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 February 25th, 2010

British Govt Hospital Causes “Unimaginable Suffering”: Up to 1,200 needless deaths, patients abused, staff bullied to meet targets… yet a secret inquiry into failing hospital says no one’s to blame.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

Bureaucracies in the British National Heath Service are no different from the International Luge Federation or American public schools; the bureaucracy is only really excellent at one thing and that is shirking responsibility and accountability.

UK Daily Mail:

  • Up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily because of appalling care
  • Labour’s obsession with targets and box ticking blamed for scandal
  • Patients were ‘routinely neglected’ at hospital
  • Report calls for FOURTH investigation into scandal

Not a single official has been disciplined over the worst-ever NHS hospital scandal, it emerged last night.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction.

Indeed, some have either retired on lucrative pensions or have swiftly found new jobs.

Former chief executive Martin Yeates, who has since left with a £1million pension pot, six months’ salary and a reported £400,000 payoff, did not even give evidence to the inquiry which detailed the scale of the scandal yesterday.

He was said to be medically unfit to do so, though he sent some information to chairman Robert Francis through his solicitor.

The devastating-report into the Stafford Hospital-shambles’ laid waste to Labour’s decade-long obsession with box-ticking and league tables.

The independent inquiry headed by Robert Francis QC found the safety of sick and dying patients was ‘routinely neglected’. Others were subjected to ‘ inhumane treatment’, ‘bullying’, ‘abuse’ and ‘rudeness’.

Bosses at the Trust – officially an ‘elite’ NHS institution – were condemned for their fixation with cutting waiting times to hit Labour targets and leaving neglected patients to die.

But after a probe that was controversially held in secret, not a single individual has been publicly blamed.

The inquiry found that:

  • Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets;
  • Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital;
  • Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying;
  • Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made istleblowers too frightened to come forward.

Last night the General Medical Council announced it was investigating several doctors. The Nursing and Midwifery Council is investigating at least one nurse and is considering other cases.

Ministers suggested the report highlighted a dreadful ‘local’ scandal, but its overall conclusions are a blistering condemnation of Labour’s approach to the NHS.

It found that hospital were so preoccupied with saving money and pursuit of elite foundation trust status that they ‘lost sight of its fundamental responsibility to provide safe care’.


UK Times:

Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care.

An independent inquiry found that managers at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs.

The inquiry report, published yesterday by Robert Francis, QC, included proposals for tough new regulations that could lead to managers at failing NHS trusts being struck off.

Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.

The report, which follows reviews by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health, said that “unimaginable” suffering had been caused. Regulators said last year that between 400 and 1,200 more patients than expected may have died at the hospital from 2005 to 2008.

Andy Burnham, the Health Secretary, said there could be “no excuses” for the failures and added that the board that presided over the scandal had been replaced. An undisclosed number of doctors and at least one nurse are being investigated by the General Medical Council and Nursing and Midwifery Council.

Mr Burnham said it was a “longstanding anomaly” that the NHS did not have a robust way of regulating managers or banning them from working, as it does with doctors or nurses. “We must end the situation where a senior NHS manager who has failed in one job can simply move to another elsewhere,” he added. “This is not acceptable to the public and not conducive to promoting accountability and high professional standards.”


I think you got the point. More from the UK Independent HERE.

And to think that the left still tries to defend this system in the comments section HERE.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Paparazzi out of control, using telephoto to take nude pics of teen girl in George Clooney’s home.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

Any regular reader of this blog knows that we are committed to the integrity of the First Amendment. With that said your rights end when you do harm, violate someones realistic expectation of privacy or physically endanger others.

When paparazzi fly up to Britney Spears car on a motorcycle to film her mere inches away at 60 miles per hour that is dangerous. When paparazzi pokes their telephoto lens over your privacy fence to take pictures of what you are doing in your bedroom or livingroom they are violating someones realistic expectation of privacy.

It is time to bring this behavior to an end.

UK Times Online:

The actor George Clooney is reported to be selling the villa on Lake Como that he shares with his Italian girlfriend after their privacy was invaded by paparazzi and fans.

Potential buyers of the 18th-century Villa Oleandra at Laglio on Lake Como, which Clooney bought in 2002 for a reported $8 million, include the footballer David Beckham, who plays for AC Milan.

Clooney’s girlfriend, Elisabetta Canalis, a former Italian showgirl and television hostess, was reported to be “furious and exasperated” last summer when the villa was staked out by paparazzi. The couple were particularly angry when photographers climbed over the villa wall and took photos of an under-age girl while she was changing clothes in one of his guest rooms, as well as photos of Clooney and Canalis.

The actor said at the time: “I don’t know about the law in the United States but in Italy it’s illegal for photographers to climb over my wall and to take long-lens pictures of a 13-year-old girl in her bedroom. I draw the line of privacy at that.”

Guests at the villa have included Hollywood stars such as Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, and scenes for the film Ocean’s Twelve were shot there. Property prices in the Como area have risen since the actor’s arrival.

Clooney and Canalis are said to be looking for “somewhere more private”, possibly in Le Marche or Sardinia.

Twenty years in the slam… and for those who buy the pics?

Posted in Chuck Norton | Leave a Comment »

After Lecturing Us on Deficits and Frugality Obama Defeats FDR (in Spending Other People’s Money)

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

After said lecture at the announcement of his new deficit reduction commission he sent a whopping 3.8 trillion dollar budget to Congress.

While most politicians spin and lie normally there is some connection to what they say and what they do, until now.

Read this carefully. 

CNS News:

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.
“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”
To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.
They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.
Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.
In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)
FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.
In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.
In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.
Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.
And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 — when Germany and Japan surrendered.
The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 — and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.
So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.
Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.
The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.

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

Denial, Lies? President Says Stimulus Bill Greatest Recovery Evah!

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

In spite of the latest bad economic news and just 6% of Americans believe that the stimulus package has delivered the private sector jobs promised the Obama Administration insists that it was the greatest recovery plan of all time.

To add a little perspective, understand that 6% of Americans think Elvis is still alive.

Talk about denial – wow.. and no earmarks…. The stimulus funds are mostly being spent to preserve government union (SEIU) jobs, hire IRS agents etc. This means that the majority of the money is being spent as a political slush fund. In a way that means it is a giant earmark.

But fear not, right after he signed the stimulus he signed another massive spending bill that had over 8,500 earmark spending provisions in it.

The earmark process is bad because it allows politicians to spend millions with next to no checks and balances. Many of these earmarks go to the clients of lobbyists and some of that money circulates back to the campaign coffers of politicians.

Don’t forget it was the stimulus that reversed the Clinton/Ginghrich welfare reform bill that was such a huge success, it was the stimulus that was carefully worded to preserve those Bonuses for AIG and Fannie Mae.

Steven Crowder goes on a “Stimulus Package Road Trip” to see what you and your kids and grandkids just bought…

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Housing Down Again 11%, Consumer Confidence Down, Underemployment Up, Elite Media “Surprised” Yet Again that Unemployment Claims Rise..

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

You have seen most of the press spin on how great the economic recovery is. The AP, at least online pointed out that the 5.7% GDP growth really wasn’t a turn around in the economy and I explained why that was. Now the evidence is in and once again the numbers show that our analysis was correct.

Karl at had some of the same fun we have had as of late:

Media shocked by totally predictable “unexpected” rise in jobless claims

When it comes to the establishment media — and the economists in their address books — their chief weapon is surprise (and a fanatical devotion to The One):

The number of U.S. workers filing new applications for unemployment insurance unexpectedly surged last week, while producer prices increased sharply in January, raising potential hurdles for the economy’s recovery.


The rise in jobless insurance claims dealt a setback to hopes the economy was on the verge of job growth and could increase political pressure on President Barack Obama, who has made tackling unemployment his number one priority.

This surge in claims puts a damper on the last report, in which the unemployment rate dropped unexpectedly. However, it is consistent with the recent trend of unemployment news being “unexpectedly” bad again and again and again and again and again and well, you get the picture.


No consumer confidence means no investor confidence which means people spend less and people get laid off from work. As my teenager might say “DUH!” But as usual the elite media doesn’t want to get it.

Bloomberg News:

Feb. 23 (Bloomberg) — Confidence among U.S. consumers fell in February to the lowest level in 10 months, a sign that concern about job prospects may hold back the spending needed to sustain the recovery.

The Conference Board’s confidence index slumped to 46, below the lowest forecast in a Bloomberg News survey of economists, from 56.5 in January, a report from the New York- based private research group showed today. A separate report showed home prices rose for a seventh month.

Stocks fell and Treasuries gained after the confidence report also showed attitudes about current conditions fell to the lowest level in 27 years and the outlook for wages dimmed. The survey reinforces expectations Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke will repeat the central bank’s pledge to keep interest rates low for “an extended period” in testimony to Congress tomorrow.

“Consumer spending is going to disappoint throughout most of the year,” said Steven Ricchiuto, chief economist at Mizuho Securities USA Inc. in New York. The economy “may not be out of the woods.”

Economists forecast the confidence index would decrease to 55 from a previously reported 55.9 January reading, according to the median of 68 projections in the Bloomberg survey. Estimates ranged from 50.9 to 59.

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index declined 1.2 percent to 1,094.6 at 4:05 p.m. in New York. The 10-year Treasury note rose, pushing down the yield 11 basis points to 3.69 percent.


Associated Press:

New home sales drop 11 percent in January, new low

New home sales plummet 11 percent in January, the 3rd monthly decline in a row

WASHINGTON (AP) — Sales of new homes plunged to a record low in January, underscoring the formidable challenges facing the housing industry as it tries to recover from the worst slump in decades.

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that new home sales dropped 11.2 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual sales pace of 309,000 units, the lowest level on records going back nearly a half century. The big drop was a surprise to economists who were expecting a 5 percent increase over December’s pace.

While winter storms were partly to blame, home sales have fallen for three straight months despite sweeping government support. Economists were already worried that an improvement in sales in the second half of last year could falter as various government support programs are withdrawn.

“There is no doubt that January and February are going to be messy months for housing, given the severe weather conditions, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that the housing sector has taken another big step back, even with the government aid,” Jennifer Lee, a senior economist at BMO Capital Markets, said in a research note.



Gallup’s new daily metric estimates that 30 million U.S. workers were underemployed in January

by Jenny Marlar

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Gallup’s daily measure of U.S. employment reveals that 19.9% of the U.S. workforce was underemployed during the month of January, translating to close to 30 million Americans who are working less than their desired capacity. Those who were underemployed reported spending 36% less than those who were employed, $48 per day versus $75 per day.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

How not to criticize a fellow conservative

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

I have been a fan of for some time now. Ed Morrissey is one of the very finest political writers there is. AllahPundit can be a bit goofy sometimes and lets his emotional quirks occasionally get the better of him, but still he is a very good political reporter and analyst.

I have never seen a piece that I was so royally disappointed with, that just didn’t deserve to be on until now. The piece was long on accusations and invented narratives and short on verifiable facts.

The following is the “meat” of a piece on by CK McLeod:

You can be a fan of Glenn Beck’s – you might even be Glenn Beck himself – and acknowledge that his rhetoric is sometimes irresponsible. You can be thankful to Glenn Beck for his contributions to American conservatism – for helping to keep the political flame alive, even build it, during a bleakly dark time – and yet still wonder whether, going forward, his pet themes, favorite arguments, and customary stances aren’t counterproductive and divisive, where not embarrassing. In short, you can agree with everything J.E. wrote, yet still be concerned about the way that Glenn Beck habitually brings vindictive hatred and a self-destructive and dangerous extremism into conservative discourse.

As someone who at least halfway listens to Beck’s TV show almost every weekday, I well recognize that he and his fans are more used to getting this kind of thing from the likes of Arianna Huffington or Media Matters robots than from conservative bloggers. But please check the transcript of his CPAC speech (or cue the video to 5:20): Nearly the first words out of his mouth were “I have to tell you, I hate Woodrow Wilson with everything in me…” (emphasis added). Defenders of Beck’s will be quick to point out that the words were obviously offered in self-consciously exaggerated good humor, as you will see if you view the video, and note the smile on Beck’s face. Furthermore, he was jokingly responding to a specific statement from David Keene’s introduction, in which, while congratulating Beck for conduction a national political seminar, Keene referred to having written an article in college naming Wilson, along with Hitler and Lenin, as one of “the three most dangerous people of the 20th Century.”

Now, jesting about one’s hatred for a relatively remote historical figure, even a duly elected president, wouldn’t amount to much on its own – who cares how anyone feels about Millard Fillmore? – but any Beck viewer or listener knows that, hard as it may be for the uninitiated to believe, Beck is joking on the square here. Indeed, he has seemed obsessed with exposing a purported clear and very present danger of progressivism, which he identifies both with historical figures like Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Margaret Sanger, and with modern day progressives like the Republican 2008 presidential candidate or our current Secretary of State. (If you happened to watch Beck’s hour-long New York harborscape interview with Sarah Palin, then you might recall her reluctance to respond to his anti-progressive spiel, especially when applied to her former running mate. Beck later described her demeanor as remarkably “guarded” – as against criticism from her legion of detractors. My personal opinion is that, though she likes Beck and wishes to appeal to his fans, her political antennae, and perhaps her common sense and personal decency, were functioning efficiently.)

When Beck inveighs hatefully against Woodrow Wilson, he’s also inveighing against John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and many millions of other people, in both parties, and I would question the honesty of any regular Beck viewer who denied the evident fierceness of Beck’s feelings on this subject. If you think I’m exaggerating, then how do you explain away statements like the following, also from the CPAC keynote?

Progressivism is the cancer in America and it is eating our Constitution. And it was designed to eat the Constitution. To progress past the Constitution.

…and, again on cancer, while reacting to a statement of Theodore Roosevelt’s on income inequality:

[T]his is not our founders’ idea of America. And this is the cancer that’s eating at America.


It is big government – it’s a socialist utopia. And we need to address it as if it is a cancer. It must be cut out of the system because they cannot co-exist. And you don’t cure cancer by – well, I’m just going to give you a little bit of cancer. You must eradicate it. It cannot co-exist. And we need big thinkers, and brave people with spines who can make the case – that can actually say to Americans: look it’s going to be hard – it’s going to be hard but it’s going to be okay. We’re going to make it.

This kind of language is not just exaggerated (and cliché): It’s pure demagogy, and it’s dehumanizing. Beck’s delivery and self-deprecation take the edge off… and I’ll now refrain from making the kind of historical reference that I tend to doubt Beck himself, in my place, would resist – much. I’ll just ask you to imagine the above with a few exclamation points, hand gestures, and a throbbing throng of the newly educated – live and in person, not across a warm TV screen.


Look at this piece very carefully and take out the word Beck and put in Limbaugh, Malkin, Huffington, or any other name and it really changes nothing.

Beck says that progressivism and traditional Americanism cannot ultimately coexist. Beck has used the evidence from countless history books, biographies, economists, historians, legal scholars and others to make his case.  McKleod, who admits that he only “half listens to Beck” says that Beck’s critiques of progressivism are pure demagogy, and yet provides us with verifiable fact ZERO that Beck is factually or historically incorrect about what he says. hired a bunch of professors to “fact check” Glenn Beck on his history of communism/progressivism documentary and found no errors.

I ask you Mr. McKleod, your observations of Beck are based on what?? You don’t like his sometimes flamboyant style? If you don’t like his style just say so, but to attack his factual credibility, when story after story he has broken was proved true after the elite media and White House called him a liar and all sorts of names. Yet you conveniently leave that out.  

What we have here is the typical nonsense that is often posted at the Daily Beast; XXX is this and XXX is that, what he says is this and what he says is that. XXX’s motives are this and XXX’s motives are that. Appeal to authority A said this about XXX and appeal to authority B said that.

Yet, we are left with no facts to verify for ourselves, there is not even the attempt to provide objective evidence that we can see and judge for ourselves. So what are we left with? XXX (Beck) is all these bad things because CK McLeod says so. I could take most of Mcleod’s column, take out Beck’s name and insert Malkin, or Huffington, or McLeod’s name and it would be just as valid/invalid.

Fortunately the commentors at Hotair, who are a very smart bunch, totally destroyed this piece by the numbers and it deserved it.

Here is my comment:

Mr./Ms. MacLeod,

This is not a very good column.

I see the same tactics in this column that are used on the Daily Beast. Glenn is this, Glenn is that, Glenn has bad motive a or bad motive B, the other guy says that Glenn will have bad result A or bad result B.

This all avoids the key argument. The truth.

Glenn hates Woodrow Wilson, you build a narrative around that lone snippet that is convenient for you, but you avoid the key question. WHY does Beck hate Wilson?

Could it have been that Wilson had thugs that were violent, that he was a proved racist who resegretated government, that he was steeped in social darwinism who thought that the Constitution was obsolete nonsense that got in the way of his dream of an engineered society?

Anyone who loves freedom and limited government should hold many of Wilson’s views with a certain degree of contempt.

What I don’t see from Beck’s critics is “Beck’s argument is wrong because of verifiable evidence X and verifiable evidence Y”.

I love Mark Levin, and he is right that the political consequences of the Tea Party and Beck in some cases maybe that the vote is split 3 ways and the leftist wins.

But this is also a reflection of a greater truth, the Republican Party is not entitled to my vote simply because I oppose statist leftism, like any candidate and any party they will have to earn my vote on merit and performance period.

Voting for you just because you are not the other guy is no longer good enough. The GOP needs to perform, keep its promises and show real leadership.


Scholar Jonah Goldberg on Woodrow Wilson:

GOLDBERG: Well, he creates the first propaganda ministry, he unleashes 100,000 propaganda agents on the United States where he sends them out sometimes without revealing their identities to give these speeches in all public places to persuade people to support the war, to distrust Germans, to hate immigrants. Wilson creates these, under Wilson, the Justice Department creates the American Protective League at a time where 250,000 badge-carrying goons who were allowed to beat people up in the street, arrest people in mass arrests, do home break-ins without warrants, spy on people, do government background checks, carry badges. They were just basically what, you know, what were called a bunch of sort of street gang political goons who could do the Government’s bidding at will. Wilson closed down scores of newspapers and magazines, threatened thousands of others with closing them down, used the mail service, which back then was like the Internet and mail combined. I mean, it was where everyone got their information, used the postal service to clamp down on all dissent. One woman who spoke in her own home about how she liked Lenin was given six months in jail. One guy refused to stand up for the Star-Spangled Banner at a baseball game, was shot in the back. Another guy refused to sing the national anthem at a liberty bond drive, was beaten senseless. These guys were not convicted of anything because they were just doing their patriotic duty. Even if you buy the caricature of George Bush and Joseph McCarthy, if you buy the cartoon version of what’s out there, they still, still look like co-hosts of romper room compared to what Woodrow Wilson did in this country.

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

Huffington Post Advocates “Breaking Kneecaps” Against Political Opponents.

Posted by iusbvision on February 25, 2010

We wrote about this story HERE when a CNN analyist advocated that the president “Go Chicago Style Al Capone Gangsta” on his political opponents. Imagine the elite media reaction if a Republican had said this.

This is not that unusual for the left. I wrote about how the left justifies violence against their political opponents HERE at Poligazette.

Via Big

CNN, Huffington Post Urge Violence Against Republicans

by Kristinn Taylor

Two of the most popular liberal news sites are calling for violence against Republicans for obstructing the radical agenda of President Barack Obama.

CNN and Huffington Post have each published op-eds this past week by regular contributors with headlines that explicitly call for Obama to use violent gangland tactics against his political opponents.

CNN published a column by Roland Martin on February 11 with the headline, Time for Obama to go ‘gangsta’ on GOP.

Martin concluded the article with a plea for Obama to emulate the violent tactics of the Prohibition-era Chicago mob boss Al Capone.

Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics. So, fine. Channel your inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price.

The Huffington Post followed-up with their own call for gangland violence against Republicans with the publication on February 14 of a column by David Bourgeois with the title, Obama Better Start Breaking Kneecaps.

Bourgeois concludes his article with this call for gangland violence.

You’ve given it your best shot, you’ve tried numerous times to talk with the Republicans, to negotiate, to meet them halfway on every single matter before the American people. But they hate you for many reasons. It’s time you break kneecaps (bold in original). It’s time to destroy the Republican Party. They don’t deserve a seat at the table when all they want to do is score political points by being the Party of No.

In case the message wasn’t clear, Huffington Post illustrated the call to violence with a wooden baseball bat with Obama’s first name on it in large letters.
Huffington Post publisher Arianna Huffington recently excoriated Fox News chief Roger Ailes for allegedly provocative rhetoric by Fox host Glenn Beck.

HUFFINGTON: Well, Roger, it’s not a question of picking a fight. And aren’t you concerned about the language that Glenn Beck is using, which is, after all, inciting the American people? There is a lot of suffering out there, as you know, and when he talks about people being slaughtered, about who is going to be the next in the killing spree…

…It’s not about the word police. It’s about something deeper. It’s about the fact that there is a tradition as the historian Richard Hofstetter said, in American politics, of the paranoid style. And the paranoid style is dangerous when there is real pain out there.

Ailes defended Beck, saying he was accurately talking about the governments of Hitler and Stalin.

Violent rhetoric such as that espoused by CNN and the Huffington Post is usually found in the bowels of Internet discussion forums, not as sanctioned op-ed headlines on news sites with White House press passes.

CNN and Huffington Post would be well-advised to retract the calls to violence and issue apologies to Republicans before Obama supporters are incited by their violent rhetoric and start going gangsta and break kneecaps of Republicans.

If they won’t do that of their own volition, then White House press secretary Robert Gibbs should shame them into doing so. Surely the Obama administration does not countenance violence against their domestic political opponents.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Violence | 1 Comment »