The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for March 15th, 2010

Brilliant: Paul Ryan on why this health care process is an unprecedented disgrace and abuse of the rules. They are trying to pass health care without voting on it. UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

UPDATE – Speaker Pelosi says that Congress will have to pass ObamaCare for you to find out what is in the final version of the bill

 

Here is how they are trying to pass ObamaCare without actually voting on it:

The Slaughter Solution is a plan by Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the Democratic chair of the powerful House Rules Committee and a key ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), to get the health care legislation through the House without an actual vote on the Senate-passed health care bill. You see, Democratic leaders currently lack the votes needed to pass the Senate health care bill through the House. Under Slaughter’s scheme, Democratic leaders will overcome this problem by simply “deeming” the Senate bill passed in the House – without an actual vote by members of the House.

An article in this morning’s edition of National Journal’s CongressDaily breaks the story, starting with the headline: “SLAUGHTER PREPS RULE TO AVOID DIRECT VOTE ON SENATE BILL.” Excerpts:

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

The CongressDaily report was authored by Anna Edney, with Billy House and Dan Friedman contributing.

Sarah Palin comments HERE.

Mini Update – Gibbs Dismantled By NBC Over The “Dirty Or Underhanded Process” of Deem & Pass

Mini Update II – Pelosi and Slaughter sued to stop the self executing rule they are now using in 2005 – LINK.

The Wall Street Journal comments:

We’re not sure American schools teach civics any more, but once upon a time they taught that under the U.S. Constitution a bill had to pass both the House and Senate to become law. Until this week, that is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi is moving to merely “deem” that the House has passed the Senate health-care bill and then send it to President Obama to sign anyway.

Under the “reconciliation” process that began yesterday afternoon, the House is supposed to approve the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill and then use “sidecar” amendments to fix the things it doesn’t like. Those amendments would then go to the Senate under rules that would let Democrats pass them while avoiding the ordinary 60-vote threshold for passing major legislation. This alone is an abuse of traditional Senate process.

But Mrs. Pelosi & Co. fear they lack the votes in the House to pass an identical Senate bill, even with the promise of these reconciliation fixes. House Members hate the thought of going on record voting for the Cornhusker kickback and other special-interest bribes that were added to get this mess through the Senate, as well as the new tax on high-cost insurance plans that Big Labor hates.

So at the Speaker’s command, New York Democrat Louise Slaughter, who chairs the House Rules Committee, may insert what’s known as a “self-executing rule,” also known as a “hereby rule.” Under this amazing procedural ruse, the House would then vote only once on the reconciliation corrections, but not on the underlying Senate bill. If those reconciliation corrections pass, the self-executing rule would say that the Senate bill is presumptively approved by the House—even without a formal up-or-down vote on the actual words of the Senate bill.

Democrats would thus send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature even as they claimed to oppose the same Senate bill. They would be declaring themselves to be for and against the Senate bill in the same vote. Even John Kerry never went that far with his Iraq war machinations. As we went to press, the precise mechanics that Democrats will use remained unclear, though yesterday Mrs. Pelosi endorsed this “deem and pass” strategy in a meeting with left-wing bloggers.

This two-votes-in-one gambit is a brazen affront to the plain language of the Constitution, which is intended to require democratic accountability. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says that in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.” This is why the House and Senate typically have a conference committee to work out differences in what each body passes. While sometimes one house cedes entirely to another, the expectation is that its Members must re-vote on the exact language of the other body’s bill.

As Stanford law professor Michael McConnell pointed out in these pages yesterday, “The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form.” If Congress can now decide that the House can vote for one bill and the Senate can vote for another, and the final result can be some arbitrary hybrid, then we have abandoned one of Madison’s core checks and balances.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

An open letter to educators: I dropped out of school because school was interfering with my education

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

An open letter to educators – “I dropped out of school because school was interfering with my education”

Mr. Brown in the video above makes some very valid points. 

Lee Doren had a very thoughtful response that almost mirrors my thoughts in a chapter of my upcoming book. But as far as college teaching people how to think, most universities have abandoned that since they have abandoned a genuine classic liberal arts GenEd curriculum in favor of a post modern, pop culture neo-marxist half way GenEd curriculum as demonstrated by the fact that here at IUSB I had weeks of Judith Butler and C.Wright Mills (both marxist ideologues of questionable mental stability and intellect) and minutes of Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, and Bacon. I stumbled upon Aquinas and Solan on my own.

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

Coffee Party Votes – Supporting Obama is More Important than the Economy

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Lee Doren is a film maker and voice of the famed “How the World Works”. He attended a “Coffee Party” which CNN has been promoting in a big way with the camera rolling.

What Lee Doren saw at the event came as no surprise and here is why. After taking Dr. Bennion’s 400 level elections class I realized that advanced political science majors were being caught up in the cult of personality around Obama and the marketing of it all (details of how that happened will be in my upcoming book); when asked basic questions about Obama no one in the class could answer them.  

[Editor’s note – while I have a tough critique of my fellow students in that class, who were mostly poli-sci majors and seniors who may be counted on as political consultants who could not answer the most basic of questions about the candidates, this is in no way a reflection of Dr. Bennion’s curriculum in the class which was a good one and covered the electoral bases pretty well. I recommend that people take the class.]

In the video Doren is right that this was by and large a therapy session. The fact that their top issue was “Supporting the President” over the premier issue according to all the polls, the economy, is really very telling.

The people in that video poured their hopes and wants onto Obama; he was the canvas and they painted it the way they wanted. With such an emotional connection it is not easy for people caught up in it all to get over their cognitive dissonance and snap out of it. Cult’s of personality for very strong, remember Jim Jones and heck, for decades after WWII there were people who slept with a picture of Hitler nearby [Disclaimer for progressives who may not be that bright – I am not saying that Obama is Hitler, I am just making an example about the power of a cult of personality – Editor].

Ed Morrissey at hotair.com comments HERE.

Posted in Campaign 2008, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Elite Media Bias Roundup: Journalistic Ethics Tossed Out Window

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

 
1. NY Times Still Calling ‘Haditha’ a Crime, Despite Acquittals of Marines – LINK
 
2. NBC Reporter’s Idea of Balance: Dem Voices Outnumber GOP 4 to 1 – LINK
3. Texas Social Studies Curriculum Vote Brings Out Worst in AP Bias, Labeling – LINK

The AP Reporter  makes almost no attempt to hide her clear disdain. She includes references to a “far-right faction” (a “faction” that happened to constitute a two-thirds majority!) and “ultraconservatives,” while uniformly describing leftists [trying to whitewash American history – Editor] as mere Democrats, and generally comes across as a sore loser in solidarity with the poor, outvoted libs.

4. Washington Post posts an angry rant by former NYT editor Howell Raines against Fox News that did not have a single fact in it. It was all hateful invective.  – LINK

5. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell  – You have got to pass health care for Obama’s power – LINK

6. New York Times ridiculous labelling of majority in Texas curriculum issue – LINK

[Editors Note – This story is a classic example of why our kids are so ignorant of history and why many text books cannot be trusted – what schools teach is based on political pressure groups and ideological spin, not genuine history]

7. USA Today Defends Michael Mann on Front Page, Misrepresents ClimateGate Scandal – LINK

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

British National Health Service Places Patient Confidential Records Online Without Consent

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

They aren’t accountable to the people so who cares, it’s the bureaucrats who have the power. It is like the teachers union attitude.

UK Telegraph:

Patients’ confidential medical records are being placed on a controversial NHS database without their knowledge, doctors’ leaders have warned.

Those who do not wish to have their details on the £11 billion computer system are supposed to be able to opt out by informing health authorities.

But doctors have accused the Government of rushing the project through, meaning that patients have had their details uploaded to the database before they have had a chance to object.

The scheme, one of the largest of its kind in the world, will eventually hold the private records of more than 50 million patients.

But it has been dogged by accusations that the private information held on it will not be safe from hackers.

The British Medical Association claims that records have been placed on the system without patients’ knowledge or consent.

It follows allegations that the Government wanted to complete the project before the Conservatives had a chance to cancel it.

In a letter to ministers published today, the BMA urges the Government to suspend the scheme.

Hamish Meldrum, its chairman, writes: “The breakneck speed with which this programme is being implemented is of huge concern.

“Patients’ right to opt out is crucial, and it is extremely alarming that records are apparently being created without them being aware of it.

“If the process continues to be rushed, not only will the rights of patients be damaged, but the limited confidence of the public and the medical profession in NHS IT will be further eroded.”

At present 1.29 million people have had their details placed on the system. A further 8.9 million records are due to be added by June. By the end of next year, the NHS hopes to have more than 50 million uploaded.

The “summary” records contain basic medical information including illnesses, vaccination history, and could include medication patients have been given. Ages and addresses are also included.

Patients are supposed to be notified by letter at least 12 weeks before their details go live on the system and given the chance to opt out.

The BMA says that letters have gone to the wrong addresses and that many patients have been unsure what they mean.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Health Law | Leave a Comment »

George Will Takes Robert Reich to School on Insurance Companies and Progressivism

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

We love Robert Reich, one of the worst economists ever. He will say anything for political reasons and claim that it is economic science. The truth is that one has to forget a great deal of macro-economics to come up with the obvious nonsense he does. But why do we love him, because sometimes he just lets the truth slip like he did HERE and HERE. These two linked comments and the one below have a common theme, you the American people, are idiots who cannot get along in life without the direction of Robert Reich.

Via RadioVoice and NewsBusters:

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

Tom Hanks: We killed the Japanese in WWII because they were different

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Yup, WWII was all about racism according to Tom Hanks.

And we were so racist that we rebuilt Japan after WWII and now they are one of our closest allies.

We are so racist that we sided with China in WWII, and before Pearl Harbor we sent American volunteer pilots to fight the Japanese on behalf of the Chinese. They were known as The Flying Tigers.

Tom Hanks, not only are you a pinhead, but now you have smeared the greatest generation who you have made movies on that have made you a very rich man. You ingrate.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 2 Comments »

Toronto Sun: Canadian Health System Trying to Kill and Bankrupt Brain Cancer Victim

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

You wonder why I oppose nationalized health care, well first of all I can tell you from experience that VA hospitals are second-rate. This story reminds us of one thing, in a government-run health care system who says NO? The answer is the payer does, which means the bureaucrats who write the checks, not you. The story you are about to read should infuriate you. Evil is the only word that fits.

Toronto Sun:

Sick man faces bankruptcy — or death

Cancer patient must pay for drug needed to keep him alive

By MARK BONOKOSKI, Toronto Sun

Last Updated: March 6, 2010 9:12pm

Kent Pankow lives in Edmonton, in a province and a country that is trying to either kill him or bankrupt him.

No sense mincing words.

Suffering from brain cancer, Kent Pankow was literally forced to go to the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn. for lifesaving surgery — at a cost to family and friends of $106,000 — after the health-care system in Alberta left him hanging in bureaucratic limbo for 16 crucial days, his tumour meanwhile migrating to an unreachable part of the brain, while it dithered over his case file, ultimately deciding he was not surgery worthy.

Now, with the Mayo Clinic having done what the Alberta Cancer Board wouldn’t authorize or even explain, but with the tumour unable to be totally removed, the province will now not fund the expensive drug, Avastin, that the Mayo prescribed to keep him alive and keep the remaining tumour from increasing in size — despite the costs of the drug being totally funded by the province for other forms of cancer.

Kent Pankow, as it turns out, has the right disease but he has it in the wrong place.

Had he lung cancer, breast cancer, or colon cancer, then the cost of the drug — $4,555 per treatment, two times a month — would be totally covered by Alberta’s version of OHIP.

But he doesn’t.

And so he is not only a victim of brain cancer, he is also a victim of arbitrary discrimination.

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

Durbin: Of course premiums will still go up with ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

But they are still lying..

Via Ed Morrissey at Hotair:

Not exactly a shocker, but Dick Durbin gives the nuanced explanation that they’re looking to slow down the rate of increases, not stop increases altogether.  Unfortunately, that misrepresents what the CBO has already said about premiums under ObamaCare — and ignores what has already happened to premiums without it:

The truth is that premiums have gone up in part because of government intervention, not despite of it.  Further government intervention will make the problem worse — and the CBO agreed in November

We also told you of this HERE and HERE.

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

Gallup: More Americans now believe the issue of man-made global warming is exaggerated

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Gallup Poll shows that more and more Americans now believe the issue of man-made global warming is exaggerated:

Americans are not getting educated on this issue because of the elite media culture, as I discussed in this post most of the American elite media has ignored the key aspects of this important story. It is my view that this is an example of the impact of new media.

Posted in 2012, Alarmism, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Democrat Pollsters Say Dems Losing Ground

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Pat Caddell and David Schoen are two of the best partisan pollsters in the business. They are Democrats but unlike so many others partisan pollsters they don’t delude themselves. They have been around a long time and have credibility in political circles.

They warned in a piece in the Washington Post that passing ObamaCare means electoral doom.

Washington Post:

If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

In “The March of Folly,” Barbara Tuchman asked, “Why do holders of high office so often act contrary to the way reason points and enlightened self-interest suggests?” Her assessment of self-deception — “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts” — captures the conditions that are gripping President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership as they renew their efforts to enact health-care reform.

Their blind persistence in the face of reality threatens to turn this political march of folly into an electoral rout in November. In the wake of the stinging loss in Massachusetts, there was a moment when the president and the Democratic leadership seemed to realize the reality of the health-care situation. Yet like some seductive siren of Greek mythology, the lure of health-care reform has arisen again.

As pollsters to the past two Democratic presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, respectively, we feel compelled to challenge the myths that seem to be prevailing in the political discourse and to once again urge a change in course before it is too late. At stake is the kind of mainstream, common-sense Democratic Party that we believe is crucial to the success of the American enterprise.

Bluntly put, this is the political reality:

First, the battle for public opinion has been lost. Comprehensive health care has been lost. If it fails, as appears possible, Democrats will face the brunt of the electorate’s reaction. If it passes, however, Democrats will face a far greater calamitous reaction at the polls. Wishing, praying or pretending will not change these outcomes.

Nothing has been more disconcerting than to watch Democratic politicians and their media supporters deceive themselves into believing that the public favors the Democrats’ current health-care plan. Yes, most Americans believe, as we do, that real health-care reform is needed. And yes, certain proposals in the plan are supported by the public.

However, a solid majority of Americans opposes the massive health-reform plan. Four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it, according to Rasmussen polling this week, while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly. Many more Americans believe the legislation will worsen their health care, cost them more personally and add significantly to the national deficit. Never in our experience as pollsters can we recall such self-deluding misconstruction of survey data.

The White House document released Thursday arguing that reform is becoming more popular is in large part fighting the last war. This isn’t 1994; it’s 2010. And the bottom line is that the American public is overwhelmingly against this bill in its totality even if they like some of its parts.

The notion that once enactment is forced, the public will suddenly embrace health-care reform could not be further from the truth — and is likely to become a rallying cry for disaffected Republicans, independents and, yes, Democrats.

Second, the country is moving away from big government, with distrust growing more generally toward the role of government in our lives. Scott Rasmussen asked last month whose decisions people feared more in health care: that of the federal government or of insurance companies. By 51 percent to 39 percent, respondents feared the decisions of federal government more. This is astounding given the generally negative perception of insurance companies.

CNN found last month that 56 percent of Americans believe that the government has become so powerful it constitutes an immediate threat to the freedom and rights of citizens. When only 21 percent of Americans say that Washington operates with the consent of the governed, as was also reported last month, we face an alarming crisis.

Health care is no longer a debate about the merits of specific initiatives. Since the spectacle of Christmas dealmaking to ensure passage of the Senate bill, the issue, in voters’ minds, has become less about health care than about the government and a political majority that will neither hear nor heed the will of the people.

Voters are hardly enthralled with the GOP, but the Democrats are pursuing policies that are out of step with the way ordinary Americans think and feel about politics and government. Barring some change of approach, they will be punished severely at the polls.

Now, we vigorously opposed Republican efforts in the Bush administration to employ the “nuclear option” in judicial confirmations. We are similarly concerned by Democrats’ efforts to manipulate passage of a health-care bill. Doing so in the face of constant majority opposition invites a backlash against the party at every level — and at a time when it already faces the prospect of losing 30 or more House seats and eight or more Senate seats.

 

And now foreign policy. The Obama Administration has taken a  juvenile, theoretical far left academic view of foreign policy. Our allies have been getting alienated like France, Germany, UK, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Israel and has been warming up to Chavez in Venezuela etc. (If anyone wishes to take issue with me in that statement I am prepared to back it up if you wish to challenge me in the comments).

Washington Times:

A majority of Americans say the United States is less respected in the world than it was two years ago and think President Obama and other Democrats fall short of Republicans on the issue of national security, a new poll finds.

The Democracy Corps-Third Way survey released Monday finds that by a 10-point margin — 51 percent to 41 percent — Americans think the standing of the U.S. dropped during the first 13 months of Mr. Obama’s presidency.

“This is surprising, given the global acclaim and Nobel peace prize that flowed to the new president after he took office,” said pollsters for the liberal-leaning organizations.

On the national security front, a massive gap has emerged, with 50 percent of likely voters saying Republicans would likely do a better job than Democrats, a 14-point swing since May. Thirty-three percent favored Democrats.

“The erosion since May is especially strong among women, and among independents, who now favor Republicans on this question by a 56 to 20 percent margin,” the pollsters said in their findings.

A May 2009 survey by the pollsters found the public saw the Democratic and Republican parties as equally able to handle national security (41 percent trusted Democrats more, and 43 percent trusted Republicans more.) On conducting the war on terrorism, the two parties were tied at 41 percent.

The Democrats’ gap on national security has widened on several other fronts:

• “Keeping America safe”: Democrats now trail by 13 points (34 percent to 47 percent.) The gap was just 5 points in July 2008.

• “Ensuring a strong military”: Democrats trail by 31 points (27 percent to 58 percent.)

• “Making America safer from nuclear threats”: Democrats trail by 11 points (34 percent to 45 percent,) “despite the president’s strong actions and speeches on steps to reduce nuclear dangers,” the pollsters said.

The poll, conducted late last month, found “the administration’s response to the Christmas Day terrorist attempt has contributed to the erosion.”

“While public polling showed that initial approval of Obama’s response was above 50 percent, two months of Republican criticism have taken a toll. Now a narrow 46 to 42 percent plurality of likely voters say they feel less confident about the administration’s handling of national security because of how it responded to the incident,” the pollsters said.

In addition, the detention of terrorist suspects and the Obama proposal to prosecute suspects in civil trials in New York City, which was later abandoned, also have taken a toll on the president’s approval ratings.

“Whereas a majority of the public approves of the job President Obama is doing in most aspects of national security, a 51 to 44 percent majority of likely voters disapproves of his efforts on the prosecution and interrogation of terrorism suspects,” the pollsters found.

Democracy Corps calls itself an independent, non-profit organization dedicated to making the government of the United States more responsive to the American people.” It was founded in 1999 by former Clinton adviser James Carville and Stanley Greenberg, a leading Democratic pollster.

Third Way calls itself “the leading moderate think-tank of the progressive movement.”

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

New Media Second Only to TV As America’s Most Trusted News Source

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

The elite media culture is becoming more and more irrelevent.

Pew Research Center:

In the digital era, news has become omnipresent. Americans access it in multiple formats on multiple platforms on myriad devices. The days of loyalty to a particular news organization on a particular piece of technology in a particular form are gone. The overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) use multiple platforms to get news on a typical day, including national TV, local TV, the internet, local newspapers, radio, and national newspapers. Some 46% of Americans say they get news from four to six media platforms on a typical day. Just 7% get their news from a single media platform on a typical day.

The internet is at the center of the story of how people’s relationship to news is changing. Six in ten Americans (59%) get news from a combination of online and offline sources on a typical day, and the internet is now the third most popular news platform, behind local television news and national television news.

In this new multi-platform media environment, people’s relationship to news is becoming portable, personalized, and participatory. These new metrics stand out:

Portable : 33% of cell phone owners now access news on their cell phones.

Personalized : 28% of internet users have customized their home page to include news from sources and on topics that particularly interest them.

Participatory : 37% of internet users have contributed to the creation of news, commented about it, or disseminated it via postings on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter.

To a great extent, people’s experience of news, especially on the internet, is becoming a shared social experience as people swap links in emails, post news stories on their social networking site feeds, highlight news stories in their Tweets, and haggle over the meaning of events in discussion threads. For instance, more than 8 in 10 online news consumers get or share links in emails.

The internet has surpassed newspapers and radio in popularity as a news platform on a typical day and now ranks just behind TV.

More than half of American adults (56%) say they follow the news “all or most of the time,” and another quarter (25%) follow the news at least “some of the time.” Asked specifically about their news habits on “a typical day,” the results are striking: 99% of American adults say that on a typical day, they get news from at least one of these media platforms: a local or national print newspaper, a local or national television news broadcast, radio, or the internet.1

Only local and national TV news, the latter if you combine cable and network, are more popular platforms than the internet for news. And most Americans use a combination of both online and offline sources. On a typical day:

78% of Americans say they get news from a local TV station

73% say they get news from a national network such as CBS or cable TV station such as CNN or FoxNews

61% say they get some kind of news online

54% say they listen to a radio news program at home or in the car

50% say they read news in a local newspaper

17% say they read news in a national newspaper such as the New York Times or USA Today.

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

Dr. Walter Williams – Is Health Care a Right?

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

While many of us would agree that we have some responsibility for the health care of the indigent, it is not a right. There is a big difference between a right, a responsibility, or a service that democratically we vote to provide.

Read this carefully, and remember by modern PC standards if you publically disagree with Dr. Williams it automatically makes you a racist (2).

Dr. Williams:

Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let’s ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.

Say a person, let’s call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab’s and Dr. Jones’ services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?

Dr. Walter Williams

You say, “Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay.” You’re right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress’ use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American.

True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else’s wish come true.

None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one’s own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else’s pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Sex, Violence and Hate: the Top 10 Most Disgusting Attacks on Conservative Women

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

How did the elite media treat conservative women in 2009?

In the video and the commentary the author, Colleen Raezler, uses the word “liberal” to describe them. While they may think they are liberals, the term progressive secular leftist comes much closer to a genuine description of their point of view.

Via the Culture and Media Institute:

March is Women’s History Month, in which we acknowledge the accomplishments and contributions of women in history and in society today. 

But for a select group of women – conservative women – their accomplishments and contributions are rarely celebrated but often demeaned and mocked in sexist – and crassly sexual – ways. 

The Culture & Media Institute looked back at what the media had to say over the past year about some of today’s most prominent conservative women, including Michelle Malkin, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Sarah Palin and Liz Cheney, and compiled a list of the 10 worst attacks on these women who dare to speak out in favor of conservative values. 

Much of the criticism was the worst sort of misogyny with a dose of violence and disgusting adolescent sex references thrown in for good measure. The media outlets in question ranged from Playboy magazine to MSNBC to Sirius XM radio and included comments from both men and women. 

The message that rang through loud and clear was that perspectives from conservative women were not appreciated or welcomed, and if a woman stepped out of line, she deserved whatever treatment she received. 

Here is the top 10: 

1. Playboy’s Hate List 

Playboy magazine writer Guy Cimbalo released his list of top ten conservative women against whom he’d like to commit violent sexual acts last June. Calling these acts a “hate f—” in his “So Right It’s Wrong” article, Cimbalo explained that he “might despise everything” about women like Michelle Malkin, Fox News’s Megyn Kelly, “The View’s” Elisabeth Hasselbeck, Mary Katherine Ham  and Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, “but g–dammit, they’re hot!” 

Cimbalo listed the physical attributes of each woman along with short explanations of why a self-respecting liberal male shouldn’t be attracted to them. A “hate-f— rating,” presumably to tell others just how good the sex would be, accompanied each listing as well.

Hasselbeck was described as “the clean-cut American sweetheart who elicits our filthiest thoughts.” Cimbalo labeled Bachmann the “lusty congresswoman from the Twin Cities who’s got some great twins of her own.”  

As for the rating each woman received, they ranged from “chemical castration would begin to sound more appealing” to “you get this one pregnant, she stays pregnant.” 

Cimbalo’s list was a disgusting example of low the media will stoop to malign conservative women. And it caused such a firestorm that Playboy removed it from its Web site. 

2. Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi Uses Graphic Sexual Language to Discredit Michelle Malkin and the Tea Party Movement. 

In a Tax Day 2009 blog post, Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi claimed “he really enjoying this whole teabag thing” and that “it’s really inspiring some excellent daydreaming.” 

Taibbi let his readers in on the nature of his daydreams that involve conservative pundit Michelle Malkin in incredibly vulgar ways. 

“[T]his move of hers to spearhead the teabag movement really adds an element to her writing that wasn’t there before,” he wrote. “Now when I read her stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy, set of b—- in her mouth. It vastly improves her prose.” 

Nothing brings out liberals’ inner juvenile thug like an outspoken conservative woman.

3. U.S News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe Takes Issue with Playboy List – Except for Inclusion of Michelle Malkin.

It’s bad enough that liberal men don’t hesitate to speak of women in offensive, sexualized terms, but it’s beyond outrageous when a woman claims they deserved it. 

But that’s just what U.S. News and World Report’s Bonnie Erbe did in the wake of the Playboy “hate f—” list. 

“I’m also a firm believer in supporting all members of my gender when attacked due to their gender. I am supporting these women herewith,” Erbe maintained before noting that her “support” carried limits. 

Erbe continued, “I also want to note that at least one woman on the list is so venom-spewing, she unfortunately invites venom to be shot back at her: Michelle Malkin. Her posts and her ‘routine’ are so venomous and predictable in fact, I stopped paying attention to her years ago.” 

Malkin struck back at Erbe and explained the true meaning behind Erbe’s words. 

“Translation: It’s not okay to talk about “hatef**king” conservative women…unless they are rowdy, incivil conservative women who don’t behave nicely enough to be on my obscure PBS show,” wrote Malkin. “In which case, they deserve all the vulgar misogynist attacks they get!”

4. Keith Olbermann Compares Michelle Malkin to a ‘Mashed-Up Bag of Meat With Lipstick on it”

MSNBC personalities reserve a special level of vitriol for conservative woman, and none more so than Keith Olbermann. 

Olbermann compared Michelle Malkin to a “big, mashed up bag of meat with lipstick on it” during his Oct. 13 “Countdown” show because he believed she encouraged death threats made to a woman who posted a video of singing their praises to President Barack Obama. 

“She received death threats and hate-filled voicemails all thanks to the total mindless, morally bankrupt, knee-jerk fascistic hatred, without with Michelle Malkin would just be a big mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it,” Olbermann stated

Olbermann’s comments were deemed offensive enough to warrant a response from editor Megan Carpentier, an editor at liberal and now-defunct Air America Radio. 

“A liberal, progressive critique of Malkin need not and should not resort to an attack on her looks or her gender or rely on silly stereotypes or imagery that brings to mind victims of domestic violence,” wrote Carpentier.

You know Olbermann went too far when even liberals are calling him out on his remarks.

 

5. Comedian Chuck Nice Compares Sarah Palin to Herpes

 

Sarah Palin is no stranger to negative media attention, but comparing her to a sexually transmitted disease takes the criticisms over the line.

During a June 9 discussion on NBC’s “Today” show about Palin’s role in the GOP, comedian Chuck Nice told his co-panelists, NBC’s chief legal analyst Dan Abrams and Politco’s White House reporter Nia-Malika Henderson, “But, Sarah Palin to the GOP, this is what I’ve got to say, she is very much like herpes, she’s not going away.” 

Abrams simply responded, “That’s the advantage of being Chuck Nice. You can say that and there’s no repercussions.” Henderson did not respond. Before hosts Kathie Lee Gifford and Hoda Kotb moved on to other topics, Nice informed viewers, “Everybody is laughing. I don’t care. The band is cracking up.”

Unfortunately, that’s the typical response when it comes to insulting conservative woman.

6. Toronto Star Columnist Tweets a Death Wish for Michelle Malkin

 

Unfortunately, as Erbe proved, it’s not only liberal men who have it out for conservative women. Antonia Zerbisias is another one. 

The Toronto Star columnist expressed deep hatred for Michelle Malkin in an April 2009 Twitter message that read, “Forget the Marxists, I wish the marksmen would take @MichelleMalkin. I’m thinking Dick Cheney. He’s such a good shot.” 

Apparently Zerbisias’s employer is okay with these types of remarks, as evidenced by her bio at the Star. 

“Antonia Zerbisias, columnist for the Toronto Star’s Living section, has been telling people what she thinks ever since she could open her mouth,” the bio said. “Her opinionating career dates back to Grade 9 when a cartoon commentary on a teacher resulted in her suspension from high school. The principal sent her home with a note calling her ‘rude, obstreperous and bold.’ Her parents were neither amused, nor surprised. Once she was punished for being that way. Now she makes it pay.”

7. Sarah Palin = Vice-President Barbie?

 

ABC reporter David Wright couldn’t keep himself from comparing Sarah Palin to Barbie during his Feb. 16 “Nightline” segment on the doll’s 50th birthday.

“[Barbie’s] been an astronaut and a rock star. Pop icons Beyonce and Shakira. She’s won ‘American Idol’ too,” he began. “Some would argue she also ran for vice-president in 2008,” quipped Wright, after showing various clips of Palin. 

“Caribou Barbie” was a characterization many in the media used to deride Palin throughout the 2008 election. Wright’s attack on the former Alaskan governor in a segment that had nothing to do with politics and aired three months after the election, illustrated that the media weren’t planning to back off sexist comments about Palin anytime soon.

8. Rosie O’Donnell ‘Humanized’ Conservative Elisabeth Hasselbeck

 

Apparently to Rosie O’Donnell, conservative women are less than human. 

The former “View” moderator outlined how she tried to “humanize” her former colleague, Elisabeth Hasselbeck during the Feb. 8 broadcast of her Sirius XM radio show, “Rosie Radio.” O’Donnell’s comments stemmed from a discussion about the conservative backlash to her recent HBO documentary about families, “A Family is a Family is a Family.” 

“It’s sort of what I thought about Elisabeth Hasselbeck, too. I’m going to love her, regardless of what she says, I’m gonna love her and the love, then, is going to win through in the end,” O’Donnell explained to her current colleagues. “I was positive of this, and we sort of started to humanize her. Remember, after she came to my house, she actually said on television how she thought our family was so great? Can you imagine the amount of hate mail she got from her constituency?”

9. David Letterman’s “Top Ten” List of Sarah Palin Insults

 

Late night talk show host David Letterman couldn’t let an opportunity to go by without trashing Sarah Palin during his June 8 show

The usual “jokes” about Palin’s intellect appeared on Letterman’s “Top Ten Highlights of Sarah Palin’s Trip to New York,” alongside a knock on her looks. “Number Two: Bought make-up from Bloomingdale’s to update her ‘slutty flight attendant look,” read the comedian. 

Then he went further, with a crude joke about her 14-year-old daughter being impregnated at Yankee Stadium. Letterman eventually was forced to apologize for that joke, but not for carried on the tradition of painting Palin as a complete bimbo, not a governor or a former vice-presidential candidate.

10. Liz Cheney, Daddy’s Little Girl?

 

MSNBC and liberal talk radio host Ed Schultz labeled Liz Cheney, daughter of former vice-president Dick Cheney, nothing more than a daddy’s girl during his Sept. 29 MSNBC program, “The Ed Show.” 

“There’s a couple of gals who’ve been riding the wave of crazy that’s been sweeping the nation’s right-wingers: ‘Shooter’s little girl, Liz Cheney, has been hitting the lecture circuit, parroting daddy’s fear-mongering rhetoric,” stated Schultz.

Of course, Liz Cheney is no simple “daddy’s girl.” She holds a law degree from the University of Chicago, and served as the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs.  

A liberal woman with the same qualifications as Cheney would never be categorized as a “daddy’s girl” but as an empowered woman in her own right.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Other Links | Leave a Comment »

See what this student learned in college: Look Ma, I’m a Communist!

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

IUSB is a small college with many adjunct faculty. Most of the best professors I have had have been adjuncts as they are not hard-core ideologues and they often have actual practical experience in their fields of study. While we certainly have our share of communists and neo-marxists in the faculty who slant the curriculum, at the big campuses the problem is much worse as I will show in my upcoming book.

As many problems that I have with the IU system and IUSB, I am still convinced that one gets a better undergraduate education at small campuses like IUSB than one would get at Columbia, Bloomington, Berkeley, Harvard, Notre Dame, Cornell, etc.

With that said, take a look at this poor fellow. I would bet any amount of money he didn’t learn this nonsense in high school.

Via Big Government.com:

In Detroit, a chap representing the Che Guevara-loving, Mumia Abu-Jamal-supporting “FIST Youth” educated a crowd of about two dozen about the virtues of socialism.  He also lectured on the Soviet Union, its roots and the glory days when the “people’s council” made all of the important decisions.

Thursday, March 4th, for a “Day of Action to Defend Public Education.”  The nationwide event was organized by fringe, left-wing groups like Michigan’s “By Any Means Necessary,” Ohio-organized “Community Organizing Center for Mother Earth,” Los Angeles-based “County Peace and Freedom Party,” the “League for the Revolutionary Party” of New York, and North Carolina’s “Destroy Industry.”

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Even CJR Can Say Something Important (Even if it is 30 paragraphs deep)

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

As you all know, I am hard on Columbia Journalism Review (CJR) they claim to be the standard for the journalism profession, but as we have reported here several times using CJR’s own content, they are nearly a public relations disinformation arm for the Democratic National Committee, most obviously so near election time.

After pointing some of these things out, CJR removed me from their mailing list, which I find rather amusing.

In CJR’s 438, 234th piece trashing Fox News by Tery McDermott they actually said something important about 30 paragraph’s in about MSNBC:

In essence, MSNBC has no news operation whatsoever. It has about half the total staff that Fox employs, roughly one-sixth that of CNN, but none of these people are reporters. It is almost purely a talk network. It regularly runs even less news content than Fox. In primetime, it runs none at all. At 7 p.m., when Fox and CNN are running hour-long newscasts, MSNBC airs a re-run of Chris Matthews’s interview show, Hardball. Even when it puts news on the air, the content is almost entirely drawn from its corporate big brother, NBC, and NBC’s news operation pales compared to that of CNN.

What I find amusing that the commenters pointed out examples of the the gross misconduct of MSNBC and took CJR to task:

One commenter pointed to when MSNBC did THIS.

This is clearly opinion and partisan at that, which makes you guilty of what you accuse Fox of doing. Rather amusing.

Pot… kettle.. black..

`

“The national Republican Party has shrunk to a narrow base with no apparent agenda other than to oppose everything the Obama administration proposes.”

I’m gonna make a wild guess – call it a hunch – that our reporter Terry is not a Republican. Probably for him spending one night watching Fox is worse than having root canal.

Flip Terry’s statement the other way and this is exactly the sort of thing that Hannity espouses every night. The difference is that Terry actually fancies himself as an unbiased observer.

Fascinating…

`

By the way, the BIG story that CJR and other media critics keep ignoring is this: MSNBC and NBC curry favor with the Obama administration with fawning stories and commentaries 24/7.

And it is no secret that, a year ago, Jeff Immelt and Jeff Zucker met with many of the journalists/editors at CNBC and told them to back off on their hard-hitting criticisms of the Obama administration. Since that time, the CNBC have added more liberal analysts and take extra care to get the liberal perspective on economy/market issues. I know, because I watch it quite often.

Now, why hasn’t anyone questioned this HUGE conflict of interest? GE, the parent company of these networks, wants to get billions of dollars worth of contracts from the Obama administration for carbon trading, education consulting, and so on.

This could be the biggest conflict of interest in financial terms ever in the nation’s history, and our media watchdogs simply yawn and look the other way. Amazing.

 

`

“It’s worth noting that MSNBC languished in the cable news ratings competition until becoming more sharply opinionated, in that way becoming a left-leaning analog to Fox. It’s highly doubtful this change was due to political considerations. In other ways, though, MSNBC is not a Fox analog at all. Although its overall operation is sharply to the left of Fox, it offers a wider array of guests and doesn’t completely shut out Republicans. Matthews, for example, on the day in question conducted a friendly interview with two Tea Party Republican activists. The existence of Morning Joe, starring outspoken conservative Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC’s morning air offers further evidence.”

This paragraph propounds several falsehoods. First, MSNBC’s ratings for its left-wing ranter Kieth Olbermann are worse than ever, and MSNBC consistently ranks third and fourth among the cable news networks while Fox News consistently ranks first and has done for many years.

(tvbythenumbers.com) March 8, 2010

P2+ Total Day:
FNC – 1,401,000 viewers
CNN – 425,000 viewers
MSNBC –379,000 viewers
CNBC – 215,000 viewers
HLN – 317,000 viewers

P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,863,000 viewers
CNN – 651,000 viewers
MSNBC –930,000 viewers
CNBC – 308,000 viewers
HLN –544,000 viewers

`

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

Where are Leftist “Civil Libertarians” Now: Obama Supports DNA Sampling Upon Arrest

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

Gitmo is still open, so much for civilian trials, summary executions with CIA drones still go on, the Patriot Act was extended, Obama and Democrats move to have the power to take control of the internet, Obama Czar’s trying to avoid Congressional oversight and the list goes on.

Where is the almost daily drumbeat from the left and the elite media pounding Obama and using the not so vague Nazi references like they did to President Bush?

Now this…

Wired Magazine:

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

Sexist Attacks on Clarance Thomas’ Wife by the Left

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

 

The Narrative: If you are the wife of a traditional judge and you vote Republican, you should stay home and bake cookies, if you don’t you’re taking corporate money and you’re a crook.  

Of course when Hillary said she will carry on her career when Bill was running for President it was “two heads are better than one”. Democrats said it was also fine when Hillary’s law firm (Rose Law Firm) was hired by the feds and by the state of Arkansas for state business while Bill was governor.

The left-wing site CrooksandLiars (and other left-wing blogs) trashes Ginny Thomas for daring not to stay at home and do what she has always done. But wait, Ed Rendell who is Governor of Pennsylvania and a big shot on TV and fundraiser for the DNC is married to a federal judge. So I searched crooksandliars web site to see if there is anything but glowing mentions of the Rendells (Search HERE) and of course it’s all grins and giggles. Newsflash: judges often have spouses.

Mini Update – It gets better, take a gander at Justice Ginsburg’s spouse, Martin Ginsburg, who had a big shot law firm, lobbied the U.S. Senate and worked for presidential candidates like Ross Perot. Yet he is a Democrat and a man so that’s ok, I guess male spouses of judges aren’t expected to stay home and bake cookies. Of course now that I have linked to Martin Ginsburg’s wiki entry it may end up being scrubbed of pertinent info, so check the edits back to this date if it happens.

The elite media and their allies did this to Mrs. Thomas when she changed jobs in 2000 as well.

LA Times:

In 2000, while at the Heritage Foundation, she was recruiting staff for a possible George W. Bush administration as her husband was hearing the case that would decide the election. When journalists reported her work, Thomas said she saw no conflict of interest and that she rarely discussed court matters with her husband.

The L.A. Times says that Mrs Thomas is starting a “Tea Party” group, but I searched her web site and the words Tea Party do not appear on it at all. I think it would be great if she did start one, the First Amendment is for everyone, even libertarian wives of judges, but journalists are supposed to be accurate (someone tell CJR).

Posted in Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

What They Didn’t Teach You In School. Glenn Beck: The History of Extremism in America

Posted by iusbvision on March 15, 2010

It is amazing how people try to draw some huge distinction between Nazi’s and Communists when almost no disparity exists. Both want leviathan government, redistribution of wealth, gun control, high taxes, government control of schools and major industry and the diminishment of the rights of the individual; all in the name of “social justice” Think of one as a shark and the other as a killer whale, while one is a mammal and one is a fish, behavior wise they are almost indistinguishable.

The show aired on March 11, 2010.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »