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 January 25th, 2009

MSNBC: Palin’s Book Will Do Well If She Can Read.

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009

This is NBC folks, this is the depths that they have sunk to.

Politico:

MSNBC host Chris Matthews suggested Friday that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) may not have the reading or writing ability needed to complete the book she is reportedly shopping.

The Los Angeles Times reported Friday that Palin is seeking an $11 million advance for her memoir and has hired high-powered Washington attorney Robert Barnett to broker the deal.

Teasing a segment on the book during his show “Hardball,” Matthews said: “If she can read, if she can write, she’ll make some money.”

Matthews repeated his suggestion that Palin could not write the book later in the show. “The question is who actually will write the Palin book,” he said. “The only politician I know who can write is Barack Obama.”

Palin has a degree in journalism.

UPDATE –  the video:

Thanks to Hotair.com for the video link.

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

Obama/Democrats Reverse Themselves on Lobbyists – Banks Who Recieved Billions in Bailout Dollars Spending Millions to Lobby Politicians for More. The Cycle of Curruption Continues.

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009

Remember when the Obama campaign said that lobbyists were bad and criticized Mccain for having former lobbyists working on his campaign, all the while having ACTIVE lobbyists working on theirs?

Remember these statements and promises from the campaign:

And now the reversal…..

That was then, this is now – NYT:

Citigroup, recipient of another $45 billion, made the opposite call. While trying to keep a low profile, the company is still fielding an army of Washington lobbyists working on a host of issues, including the bailout. In the fourth quarter, it spent $1.77 million on lobbying fees, according to its lobbyists’ filings.

The different approaches from the two banks that have received the most money underscores the growing dilemma facing private companies, which increasingly deal with the federal government not only as rule-maker but also as shareholder, lender and trading partner.

Pressing federal policy makers risks the appearance of recycling public money to advance a private agenda, while staying on the sidelines could put a company at a comparative disadvantage.

Citigroup and Bank of America are hardly the only two financial firms to confront the issue. During the last three months of 2008, at least seven other firms receiving bailout funds – American Express, Capital One, Goldman Sachs, KeyCorp, Morgan Stanley, PNC and Bank of New York Mellon – all lobbied the government about the bailout, according to a review of their most recent disclosure reports.

Lobbyists work with PAC’s – they raise money, bundle money and spread it around. Remember when Lehmen Brothers and Fannie Mae in the mortgage industry spread $200 Million in partisan giveaways with Obama getting the second most in the Senate?

ABC News: Democratic Leader – I like Lobbyists and Obama does too….

In his historic speech Tuesday morning, President Barack Obama said the era of “protecting narrow interests” is over – an echo of his campaign promise that lobbyists and special interests would lose their clout in his White House. But lobbyists still have defenders in Washington D.C., including one of Obama’s most powerful allies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada).

Reid invited top lobbyists to join him and his supporters for an inaugural brunch Monday where he told ABC News that he will still do plenty of business with them.

“And there’s nothing wrong with that,” said Reid. “And Obama will be meeting with them too.” When asked to clarify his remarks, given Obama’s promises to change that part of Capitol culture, Reid responded that lobbyists are part and parcel of the job.

“People should understand that lobbyists, per se, are someone’s father, mother, son, daughter,” said Reid. “They work for a living.” The Democratic leader’s sons and a son-in-law have worked as lobbyists.

Ed Morrissey comments HERE.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Obama Economic Advisor Robert Reich: No Stimulous Money for White Construction Workers – Rangel: The Middle Class is to Busy to Notice What We Are Doing

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009

Remember how we told you spending by the government rarely helps an economy because the money is spent for political reasons and not economic ones? This video of Obama economic advisor Robert Reich giving testimony in Congress really says it all.

Lou Dobbs:

Michelle Malkin and Neil Cavuto:

Thanks to Hotair.com for the Malkin clip.

Rasmussen Poll says:

January 23, 2009
Fifty-nine percent (59%) of U.S. voters worry that Congress and President Obama will increase government spending too much in the next year or two, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Only 17% have the opposite concern and are more worried that Congress and the president will cut taxes too much.

Even David Brooks of the NYT says that this is too much for him:

There’s also a very strong case to be made for long-term government reform. America could fundamentally rethink its infrastructure policies – create a new model adapted to new modes of community-building. It could fundamentally rethink human capital policies – create a lifelong menu of learning options, from pre-K programs to service opportunities for the elderly.

But the stimulus bill emerging in the House of Representatives does neither of these things. The bill marked up Wednesday in the Appropriations Committee is a muddled mixture of short-term stimulus haste and long-term spending commitments. It is an unholy marriage that manages to combine the worst of each approach – rushed short-term planning with expensive long-term fiscal impact.

The bill has three essential failings. First, it lacks any strategic vision. This $825 billion bill has to be passed within weeks. There’s no time for fundamental rethinking or new approaches. Instead, there’s a sloppy profusion of 152 different appropriations – off-the-shelf ideas that mostly create costlier versions of the status quo.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Other Links | 10 Comments »

College of DuPage Board of Trustees Move to Adopt Academic Bill of Rights – Far Left Faculty Freaks Out

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009

Via Sara Dogan at Students for Academic Freedom:

In what may be a landmark battle currently playing out at a large Midwestern community college, the College of DuPage’s faculty association has pitted itself against the board of trustees over whether to protect the academic freedom of its students. This latest skirmish in the five-year war over David Horowitz’s Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) reveals the lengths to which faculty unions are prepared to go to deny college students the right to an education free from indoctrination.

The Academic Bill of Rights proposed at DuPage echoes the language of the original Bill authored by David Horowitz in 2005. It recognizes that the principle of academic freedom applies not only to faculty but also to students who should be protected “from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature.” The DuPage bill acknowledges the right of faculty members to “pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views” but states that they should “consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints” and that “courses will not be used for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.”

“I and the other trustees thought it was important to provide for the academic freedom of students as well as faculty members,” explained Kory Atkinson, a trustee at DuPage and the principal author of the new policy manual which contains the Academic Bill of Rights.

“We’ve had some anecdotal evidence from students about faculty at DuPage providing lower scores [for ideological reasons] and even in some written reports for classes where professors made comments about sources being ‘right-wing’ rather than rejecting them for scholarly reasons, mainly in the social sciences where sources tend to be more subjective,” Atkinson said, explaining some of the Board’s impetus for proposing the Academic Bill of Rights.

The Academic Bill of Rights proposed at DuPage echoes the language of the original Bill authored by David Horowitz in 2005. It recognizes that the principle of academic freedom applies not only to faculty but also to students who should be protected “from the imposition of any orthodoxy of a political, religious or ideological nature.” The DuPage bill acknowledges the right of faculty members to “pursue their own findings and perspectives in presenting their views” but states that they should “consider and make their students aware of other viewpoints” and that “courses will not be used for the purpose of political, ideological, religious, or anti-religious indoctrination.”

/sarcasm What! No indoctrination and you should include other viewpoints and not just our own ideologically charged view – we can’t have that!

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

Obama Backpedals on Transparency Promise – Media Shows Anger in Presidential Daily Briefing

Posted by iusbvision on January 25, 2009

UPDATE I – Presidential Daily Briefing section vanishes from Whitehouse.gov

no-daily-briefing

Before the transcript of the daily briefing with the White House Press Sec. was on the site every day. Its gone.

UPDATE II– Obama says he will hold himself to a new standard of openness:

List of Documents Obama Won’t release:

His Medical Records (funny how the press always harps on Republicans to release theirs).

His official papers as an Illinois State Senator.

His official correspondence from the Illinois State Senate.

His appointment calender and list of official activities as a state senator.

His college records from Occidental or Columbia University or Harvard.

His client list from when he practiced law or his billing records so we can see who paid him.

His Senior Thesis from Columbia University titled, “Soviet Nuclear Disarmament”.

His application to the Illinois State Bar. 

Refuses to release the list of donors to his campaign who gave under $200.00 (there is evidence that some of this money was in the form of illegal multiple donations from overseas).

****Original Story****

Politico:

A growing media frustration with Barack Obama spilled into the open at Thursday’s briefing, with reporters accusing the White House of stifling access and giving Obama’s first interview as president to a multi-million dollar inauguration sponsor.

Veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante was one of the most vocal critics, questioning the White House’s handling of Wednesday night’s second swearing in – which was covered by just a four-reporter print pool that didn’t include a news photographer or TV correspondent.

He also asked new press secretary Robert Gibbs why ABC, which paid millions to host the DC Neighborhood Ball, was granted the only inauguration day interview with President Obama – a move he equated to “pay to play.”
“We have a tradition here of covering the president,” said Plante, who is covering his fourth administration.
Gibbs defended the White House’s moves, insisting aides acted in a “way that was upfront and transparent” in allowing the standard pool into the swearing-in. And Obama himself seemed mindful of making a good impression, paying a surprise visit to the White House pressroom a few hours after the briefing.

It’s been a bumpy 24 hours for Gibbs and company, as members of the White House press corps have publicly expressed frustration with an administration promising openness and transparency.

At the same time, some members of the Obama administration’s press team have signaled that they plan to shake up some of the old traditions of White House coverage, some of the longest-standing – and most jealously guarded – in town.

In recent weeks, New York Times editors complained that its White House team hadn’t gotten a sit-down with Obama during the transition, breaking an unofficial tradition whereby recent president-elects have free-wheeling exchanges with the Gray Lady before the inauguration.

In the case of the second swearing-in, however, it seemed to give reporters a chance to lay down an early marker on questioning whether Obama would live up to one of his key campaign pledges, at least when it comes to the media.

“It is ironic, the same day that the president is talking about transparency, we were not let in,” CNN’s Ed Henry said on the air Wednesday night after news of the second swearing-in broke.

Henry’s main gripe was that television reporters weren’t permitted to cover a historic moment, when Obama once again raised his right hand and took the oath before Justice John Roberts. The only images came from White House photographer Pete Souza.

Three wire services — The Associated Press, Reuters and Agence France-Presse – refused to move those images, in protest of the White House’s handling of the event.

The wire services’ photographers were also denied access to photograph Obama sitting in the Oval Office on the first day, and similarly refused to move the White House approved photos.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild | 3 Comments »