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 March 15th, 2009

Ron Silver Dead at 62

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

Actor and activist Ron Silver has died at the age of 62 from cancer.

Ron Silver was the best debater that this writer has ever seen. When Silver took the time to learn an issue he was unbeatable in rhetorical combat.

Via Ace of Spades HQ:

ron-silver

Ron Silver at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York, enthusiastically backing a second term for President Bush.

And speaking of, does anybody have video of that? It was very short, but one of the best speeches of the convention. All I can find is the text here.

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

Elite Media Ignoring Tea Party Protests Across the Nation

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

UPDATE III – Associated Press covered a small anti-war protest today LINK– but ignored Tea Parties across the nation. I did a search at http://www.ap.org for “Tea Party” and got nothing (LINK) on this weekends Tea Party protests. This verifies News Busters and what we shared with you HERE.

UPDATE II– 3/21. News Busters has done a story on the elite media ignoring new Tea Party protests across the nation. LINK

UPDATE– The lovely, brilliant, and tenacious Michelle Malkin covers this story HERE (Editor’s Note – The editor is not bashful about his respect for Michelle Malkin. For more ionformation on upcoming Tea Parties please visit http://www.taxdayteaparty.com/ ).

I was going to write a story up this evening, but I see NewsBusters has reported the story flawlessly:

Since CNBC’s Rick Santelli first suggesteda Chicago Tea Party to protest President Obama’s plans to “stimulate” the economy and bailout homeowners through unrestrained government spending, organized demonstrations have been occurring across the fruited plain.

In fact, as Glenn Reynolds reported moments ago, there’s one happening today in Cincinnati. 

Unfortunately, unless you frequent conservative websites, you’d have no idea that such events were being staged. 

Did you know there have been that many? If you didn’t, don’t feel embarrassed for these have gone almost totally ignored.

For instance, with the exception of Fox News and CNN, no major television outlet has covered even one of these events except the original proposed by Santelli on February 19.

Compare that to how these networks practically fell all over themselves to report war protests after the public’s opinion changed concerning Iraq in late 2003. 

As for print, Tea Parties have been completely ignored by the Washington Post, USA Today, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the Miami Herald, and the San Francisco Chronicle.

I guess Americans protesting the president’s policies just isn’t newsworthy when there’s a Democrat in the White House. [The photo below is from today’s Cincinatti protest. Protests around the country are scheduled for April 15th – editor]

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | 3 Comments »

If Bush Had Done What Obama Is Doing . . .

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

ROSS MACKENZIE in the TIMES-DISPATCH

Published: March 15, 2009

Herewith some questions about contrasts and double standards — and how the leftists comprising the nameless “they” who rule the world would react to what Barack Obama is doing if Obama were George Bush.

For instance . . .

If Obama were Bush, what would their reaction be to the president’s failure — even now — to submit a plan to salvage the nation’s banks?

What would they think of their president if he and his acolytes took out after the other party’s leading entertainer — Oprah Winfrey — declaring her not only de facto head of the Democratic Party but the foremost embodiment of that party’s ideological excesses?

Would they be lamenting a flawed vetting process related to the embarrassing tax problems and quirky (dis)qualifications — and withdrawals from consideration — of nominees to top administration posts?

How would they react to polls giving the president a 60 percent job-approval rating, yet finding 44 percent groaning that the nation is “off on the wrong track”?

Speaking of polls, would they be responding sarcastically to a president named Bush — as Obama has — talking up price-earnings ratios and ruminating that the stock market “is sort of like a tracking poll in politics. It bobs up and down every day . . . .If you spend your time worrying about that, you’re probably going to get the long-term strategy wrong”?

WOULD THEY ridicule the president for urging Americans to go out and buy stocks, just as they ridiculed his predecessor following 9/11 (and properly so), for urging Americans to conduct their lives as though nothing had happened — and to go out and shop?

If Obama were Bush, what would they be saying about how his ascendancy has affected a Dow Jones Industrial Average that has declined more than 30 percent since Election Day?

Would they be arguing — shouting? — about the implicit lessons of, e.g., Citibank at $1.03 per share, of General Motors at $1.45, of General Electric at $7.06?

Would there be outrage when the new attorney general termed this a “nation of cowards” on the subject of race?

Would there be anything positive cited about a secretary of state who journeyed to China — a country still overseen by communists and building its military at light-speed — where she (a) declined even to mention China’s human rights abuses while (b) begging it to buy greatly more American debt?

Oh, and on the subject of debt, how would they react to an incumbent president named Bush, suddenly positioned insistently before star-spangled backdrops, mimicking failed New Deal policies wherein FDR warred on the corporate class and sought to spend the nation out of the Depression? (Consider this, from FDR’s Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau in 1939 — a decade after the crash: We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. We have just as much unemployment as when we started . . . and an enormous debt to boot!)

Having ripped his predecessor (as they and Obama repeatedly have ripped Bush), what would they have to say about a new president offering record-setting deficits (as Obama has) that will double the national debt in five years, triple it in 10 years, and exceed his predecessor’s total eight-year deficit in his first 20 months?

How many among them would have the courage, as The New York Times’ Obamaphile columnist David Brooks did the other day, to write that the new president “is not who we thought he was”?

IF A PRESIDENT named Bush were doing what Obama has done, in the citadels of the left (Hollywood, the academy, and the remains of mainline churches and the establishment press) what would the take be on presidential proposals to compel small businesses to pony up for employee health care and retirement plans?

Would they make any cynical remarks about the extent to which the reversal of policies (a) to tap oil shale deposits in the West, (b) to drill offshore, and (c) to encourage nuclear power will increase our dependence on tinpot oil despots who detest us?

Would they still maintain an adamant silence on the sharply higher consumer costs for goods and services flowing from caps imposed on manufacturers’ carbon emissions, and consequently making life in tough economic times tougher not merely for some businesses — but all?

How would they spin the signature of a president who campaigned against pork-barrel earmarks, on a measure containing not just an earmark here and there — but (please sit down for this) nearly 9,000? Not to mention a $787 billion stimulus package marking the nation’s largest spending increase ever? Nor that such spending measures are intended less to strengthen the economy than to advance his social agenda (health care, education, alternative fuels, global warming) — and fast?

And, if the incumbent were Bush, would they voice any wrath at an unemployment rate now breaching 8 percent and headed toward the wild blue yonder?

Would they routinely blame today’s dismal economy on the Neanderthal policies and practices of yesterday’s president?

Would they eviscerate the incumbent president and his congressional footmen for declaiming time and again, “We won!”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Obama Below Bush’s 2001 Approval – Newsweek Explains Why.

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

Obama’s poll numbers are sinking fast in spite of a media who is being pretty kind to him considering the chain of blunders that has come since January 20 [folks thats not me being partisan – we can list them].

It is so bad that Newsweek Magazine, which has decided to go hard left by decided to do less hard news and team with Air America has been pretty tough on the admisnistration and explained why.

Read what Scott Rasmussen  has to say carefully.

Scott Rasmussen in WSJ:

It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama’s high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.

Polling data show that Mr. Obama’s approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama’s net presidential approval rating — which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve — is just six, his lowest rating to date.

Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president’s performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.

A detailed examination of presidential popularity after 50 days on the job similarly demonstrates a substantial drop in presidential approval relative to other elected presidents in the 20th and 21st centuries. The reason for this decline most likely has to do with doubts about the administration’s policies and their impact on peoples’ lives.

There is also a clear sense in the polling that taxes will increase for all Americans because of the stimulus, notwithstanding what the president has said about taxes going down for 95% of Americans. Close to three-quarters expect that government spending will grow under this administration.

Recent Gallup data echo these concerns. That polling shows that there are deep-seated, underlying economic concerns. Eighty-three percent say they are worried that the steps Mr. Obama is taking to fix the economy may not work and the economy will get worse. Eighty-two percent say they are worried about the amount of money being added to the deficit. Seventy-eight percent are worried about inflation growing, and 69% say they are worried about the increasing role of the government in the U.S. economy.

When Gallup asked whether we should be spending more or less in the economic stimulus, by close to 3-to-1 margin voters said it is better to have spent less than to have spent more. When asked whether we are adding too much to the deficit or spending too little to improve the economy, by close to a 3-to-2 margin voters said that we are adding too much to the deficit.

Support for the stimulus package is dropping from narrow majority support to below that. There is no sense that the stimulus package itself will work quickly, and according to a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, close to 60% said it would make only a marginal difference in the next two to four years. Rasmussen data shows that people now actually oppose Mr. Obama’s budget, 46% to 41%. Three-quarters take this position because it will lead to too much spending. And by 2-to-1, voters reject House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s call for a second stimulus package.

This news is simply devastating for a new administration, but as Newsweek will explain below, they really have made their own bed to sleep in. Expect Obama to ramp up his campaign machine to sell his new budget which will push Obama’s spending in the first two years of his presidency to greater than that of every administration before him combined. It is likely that this upcemong campaign to sell the budget will be just a sdeceptive as his campaign to sell the porkulus but I believe people are getting wise. Shoprtly after Obama’s speech to the nation in front of Congress he pragged about how there was no earmarks (it had tons of pork they jsut appropriated the earmark spending in a different way to it technically wasn’t an earmark) then a few days later he signed another $411 billion spending bill with almost 9,000 earmarks. While not all earmarks are bad, most are unnecessary and the earmark system invites corruption.

Read what Newsweek has to say carefully. Notice it is from five days ago and they saw this coming:

A Turning Tide?

Obama still has the approval of the people, but the establishment is beginning to mumble that the president may not have what it takes.

  • The $787 billion stimulus, gargantuan as it was, was in fact too small and not aimed clearly enough at only immediate job-creation.
  • The $275 billion home-mortgage-refinancing plan, assembled by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, is too complex and indirect.
  • The president gave up the moral high ground on spending not so much with the “stim” but with the $400 billion supplemental spending bill, larded as it was with 9,000 earmarks.
  • The administration is throwing good money after bad in at least two cases-the sinkhole that is Citigroup (there are many healthy banks) and General Motors (they deserve what they get).
  • The failure to call for genuine sacrifice on the part of all Americans, despite the rhetorical claim that everyone would have to “give up” something.
  • A willingness to give too much leeway to Congress to handle crucial details, from the stim to the vague promise to “reform” medical care without stating what costs could be cut.
  • A 2010 budget that tries to do far too much, with way too rosy predictions on future revenues and growth of the economy. This led those who fear we are about to go over Niagara Falls to deride Obama as a paddler who’d rather redesign the canoe.
  • A treasury secretary who has been ridiculed on “Saturday Night Live” and compared to Doogie Howser, Barney Fife and Macaulay Culkin in “Home Alone”-and those are the nice ones.
  • A seeming paralysis in the face of the banking crisis: unwilling to nationalize banks, yet unable to figure out how to handle toxic assets in another way-by, say, setting up a “bad bank” catch basin.
  • A seeming reluctance to seek punishing prosecutions of the malefactors of the last 15 years-and even considering a plea bargain for Bernie Madoff, the poster thief who stole from charities and Nobel laureates and all the grandparents of Boca. Yes, prosecutors are in charge, but the president is entitled-some would say required-to demand harsh justice.
  • The president, known for his eloquence and attention to detail, seemingly unwilling or unable to patiently, carefully explain how the world works-or more important, how it failed. Using FDR’s fireside chats as a model, Obama needs to explain the banking system in laymen’s terms. An ongoing seminar would be great.
  • Obama is no socialist, but critics argue that now is not the time for costly, upfront spending on social engineering in health care, energy or education.

Other than all that, in the eyes of the big shots, he is doing fine.

 Ouch.. and that is from a source that is heavily biased towards him. Now just imagine what the elite media would be saying about President Bush if he had amassed a two month record that included this list. Would it lead the evening news, would all the talking heads on the news show be repeating the same talking points verbatim, would the message be delivered over and over and over again…. or would it just be printed in one small column in Newsweek and all but ignored afterwards?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Mortgage Crisis, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

THE ELITE MEDIA LOVES ‘CONSERVATIVES’, BUT ONLY WHEN THEY HATE REPUBLICANS

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

Kyle Smith has this great column in the New York Post today. It very cleverly makes the same point that we did earlier today.

WITH REPUBLICAN FRIENDS LIKE THESE …

THE MEDIA LOVES CONSERVATIVES, BUT ONLY IF THEY HATE REPUBLICANS

March 15, 2009

Dear Mainstream Media:

I’m a conservative who believes that other conservatives are fat, drug-stuffed, money-grubbing warthogs like Rush Limbaugh, or scary inbred backwoods retards like Sarah Palin.

So can I please be your go-to guy whenever you need a conservative viewpoint?

When you assemble an op-ed page or a panel discussion that has three or four liberal commentators – plus a liberal moderator (if this is TV) or a liberal news section (if this is print) – I volunteer to be the one voice you allow to speak for the loyal opposition.

I am available to write cover stories for Newsweek, hold down the other side of the New York Times op-ed seesaw against Paul Krugman and Co., or fill in whenever David Gergen is unavailable to supply analysis of President Obama’s next magnifiquent speech for CNN.

I promise that the only conservatives I will ever praise will be safely dead (Churchill, Reagan, or, if this is PBS, Edmund Burke).

Sample phrases with which I plan to begin my columns:

“As a conservative, I am deeply troubled by the comments of (name of conservative), who just this week said (conservative things).”

Or try this one: “I’m a conservative, but nationalization is starting to look like the only viable option. I don’t mean just banks. It’s time for FedEx to be taken over by the postal service.”

Or: “It breaks my heart to see what my party has become – jingoistic, hysterical, intolerant. Also, Ann Coulter should be gagged with my sweaty undershorts.”

David Brooks and David Frum get it. The Republican Party is a fossil in pleated khakis and penny loafers. As Meghan McCain said: It’s unhip. It is to Washington what Donny Osmond is to the Billboard charts. It has won but seven of the last 11 presidential elections and only six of the last eight Congressional elections.

All that remains of the Griping Old Party is a tattered remnant, an embittered rump faction of 46%. I have devised a simple one-step solution to reversing our losing position in the last election: Move to the side that won.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Limbaugh | 1 Comment »

Corrupt PMA Group Has Over 1/4th of the House on Their Payroll

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

For the list of who is taking money form PMA group, and the earmarks they have gotten for PMA clients, and PMA’s client list follow the link

Associated Content.com:

Rod Blagojevich may have been taken down for alleged “Pay to Play,” but how far away were his actions from, as he asserted, “Politics as Usual”?

The PMA Group, one of Washington D.C.’s biggest and most influential lobbyist firms, has ties to more than one-fourth of the House of Representatives, members who appropriated $300 Million for the firm in the fiscal year 2008 Defense Spending Bill alone.

The eye of the storm is centered on the relationship between Rep. John Murtha and his former aide on the House Appropriates Committee, Paul Magliocchetti, who went on to found PMA in 1989.

SInce 1989 the PMA Group has established itself as a force on Capitol Hill, lobbying for 131 different companies and organizations ranging in everything from defense contractors to municipalities and universities. In 2007, when the $300 Million in one bill (PL 110-116) took place, PMA Group earned $16,470,132 in lobbying income.

The PMA Group was raided in November by the FBI as they investigate allegations of fraud and bribery, including reimbursing employees for campaign contributions made to congressional members who supported PMA Group interests. Since then the PMA Group has announced that they will be shutting down operations by the end of March, 2009.

While lobbying efforts by PMA Group were bi-partisan, one common feature of their highest donated to congressional members were their Membership in the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, including all five of their top contributed-to lawmakers.

Senator Tom Coburn introduced an amendment into Senate debate today barring any earmarks from going to current or former PMA Group clients, of which there is an estimated $10 million of more in the current Omnibus Spending Bill (HR 1105), which is in debate. The $410 Billion spending bill is a collection of all departmental spending and appropriations for the remained of Fiscal Year 2009, which has been operating under a Continuing Resolution that runs out March 6, 2009.

The Coburn Amendment was defeated 38-57.

Posted in Blagojevich, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Republicans who sold out.

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

Our friend Debbie Buckley, who is an IUSB alumni by the way, would like to remind you who in the GOP voted for that shameful $411 Billion earmark bill. This was very large and very bad spending bill that was designed to bloat government that had already been bloated by the previous porkulus.

This bill had very few good things in it and as we mentioned before, this bill contained what can only be described as a dispicable and racist provision to undermine the education of inner city minorities in Washington DC. Anyone who voted for this bill could be labaled as a racist. We know that Democrats are happy to continue its long record of keeping inner city minorities down, when Republicans do it such behavior should not be tolerated; we are the party of Lincoln and need to bahave that way. Evan Bayh made a big deal of voting against this bill, but he voted to preserve that racist provision when Republicans tried to have it stripped from the bill.

Debbie Buckley: 

Republicans who voted Yes for Earmark Bill

Alabama
Shelby (R) Yes
Alaska
Murkowski (R) Yes
Maine
Snowe (R) Yes
Mississippi
Cochran (R) Yes
Wicker (R) Yes
Missouri
Bond (R) Yes
Pennsylvania
Specter (R) Yes
Tennessee
Alexander (R) Yes

Posted in Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

David Frum is having delusions of grandeur

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2009

David Frum is one of the leftist elite media’s favorite Republicans. Why? Because they they can always count on him to launch personal attacks against other Republicans in the Reagan wing of the party.  He attacks Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin and others and much like the elite media left, his attacks are often generated from elitism, ignorance of the nuance of some issues and in some cases classism.

David Frum, for now, is basking in the glory of all of the attention he has gotten by behaving this way. The elite media used to shine its spotlight on John McCain and presented him as “the only Republican anyone who enjoys the elite media should listen to” and usually only when he is attacking the largest wing of the party; which by the way, includes Reagan Democrats when the GOP actually decides it is going to govern as they promise they will.

Of course when McCain challenged The One, the spotlight and glowing accolades came to a screeching halt after the elite media’s favorite Republican won the primary. Within hours the New York Times falsely accused John McCain of having an affair with a 40 year old lobbyist and stopped printing his oped letters. The elite media who John McCain had once called “his base” was now out to destroy him.

The result of Frum’s sophistry has been to get some attention from those who want to bash Republicans and claim the moral high road by declaring themselves as “moderates” and to get some temporary attention from Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh who have some fun poking at Frum. Of course, Frum lacks the introspective to ask himself, if he is so moderate why is it that the Reagan wing of the party, when they govern like the Reagan wing, is so effective at attracting cross pressured voters like the Reagan Democrats and why is it that (as clever youtubers have proved) Barack Obama burrowed much of  his rhetoric from Ronald Reagan?

Frum posted on his web site an article thanking all of his new readers who have come to his web site, as if they are really there to consume the product of his great intellect…..

A NOTE TO READERS – AND ESPECIALLY TO COMMENTERS

Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:36 AM

It’s been an exciting week here at NewMajority. It was just Feb. 27 that Rush Limbaugh declared in his speech at CPAC that would-be Republican reformers must be stamped out. Since then, we’ve had some exciting exchanges with Rush and his many, many admirers, supporters and dependents. The issues at stake could not be more important. Shall conservatives and Republicans subside into a movement of cultural protest? Or shall we restore ourselves as a grand national governing coalition?

This discussion has now reached close to 300,000 unique visitors here at NewMajority. We’re very excited by the continuing improvement in our various wonky web metrics: average duration of a visit to the site, number of pages read, that kind of thing. Above all, we are all of us here at NM gratified by our array of new writers and valued independent commenters.

 http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=9b0b8a53-9863-4d81-942d-614a6e034627

Most of the critical comments have been routinely cleansed from the page, even ones that weren’t nasty. Of course the far left went in there and had a ball as well and most of that was removed. One comment was left behind that demonstrated my point exactly.

Frum, my #1 suggestion for improvement is to avoid personally attacking other Republicans in your articles. Constructive criticism of one’s policies or viewpoints are fine…personal attacks will not bring about a NewMajority.

It is likely that David Frum will see this post eventually. David, you will only be in the spotlight as long as you continue to act as John McCain once did before he was mugged into a hard learned lesson. The time may come when you oppose The One, or the elite media on a matter of substance with some effectiveness. When/if that time comes you will go from being spotlighted to ignored, and if you are too effectivethey will try and destroy you too (you will notice that Barney Frank did not get the Jon Stewart treatment and Jim Cramer did). Right now the elite media is moving its “favorite and officially endorsed Republican spotlight” form you to Meghan McCain because she is a whole lot prettier than you and she is willing to make baseless accusations of anti-semitism against people, but all is not lost maybe if you say something like “Ann Coulter hates all Hispanics” or something you can get some of the spotlight back.

UPDATE – Awesome update in this story HERE.

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship | 1 Comment »