowledge her conflict of interest: 202-872-1020.

And here’s the e-mail address of Janet H. Brown, Executive Director of the Debates Commission: jb@debates.org

Hopefully, their email system works better than the House.

Tons of readers recommend that Sarah Palin open her debate remarks by congratulating Ifill on her book and asking her to tell everyone the title.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/30/a-debate-%E2%80%9Cmoderator%E2%80%9D-in-the-tank-for-obama/

The Book is The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama

Here is a youtube clip if Ifill promoting her book. All of the black politicians she mentions are Democrats. There are black Republicans in office or who have had high office recently and she does not mention a single one of them. No Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, J.C. Watts, Gary Franks, Alveda King, Sherman Parker, Maurice Washinton, etc…

Malkin continues:

Like Obama, Ifill, who is black, is quick to play the race card at the first sign of criticism. In an interview with the Washington Post a few weeks ago, she carped: “[N]o one’s ever assumed a white reporter can’t cover a white candidate.”

It’s not the color of your skin, sweetie. It’s the color of your politics. Perhaps Ifill will be able to conceal it this week. But if the “stunning” “Breakthrough” she’s rooting for comes to pass on January 20, 2009, nobody will be fooled.

Here is Ifill’s reaction to Palin at the GOP Convention – she was clearly disgusted by it.

Worldnet Daily called Ifill for comment. She is clamming up.

OUR TAKE: As someone who is trained as a journalist I know that those who claim to do “straight news” are to avoid any appearance of impropriety and are to avoid making themselves a part of the story. Ifill’s book blows both of those out especially considering that her book will sell better of Obama wins.

UPDATE II: Examples of Ifill’s fawning coverage of the Obama’s: HERE and HERE.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Palin Truth Squad | 3 Comments »