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 17th, 2009

Obama Administration Targets Armed Pilots for Harassment.

Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2009

The question is, is this from the top or is this a nutty anti-gun ideologue who he appointed? Answer: Now that it was the editorial in the Washington Times the White House knows about it and if this doesn’t end The One is responsible.

Eiether way, this speaks volumes about the judgement at the top to either target pilots like this, appoint people who would do this (at at least another case of very poor vetting) AND/OR allow the problem to get so bad that it had to hit the editorial page of the Washington Times. Is this the change you voted for?

Washington Times excerpt:

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots. The 12,000 Federal Flight Deck Officers, the pilots who have been approved to carry guns, are reported to have the best behavior of any federal law enforcement agency. There are no cases where any of them has improperly brandished or used a gun. There are just a few cases where officers have improperly used their IDs.

Fewer than one percent of the officers have any administrative actions brought against them and, we are told, virtually all of those cases “are trumped up.”

Take a case against one flight officer who had visited the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles within the last few weeks. While there, the pilot noticed that federal law enforcement officers can, with the approval of a superior, obtain a license plate that cannot be traced, a key safety feature for law enforcement personnel. So the pilot asked if, as a member of the federal program, he was eligible. The DMV staffer checked and said “no.” The next day administrative actions were brought against the pilot for “misrepresenting himself.” These are the kinds of cases that President Obama wants to investigate.

Since Mr. Obama’s election, pilots have told us that the approval process for letting pilots carry guns on planes slowed significantly. Last week the problem went from bad to worse. Federal Flight Deck Officers – the pilots who have been approved to carry guns – indicate that the approval process has stalled out.

Pilots cannot openly speak about the changing policies for fear of retaliation from the Transportation Security Administration.

Posted in Other Links | Leave a Comment »

Democrats put language in the ‘Stimulus Bill’ to protect AIG executive bonuses. Dodd and Obama were the number one recipients of money from AIG. Distraction in full swing & Congress’ plan to tax the bonuses at 100% wont pass constitutional muster. – UPDATE: Shep Smith goes off on Congress.

Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2009

[Before we get in to the goods one thought; what would be the reaction by the Democrats and the elite media be if Bush was still president. – Editor]

This issue is a big distraction and being milked by both sides; but before we get to that lets get to the big news.

Chris Dodd was for the executive bonuses before he was against them.

Senator Chriss Dodd, who was also the number one recipient of campaign cash the corrupt mortgage industry and the member of Congress most responsible for blocking mortgage industry reform since 2001, is also the number one recipient of cash from AIG taking in $103,100 in the 2008 election cycle alone with Barack Obama taking in $101, 332. Like the defunct mortgage industry, AIG gave over three times the donations to Democrats than to Republicans  – LINK.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Senator Dodd’s chances for reelection is in jeopardy.

Democrats inserted the language specifically allowing this in the ‘Stimulus Bill” while Republicans were locked out of conference negotiations, it was called the Dodd Amendment; he first denied this and now admits it and now is trying to spin his way out of it.

Fox Business News:

While the Senate was constructing the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. The provision, now called “the Dodd Amendment” by the Obama Administration, provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” — which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax.

Ok so they sneaked it in and got caught, so the outrage and threats to tax those bonuses at 100% is a show for the press and for you and me. Why?

1. The bonuses are a part of legal contracts so if AIG doesn’t pay them they will be taken to court and forced to pay the bonuses as well as punitive damages and other fees.

2. The Constitution of the United States prohibits the government from interfering with a legal contract. The argument can be made that taxing those bonuses at 100% or a very high rate is an effort to get around that constitutional restriction and they would be right.

3. The Constitution prohibits what are called “Bills of Attainder”. A bill of attainder is a law passsed by congress to punish an individual or a group of people are an imagined crime or wrong doing. This violates a right to a trial and due process of law. Making a special tax for those bonuses now is a bill of attainder and the courts are not going to stand for it.

4. The only way to really solve this is to make new laws for the future or for the industry to reform itself.

Those bonuses are likely to stick and any attempt by Congress to take that money is almost certainly doomed to fail in court. Congress knows this, but like the Rush Limbaugh smear story, the Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer smear stories, these cat fights are distractions that keep the real news from getting to you.

Now both sides are trying to “out outrage the other”. Republicans are talking up outrage against AIG when they should be outraging at Democrats who helped to make sure this could happen with the language in the Stimulus Bill. The mortgage industry scandal shows us that much of the Democratic Party leadership is in Wall Street’s back pocket and this scandal is just more reason to come to that conclusion.

Michelle Malkin comments HERE.

UPDATE – Video: Shep Smith goes OFF on this pure show and deception & tells you what we have told you from minute one.

As we told you this AIG media and political frenzy is about two things, a distractions that the Democrats screwed up, and a distraction from the fact that Democrats have been getting money funneled back to their campaigns from AIG, Wall Street firms and the mortgage industry. The video:

UPDATE II – CBS news decided not to mention the Dodd Amendment in its coverage…is anyone surprised? – LINK

Posted in 2012, Big Bizz Loves Big Govt, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Mortgage Crisis | 2 Comments »

Breaking: Obama Appoints Indiana Judge Who Banned “Christ” from Prayers in the Indiana House

Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2009

Folks, this is a judge who gets overturned for making outrageous politically motivated rulings.

Washington Times:

President Obama sent the Senate his first judicial nomination Tuesday, announcing that Indiana Judge David Hamilton is his choice for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Hamilton has served as a federal district judge for 14 years and was named chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in January 2008, the White House said.

We have all heard judges gone wild stories; judges who make outrageous and outrageously unconstitutional political rulings form the bench for the purpose of a partisan axe to grind, social engineering, or other personal peccadilloes.

One such judge is Southern District of Indiana federal Judge David Hamilton.

Hamilton ruled, in one of those nutty ACLU lawsuits that attempt to ban Christianity from public discourse, that the word “Christ” could not be used in the prayer that opens the session of the Indiana State House.

Judge Upholds Prayer Limits in Indiana State House

Some in Both Parties Vow to Fight Ruling

By Peter SlevinWashington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 1, 2006; Page A03

CHICAGO, Dec. 31 — In a spirited duel over prayer, members of the Indiana state House are at odds with a federal judge who ruled that the daily invocation appeals too often to Jesus Christ and a Christian god.

The “systematically sectarian” prayers, U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton concluded, are barred by the Constitution, which forbids the government to show preference for any religious denomination. He ordered the House to avoid mentioning Christ in the formal benedictions.

As the House prepares to open its 2006 session on Wednesday, a number of politicians have vowed to defy Hamilton, whom they accuse of undermining a 188-year Indiana tradition and interfering in legislative branch affairs.

Terry Goodin, a Democrat who rejects Hamilton’s order, is among at least two dozen House members who have asked to give Wednesday’s prayer. He said he would “absolutely” speak Christ’s name if given the chance.

“Really, who do you pray to? If you’re offering up a prayer, you’re praying to a deity. You don’t offer prayers to just an open space,” Goodin said. “I will give the same type of prayer that’s been given for 100 years. I won’t change my words because of someone in the judicial branch who tells me I must.”

Hamilton expects House leaders, including Speaker Brian Bosma (R), who is appealing the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, to honor the injunction. If they do not, the judge said, he intends “to take appropriate steps to insure compliance.”

…Unlike on some fronts in the culture wars, elected Democrats and Republicans have come together to criticize Hamilton’s ruling.

“I see where religions were forbidden in other countries. In communist countries. In totalitarian countries. I think this smacks of that,” said Rep. B. Patrick Bauer (D), the House minority leader and former speaker. “We need a clarification or we need a correction.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/31/AR2005123100723.html

Apparently Judge Hamilton never took a good constitutional law course (this writer took constitutional law from a sitting federal judge who is also a master historian). Prayer opens the House of Representatives in Washington DC and in the State Houses at the beginning of each day’s session. Since 95% of religious people in the United States are Christians and our law is based off of the Christian Philosophy of John Locke and others it is only reasonable that a majority of prayers will be Christian.

When the Indiana House asked Judge Hamilton to stay the ruling until an appeal could be heard he denied it.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated Judge Hamilton’s ruling:

The 2-1 decision by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is a victory for social conservatives, although the justices avoided dealing directly with whether the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, as the lower court had ruled.

Instead, the majority ruled that the four Indiana residents who brought the lawsuit lacked standing because they had “not shown that the legislature has extracted from them tax dollars for the establishment and implantation” of a program that supposedly violates the Establishment Clause.

Glen Lavy, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, applauded the ruling. ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking the judges to reinstate the prayer practice

“Those who oppose Christian invocations are essentially saying that the Founders were violating the Constitution as they were writing it,” Lavy said in a statement. “People of all religions have always had an equal opportunity to offer prayer before Indiana legislative sessions, and this ruling ensures that those who offer prayers in the name of Jesus will not lose that opportunity either.”

The lawsuit was brought against the speaker of the state House of Representatives by the Indiana affiliate of the ACLU, which won the initial round in November 2005 when U.S. District Judge David F. Hamilton ruled prayers must be “non-sectarian” and must not mention “Christ’s name or title or any other denominational appeal.” Later, Hamilton clarified the ruling and said it applied to all sectarian prayers, not just those mentioning Christ.

Mathew D. Staver, founder of the religious liberty organization Liberty Counsel, filed a friend-of-the-court brief asking that the prayer practice be left alone:

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision handed down earlier this year is already beginning to close the door on lawsuits that seek to eliminate public acknowledgment of God and religion,” Staver said in a statement. “Mere offense at the mention of God does not give the right to file a lawsuit. … Prayers offered at legislative sessions are permissible acknowledgements of God and do not establish a religion. Legislative prayer predates the First Amendment and was present when our nation was birthed in the delivery room of the Constitutional Convention.

Courts often examine a case using ‘juristiction’ as the first criteria and ‘standing’ as the second. If either of those conditions cannot be met there is no reason to continue the case.  With that said, the Founders crystal clearly never intend for “separation of church & state” to be interpreted in the manner the ACLU wishes. Judge Hamilton’s ruling also took the entire notion of ‘separation of powers’ and tossed it out the window. The very idea that the judicial branch can dictate to a legislature its procedural customs flies in the face of limited constitutional government.

 

UPDATE – The Washington Post, the day after this article was published, printed an article explaing that some are pointing out how Hamilton is a far left judicial activist who is being falsely portrayed as a moderate.

The Judicial Confirmation Network, a group that supports conservative judicial nominees, painted Hamilton as a liberal whom the Obama administration was attempting to disguise as a moderate. Pointing to what the White House says was Hamilton’s work raising contributions door-to-door for the advocacy group ACORN for one month after college, and his work on the board of the ACLU, the JCN called Hamilton “an ultra-liberal.”

National Review points out that Hamilton was chastised by the 7th Circuit Appeals Court for being the ONLY judge in the country to rule as he has. Abuse of position anyone?…:

It’s far from clear what justifies the article’s characterization of Hamilton as a “moderate” (or, as the article oddly puts it, as “represent[ing] some of his state’s traditionally moderate strain”—how does one represent some of a strain?).  Was it perhaps Hamilton’s service as vice president for litigation, and as a board member, of the Indiana branch of the ACLU?  Or maybe Hamilton’s extraordinary seven-year-long series of rulings obstructing Indiana’s implementation of its law providing for informed consent on abortion?  That obstruction elicited this strong statement (emphasis added) from the Seventh Circuit panel majority that overturned Hamilton:

 

For seven years Indiana has been prevented from enforcing a statute materially identical to a law held valid by the Supreme Court in Casey, by this court in Karlin, and by the fifth circuit in Barnes. No court anywhere in the country (other than one district judge in Indiana [i.e., Hamilton]) has held any similar law invalid in the years since Casey. Although Salerno does not foreclose all pre-enforcement challenges to abortion laws, it is an abuse of discretion for a district judge to issue a pre-enforcement injunction while the effects of the law (and reasons for those effects) are open to debate.

 

Or perhaps Hamilton’s inventive invocation of substantive due process to suppress evidence of a criminal defendant’s possession of cocaine marijuana,* a ruling that, alas, was unanimously reversed by the Seventh Circuit?

 

With “moderates” like Hamilton, imagine what Obama’s “liberal” nominees will look like.

Update II – Ed Morrissey at Hotair.com has a great post on this issue as well. Definately worth the read.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Study: Media Acts as Ideological Gatekeepers to Censor News

Posted by iusbvision on March 17, 2009

I know this is going to sound dreadfully dry, but reading academic journals is sort of becoming a hobby of mine. Every once in a while I find a real gem of a statement. Here is one I found today.

Bias in TV News Study by C. A. Tuggle 1998:

One research contended that what is news is determined by Journalists’ own experiences, values and attitudes (Willis 1991). Willis wrote that journalists, like most people, tend to stereotype people, issues, and situations. These stereotypes, in turn, affect the gatekeeping process, in which journalists decide what is news and in what form the news should be presented. Sowell (1992) argued that subjects or positions that do not fit the ideological preconceptions of the media never become news.

…and to think that one of my journalism professors told me that she never saw anything like this happen in her career. I see it happen every day, just open the New York Times, or take a look at how the L.A. Times thought that a Tea Party Protest that attracted between 8000 – 15000 people (depending on whose numbers you listen to) was just not newsworthy; yet the LA Times writes about upcoming far left ANSWER protests in advance to help inflate them – LINK.

What is not in the study but what is clearly obvious, is that the bias in Academia and college text books works exactly the same way.  Look at how universities refuse to bring conservative speakers to campus, or try to charge outrageous “security” fees to bring them in. Look at what Amherst College did to Justice Scalia recently – LINK.

There is little to no serious study, of the Roman and Greek classics, John Locke, Adam Smith,  or American Studies in the general education curriculum at most universities today.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »