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 April 6th, 2010

Glenn Beck Makes Case White House is Going Marxist. Dares White House or Anyone to Prove His Case Wrong

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Glenn Beck takes the entire show and makes his case complete with sources and the President’s own words.

This case is so rock solid that I dare anyone to attempt to refute it with verifiable substantive evidence…. good luck.

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

Watch Arianna Huffington Get Destroyed on MSNBC for her Hateful Personal Attacks and Hypocrisy

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

The cast of Morning Joe on MSNBC got fed up with Arianna’s attacks and grilled her. This is a site to see.

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

Brilliant Black Man reads the racist hate mail from the left.

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Not for kids. Find out just how racist the progressive secular left is.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Judge Napolitano: The Constitutional Case Against ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Andrew P. Napolitano  is a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge. He is a graduate of Princeton University (where he was a founding member of the Concerned Alumni of Princeton) and Notre Dame Law School.

Napolitano sat on the New Jersey bench from 1987 to 1995, becoming the state’s youngest life-tenured judge. He also served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall University School of Law for 11 years. Napolitano resigned his judgeship in 1995 to pursue his writing and television career.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

VIDEO: “Anti-War” Protest At White House Featuring Flag Burning, Calls for Socialism, ‘9/11 Truth’, Support for HAMAS & Antisemitism

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

This Ain’t No Tea Party
From: aimaccuracy | April 06, 2010 
On March 20, 2010 there was an anti-war demonstration in Lafayette Square Park, across the street from the White House. AIM went there to see what sort of activity was occurring, and as we show in this video, which was all shot at the scene of the demonstration, it was a mix of 9/11 Truthers, Code Pinkers, socialists, anarchists, and a large contingency of pro-Hamas, anti-Israel zealots.

The Washington Post covered it, but never mentioned the name Obama, though he was clearly a target of the protesters. The group that organized the protest, International ANSWER, claims there were 10,000 people there. Our estimate: 2 – 3 thousand tops, at least prior to the marching part of the demonstration. We didn’t stick around for that part.

One thing for sure, no one burned an American flag at any Tea Party gatherings, but they sure did here. Did you see any reporting about the hate-speech and flag burning? I guess MSNBC was too busy that day.

Washington Post coverage:…

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

Another University Threatened with Legal Action to Follow the 1st Amendment and Own Rules

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Case after case after case it is always the same. According to campus administrators if you want to have a university subsidized play about shaving ones private parts and chanting the C^NT word that is fine, but when a student passes out pro-life literature all of the sudden a bunch of phony regulations are applied to said student by the administration.

Of course the 1st amendment is clear that universities get very little wiggle room when it comes to first amendment restrictions. Most universities have rules that affirm freedom of speech, but as is so often the case in hundreds of instances, the university wants to restrict speech by content.

The student tries to talk to administrators to merely enforce their own rules and they berate him. So said student contacts the Alliance Defense Fund and ….:

BROOKLYN, N.Y. — A student told he could not distribute a pro-life newsletter on the campus of Kingsborough Community College will be allowed to do so as a result of a letter sent to the school by the Alliance Defense Fund.

[Be sure to read this letter to see how this student was treated by administrators who are paid 5-6 figures to follow their own rules and exercise good judgment – Editor]

“Pro-life students shouldn’t be discriminated against for expressing their beliefs,” said ADF Litigation Staff Counsel Travis Barham. “In this case, campus security officers and several administrators tried to stop a student from passing out pro-life fliers even though no campus policy prohibited him from doing so. We commend the college for quickly rectifying this situation and affirming our client’s rights protected by the First Amendment.”

On Sept. 24, Joseph Hayon was distributing copies of a pro-life newsletter to passersby outside the KCC cafeteria. He was approached by a campus security officer who told him that he could not “give out fliers on campus” because they did not have an official stamp from the Office of Student Life. However, no school policy even discusses students distributing literature on campus.

After speaking with several campus officials, Hayon was eventually told that he could have a table on campus to distribute his literature; however, he would have to wait eight days to receive the table, he could only used it for four hours at a time, and he could not directly hand the literature to those who passed by.

In the letter sent March 11, ADF attorneys wrote, “To date, KCC has identified no interests that would support its restrictions on Mr. Hayon’s leafleting, particularly since courts readily recognize that peaceful leafleting poses little (if any) risk of disruption. One OSL official indicated that he could not distribute literature because it might ‘offend people.’ Yet the Supreme Court…could not be clearer on this point:  the First Amendment exists to protect offensive speech, and KCC simply cannot silence speech because some people find it offensive. Indeed, this is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment.”

In its response, dated March 16, counsel for KCC said the college would allow Hayon to pass out his fliers freely, without the restrictions it previously imposed.

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

American Spectator: How Karl Rove Got Barack Obama Elected

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Before I dig in here let me say that I like Karl Rove, he has a reputation as a very nice guy who doesn’t have even a whiff of elitism. I have chatted with him a couple of times on Twitter and his reputation holds with me. American Spectator states that anyone who spends any time with Rove finds out pretty quickly that they are in the presence of a towering intellect. Again this is nothing new as Washington insiders have been saying that about Karl since the Nixon Administration.

What makes Karl Rove different, is that towering intellects often give you brilliant rationalizations for failure, Rove is very honest and quite correct about his own mistakes and shortcomings in his political duties.

In fairness to Rove, the failure was not just his. Dan Bartlett at White House Communications had no real communications strategy that I could detect. Scott McClellen was incompetent and Dana Perino, and this hurts for me to say because I am quite fond of Dana who has been so effective as a talking head, was ineffective as a White House Press Secretary because she was trying to nice-nice a hostile elite media that was out to destroy her. The Democratic Leadership and much of the elite media decided that straight up lying to the American people was perfectly acceptable, as well as investing in America’s defeat.

Every GOP professor I know, myself and all my friends complained for years how the Bush White House had no effective communications machine at all, with the exception of the brilliant and brief participation of Tony Snow.

The big crime; they let this situation go on for years.

I can think of several professors here at school who said that I articulated administration policy better than anyone in the administration. Granted political communications strategy is my “thing” and I seem to have a gift for it as several of my professors will tell you, but this is the White House, where the best of the best should have been hard at work. So what happened?

American Spectator:

When I served as a Senior Speechwriter in George W. Bush’s White House, Karl Rove was the bane of my existence. The rule was that no speech could ever go to the President without its first being reviewed by Mr. Rove, and since Karl was an extremely busy man, he often didn’t call in his comments to the Speechwriting Office till eight or nine in the evening. By the time these comments reached me, they often seemed hopelessly cryptic and unintelligible, yet somehow I had to figure out a way to work them into my draft without offending all the other big-shots whose comments I had previously incorporated…And all the while, of course, the President was waiting for his speech.

But despite the grief he caused me, I am one of Karl Rove’s biggest fans. Karl is a truly nice man — modest, personable, and extremely approachable — yet you couldn’t spend more than five minutes with him without recognizing that you were in the presence of a towering intellect. But having just read his memoir, Courage and Consequence, I am forced to conclude that Rove, perhaps more than anyone else, was responsible for the election of Barack Obama in 2008.

Let me recount a bit of personal history by way of background. About four years ago, around the time when Democrats were heatedly charging that Bush had “lied” about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction in order to build a case for war (after all, they argued, if the weapons had existed, why weren’t we able to find them after liberating Iraq?), I was having lunch with Dr. Laurie Mylroie, one of America’s leading students of terrorism in general, and Iraqi terrorism in particular. Laurie was beside herself with anger. Why wasn’t the Bush administration citing Gen. James Clapper, the Director of the National Imagery and Mapping Agency, who said that satellite imagery proved conclusively that shortly before the war’s outbreak, Iraq had transferred its weapons of mass destruction to Syria? Why wasn’t it quoting Gen. Georges Sada, deputy chief of Saddam’s air force, or Gen. Moshe Ya’alon, Israel’s chief-of-staff, both of whom also claimed that Saddam’s weapons had been transferred to Syria? Why was it so tongue-tied, so unsure of itself, so unwilling to answer its critics? Didn’t anybody in the White House realize that if the Democrats’ charges went unanswered, they would fatally undermine the entire case for the war?

By this time, however, I had left the White House, so I had to tell Laurie the truth: Her revelations about Generals Clapper and Sada (though not Ya’alon) were news to me, and I had no idea why the White House wasn’t citing them.

Given this background, readers will understand the mixed feelings with which I reacted to Karl Rove’s assertion, in a chapter entitled “Bush Was Right on Iraq,” that Clapper, Sada and Ya’alon all maintained that Saddam had transferred his weapons of mass destruction to Syria on the eve of the war. On the one hand, I recalled the old saw, “Better late than never.” On the other hand, I couldn’t help feeling that history might have turned out differently had Karl spoken out sooner.

To his immense credit, Karl makes no effort to deny that he screwed up, big time. “So who was responsible for the failure to respond [to the Democrats’ assault]?” he asks. “I was. I should have stepped forward, rung the warning bell, and pressed for full-scale response. I didn’t. Preoccupied with the coming campaign and the pressures of the daily schedule in the West Wing, I did not see how damaging this assault was. There were others who could have sounded the alarm, but regardless, I should have.”

Rove goes on to call the Democrats’ claim that Bush lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction a “poison-tipped dagger aimed at the heart of the Bush presidency,” and notes that “by July 2005 a majority of Americans — 51 percent — believed that Bush had deliberately misled them.”

This number is quite close to the 52 percent of Americans who voted for Obama in 2008. Maybe that’s just a coincidence — but I doubt it. It seems to me that after full allowance is made for the nefarious activities of ACORNs, RINOs, and other assorted villains of the 2008 campaign, the fact remains that on the most crucial issue facing any president — the issue of war and peace — a majority of Americans believed that GeorgeW. Bush lied to them. Since he was leaving office, they couldn’t punish Bush directly for this unforgivable sin, so they punished the Republican Party by voting for Obama. To the extent that Karl Rove — one of the finest, ablest, most decent public servants I have ever encountered — might have prevented all this from happening by responding more forcefully to the Democrats’ blood libel, he is responsible for the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States.

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

Lawyer makes April 1st fake post of White House appointment to fool those “political bloggers” but the bloggers could not verify the story and ignored it, but who ran with it without fact checking??… The New York Times.

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

What can I say folks, on my class new media blog I have been writing about this very issue and now this.

Our friends at Republican Heretic has good coverage of this so here you go.

Republican Heretic reports:

This is pretty priceless. Apparently, a New York personal injury lawyer and legal blogger took advantage of April 1st to post a false story in an effort to prove that political bloggers simply spread rumors and don’t fact check anything. In the fake blog post, he claimed to have been named as the White House’s “official White House law blogger” and sat back to watch the political blogs fall over themselves reporting on the story.

Well, no one did. The bloggers couldn’t confirm the story, so no one ran with it.

Except the New York Times.

Liberty Pundits covers the story:

It’s a good ruse complete with charts and stories.  So the NYT gets wind of it.  Their “fact-checking” department calls both the lawyer and the White House.  Lawyer specifically obfuscates; he confirms NOTHING.  The WH? No one home.   The story has no confirmation whatsoever on any level.

What does the NYT do?  I can’t grab an archived version to link, but here is the cut from Gawker claiming to be the original NYT piece:

After all, as Mr. Turkewitz, a Manhattan lawyer, writes on his New York Personal Injury Law Blog, he is about to be sounding off on all manner of legal issues as the Obama administration’s new White House law blogger.

“Excited about new blogging gig as White House law blogger,” he tweeted this morning. “But hope I don’t have to spend too much time in D.C.”

Spoken like a true New Yorker.


And as if it couldn’t get better.  The lawyer turns out to be smug prick that learned something he probably didn’t want to know:

The basic idea was this: A bunch of law bloggers would try to punk the political bloggers, whose reputation is to grab any old rumor and run with it. Fact checking hasn’t always been the strong suit of this community.


But the political bloggers, to their collective credit, didn’t bite, despite wide dissemination of the story. Not on the right or the left. Instead it was the vaunted New York Times that ran with the story without bothering to check its facts. The Times, of course, had no sense of humor about it when the angry phone call came to me a couple of hours later.

So, he tried to punk us and instead found out that what we’ve been saying about the NYT has been true all along.

This incident speaks volumes about the credibility of the remaining few print media, and why their circulation numbers are plummeting. It also sheds a light into why so many are turning to the internet — and especially blogs — for news and political commentary. Despite the narrative that bloggers don’t bother to check what they’re writing on, it was the bastion of the mainstream media, the grand New York Times, which essentially sets the stage for what the other mainstream media report on, that didn’t bother to properly vet a story.

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

IRS Chief: Buy health insurance or lose your tax refund

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Daily Caller

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

Off-the-Hook Hypocrisy: Rep. Waters (D-CA) Used to Love Vulgar & Outlandish Protest Rallies

Posted by iusbvision on April 6, 2010

Via NEN:

Posted in Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »