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 July 12th, 2009

Obama Rewrites the Cold War

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

I have seen too many students who have taken into this false narrative. Obama is a product of far left academia and worked closely with Maoists at the University of Chicago. This is the same false narrative presented by too many professors and college text books.

Liz Cheney in the Wall Street Journal:

The President has a duty to stand up to the lies of our enemies.

There are two different versions of the story of the end of the Cold War: the Russian version, and the truth. President Barack Obama endorsed the Russian version in Moscow last week.

Speaking to a group of students, our president explained it this way: “The American and Soviet armies were still massed in Europe, trained and ready to fight. The ideological trenches of the last century were roughly in place. Competition in everything from astrophysics to athletics was treated as a zero-sum game. If one person won, then the other person had to lose. And then within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

Cheney_Liz_webThe truth, of course, is that the Soviets ran a brutal, authoritarian regime. The KGB killed their opponents or dragged them off to the Gulag. There was no free press, no freedom of speech, no freedom of worship, no freedom of any kind. The basis of the Cold War was not “competition in astrophysics and athletics.” It was a global battle between tyranny and freedom. The Soviet “sphere of influence” was delineated by walls and barbed wire and tanks and secret police to prevent people from escaping. America was an unmatched force for good in the world during the Cold War. The Soviets were not. The Cold War ended not because the Soviets decided it should but because they were no match for the forces of freedom and the commitment of free nations to defend liberty and defeat Communism.

It is irresponsible for an American president to go to Moscow and tell a room full of young Russians less than the truth about how the Cold War ended. One wonders whether this was just an attempt to push “reset” — or maybe to curry favor. Perhaps, most concerning of all, Mr. Obama believes what he said.

Mr. Obama’s method for pushing reset around the world is becoming clearer with each foreign trip. He proclaims moral equivalence between the U.S. and our adversaries, he readily accepts a false historical narrative, and he refuses to stand up against anti-American lies.

The approach was evident in his speech in Moscow and in his speech in Cairo last month. In Cairo, he asserted there was some sort of equivalence between American support for the 1953 coup in Iran and the evil that the Iranian mullahs have done in the world since 1979. On an earlier trip to Mexico City, the president listened to an extended anti-American screed by Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega and then let the lies stand by responding only with, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for the things that occurred when I was 3 months old.”

Asked at a NATO meeting in France in April whether he believed in American exceptionalism, the president said, “I believe in American Exceptionalism just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” In other words, not so much.

The Obama administration does seem to believe in another kind of exceptionalism — Obama exceptionalism. “We have the best brand on Earth: the Obama brand,” one Obama handler has said. What they don’t seem to realize is that once you’re president, your brand is America, and the American people expect you to defend us against lies, not embrace or ignore them. We also expect you to know your history.

Mr. Obama has become fond of saying, as he did in Russia again last week, that American nuclear disarmament will encourage the North Koreans and the Iranians to give up their nuclear ambitions. Does he really believe that the North Koreans and the Iranians are simply waiting for America to cut funds for missile defense and reduce our strategic nuclear stockpile before they halt their weapons programs?

The White House ought to take a lesson from President Harry Truman. In April, 1950, Truman signed National Security Council report 68 (NSC-68). One of the foundational documents of America’s Cold War strategy, NSC-68 explains the danger of disarming America in the hope of appeasing our enemies. “No people in history,” it reads, “have preserved their freedom who thought that by not being strong enough to protect themselves they might prove inoffensive to their enemies.”

Perhaps Mr. Obama thinks he is making America inoffensive to our enemies. In reality, he is emboldening them and weakening us. America can be disarmed literally — by cutting our weapons systems and our defensive capabilities — as Mr. Obama has agreed to do. We can also be disarmed morally by a president who spreads false narratives about our history or who accepts, even if by his silence, our enemies’ lies about us.

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

Voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on 8 out of 10 key issues for the second straight month

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

Rasmussen Poll:

Voters now trust Republicans more than Democrats on eight out of 10 key electoral issues, including, for the second straight month, the top issue of the economy. They’ve also narrowed the gap on the remaining two issues, the traditionally Democratic strong suits of health care and education.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that voters trust the GOP more on economic issues 46% to 41%, showing little change from the six-point lead the party held last month. This is just the second time in over two years of polling the GOP has held the advantage on economic issues. The parties were close on the issue in May, with the Democrats holding a one-point lead.

Voters not affiliated with either party trust Republicans more to handle the economy by a 46% to 32% margin.

Last week’s report of 9.5 percent unemployment, the highest since 1983, raised doubts about the economy and the president’s handling of it. Consumer and investor confidence is now down to the lowest levels in three months. Just 39% now say President Obama is doing a good or an excellent job on the economy while 43% rate his performance as poor. Those are by far the weakest numbers yet for the president.

The president’s approval ratings also have fallen to new lows in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Stock Market Analysis: Bush vs. Obama Stimulus Plans

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

BizBlogger:

Now that 6 months have passed since Obama’s “stimulus plan” has passed, I thought it useful to examine the stock market reaction to Obama’s plan and compare it to the reaction of President Bush’s 2003 stimulus plan.

Bush’s plan passed in April 2003 while Obama’s passed in February 2009. I chose the S&P 500 Index starting point one month prior to passage because the market typically discounts the information beforehand as the bills work their way through Congress. I chose 6 months-post passage as the ending point because that’s all the data we have for Obama’s plan so far.

Bush: From March 2003 to October 2003, the S&P 500 went from 835 to 1034 or +23.8%.

Obama: From January 2009 through July 2009, the S&P went from 932 to 879 or -5.2%.

By way of comparison, I also reviewed the market returns a full year prior to these time periods and the results show a very similar situation.

The S&P 500 return under Bush 1-year prior was -26.2%, hurt by the internet bubble collapse, 9/11 and corporate scandals. Trillions of dollars in lost wealth.

The S&P 500 return under Obama 1-year prior was -35.9%, hurt by the housing bubble collapse. Also trillions of dollars in lost wealth.

Both presidents had very similar economic challenges, but the difference in market confidence inspired by the two stimulus plans couldn’t be more stark.

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

More Corruption: Governor Ritter steered stimulus funds to his former employer in a no bid contract

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

Associated Press:

DENVER (AP) – Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has awarded some of the state’s first stimulus money to his former employer in a no-bid contract.

Ritter hired his former law firm, the Washington-based Hogan & Hartson, in a no-bid contract to review stimulus spending, The Denver Post reported Friday. It said the firm was paid $40,000 in stimulus money through June.

Aides to the governor insisted the contract was properly awarded. The state attorney general’s office deemed the contract necessary to allow the state to have speedy legal advice about stimulus money. The contract is too small to require competitive bidding.

Ritter worked for the Denver office of Hogan & Hartson in 2005, leaving the following year when he ran for governor. The law firm has about 1,300 lawyers across the country and specializes in public finance, real estate, white-collar litigation and environmental and governmental regulation.

Many of Hogan’s lawyers are Ritter supporters, and two who work directly on the state’s stimulus issues are contributors.

Of course they are.

Once again money is spent for political reasons and cromyism reasons instead of economic ones.

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

How Sotomayor tried to hide the Ricci case from her peers.

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

Seriously, how Sotomayor tried to deny these fire fighters justice and prevent the case from getting over her head for her own politically correct reasons shows that she is not fit to sit on any bench.

National Journal:

For all the publicity about the Supreme Court’s 5-4 reversal of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s decision (with two colleagues) to reject a discrimination suit by a group of firefighters against New Haven, Conn., one curious aspect of the case has been largely overlooked.

That is the likelihood that but for a chance discovery by a fourth member of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, the now-triumphant 18 firefighters (17 white and one Hispanic) might well have seen their case, Ricci v. DeStefano, disappear into obscurity, with no triumph, no national publicity and no Supreme Court review.

The reason is that by electing on Feb. 15, 2008, to dispose of the case by a cursory, unsigned summary order, Judges Sotomayor, Rosemary Pooler and Robert Sack avoided circulating the decision in a way likely to bring it to the attention of other 2nd Circuit judges, including the six who later voted to rehear the case.

And if the Ricci case — which ended up producing one of the Supreme Court’s most important race decisions in many years — had not come to the attention of those six judges, it would have been an unlikely candidate for Supreme Court review. The justices almost never review summary orders, which represent the unanimous judgment of three appellate judges that the case in question presents no important issues.

The 2nd Circuit and other appeals courts hear cases in three-judge panels, which almost always write full opinions in all significant cases. Those opinions, which are binding precedents, are routinely circulated to all other judges on the circuit, in part so that they can decide whether to request what is called a rehearing en banc by the entire appeals court.

Not so summary orders. They do not become binding precedents, and in the 2nd Circuit they are not routinely circulated to the judges except in regular e-mails containing only case names and docket numbers. Those e-mails routinely go unread, on the assumption that all significant cases are disposed of by full opinions, according to people familiar with 2nd Circuit practice.

In any event, any 2nd Circuit judge who had chanced to find and read the panel’s summary order in Ricci would have found only the vaguest indication what the case was about.

But the case came to the attention of one judge, Jose Cabranes, anyway, through a report in the New Haven Register. It quoted a complaint by Karen Lee Torre, the firefighters’ lawyer, that she had expected “‘a reasoned legal opinion,’ instead of an unpublished summary order, ‘on what I saw as the most significant race case to come before the Circuit Court in 20 years.'”

According to 2nd Circuit sources, Cabranes, who lives in New Haven, saw the article and looked up the briefs and the earlier ruling against the firefighters by federal district judge Janet Arterton. He decided that this was a very important case indeed, and made a rare request for the full 2nd Circuit to hold an en banc rehearing.

(In response to an e-mail from me, Cabranes declined to comment.)

Cabranes, like Sotomayor a Clinton appointee of Puerto Rican heritage — and once a mentor to her — was outvoted by 7-6, with the more liberal judges (including Sotomayor) in the majority. But by publishing a blistering June 12, 2008, dissent Cabranes brought the case forcefully to the attention of the Supreme Court.

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

Rumsfeld: The intellectual dishonesty on the part of the press is serious

Posted by iusbvision on July 12, 2009

Media Research Center quoting Donald Rumsfeld:

“The intellectual dishonesty on the part of the press is serious,” he told me, adding that “a strong incentive to be negative and dramatic” infused much of the coverage. “It’s a formula that works. It gets Pulitzers; it gets promotions; it gets name identification on the front page above the fold.”

Part of the formula, Rumsfeld said, involved pillorying him along with Bush and Cheney but sparing Powell and Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser before taking over at the State Department. As an example, he noted accusations that Bush and Cheney lied about Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction in making the case for the invasion. “They never say Colin Powell lied,” Rumsfeld declared. “They don’t say Condi lied.”

They also didn’t say that Clinton lied, Hillary lied, Kerry lied, the UN lied, Israel lied, Saudi Arabia lied, Egypt lied, Turkey lied etc etc etc because they sall said the same thing…

PROOF:

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