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 June, 2009

Democrat Conyers Pleads Guilty to Feds for Taking Bribes.

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2009

Monica Conyers is the wife of House member John Conyers, who ironically overseas the committee that is charged with rooting out corruption in Congress. The same congressman who just stopped the House investigation of the ACORN fraud with your tax dollars.

Detroit Free Press:

monica conyers mug shotDetroit City Council President Pro Tem Monica Conyers pleaded guilty this morning to conspiring to commit bribery and is free on personal bond.

U.S. District Judge Avern Cohn said, “The defendant now stands convicted.”

The one count of conspiring to commit bribery is punishable by up to five years in prison.

No sentencing date has been set.

In court, Conyers’ combative demeanor was gone, replaced by soft-spoken resignation as the judge and his staff several times asked her to speak up.

Conyers, the wife of powerful Democratic congressman U.S. Rep. John Conyers, appeared before Cohn to answer charges in connection with the wide-ranging probe of wrongdoing at Detroit city hall.

Download the charging document and plea agreement.

Read the waiver of indictment.

She has long been under suspicion in the Synagro Technologies bribery probe, not least because she had been a vocal opponent of the contract before suddenly switching her sentiments. She became the deciding voice in the city council’s 5-4 vote to approve the sludge-hauling deal in November 2007.

“This is not the beginning and it is certainly not the end, folks,” FBI Special Agent in Charge Andy Arena said at a news conference this morning.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Other Links | 1 Comment »

Democrats break transparency promise again, drop 300 page amendment to energy tax bill at 3:09 am.

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2009

This is the transparency the Democrats ran on and promised. They also promised all bills would be published for five days before any votes were made.

John Beohner chews out Henry Waxman for his 3AM, 300 page amendment to cap & trade energy tax bill.

Michelle Bachman comments –  

Fox Business Channel – 

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Video: Newt on the world that works vs. the world that fails

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2009

Hillarious and brilliant explanation of why government solutions often fail.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Leftist hypocrisy “He is just doing it to get paid”

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2009

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Fallacy upon fallacy, ignorance upon ignorance…

Posted by iusbvision on June 27, 2009

Corporatism and government corruption is to blame for the economic and political mess, not free market capitalism.

This nine minute video will teach you more about economics than a semester of macro-economics.

Those free-market economists who predicted the economic collapse have been swept under the rug and the rewriting of history has begun.

Newt Gingrich excerpts from a lecture he gave on how we got here, and telling you what we here at IUSB Vision told you when it happened. Corporatism (aka crony capitalism – the merging of finance companies and the government).

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Welcome to gangster government….

Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2009

See our previous post on this injustice HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Congressman tells how census information can be used against you.

Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2009

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

Michael Savage on how youth mishandle rejection.

Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2009

This is a brilliant video and the message is one that every young person should hear. How you handle rejection can be an opportunity for growth.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Obama: Old people don’t need life saving treatments they can take a pain pill (and be left to die) – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on June 26, 2009

[Welcome Associated Content readers! – Editor]

UPDATE – See this video from Obama advisor and former Labor Secretery Robert Reich – LINK.

Take out the fluff talk…. and this is what you are left with. Sick ……

Transcript with Rush Limbaugh’s comments:

Member of the audience. Jane Sturm: “My mother is now over 105. But at 100, the doctors said to her, ‘I can’t do anything more unless you have a pacemaker.’ I said, ‘Go for it.’ She said, ‘Go for it.’ But the specialist said, ‘No, she’s too old.’ But when the other specialist saw her and saw her joy of life, he said, ‘I’m going for it.’ That was over five years ago. My question to you is: Outside the medical criteria for prolonging life for somebody who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be given for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, a quality of life, or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?”

Obama: “I don’t think that we can make judgments based on people’s ‘spirit.’ Uh, that would be, uh, a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we have to have rules that, uh, say that, uh, we are going to provide good quality care for all people. End-of-life care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we’re going to have to make. But understand that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If they’re not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they’re being made by private insurers. At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.” Do you realize how cold and heartless that answer is? This woman is asking about her mother. And everywhere she went, except one doctor, refused to put in the pacemaker. “Nah, she’s too old; she’s going to die anyway.”

So they found a specialist: “Maybe this woman really loves living. I’ll put it in.” She’s lived five years with the pacemaker, and still Obama: “Maybe you’re better off to tell your mother to take a pill, take a painkiller.” See, we have to have rules. “We have to have rules. Your mother should have died five years ago, lady. She would have been better off taking that painkiller.” Who says we have to have his rules? The President of the United States is not a king. He’s not an autocrat. He’s not a ruler. He doesn’t get to set the rules. Obama has taken it upon himself to do so. This woman found a way to get her mother a pacemaker. With Obamacare, you just heard the answer: It wouldn’t have happened.

Chilling.

UPDATE

Obama Advisor and former Labor Sec. Robert Reich: We are going to let the old die because its to expensive and we are going to make the drug companies poor so they cant innovate new drugs so you young people likely will not live much longer than your parents.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Economics 101, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 17 Comments »

Supreme Court: Strip Searching a 13 Year Old for Ibuprofen is Illegal

Posted by iusbvision on June 25, 2009

The fact that a no-brainer case like this had to even go to the Supreme Court speaks a great deal about how many bad judges and school administrators are out there.

This, unfortunately is exactly the kind of behavior I have come to expect from school bureaucrats/administrators. Time and time again we see that these administrators have no common sense; the insistence that the most outrageous and illegal behavior is justified and willing to waste the tax payers money by letting this go all the way to court, not to mention the Supreme Court. FIRE has hundreds of examples where school administrators, who are often paid five and six figure incomes to exercise good judgment simply are incapable of recognizing basic common sense until a court of law (force) rams it down their throat.

Washington Post:

Supreme Court Rules School’s Strip Search of Girl Was Illegal

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, June 25, 2009 1:51 PM

The Supreme Court ruled today that Arizona school officials violated the constitutional rights of a 13-year-old girl when they subjected her to a strip search on the suspicion she might be hiding ibuprofen in her underwear.

The court ruled 8-1 that such an intrusive search without the threat of a clear danger to other students violated the Constitution’s protections against unreasonable search or seizure. (Anyone who has a basic understanding and repect for the Constitution and people’s human rights could have told us that – editor)

Justice David H. Souter, writing perhaps his final opinion for the court, said that in the search of Savana Redding, now a 19-year-old college student, school officials overreacted to vague accusations that Redding was violating school policy by possessing the ibuprofen, equivalent to two Advils.

What was missing, Souter wrote, “was any indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs or their quantity, and any reason to suppose that Savana was carrying pills in her underwear,” Souter wrote.

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

Leftist Brookings Institution: “Cap & Trade” will cost trillions – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on June 25, 2009

UPDATE:

Via Heritage Foundation:

Brookings: Cap and Trade Will Cost Jobs and GDP

The Brookings Institution released their own analysis of analysis on the costs of cap and trade yesterday. Unlike Heritage’s recent Center for Data Analysis study, the Brookings effort does not analyze any particular bill, but does look at the economic costs of four policy scenarios. Their conclusions:

Welfare effects

  • Loss in Personal Consumption of $1 to $2 trillion present value
  • Incremental stringency produces high incremental cost, e.g. extra 8 % reduction increases costs 45%
  • US GDP in 2050 lower by 2.5%

Employment effect

  • -0.5% at peak in first decade

This Brookings study confirms what the EPA, IPCC, RFF, MIT, and The Heritage Foundation have all already reported: carbon cap and trade is a jobs and GDP killer.

Total bill looks like 9 Trillion according to some estimates. Brookings is a leftist/Democrat think tank.

Al_Gore_CreditCard

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Video Comparison: Obama on Iran vs. Reagan on Poland – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Rep. Thad McCotter on Iranian protestors being murdered, Neda, what would Reagan do, and missile defense.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Question Staged at Press Conference

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Politico:

In what appeared to be a coordinated exchange, President Obama called on the Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney near the start of his press conference and requested a question directly about Iran.

“Nico, I know you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming out of Iran,” Obama said, addressing Pitney.  “I know there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Do you have a question?”

Pitney, as if ignoring what Obama had just said, said: “I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian.”

He then noted that the site had solicited questions from people in the country “who were still courageous enough to be communicating online.”

“Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad, and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn’t that a betrayal of the — of what the demonstrators there are working towards?”

Reporters typically don’t coordinate their questions for the president before press conferences, so it seemed odd that Obama might have an idea what the question would be. Also, it was a departure from White House protocol by calling on The Huffington Post second, in between the AP and Reuters.

CBS Radio’s Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was “very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about.”

According to POLITICO’s Carol Lee, The Huffington Post reporter was brought out of lower press by deputy press secretary Josh Earnest and placed just inside the barricade for reporters a few minutes before the start of the press conference.

UPDATE: Deputy press secretary Bill Burton responds: “We did reach out to him prior to press conference to tell him that we had been paying attention to what he had been doing on Iran and there was a chance that he’d be called on. And, he ended up asking the toughest question that the President took on Iran. In the absence of an Iranian press corps in Washington, it was an innovative way to get a question directly from an Iranian.”

UPDATE 2: Knoller, again via Twitter: “Huffington Post’s Nico Pitney says the WH called him this morning and invited him to ask his Iran questions at the news conference.”

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

How is it that Obama was a genius yesterday for not condemning Iranian brutality and tomorrow he’ll be heralded as a genius for condemning it today?

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Hotair.com quotes famed writer Jim Treacher in a great post:

A nifty compilation from TPM, although the only moment that rises to true snottiness, I think, is his high-handed reminder that he’s the president in response to the question about McCain. Don’t get mad just because you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the podium to denounce shooting unarmed women in the heart, champ.

In his defense, he has a right to be testy: His agenda’s collapsing. Exit question via Jim Treacher: How is it that Obama was a genius yesterday for not condemning Iranian brutality and tomorrow he’ll be heralded as a genius for condemning it today? I guess he’s just super-keen on timing, huh? 

And speaking of health care and “Spock like logic”, the government in the “mandated public option” not only is a player in the game with private health insurance companies but is also the referee with a gun. That is why people are concerned that this is just a plan to put health insurers out of business.

George Will has a great column “The stealth single-payer Agenda” about how Obama is proposing a stealth government take over of healthcare:

The Lewin Group estimates that 70 percent of the 172 million persons privately covered might be drawn, or pushed, to the government plan. A significant portion of the children who have enrolled in the State Children’s Health Insurance Program since eligibility requirements were relaxed in February had private insurance.

Assurances that the government plan would play by the rules that private insurers play by are implausible. Government is incapable of behaving like market-disciplined private insurers. Competition from the public option must be unfair because government does not need to make a profit and has enormous pricing and negotiating powers.

The president characteristically denies that he is doing what he is doing — putting the nation on a path to an outcome he considers desirable — just as he denies any intention of running General Motors. Nevertheless, the unifying constant of his domestic policies — their connecting thread — is that they advance the Democrats’ dependency agenda. The party of government aims to make Americans more equal by making them equally dependent on government for more and more things.

The word from sources at AT&T is that they are delaying forming a new contract with their union employees because they are waiting to see if they can dump their health care costs on the government.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Jake Tapper: Another Obama Campaign Reversal

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Update – RNC releases Ad:

Jake Tapper:

Once Opposed to ‘Forcing’ Americans to Get Health Insurance, President Obama Now Says His Thinking Has ‘Evolved’

June 24, 2009 9:40 AM

It was once a major bone of contention between then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and then-Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, as they campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination. Clinton’s health care proposal required Americans to have health insurance, similarly in theory to how drivers are required to have car insurance. Obama’s didn’t.

“Senator Clinton is arguing that the only way to get every American covered is if you force every American to buy health care,” Mr. Obama told Iowa reporters in November 2007. “And unfortunately she hasn’t told anybody how she would enforce this mandate.”

During a contentious debate in Las Vegas, Nevada, Mr. Obama said “the only difference between Senator Clinton’s health care plan and mine is that she thinks the problem for people without health care is that nobody has mandated — forced — them to get health care. That’s not what I’m seeing around Nevada. What I see are people who would love to have health care. They — they desperately want it. But the problem is they can’t afford it.”

He underlined again during the debate: “I don’t think that the problem with the American people is that they are not being forced to get health care.”

But during his interview with Diane Sawyer, President Obama said that while “mandates are an example of… something that I was resistant to during the campaign… this is an area where people have made some pretty compelling arguments to me that if we want to have a system that drives down costs for everybody, then we’ve got to have healthier people not opt out of the system. And I think that you have to be careful to make sure that there’s a waiver. So that if we haven’t made health care affordable yet, you’re not punishing people, not only because they can’t afford health care, but — now giving ’em an additional fine.”

The president said that “any program that we put in place, I think there will be some phase-in period. So that we can calibrate and adjust to make sure that there really is affordability there before we start trying to penalize people. But I think my thinking on the issue of mandates has evolved. And I think that that is typical of most people who study this problem deeper.”

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Jake Tapper, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

700 NYC Teachers Are Paid to Do Nothing

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

FNC:

NEW YORK — Hundreds of New York City public school teachers accused of offenses ranging from insubordination to sexual misconduct are being paid their full salaries to sit around all day playing Scrabble, surfing the Internet or just staring at the wall, if that’s what they want to do.

Because their union contract makes it extremely difficult to fire them, the teachers have been banished by the school system to its “rubber rooms” — off-campus office space where they wait months, even years, for their disciplinary hearings.

The 700 or so teachers can practice yoga, work on their novels, paint portraits of their colleagues — pretty much anything but school work. They have summer vacation just like their classroom colleagues and enjoy weekends and holidays through the school year.

“You just basically sit there for eight hours,” said Orlando Ramos, who spent seven months in a rubber room, officially known as a temporary reassignment center, in 2004-05. “I saw several near-fights. `This is my seat.’ `I’ve been sitting here for six months.’ That sort of thing.”

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

Congress spends $100,000 on toad recovery

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Here is the LINK …. priceless

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Newsweek: Obama Breaking Transparency Promise

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

Of all the media outlets, none has been in the tank for the Obama Administration more than Newsweek. The Washington press corps has even given the magazine the nick name “Obamaweek”, but locking out access will generate ire from even your strongest journalist lapdog.   Of course, we noticed the trend towards shutting down transparency back in February (Link), how nice of Newsweek to finally figure this out.

Newsweek:

Obama Closes Doors on Openness
By Michael Isikoff

As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a “new era” of openness, “nothing has changed,” says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. “For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.”

The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama’s much-publicized Jan. 21 “transparency” memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a “presumption” of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies “if practicable” for cases involving “pending litigation.” Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other “lawyerly hedges” means the Holder memo is now “astonishingly weaker” than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)

Administration officials say the Holder memo was drafted by senior Justice lawyers in consultation with Craig’s office. The separate standard for “pending” lawsuits was inserted because of the “burden” it would impose on officials to go “backward” and reprocess hundreds of old cases, says Melanie Ann Pustay, who now heads the FOIA office. White House spokesman Ben LaBolt says Obama “has backed up his promise” with actions including the broadcast of White House meetings on the Web. (Others cite the release of the so-called torture memos.) As for the visitor logs, LaBolt says the policy is now “under review.”

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

Lawsuit: TSA Targeting Ron Paul Supporters

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

What law enforcement power WONT be abused by this administration? How is carrying money on a plane a danger to the flight? Answer: it’s not.

AP:

Suit accuses TSA of unreasonable airport detention

By JIM SALTER

ST. LOUIS (AP) — A lawsuit filed Thursday against the Transportation Security Administration alleges a Ron Paul supporter was unreasonably detained at the St. Louis airport because he was carrying about $4,700 in cash.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of Steven Bierfeldt, director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, an organization that grew out of Ron Paul’s 2008 presidential campaign.

The organization had hosted an event in St. Louis that included the sale of tickets, T-shirts, stickers and other materials and Bierfeldt said he was carrying the cash proceeds in a metal box when he was detained at Lambert Airport for about 30 minutes on March 29.

The lawsuit does not seek money but asks the court to declare the TSA’s actions unconstitutional and to prohibit the agency from similar searches when there is no evidence aircraft are endangered.

“It’s obviously important that the safety of flights be ensured,” Bierfeldt said in a telephone interview. “But subjecting innocent travelers like me who are doing nothing wrong — I think it diverts TSA away from its core mission of safeguarding air travel.”

TSA spokesman Greg Soule said the agency would not comment on pending litigation.

Bierfeldt said he refused to answer when a TSA official asked what was in the box. Another TSA official arrived, and Bierfeldt was taken into a separate room where he used an iPhone in his jacket pocket to record the officials’ questioning.

An audio clip provided by the ACLU includes repeated questions from a TSA official about why Bierfeldt was carrying so much money, and his repeated refusal to answer. On one occasion, the questioner swears and asks, “Is there any reason you’re not answering questions?”

Bierfeldt answers, “Am I legally required to answer the question?”

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

Big Brother: Bozeman Montana Requires City Employees Facebook Passwords

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

File this one under “Government is your master and not your servant”

Bozeman Daily Chronicle:

By AMANDA RICKER Chronicle Staff Writer

If you’re planning to apply for a job with the city of Bozeman, prepare to clean up your Facebook page.


As part of routine background checks, the city asks job applicants to provide their usernames and passwords for their social-networking sites. And it has been doing it for years, city officials said.

“Please list any and all, current personal or business Web sites, Web pages or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include, but not limited to: Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc.,” states a city waiver form applicants are asked to sign. Three lines are provided for applicants to list log-in information for each site.

City officials maintain the policy is necessary to ensure employees’ integrity and protect the public’s trust, but the American Civil Liberties Union of Montana says they may be crossing the line.

“I would guess that they’re on some shaky legal ground with this and we would certainly welcome (the opportunity) to look at something specific from somebody who’s impacted,” Executive Director Scott Crichton said Thursday.

He said Bozeman’s policy is unprecedented as far as he knows. ACLU’s legal counsel in Washington, D.C., had never heard of another city asking for log-in information for social networking sites as part of a job application.

“It’s like saying, ‘Let me look through your e-mails,’” Crichton said.

“The city certainly has access to publicly accessible information, but it gets pretty questionable when they start asking for password-protected things that are created to create privacy for communications between your friends and family,” he said. “That seems to be going too far.”

City Manager Chris Kukulski said the city checks the sites in order to ensure that employees who might be handling taxpayer money, working with children in recreation programs or entering residents’ homes as an emergency services worker are reputable and honest.

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

TVN: New All-Time Lows for Both CBS & ABC Evening Newscasts

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

TVN:

Breaking: TVNewser has learned the CBS Evening News has once again set an all-time low last week with 4.89 million Total Viewers and 1.42 million A25-54 viewers. But it was also the lowest (since records began in the 1991-’92 season) for ABC’s World News with Charles Gibson. The Gibson program drew 6.42 million Total Viewers and 1.77 million A25-54 viewers.

Both CBS’s Katie Couric and ABC’s Charlie Gibson were off last week.

By contrast, Fox News and Limbaugh ratings are up.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Chris Brown gets probation for beating the hell out of Rihanna

Posted by iusbvision on June 24, 2009

He beat Rihanna almost to the point of being unrecognizable. Her face was swollen that badly. Brown was handed five years probation. This sends a bad message that violence against women is still almost permissible in today’s society. It would not have been uncommon for someone to get three months in prison for what he did and he should have gotten some jail time.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild | Leave a Comment »

Republicans need to stop baseless attacks on each other and mount substantive attacks on the other side. UPDATE: The “Divisive” canard.

Posted by iusbvision on June 23, 2009

What is the best way for a Republican to become the darling of the Washington press corps? Easy, just start calling other Republicans names and launch vague attacks upon them.

American Thinker has a great piece on this so we are sharing it here with some comments of our own in bold:

There is something about D.C. that saps the will and dulls the intellect of conservatives. Prolonged exposure makes them fretful and risk-averse, even timid with controversial issues. Rather than standing on the fundamental values that define American conservatism such as fiscal restraint, limited government, low taxes and free markets, they sidestep and tap-dance, befuddled by the “bi-partisan” opiates peddled by Socialist Democrats.

Perhaps they are worried about re-election more than the core issues. Their long record of misreading the national temperament, rolling over on leftist initiatives, and pushing the wrong candidates has alienated conservatives of all stripes. They squandered the mandate voters handed them in 2004. Vast numbers have now registered Independent in protest. When you don’t fight back, you lose. Socialist calls for “bipartisanship” are a trick conservatives fall for again and again, a tool they use to undermine us; they do not pretend to follow it. So why do we listen to political traitors like Colin Powell or fence-sitting bureaucrats like Tom Ridge? Why do we give the advice of “big tent” moderates any credence? Because our opponents tell us to, and, like fools, we listen.

Tom Ridge, the former Homeland Security Secretary and a towering intellect compared to its current head, recently criticized Rush Limbaugh on CNN. His comments closely echoed the kumbaya nonsense that convinced John McCain that there was an ethical political high road that would gain him the votes he needed. The Democrat Socialists never bothered to go there, but McCain foolishly did. Ridge said:

“I think for the American public, for the Republican Party to restore itself, not as a regional party, but as a national party, we have to be far less judgmental about disagreements within the party and far more judgmental about our disagreement with our friends on the other side of the aisle,” Ridge said. “I think a lot of our commentators are being shrill.” In response to a question about Limbaugh, “Yes, Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 million people. A lot of people listen daily to him and live by every word. But words mean things and how you use words is very important.” He further said, “Well, I think Rush articulates his point of view in ways that offend very many. It’s a matter of language and a matter of how you use words. It does get the base all fired up and he’s got a strong following. But personally, if he would listen to me and I doubt if he would, the notion is express yourselves but let’s respect others opinions and let’s not be divisive.”

[Really Tom, let me ask you, who uses “divisive” language. Al Gore says that pres. Bush “demeaned our democracy”, Democrats have falsely construed mild interrogation techniques as torture, Barack Obama says that our troops air raid villages and kill civilians, John Kerry says that our soldiers torture women and children, Dick Durbin compares our soldiers to Nazi’s, Ted Kennedy says that President Bush “lied us into war” when he said the same thing Bill Clinton and the international community were saying, Obama uses the presidential bully pulpit to attack Indiana Pension Fund bond holders and the list goes on (LINK for video).

The Obama campaign made repeated sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, including one spokesman who said that she should be at home taking care of her kids (and apparently Obama shouldn’t), Obama surrogates like Slate.com made cruel and outrageous attacks on Sarah Palin and the people in her home town of Wasilla. They even said that she was pro rape, against help for teen mothers and tried to ban books – all lies; yet did the elite media ever once call them out for being “divisive”? When does the elite media and the Democrats cry “divisive” – they do so when they are faced with strong arguments from conservatives that are not so easily or honestly refuted. Republicans like Ridge and Powell need to stop accepting the premises of the elite media and the Democrats (which are now one) and start attacking them. – Editor]

Well how’s that working for you, Tom? In case you have not noticed, we are in a crisis contrived and perpetuated by the very people you wish us to be respectful of, whom you call “our friends on the other side of the aisle.” Not being divisive has bought us a socialist in the presidency and thieves in congress and a ticket on a bullet train to disaster. “Shrill” conservative commentary is a leftist canard, there is no shriller voice than a socialist scorned. So he tells us not to offend the opposition that is working hard on stealing our children’s future and squandering our nation’s treasure. How can conservatives take the Republican Party seriously when such people are running it?

[That is right he said socialist. With the government take over of two car companies, banks and other parts of the financial sector, the government controls 39% of the economy, with a take ovcer a health care that brings it up to 46%. Germany, which everyone acknowledges is socialist controls 47% of their economy (source Dick Morris) – Editor]

Colin Powell’s treachery was very Obama-esque, with high-minded rhetoric and no tangible explanation for the citizens that at one time respected him. Always a political general, he is adept at seeing where the political wind blows, and his loyalties seem to be correspondingly shallow. The Valerie Plame fiasco is proof of that. Powell and his subordinate Richard Armitage let a good man hang out to dry, knowing full well it was Armitage who was responsible. Whether they remained silent from cowardice or had a more malign purpose, the result was the same. Powell is like Obama in that he sounds somber and wise, but when his words are examined without the timbre of his voice and his “style,” they fall flat, all rhetorical flourish without substance. (Senator John Kerry called Powell’s comments endorsing Obama “eloquent.”)

“But which is the president that we need now? Which is the individual that serves the needs of the nation for the next period of time? And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities–and we have to take that into account–as well as his substance–he has both style and substance–he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president. I think he is a transformational figure. He is a new generation coming into the world–onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.” [Notice Powell did not mention one policy position of Obama in his endorsement? – Editor]

Let me say what most Republicans feel. When Colin Powell came out in support of Barack Obama, he effectively renounced Republicanism. Powell spat in the face of all conservative Americans and all his dissembling on Sunday gab fests does not change that fact. Obama is unmistakably and unabashedly socialist in his policies; he is the embodiment of the radical left and his policies are a disaster for our nation. Powell knows there will be no forgiveness. So when he criticizes “right wing” conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh, he is merely appeasing his new masters and weakening the party he has already betrayed.

[But lets add some more substance to this argument, for all intensive purposes Powell makes the case that Republicans should be super sweet, not argumentative, not take Democrats to task and not engage in partisanship (even when Democrats in Congress have made it clear to lock Republicans out of bill negotiations after promising bi-partisanship). John McCain is the poster child of this kind of behavior and Powell endorsed Obama. When do you hear Powell take day to day policy positions, argue them, put out detailed position and policy papers? You don’t. With Powell all you will get is puff rhetoric. Limbaugh takes policy positions, articulates them in detail, puts them on his web site and in the Wall Street Journal. – Editor]

It’s not just Limbaugh. When any conservative figure is perceived as pivotal to the success of the Republican Party, the Socialists go gunning for them, they use every stratagem and deceit they can, they concoct and exaggerate, they ridicule and they lie. Sarah Palin, Ted Stevens, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh are all examples. The smears, slander and character assassination are a tactic they are not shy about using. The press is their ally, repeating every absurd and fallacious talking point, stacking panels with Socialist apologists and shouting down conservative perspectives. Inevitably, they find a Republican quisling, like Powell, to parrot their words, to reinforce them in the minds of the voter, giving them validity, and undermining the values they pretend they support.

It is fashionable in elite Republican circles to turn up your nose when Limbaugh is mentioned, he is so embarrassingly proletarian, so annoyingly common, and he has no Ivy League pedigree. He is “divisive,” he is “offensive,” he is “polarizing;” in short; he is a hell of a lot more effective than the gang in charge that let the opposition define the issues and the debate. Their arrogance fits nicely into the Socialist plan, they just pepper in accusations of racism, drug addiction, and misogyny and presto, you have a national smear campaign. Love him or hate him, Limbaugh is doing something. He is clear and consistent, and despite the criticisms of those who have never listened to him, he articulates what many millions believe and current events reinforce. He is the thin strand of principle holding us together in a leadership vacuum.

All the ever-so-reasonable sounding reprimands, admonishing us to be less “partisan” and to “reach out rather than criticize” and to “tone down the rhetoric” have an underlying purpose, to weaken a party already crippled by a deficit of self-confidence. It is an old Alinsky trick to place conservative perspectives in a negative moral context and hammer away; eventually, the opposition will grow disillusioned, its animating energy diminished. It works. Our tremulous elites are endlessly distracted by focus groups and straw polls, talk show pundits and the ravings of corrupt legislators that couldn’t tell the truth to save their souls. These country club conservatives are convinced that standing on conservative principles will be a failure.

Either you believe in your principles or you do not. If not, you might as well go the way of the wretched Arlen Specter. You fight honorably, but you fight to win, because the alternative is a failed America. There is not much time, 2010 is our last chance. Once the trillions in stimulus fill the Democrat party coffers and cement their cronies into government, the nation is theirs, and just like the title on James Carville’s newest book proclaims, ‘40 More Years, How The Democrats will Rule the Next Generation,’ we will be powerless to stop the destruction of our institutions.

Yes, Carville used the word Rule. Not serve the nation, not govern, not lead, but rule. The word speaks volumes to the underlying belief system and motivations of the Socialist Democrats. This is not paranoia or conspiracy nuttiness, this is real. They fully intend to manipulate, steal, propagandize and deconstruct everything we cherish, everything we hold dear as Americans. If they succeed, the country will be unrecognizable in a few years time. Even the soviet era newspaper holdover PRAVDA is warning of the catastrophe of American Marxism on its pages (and hell is likely freezing over).

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Palin Truth Squad, Republican Brand | Leave a Comment »

Video: Hamas Human Shield Tactics

Posted by iusbvision on June 22, 2009

Via IDF:

Posted in Chuck Norton, Israel | 3 Comments »

Obama job approval down…down…down…..

Posted by iusbvision on June 22, 2009

Gallup:

gallup Obama job approval 6-22-09

 

Rasmussen:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33% of the nation’s voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -1. Today is the second straight day the President’s rating has been below zero (see trends).

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

The Differences Between Don Imus and David Letterman

Posted by iusbvision on June 22, 2009

Via Michael Leahy:

(1) Imus actually apologized for his inappropriate comments.

(2) Imus comments were off the cuff. Letterman comments were planned and rehearsed.

(3) CBS fired Don Imus.

(4) MSNBC fired Don Imus.

(5) Imus verbally attacked women over 18. Letterman verbally attacked a 14 year old girl.

(6) CBS boss Les Moonves “deeply upset & revulsed” by Imus, silent on Letterman.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

Media Bias in Action – CNN

Posted by iusbvision on June 22, 2009

A couple of points, the “referee” as he calls himself, the CNN host, stacks the deck by laying out some false left wing premises first and then declares himself the neutral referee. The man from media Matters, whose made several comments that can be shown with little effort to be factually untrue is allowed to speak without interruption and as soon as the man from Accuracy in Media tries to make his point he is immediately interrupted and talked over and before he finishes his last thought the “referee” interrupts him and asks the dishonest Media matters (funded by George Soros) to finish his thought for him…. how nice.

About the man who went into the New York Holocaust Museum shooting….he was a left wing extremist. His many writings make it clear that he hated Bill O’Reilly, hated Fox News, hated Christians, hated conservatives and “Neo-Cons”, and he espoused views against Israel that are common among left wing anti-semitic academics and ANSWER anti-war rallies. In fact the conservative magazine The Weekly Standard was on his hit list. He did indeed espouse socialism, while the socialism he espouses my have a different feel and culture, it is still the same big government, wealth destroying and corruption spreading socialism/corporatism that we are seeing now. The money poring into Washington and lobbyists is greater than ever.

Via Diedre Almstead:

Oh, also, a direct response to what Mr. Boehlert said about there not being any “dehumanizing or demonizing quotes from anyone on the left about military recruiters.”  Do we remember not so long ago Code Pink and the Berkeley Recruitment center… Mr. Boehlert, if you’re going to work for a media company that claims to be accurate, do your homework before you open your mouth, you’re only discrediting yourself and your company.

Media Matters with all their millions and taping every TV and radio program in the country cannot come up with even one example of hate that may motivate someone to use violence against a soldier huh? What about John Kerry and Barack Obama stating on TV that our troops were air raiding villages and killing civilians. 

And let us not forget Senate Democrat Dick Durbin saying that our troops are like Nazi’s who do not care about human beings.

Speaking of hate speech against libertarians and conservatives by the far left, CNN using far left hate speech HERE, CNN loving on protestors who presented President Bush as a Nazi HERE, leftist students acting on that hateful rhetoric HERE, HERE and HERE.

Excerpt from the last link:

Joshua Sparling, a disabled Iraq War veteran, attended a recent “peace protest” in Washington to try and tell them the good that is happening in Iraq. Says Sparling, “I think I saw more fingers that day than any in my life. At first they told me that it was all about the veterans and when I told them that I am a veteran then they told me to go back to Iraq and that I should have stayed there. For the most part there were people lining the fence screaming at us and trying to get at us. A group was waiting for us with clubs and tried to get at me and the police had to stop them from bull-rushing us on the sidewalk.”

The Vision reported that some IUSB Students joined a recent anti-war protest in Washington. One of the primary sponsors for the event was a group called United for Peace and Justice. A list of the groups that have joined together to make United for Peace and Justice is on their website, and here are some of the highlights.

Young Koreans United USA is an organization that supports Kim Jong-Il, the brutal North Korean dictator who starves his own people and has made a nuclear weapon in violation of treaty.

National Network on Cuba is another communist organization that supports Fidel Castro and his brutal regime. I wonder if his brother Raul, who is acting dictator, will let those librarians out of jail who dared to keep banned books.

Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Remember these guys? Members of this group had plans to assassinate Senators who supported the Vietnam War. They also featured “vets” who said that they had committed horrible war crimes in the name of the United States only to find out later that many of them had actually never served in the military.

US Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation. This group is actively opposing a bill that would prohibit the United States from funding groups unless they break all ties with terrorists. No large anti-war protest is complete without a few anti-Semitic hate groups. The big protests often feature the most grotesque anti-Semitic displays I have ever seen. I have video from several of these protests that demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt. They will tell you that they aren’t anti-Semitic even though they profess much of the same propaganda as those who want Jews dead.

Here are more of the groups listed: Communist Party USA, Young Democratic Socialists of America, Young Communist League, Socialist Party USA, League of Revolutionaries for a New America, International Socialist Organization, Freedom Socialist Party and the Black Radical Congress.

Most of these groups have acted as apologists for the former Soviet Union and other communist regimes.

These are the types of groups that make up United for Peace.

I ask you, was the USSR a regime that supported peace? Was Castro supporting peace when he slaughtered all of those who opposed him and was he anti-war when he invited nukes into Cuba? Were Pol Pot, who killed two million people, and Chairman Mao anti-war? Is Hugo Chavez a peaceful, anti-war guy? North Korea regularly threatens to wipe out South Korea and exports weapons of mass death to rogue regimes.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Rubio gets it

Posted by iusbvision on June 22, 2009

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

MUST READ – WHY SOTOMAYOR MUST WITHDRAW!

Posted by iusbvision on June 21, 2009

by Jeffrey Lord (excerpted):

Answering Peggy Noonan: Why Sotomayor Should Withdraw

By Jeffrey Lord on 6.2.09 @ 6:09AM

Peggy, can we talk?

Columnist Peggy Noonan over at the Wall Street Journal has written her usual thoughtful piece this last week. Her subject? What, exactly, should be the Republican response to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?

“Republicans, Let’s Play Grown Up,” she suggests, saying the Sotomayor hearings are an opportunity for a serious debate. Along the way, she says this: “Newt Gingrich twitters that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Does anyone believe that?”

In the interest of obliging on her first point — the need for a serious debate — and answering her second — does anyone believe the Judge is a racist?– a response follows.

Before I begin, I must fairly inform the reader that, for reasons I don’t understand I’ve never met Peggy Noonan. We were in fact down the hall colleagues in the Reagan White House. With a sheepish amusement I recall exactly the moment I first saw her — she entering the West Wing as I was leaving — and thinking to myself: who was THAT girl in the black turtleneck?! It was, of course, Ms. Noonan, one of the president’s most accomplished speechwriters (and there were several of those). Alas, thoroughly preoccupied with my own turf, I never got to meet her and sometime thereafter she left, far too soon.

So. Peggy.

I enjoyed your latest on the proper response by Republicans to Judge Sotomayor’s nomination. As always, thought provoking. You raised a serious point in citing Newt Gingrich’s remark that the Judge is a racist, asking, “Does anyone believe that?”

Between us, I have to say the answer is “yes” — I do believe it.

A personal story, if I may.

You and I come from similar backgrounds. As you grew up in Massapequa, Long Island, my parents and thus both sides of our extended family came from Riverhead, a ways further out on the Island. After the war, my impending arrival decided them, newly married and living/working in Manhattan, on the appeal of life in a New England town. For my first fifteen years, life was spent in the idyllic precincts of Northampton, Massachusetts, a young life filled with friends, school, church and bike rides along the leafy streets of a Northeastern American college town.

Dad was in the hotel business, his first and true professional love being hotel management. It wasn’t Mom’s — she was not a fan of the 24/7 nature of the business. So for a while he got out and had an insurance business as I pedaled placidly from one grade to another. This gave both of them time for politics, and they were for a while very active. Dad was even elected to Calvin Coolidge’s old seat on the Northampton City Council, and, for lack of a baby sitter, I was toted to any number of Lincoln Day Dinners. By 1965, however, it was clear to both my parents that Dad was happiest in the hotel business. To my dismay, we said goodbye to the only life I had ever known and headed to a small southern town where Dad was to be the manager of a brand new hotel for a well-known national chain.

This was a considerable bit of culture shock for our little family unit of three. Our Northern roots made us “Yankees” in the vernacular of our new Southern home. The news of the day as brought to us through television in Massachusetts had been about the racial turmoil of civil rights marches, fire hoses and police dogs. It was appalling — but distant. There was not a black soul to be seen in Northampton as I recall.

So our arrival in this Southern town, which I will not name, provided a sensation of distinctive aloneness for the newly arrived family of Yankees. Accents were different. Country music, not rock and roll, was the norm of the local radio station. Something called grits was a culinary specialty. There was lots of “yes sir-ring” and “no ma’m-ing” that was unheard of in the brisker climes of the North.

There was a something else, too. Racism.

Calling on a prominent local couple as my father’s job dictated, my mother and I looked at each other in quiet astonishment as the wife announced that her handyman — a black man — had had the temerity to knock and enter through her front door instead of the back. Worse, he had sat down on her living room sofa. Until recently, she made quite clear, this kind of behavior was unheard of. “Can you believe it!” she kept repeating in a refined accent worthy of Scarlett O’Hara. “The n… came right here into my front room and sat on my parlor sofa!” Afterwards my mother and I discussed this for hours. Never in either of our lives had we ever encountered this kind of racial attitude.

I attended school at a thoroughly modern high school, grades 8-12. There was a duplicate a bare six miles away — for the black kids. Except that this was 1965 and integration was arriving. There was one black girl in our school — one among about a thousand white kids. Maxine was her name. She was in my French class and rode my school bus, since we both lived on the same route. While she was actually closer to the “black” school her parents wanted her to go to the allegedly better “white school” — and thanks to the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, she could and did exercise that right. Now that the law was slowly — very slowly — taking effect, she was literally the first black child in the area to do so. Shy but friendly, I made friends with Maxine because, it finally struck me, I was one of the few kids who would speak with her. We were both outsiders, something that her blackness and my new face and New England accent only emphasized. (“He talks like one of them damn Kinidy boys” was a comment I overhead.)

After about two weeks, I began to realize that when Maxine boarded the school bus coming and going every day, something odd happened. School buses have seats for two, and as such the safety rules require only two kids can sit in the same seat. Curiously, I realized the other kids were scrunching three and sometimes four in a seat with the silent assent of the bus driver — because no one would sit with Maxine. I talked with my parents. I knew who Rosa Parks was, and I certainly knew of Dr. King. But there was no pretension to leading some sort of teen-age crusade. I was just mad. Maxine was being deliberately, quite publicly humiliated because of her race. Since she was picked up in the morning well after I was, my chance would only come in the afternoon when everyone boarded the bus at the same time. That next afternoon, as school ended and we all clambered noisily aboard the bus, I took a determined breath and sat down with Maxine.

You could hear the proverbial pin drop. For the entire ride to her home no one said a word — except Maxine and me as we shyly chatted about French class. When she got off the bus, the silence gave way to taunts. Friendly kid that I was, I just grinned. And did it again the next day, and the next and the next. Friends were eventually made, and after a very long time — almost the rest of the school year — Maxine got other seatmates than me. But it was abundantly clear that racism, as thick as it could be cut, was in the air.

Meanwhile, Dad had a bigger problem. As was his customary practice, he would always leave the house after dinner and go tour the hotel one last time for the night. Checking to see that all is well in the disparate parts of one of these operations, he said, was a managerial must. That particular night he walked into the hotel coffee shop, stumbling into an incident that would change his — and our — lives. The hotel owner, perhaps intoxicated, was in the process of publicly berating a frightened waitress. She was black. The owner, white. Dad said racial epithets filled the air. Loud. Abusive. Humiliating. Very, very public. In an instant my father physically positioned himself between the terrified, tearful black waitress and the white owner, telling the owner that whatever the young woman had done or not done (it was something of a trivial nature), this behavior towards an employee was unacceptable. Whereupon the owner promptly fired both the waitress and my father. On the spot.

Now what? Dad had moved our family hundreds of miles from familiar turf. Civil rights — racism — was no longer an abstract. This wasn’t grainy gray images of Walter Cronkite from the old Zenith. This was real life, vividly so. Shaken but determined, Dad decided to try again. Taking the family savings he bought an old diner in the middle of town, turning it into one of the new fashionables of the day — a pancake house. There was a glistening new grill in the window so passersby could see the product being made. He interviewed for cooks.

Now came “mistake” number two. The best qualified cook was a black woman. He gave her the job. A job that meant she had supervisory authority over others — who were white. Word spread like wildfire that Dad had made a black woman a boss over whites — men and women both. Only months ago as the manager of the brand new hotel in town he was a new part of the town gentry, a regular attendee at Rotary meetings and the like. Now, his restaurant was boycotted and he was the subject of scorn, fighting for his — and our — economic survival. I will never forget the sight of my dad, the collar of his old World War II jacket up to protect against the cold (a jacket that bore the insignia of a Captain of army artillery) walking the streets to hand out fliers advertising his pancakes, all too frequently to be brusquely ignored. Sometimes, after school or on weekends, I went with him.

It was no use. Phone calls were coming into the house now. Ugly, whispering anonymous calls to my mother. The “n… lover” phrase snarled through the phone line. The water was cut off, requiring a special trip to the water department to verify that yes, the bill had already been paid. Did Mom wish to register to vote as a Republican? Sorry, said the registrar — the books were in the attic. Get them, Mom said with a smile. I’ll wait.

There’s more here, but you get the idea. After two years of this Dad simply had to yield to common sense and our family retreated across the Mason-Dixon line to Pennsylvania, which is the family home today. He passed away just shy of 90 not long ago. I mentioned this story in his eulogy, startling his friends who had never heard it. Mom, I assure you, has never forgotten.

As a lesson in racism, this was, for me, a “defining moment.” Kids being kids, I spent lots of conversations discussing race with my white classmates. Gingerly at first, curiously and eventually quite openly, my classmates opened up. Both boys and girls. Racism, I learned, was not a gender thing. I heard many arguments about the importance of the white race. About the superiority of the white brain. About the need to maintain racial distinctions and accept the wisdom of whites over blacks. To my mother’s horror I was invited to a Klan meeting as the guest of a classmate’s uncle. Politely, the invitation was declined. My classmates and I just agreed to disagree on the subject. I made friends, was elected a class officer, had a girlfriend. But I was exposed to the very hard reality that racism could so permeate someone’s thinking that they never think twice about it. Casual racial references are made that are simply off the charts — yet no one speaks up because in that universe this behavior is considered the norm.

WHAT DOES ALL THIS have to do with Judge Sotomayor?

There is much more to her now-famous “wise Latina” speech.

Here are other sections from Judge Sotomayor’s speech, the full text courtesy of the New York Times.

To illustrate the point I have changed the racial and gender references:

* “I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my white identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.”

* “The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the white man that I am. The white side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.”

* “My white soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother’s house with my cousins and extended family.”

* “I became a white man by the way I love and the way I live my life.”

* “I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my white heritage.”

* “Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional white man in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion.”

What voice do I hear when I listen to a speech like this, Peggy? I hear the chilling voice of racism that whispered over the phone line to my mother. I hear the ugly, threatening voice that had reduced a frightened young black waitress to tears before firing both her and my father. I hear the townspeople who were too angry or scared to come and eat a simple pancake because to do so would acknowledge the skill and authority of a black woman. I hear a bunch of white teen-age kids earnestly explaining to me about racial superiority and why it was unacceptable to share a school bus seat with a lonely, uneasy black teenage girl.

Peggy, after you left the White House I spent a considerable amount of time working on the Reagan Supreme Court nominations along with our colleagues. Five of them — Rehnquist for Chief Justice, Scalia, Bork, Douglas Ginsburg, and Anthony Kennedy. I’m not a lawyer but somehow acquired a considerable interest and knowledge of the ins and outs of what is in reality a rather arcane process. Years afterward, I helped get a friend confirmed to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals as a Bush 43 nominee, writing a piece on it over in the Weekly Standard for Bill Kristol and later turning it into a small book about the thuggish nature the left had made of the whole process.

<snip>

One last observation.

When one takes a good long look at the arc of the Democratic Party from its founding by Thomas Jefferson in 1800 (historians generally credit, as you know, both Jefferson and Andrew Jackson as co-founders of the modern-day Democrats) up until today there is one very, very disturbing constant. The politics of race.

Beginning with slavery, moving on to segregation, lynching, racial quotas and what today is called “identity politics,” the one straight line through each and connecting each is racial politics. Clustered along that line are all manner of people with varying historical reputations. The clusters begin with slave-owners Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson — the latter appointing his friend, fellow slave-owner, decided racist and ex-Attorney General Roger Taney as Chief Justice. There are people like Woodrow Wilson (who segregated the federal government) and Josephus Daniels (FDR’s boss at the Wilson Navy Department). Then the FDR Supreme Court picks of segregationists Black and James Byrnes. Keep moving along the line and you find George Wallace and eventually Al Sharpton, and Obama allies like Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger. The skin color may change, but the core of the message does not.

What all of these people (and so many, many more) have in common is their political party — the Democrats. A party with an unbelievably vivid history of the most brutal racism imaginable and its obsession to one degree or another with race. An obsession they have, with devastating consequence, practiced from no less a place than the Supreme Court of the United States. Judge Sotomayor, she who believes a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” is only the latest in this line. Racism, as I also learned long ago, is not only blind to geography, it can be found festering among all races and both genders as well.

Do I feel I am an “idiot” as you say of those who believe Sotomayor should be vigorously opposed based on her racial sentiments? Sorry, Peggy, I just can’t agree. I am absolutely agog at those who speak of moderation on this subject, who speak of tone. Tone? Tone?!!!! This judge has expressed her views in such a way as to make it crystal clear she is the lineal descendant of those who have acted on the beliefs behind one of the worst traits in American life — racism. A trait that glistens from the breast of identity politics with a scarlet “R.” Racism has more than had its day on the Supreme Court, and from Dred Scott to Plessy –to Korematsu the results have been absolutely little short of traumatic for the country. It should never, ever see the light of day on a federal bench — or any judicial bench — again. Much less the bench that sits the Supreme Court of the United States.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

JPOST: Only 6% of Israelis see US gov’t as pro-Israel – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on June 21, 2009

JPOST:

Only 6 percent of Jewish Israelis consider the views of American President Barack Obama’s administration pro-Israel, according to a new Jerusalem Post-sponsored Smith Research poll.

Another 50% of those sampled consider the policies of Obama’s administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli, and 36% said the policies were neutral. The remaining 8% did not express an opinion.

Israelis’ views of Obama’s predecessor in the White House, George W. Bush, are nearly the opposite. According to last month’s poll, 88% of Israelis considered his administration pro-Israel, 7% said Bush was neutral and just 2% labeled him pro-Palestinian.

Who can blame them? Obama had surrounded himself around anti-semites Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, and others. The Obama campaign hired Robert Malley in the campaign whose extreme views against Israel are well known. The campaign rebuked Malley and said that he would never work for the campaign again only to hire him to work in the Obama Administration (LINK). Samantha Power who had advocated military intervention to create a Palestinian state was also removed from the campaign for her extreme views on Israel and was hired back to work in the administration.  

To make matters worse, Obama tried to link internal Israeli policy with Iranian nukes by telling Israel that it had better obey Obama in matters of internal policy or the U.S. would take a weaker stance against Iranian nukes (LINK).

See the Philidelphia Bulletin, American Thinker and the New York Post on this very subject.

 

UPDATE NY Post new column:

ISRAEL BETRAYED

PRESIDENT OBAMA IS TREATING OUR FRIEND LIKE A FIEND, AND TURNING PUBLIC OPINION AGAINST AN ALLY

When Barack Obama was running for president, he vigorously reassured voters of his firm commitment to America’s special relationship with Israel. Indeed, he worked to beef up his pro-Israel bona fides long before he even announced his intention to run. In a 2006 speech before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama recounted a helicopter tour over the Israeli border with the West Bank. “I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel,” he said. In that same speech, Obama called the Jewish State “our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy.” During the primary and general election campaigns, Obama dispatched a stream of high-profile Jewish supporters to canvas Florida, and in a 2008 AIPAC speech, he went so far as to declare that Jerusalem must remain the “undivided” capital of Israel.

For all the qualms that anti-Obama “smears” would depress support in the Jewish community, Jews rewarded Obama with nearly 80% of their votes, more than they gave John Kerry.

Just six months into the new administration, however, it is becoming increasingly clear that those who harbored suspicions about Obama’s approach to the Middle East had good reason to be worried. A confluence of factors — including his administration’s undue pressure on Israel, a conciliatory approach to authoritarian Muslim regimes, and the baseless linkage of the failed “peace process” to the curtailment of the Iranian nuclear program — point to what could become “the greatest disagreement between the two countries in the history of their relationship,” as Middle East expert Robert Satloff recently told Newsweek.

This dramatic shift in American policy began several months ago when the administration signaled that it would make the cessation of Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank the centerpiece of its policy to revamp the region. And that approach, mostly hinted at through anonymous leaks, became as good as official when Obama delivered his vaunted address to the Muslim world in Cairo earlier this month. In that speech, Israel (and, specifically, its policy of settlement construction) was the only state to merit specific criticism from the president of the United States. Among all the degradations and injustices in the Middle East, from the abhorrent treatment of women in nations like Saudi Arabia, to Syrian-backed assassinations of pro-sovereignty politicians in Lebanon, to the arrest and imprisonment of gay men in Egypt, the leader of the free world singled out America’s one, reliable democratic ally in the region for rebuke.

Obama’s strategic worldview assumes that once the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is resolved, other problems in the Middle East will be easier to fix, if not solve themselves. “We understand that Israel’s preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat,” National Security Advisor Jim Jones told George Stephanopoulos last month. “We agree with that. And by the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution.”

By establishing this connection, the fate of the entire region thus hinges upon the resolution of a problem that hasn’t had a solution for over six decades. This is an awfully convenient view for those who enjoy the status quo, which is why so many Arab despots cling to it, and it’s discouraging to see the Obama administration joining them.

“Linkage” is faulty for two reasons. The first is intrinsic to the peace process itself, as it is going nowhere. And it will continue to go nowhere for at least as long as Hamas — a terrorist organization constitutionally committed to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews — rules the Gaza Strip, which it has controlled since violently seizing power in the summer of 2007. But it’s not just Hamas that remains hesitant to work with Israel. To see the continued intransigence of the Palestinians, witness their bizarre reactions to Benjamin Netanyahu’s momentous speech last week, in which the Israeli Prime Minister, for the first time in his career, announced his support for the two-state solution so obsessively demanded by the international community. The Palestinian Ambassador to Egypt denounced Netanyahu’s pledge as “nothing but a hoax.” The PLO Executive Committee Secretary called Netanyahu a “liar and a crook” who is “looking for ploys to disrupt the peace endeavor.” A spokesman for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas said that, “The speech has destroyed all peace initiatives and [chances for] a solution.” And these are the so-called “moderates.”

The second reason why “linkage” is a faulty premise, and why the Obama administration is so foolish to pursue it, is that the problems of the Middle East are not inspired by the lack of a Palestinian state. The biggest crisis in the Middle East right now is Iran’s mad quest for nuclear weapons. Nothing even comes close. Even the Arab states — whose citizens, we are told, cannot rest due to Palestinian statelessness — are letting the world know that their foremost concern is a revolutionary Islamic theocracy with nuclear weapons (As the dramatic and inspiring street protests in Tehran over the past week have amply demonstrated, what really rouses the Muslim “street” is the venality and cruelty of the region’s authoritarian governments, not far-off Zionists reluctant to give Palestinians a state).

Follow the link to read more. This line above alls tood out:

There are even signs of rising anti-Semitism, as a survey by Columbia and Stanford professors found that 32% of Democrats blamed Jews for the financial crisis.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Israel | 6 Comments »

ABC Doing Special on Obama’s Health Care Proposal but……

Posted by iusbvision on June 19, 2009

Instead of hosting the special from ABC’s studio, the White House is giving ABC space to do the entire special from the White House. Normally an appearance of a conflict of interest would prevent a news network from doing that.

Via Matt Drudge:

ABC REFUSES OPPOSITION ADS DURING WHITE HOUSE SPECIAL
Wed Jun 17 2009 15:15:00 ET

ABC is refusing to air paid ads during its White House health care presentation, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, including a paid-for alternative viewpoint!

The development comes a day after the network denied a request by the Republican National Committee to feature a representative of the party’s views during the Obama special.

Conservatives for Patients Rights requested the rates to buy a 60-second spot immediately preceding ‘Prescription for America’.

Statement from Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights:

“It is unfortunate – and unusual – that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care event. Health care is an issue that touches every American and all potential pieces of legislation have carried a pricetag in excess of $1 trillion of taxpayers’ money. The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC’s decision – as of now – to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public. Our organization is more than willing to purchase ad time on ABC to present an alternative viewpoint and our hope is that ABC will reconsider having such viewpoints be part of this crucial debate for the American people. We were surprised to hear that paid advertisements would not be accepted when we inquired and we would certainly be open to purchasing time if ABC would reconsider.”

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

Brokaw Gives Fluff Interview to Obama, Obama Appoints Brokaw to a Presidential Commission.

Posted by iusbvision on June 19, 2009

Matt Drudge was first with this story but since we have always had a focus on journalism it is important for us to have the story covered. Brokaw was appointed to this presidential Commission.

White House Press release:

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                                     June 17, 2009

CONTACT: Cindy Moelis, Director
(202) 395-4522

President Obama Announces Appointments to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships
Washington, DC – Today, President Obama appointed 28 members to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. This accomplished group of citizens representing a broad range of backgrounds, interests, and professions are responsible for recommending a group of exceptional men and women to the President for selection as White House Fellows. The commission will be chaired by John Phillips, a partner at Phillips and Cohen Law Firm. Cheryl Dorsey, President of Echoing Green, will vice-chair the commission.  A full list of commissioners and their biographies can be found below.

Here is the interview.

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

Another case where Sotomayor virtually ignored the key legal arguments and ruled how she wished.

Posted by iusbvision on June 19, 2009

Much like what happened in Ricci case where Judge Sotomayor ignored the legal arguments at hand to the point where a Clinton appointed judge protested in this case Sotomayor ignored the case law and main argument in a brief regarding FOIA request.

The excerpt below is from the Colombia Journalism Review (CJR). I read CJR and while they maintain that it is all about journalism, it without question has a strong affinity to the far left point of view on most issues, but when you step on a reporters toes as Sotomayor did, partisan attachments go out the window.

CJR:

“I was about ten, fifteen seconds into my argument when she interrupted with her first question,” remembers Wood. According to Wood’s recollection, Sotomayor first asked Wood if he was contending that the memo had to be released because it may have recommended declining prosecution—the same action the government chose. (CJR was unable to obtain a transcript of the session.)

“Basically she asked me a leading question that invited me to misstate the law,” says Wood. His brief hadn’t made that claim; instead, it contended that the memo may be eligible for release because it laid out the reasons adopted by the eventual decision, a point which Wood says he was able to make in court.

Over the course of questioning, Wood came to believe that Sotomayor wasn’t familiar with his arguments as presented in his brief. “I didn’t expect she’d read the whole thing, but she didn’t even read the parts of the brief she was interested in.”

As unhappy as he may have been during oral argument, Wood was even more dissatisfied when, in December 2005, the three judge panel issued its ruling, written by Sotomayor. His key piece of evidence that further discovery was warranted to determine if the memo had been expressly adopted, the Attorneys’ Manual, was dismissed in a footnote. Sotomayor didn’t quote the manual, and instead offered a paraphrase that made no mention of what Wood contends was the most important part.

“I think the omission of any reference to the language ‘and the reasons therefore’ in that footnote is intellectually dishonest,” Wood explains. “I think Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues owed it to me to at least acknowledge the existence of my main piece of evidence that this memo was adopted as the rationale for the decision to decline prosecution.”

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

Gallup: “Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

Posted by iusbvision on June 17, 2009

This is why Obama couched his campaign in conservative sounding rhetoric. It also goes with the Saul Alinsky strategy of the radical appearing as non-threatening.

Gallup:

June 15, 2009
by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ — Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

gallup poll conservatives

These annual figures are based on multiple national Gallup surveys conducted each year, in some cases encompassing more than 40,000 interviews. The 2009 data are based on 10 separate surveys conducted from January through May. Thus, the margins of error around each year’s figures are quite small, and changes of only two percentage points are statistically significant.

To measure political ideology, Gallup asks Americans to say whether their political views are very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal. As has been the case each year since 1992, very few Americans define themselves at the extremes of the political spectrum. Just 9% call themselves “very conservative” and 5% “very liberal.” The vast majority of self-described liberals and conservatives identify with the unmodified form of their chosen label.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War | Leave a Comment »

Obama Uses FCC to Start War on Talk Radio and Free Speech

Posted by iusbvision on June 15, 2009

Dick Morris:

The opening barrage in Obama’s efforts to reign in talk radio was fired by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) this week when its acting chairman, Michael J. Copps, announced an investigation of Arbitron’s radio measuring technology called the Portable People Meter. (Not to be confused with the Purple People Eater celebrated in song in the 1950s.)

Arbitron is the company tasked with rating radio listenership. The equivalent of the Neilson television ratings, its measurements of audience share are revered like Scripture by station managers, owners and advertisers. Traditionally, Arbitron relied on handwritten diaries. Since the diaries were based on memory, they were often faulty. So Arbitron availed itself of new technology in launching its Portable People Meter (PPM) — a cell phone-sized unit the listener wears on his or her belt that automatically notes what station they are tuning in and when they switch or stop.

The PPM measurements concluded that hip-hop, urban rock and minority-oriented radio stations reached fewer listeners and for shorter periods of time than the diaries had indicated. It found that talk radio had a larger listenership.

The left saw an ideological bias at work, and the states of New York and New Jersey sued Arbitron alleging discrimination in its choice of the sample charged with wearing the PPMs.

It said that the ratings agency, which presumably recruited its sample by phone, was under-representing people without land lines who used only cell phones and hence undercounted minorities.

Now the FCC is launching its own investigation.

But almost all political polling is done by telephone, and samples cannot include cell phones because one cannot determine the residence of the user from the number. Since survey researchers draw their samples geographically, they do not know which cell phone numbers are for which neighborhoods. (Land lines distribute the first three numbers of an exchange geographically).

If Arbitron is flawed, so is all polling, political and otherwise. The accuracy of most polling in predicting election results suggests that the flaws cannot be too bad.

What is really at work here is an effort by the FCC to stack the deck to help left-wing and minority stations earn higher advertising revenues than those to which their real market share would entitle them. Solicitous of the financial viability of its liberal allies on radio and anxious to undermine the balance sheets of conservative stations, the FCC is lending itself to the president’s political agenda.

This investigation is, of course, only the first shot of the war against conservative radio. Soon, the FCC will try to strip right-wing stations of their licenses or impose fines on them payable to National Public Radio. In our forthcoming book, “Catastrophe,” we explain how this offensive will work and what will be its likely consequences.

But the opening salvo has been fired by the FCC, which is willingly lending itself to stations with Democratic bias in an effort to swell their advertising revenues and to stop the growth of talk radio. Because the FCC will do much more to try to destroy the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Mark Levin and Neil Boortz, we must be vigilant if we hope to keep free speech alive, even if it comes from the right side of the stage.

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