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 May, 2010

Joe Scarborough blasts elite media over Joe Sestak bribery scandal hypocrisy

Posted by iusbvision on May 30, 2010

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Lawsuit: Florida state employee fired for speaking at Tea Party

Posted by iusbvision on May 30, 2010

This will be an interesting case. What makes it more interesting is that her pinhead boss, State Attorney Robert L. Jarvis supplies the rope for which he will be hanged (figuratively speaking in the legal sense) when he says “When she decided to be the next Sarah Palin that goes too far…”. Umm excuse me, Sarah Palin was a city councilman, a mayor, a bureaucrat, a state energy regulator and governor and how did that conflict with the interests of the state?

Here is her so called highly offensive speech. Read it for yourself as it is typical boilerplate Americanism stuff. Nothing remotely controversial or in conflict with the State of Florida.  

Thanks to Rightscoop for the heads up on this story.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

AWESOME: Glenn Beck Special on the Black Founding Fathers

Posted by iusbvision on May 29, 2010

Take your leftist revisionist “racist white slave owner jerks” narrative and cram it.

Frederick Douglass – “The Constitution is an anti-slavery document”

“I know of no rights of color superior to those of humanity” – Our Composite Nationality by Frederick Douglass. Douglass despised group politics and the victim narrative.

Frederick Douglass

Frederick Douglass

Barton – I was on the committee on history standards for the Texas school books and when I got the Black Founders put back in the history curriculum the left went crazy ….

 

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Click & Learn, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | 5 Comments »

Little Truth in President’s Oil Spill Comments

Posted by iusbvision on May 28, 2010

Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and make hay out of the gap between the rhetoric and the reality.

Related –

Video: Gibbs scolds reporters privately for asking too many BP questions – LINK.

Noonan – He was supposed to be competent… LINK

Obama hasn’t returned call of lawmaker representing district of rig – LINK

EPA still blocking gulf states from taking action…  LINK.

 


Palin:

Nearly 40 days in, our President finally addressed the American people’s growing concerns about the Gulf Coast oil spill. Listening to today’s press conference, you’d think the administration has been working with single-minded focus on the Gulf gusher since the start of the disaster. In reality, their focus has been anything but singular to help solve this monumental problem.

If the President really was fully focused on this issue from day one, why did it take nine whole days before the administration asked the Department of Defense for help in deploying equipment needed for the extreme depth spill site?

Why was the expert group assembled by Energy Commissioner Steven Chu only set up three weeks after the start of this disaster?

Why was Governor Jindal forced more than a month after the start of the disaster to go on national television to beg for materials needed to tackle the oil spill and for federal approval to build offshore sand barriers that are imperative to protect his state’s coastline?

Why was no mention of the spill made by our President for days on end while Americans waited to hear if he grasped the import of his leadership on this energy issue?

Why have several countries and competent organizations who offered help or expertise in dealing with the spill not even received a response back from the Unified Area Command to this day?

The President claimed that “this notion that somehow the federal government is somehow sitting on the sidelines and for the last three or four or five weeks we’ve just been letting BP make a whole bunch of decisions is simply not true.” But, in fact, that is how U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen described the Obama administration’s approach to this crisis: “We keep a close watch.”

Listening to the President, you get the impression he is continually surprised by the inability of various centralized government agencies to get more involved and help solve problems. His lack of executive experience might explain this because he is apparently unaware that it’s his job as a chief executive to make sure they do their jobs and help solve problems.

The fundamental problem at the core of this crisis is a lack of responsibility. (I risk the President taking my comments personally, but they’re not intended to be personal; my comments reflect what many others feel, and we just want to help him tackle this enormous spill problem.) There’s a culture of buck-passing at the heart of this administration that has caused the tragedy of a sunken oil rig to turn into a potential disaster.

The 1990 Oil Pollution Act was drafted in response to the Exxon-Valdez spill in my home state. It created new procedures for offshore cleanups, specifically putting the federal government in charge of such operations. The President should have used the authority granted by the OPA – immediately – to take control of the situation. That is a big part of what the OPA is for – to designate who is in charge so finger-pointing won’t disrupt efforts to just “plug the d#*! hole.” But instead of immediately engaging with this crisis, our President chose to spend precious time on political pet causes like haranguing the state of Arizona for doing what he himself was supposed to do – secure the nation’s border. He also spent much time fundraising and politicking for liberal candidates and causes while we waited for him to grasp the enormity of the Gulf spill.

Now that the American people are calling him out on his lack of engagement with this disaster, the buck-passing is in full swing – and, unbelievably, his administration is still looking to blame his predecessor. Amazingly, even those of us who support energy independence for America are the brunt of some buck-passing.

He suggested today that a “culture of corruption” at the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) was solely the previous administration’s responsibility and that the failure of the inspection system was a failure of that administration. That is false. The MMS has been his responsibility since January 20, 2009.

The MMS director who resigned today, Elizabeth Birnbaum, was appointed by his administration. And the most recent inspection of the oil rig took place a mere 10 days before the explosion – also very much on his watch, not President Bush’s.

BP gave more money to Obama than anyone else.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

Stalker reporter who moves next door to Palin threatens another reporter with police…

Posted by iusbvision on May 28, 2010

Previous:  Total Creep Out: ‘Journalist’ with Palin Derangement Syndrome Rents House Next to Governor Palin’s Home.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

Governor Christie vs teacher union hack: “This is why the union has no credibility. Stupid statements like that.” Christie rhetoric vs. Obama’s OrwellSpeak.

Posted by iusbvision on May 28, 2010

Governor Christie has become s star because he tells it like it is. This is very similar to the kind of rhetorical strategy that I have believed for years that the GOP should adopt, but many politicians do not like it because such direct and honest use of the language does not leave an escape hatch. What they do not realize is that they do not need an escape hatch, when you say what you mean and mean what you say people will trust you and will be much for forgiving when you make mistakes.

Case in point look at the oil spill disaster and the clintonesque slippery language Obama and his administration uses. Obama is going to get creamed politically for this mess and should. Bush had the FEMA and other federal resources all over every state but Louisiana before Katrina hit and the only reason he didn’t have that in Louisiana until day four is because Governor Blanco was blocking him until finally Bush had enough and likely illegally sent in General Honore and the military (FEMA guidelines say that the states are first responders and FEMA’s own regs are set for a 3 day response time). As we reported  key officials went on vacation just as or after the oil accident happened and Obama himself didn’t get involved till day 12 because he was out campaigning.

Could there be a bigger contrast?

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

The untold story of legal immigrants screwed by the system that rewards illegal aliens.

Posted by iusbvision on May 28, 2010

The Armstrong & Getto Show.  The untold story of legal immigrants screwed by the system that rewards illegal aliens. I saw this first hand at IUSB where I met some amazing people from overseas who would love to stay in the United States and can’t because of the system.

A & G predict that the skills to survive communism will be in demand again. Maybe old Russians will have seminars!

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War | 1 Comment »

Pinal County had 64 high speed chases last month. All were illegals. Police Don’t Need Race to Find Immigraqtion Status.

Posted by iusbvision on May 28, 2010

Fox News’  William La Jeunesse  is going on ride alongs with Arizona police where a Latino police officer explains that the system is so good that they can determine most people’s immigration status without even considering race. Comments on La Raza teacher. Only Fox is doing this in depth reporting. The Armstrong & Getty Show.

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

Elite Media tries to portray Rand Paul as racist. Rand Paul, politics, the elite media and the Civil Rights Act.

Posted by iusbvision on May 26, 2010

It is the oldest trick on the far left playbook. They don’t want to have an argument, they can’t win any serious intellectual argument so therefore the definition of a racist is anyone who is winning an argument with a leftist.

Libertarians and other serious intellectuals often engage in thought exercises that we know full well will likely never play out in reality, but yet lessons are learned and debates are spawned through these thought exercises. A common thought exercise that comes up in politics, sociology, philosophy and economics classes are landmark pieces of legislation. They are explored and debated in classrooms all around the country almost very day.

Rand Paul once discussed the 1964 Civil Rights Act (which was filibustered by Democrats) in just such a manner. Rand Paul said that he stands fully with 9 out of the 10 provisions of the civil rights act which bars any government entity from denying someone a service or equal protection based on race. Paul did say that he has questions about the 10th provision that forces private businesses to do the same thing. After all who owns the business, you or the government? Some said that the government had the power to do this because of the commerce power, others said that it was a slipperty slope to the commerce power being used to bloat government and have it in too many aspects of our lives. Arguably both are correct. The tenth provision of the 1964 act is often chosen for just thought exercises precisely because it is one humdinger of a conundrum where both sides can be both right and wrong at the same time.

Surely anyone who denies service to a black man or a woman or even a white person based on that characteristic alone is a jerk who does not understand what America is all about, but also the politician who assumes that he can run peoples businesses for them such as these rules forcing no smoking in restaurants laws are  running over people’s property rights and their freedom of association guaranteed by the First Amendment. Such an act takes the entire idea of limited government and tosses it out the window it could be argued. Both sides are right and wrong all at the same time. This very thought excercise that I just reviewed has been played out likely millions of times in classrooms across the country and by no means does it mean you are a racist if you take one side or that you are a full-blown communist if you take the other side….. unless of course you are running for Senate in Kentucky and the elite media is out to destroy you.

The Civil Rights Act is established law, it is not up for review and it is not a part of anyone’s campaign message. This entire fuss is completely media created.

So now the elite media is all over Rand Paul saying that he made discrimination remarks (ABC) when you look at ABC’s web site the video just below is shown like this:

ABC smearing Rand Paul

Of course there were no “discrimination remarks” as Rand Paul has always opposed laws that codify race based preferences.

There are also plenty of times when a politician mostly supports a law but is concerned about a provision of it. The Patriot Act is a famous example. The Patriot Act Passed but even those who voted for it had some problems with the law. Those who did have those problems didn’t mean that they were pro terror. The far left of the Democratic Party tried to say that George Bush was looking at your library records  and other such nonsense, but it is interesting to note that those same Democrats who have come to power have removed the sunset provisions from the patriot act (thus it never expires and is now permanent) and the Obama Administration is arguing in court that you have no reasonable expectation of privacy when it comes to your email and some cell phone records. Where are those same people and the elite media now?…which just goes to show that so much of this is pure politics and about who has power to spend your money.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act had people who were supportive of it and had a problem with that 10th provision of it fearing that it would become a defacto quota bill.

If the Senator can find in Title VII … any language which provides that an employer will have to hire on the basis of percentage or quota related to color, race, religion, or national origin, I will start eating the pages one after another, because it is not in there – Hubert Humphrey on the floor of the U.S. Senate on April 9, 1964

But guess what, in spite of the fact that it had an amendment that specifically prohibited racial quotas Immediately after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was created by the Act, declared that “the failure of an employer to have the same percentage of blacks in his workforce as existed in the general population was prima facie proof of racial discrimination under the Act”. As a result of this regulatory fiat, the only way an employer could prove he wasn’t racially discriminating was to engage in racially proportional hiring. The era of racial preferences had begun (link).

I saw this in action. When I did some contract work for Whirlpool headquarters in Benton Harbor, Michigan, I was repairing a computer for one of the executives and they were reviewing a dozen candidates for a position over a conference call. One of the executives said “lets EEOC so who is left” and the man in the room with me said “one Indian two blacks and two women” the voice on the phone asked “what color are the women?” The man in the room with me said “one is black and one white” and the voice on the phone said “throw out the white one and choose among the rest”. I will never forget what I heard that day and you can be sure similar conversations have gone on all around the country.

Employers looked at the Griggs v. Duke Power case and figured that establishing quota’s was the only way to stay out of trouble and some on the court felt that way, but theory has a funny way of parting with reality:

For example, Justice David Souter, one of the court’s most consistently liberal members, has, like Rehnquist, never hired a black clerk in his eight years on the court. Civil rights hero Thurgood Marshall hired no black clerks in his first 10 years on the court. And the late William Brennan, a liberal legend on the court until his retirement in 1990, never hired a black clerk in his 34 years as a justice—apparently eschewing for his own office the racial-preference policies he so vigorously championed for others (link).

Justice Ruth Bator Ginsburg used to claim that judging by the number of minorities hired it would be prima facie evidence of racial discrimination until a Senator threw in her face the fact that “in her 13 years on the D.C. Circuit she had never had a single black law clerk, intern, or secretary. Out of 57 employees, zero blacks” (link).

The Wilkow Guide to Media Perception

NOTE:  Rand Paul, like most libertarians, isn’t really interested in social policy anyways, they are far more interested in economic policy and right now this is a pocketbook election.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

“VOTED OBAMA? EMBARRASSED YET?” Street Signs – UPDATED

Posted by iusbvision on May 25, 2010

UPDATE – Someone who put up a similar sign in the Ozarks is getting death threats from those who claim a monopoly on tolerance.

KY3.com:

OZARK, Mo. — When it comes to politics, there may be as many opinions as cars cruising down U.S. 65. So, naturally, there are different reactions to a billboard south of Ozark that says “Voted Obama? Embarrassed yet?”

“I know the president didn’t win down here, but there were a lot of people down here that voted for him, and I think I can speak for them and say we are not embarrassed yet,” Matthew Patterson, executive director of the Greene County Democratic Central Committee, said in a telephone interview on Sunday.

“My partner and I felt lots of frustration here lately, and we liked that sign and we thought that was a reasonable question to ask,” Steve Critchfield said in a telephone interview on Monday.

Critchfield and his business partner from Commercial One Brokers, a real estate firm in Branson, saw a similar sign online, bought it, and brought it to the Ozarks.

“I’ve certainly voted for people I’m embarrassed to say I’ve voted for,” he said. “We’re not naïve enough to think that we wouldn’t get someone to be upset. I’m just surprised how upset people are.”

Critchfield says he’s received death threats due to the sign; people accuse him of hate speech and racism. He insists the billboard was for something more American in the name of discourse, conversation, and old-fashioned debate.

“If everybody thinks [President Obama’s] done a great job and they’re very happy,” he said, “then I guess they’d be buying billboards saying ‘I’m proud to have voted for him.’ That’s what makes America great, isn’t it?”

 

This billboard is to be found in Marshall, Texas, a town near the Louisiana border off Interstate 20 connecting Shreveport with Dallas.   “E.M.– Citizen” paid for it.  

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Joe Biden: Capital of Socialist European Union is Capital of the Free World. But how ‘democratic’ is the EU really?

Posted by iusbvision on May 25, 2010

Well Rush Limbaugh said that the Obama clan were Euro style socialists and the left called Limbaugh a liar and other names. This pretty much ends that argument.

What is the European Union really like?

Member of Euro Parliament on the EU Government

Is the EU is becoming a money grubbing and corrupt joke.

Dan Hannan: EU Creating Unaccountable International Police Force.

They have guns, can arrest you, can cross borders at will and have full diplomatic immunity. Only a politician or a PhD. could believe that this is a good combination. Did the EU vote on this new police force, nope, why bother with democracy. The EU parliament is becoming a talking shop and the executive is taking power at great speed. How many times does Europe have to go down this road before it learns? Watch this video. 

Undemocratic processes in the EU:

More on EU misapplying the law and engaging in undemocratic processes – LINK.

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

Elana Kagan argues for government book banning in front of Supreme Court. Elite media silent. Palin political enemy makes false book banning charges and elite media continues to say it after the story debunked.

Posted by iusbvision on May 25, 2010

I should have made this connection myself – shame on me for slacking.

Previous – President Obama should withdraw Elena Kagan from consideration

Via our friends at Big Journalism:

Comparisons are always a great way to show how differently the Old Media treats conservative and leftist politicians in America today and Obama’s nomination of the Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court gives us another opportunity to see the Old Media’s penchant to excoriate a Republican’s actions while soft peddling and excusing away similar actions by a left-winger.

In this case, it is instructive to see how the Old Media treated the claim that Sarah Palin banned books from the Wasilla library when she was mayor and today how it is treating the recently highlighted Supreme Court arguments made by Elena Kagan that the government could ban books under the McCain-Feingold Act.

After McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin for his number two slot on the ticket during the 2008 campaign the Old Media lit upon a story that said Sarah Palin tried to ban books from the Wasilla library when she was mayor there in 1996. A list of the supposedly banned books was even bandied about by the left-wing blogs, causing a ruckus in the media, but it turned out the list had books on it published years after Palin had left the Mayor’s office. The list was a fabrication and was lifted from a website that detailed the books that had been banned at one time or another, in one place or another, over the last 100 years.

As it turned out the whole story came from another former Wasilla mayor. He claimed that Palin had asked a Wasilla librarian “how she could go about banning books.” No books were banned, no list was made and Palin said she was asked by a constituent to look into how a book might be removed for its “objectionable material.”

In Sept. of 2008, the McCain campaign stated that the book banning claim was “categorically false.” Spokesman Brian Rogers said, “The fact is that as Mayor, Palin never asked anyone to ban a book and not one book was ever banned, period.”

The story was false. Palin banned no books nor did she ask for any to be banned. But the Old Media went after the story with gusto even though it was a wildly overblown, anti-Palin fantasy. And the headlines tell the tale. The Old Media’s headlines as much as stated Palin was a book banner or asked the question in such a leading way as to make folks think she may have been a book banner.

Here are some of those headlines:

Of course, the left-wing blogosphere went nuts for the Palin story. The Daily Kos, the Democratic Underground, Wonkette and other extremist websites played the false story up for days.

[IUSB Vision Editor’s Note – Most of these bogus stories still do not have retractions or corrections on them today…]

To contrast the media’s treatment of the false Palin book-banning story, we can look to the current story about Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Elena Kagan, who was involved in a case before the Supreme Court in which she affirmed that books, pamphlets and other printed matter could possibly be open for government banning under the McCain-Feingold Act.

In front of the Supreme Court during questions asked of her by the justices about her stance on behalf of the government on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Kagan affirmed that the federal government could ban books, though she felt it was unlikely.

Kagan told the justices that, “the government’s view is that although 441b does cover full-length books, that there would be quite good as-applied challenge to any attempt to apply 441b in that context.” Here Kagan assumed that while the federal government posits that the rule does apply to books she felt that since the gov’t has never tried to ban any book publishers might have a good case to reverse that ban. She followed that saying, “the FCC [Federal Election Commission] has never applied 441b in that context. So for 60 years a book has never been at issue.”

In essence her position is that the gov’t can ban books under 441b, but that no one should worry over much because the gov’t has never used that rule to ban a book. As the New York Daily News says in shock, “it’s hard to recall the First Amendment hanging by a gossamer as flimsy as that offered by General Kagan.”

So, how has the media treated this story? Mostly by pinning the “accusation” that Kagan thinks the gov’t can ban books on GOP Senator Mitch McConnell as if McConnell is really the one to blame for all this.

Here are some of the current headlines on Kagan, IF you can even find the story — and the fact that so few stories are covering this is also telling when noting that there were thousands of stories covering the Palin book-banning subject.

Just as naturally as was the left-wingers going after the Palin story, the conservative media is hitting the Kagan book ban story, too. The Examiners, NewsMax, Rush Limbaugh and a host of righty blogs are hitting Kagan for her apostasy against free political speech.

Now, take a look at these two collections of headlines. Notice that all the Palin headlines connect Palin directly to the charges of book-banning by discussing her “book banning efforts” even though there were no books banned and no lists made for possible bans. Then look at the Kagan headlines. You’ll notice they all link a Republican to a claim that Kagan wanted to ban books (with one saying that the charge of book-banning is just “talking points”). The way the Kagan headlines are written it makes it seem as if the charge of Kagan’s book-banning is just politics as usual, Republican charges made, just average, everyday Republican attacks. Yet the Palin headlines as much as say that Palin was banning books. With their headlines the Old Media convicted Palin in 2008 — yet today Kagan is nearly absolved of the charge.

This is the often times subtle bias that the Old Media employs against conservatives and Republicans and the soft favor they bestow upon Democrats and leftists.

MORE:

Elana Kagan argues for government book banning in front of Supreme Court. Elite media silent. Palin political enemy makes false book banning charges and elite media continues to say it after the story debunked.

Why President Obama should withdraw Elena Kagan from consideration – UPDATED!

Supreme Court Binds Second Amendment to States

Video: Kagan Declines To Say Gov’t Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Kagan: It is Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, Palin Truth Squad | 1 Comment »

Total Creep Out: ‘Journalist’ with Palin Derangement Syndrome Rents House Next to Governor Palin’s Home.

Posted by iusbvision on May 25, 2010

If you ever needed proof of just how nutty the far left is… truly amazing.

I have a feeling that the people of Wasilla, who have a well deserved reputation as very nice people, are going to make an exception when it comes to this joker.

Besides building that tall fence Governor, get some equipment that will block a sonic ear devices so this creep doesn’t use one to listen in on you either. Moving to Wasilla for a while to get the feel of the place and to ask about you around town is one thing, but this is too creepy.

Palin:

Spring has sprung in Alaska, and with this beautiful season comes the news today that the Palins have a new neighbor! Welcome, Joe McGinniss!

Yes, that Joe McGinniss. Here he is – about 15 feet away on the neighbor’s rented deck overlooking my children’s play area and my kitchen window. Maybe we’ll welcome him with a homemade blueberry pie tomorrow so he’ll know how friendly Alaskans are.

We found out the good news today. Upon my family’s return this morning from endorsement rallies and speeches in the Lower 48 states, I finally got the chance to tackle my garden and lawn this evening! So, putting on the shorts and tank top to catch that too-brief northern summer sun and placing a giddy Trig in his toddler backpack for a lawn-mowing adventure, I looked up in surprise to see a “new neighbor” overlooking my property just a stone’s throw away. Needless to say, our outdoor adventure ended quickly after Todd went to introduce himself to the stranger who was peering in… [emphasis ours IUSB Vision Editor]

Joe announced to Todd that he’s moved in right next door to us. He’s rented the place for the next five months or so. He moved up all the way from Massachusetts to live right next to us – while he writes a book about me. Knowing of his many other scathing pieces of “journalism” (including the bizarre anti-Palin administration oil development pieces that resulted in my Department of Natural Resources announcing that his work is the most twisted energy-related yellow journalism they’d ever encountered), we’re sure to have a doozey to look forward to with this treasure he’s penning. Wonder what kind of material he’ll gather while overlooking Piper’s bedroom, my little garden, and the family’s swimming hole?

Welcome, Joe! It’ll be a great summer – come borrow a cup of sugar if ever you need some sweetener. And you know what they say about “fences make for good neighbors”? Well, we’ll get started on that tall fence tomorrow, and I’ll try to keep Trig’s squeals down to a quiet giggle so we don’t disturb your peaceful summer. Enjoy!

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Palin Truth Squad | 2 Comments »

Small Businesses Hit Hard by ObamaCare Taxes – Tax Incentives So Targeted that Only 12% Qualify

Posted by iusbvision on May 25, 2010

It is like we have always said, if a leftist tells you about targeted tax cuts it means you don’t get it. 

The  Congressional Budget Office estimated that 88 percent of small businesses will not qualify for the tax credits under the Democrats’ legislation. 

John Boehner from the 8th District of Ohio

This week I was honored to have two small business operators from the district, Todd Wilber of West Chester and Tyeis Baker-Baumann of Greenville, join me to talk about the destructive effect President Obama’s health care law is having on small business’ ability to create new jobs and help get our economy moving again. 

Todd operates a number of Taco Bell and UNOs franchises in the northern Cincinnati area with his wife Becky.  At a time when Ohio’s unemployment rate is 11 percent, Todd offers hundreds of local Ohio workers the chance to prove themselves, and work their way up the ladder in the restaurant business – just like he did when he was a young adult. 

But Todd says he is very concerned about the impact that the president’s new health care law will have on his ability to retain and hire new employees.  Todd estimates his business will likely be facing at least $250,000 in new taxes as a result of ObamaCare, costs that may force Todd and Becky and hundreds of employers like them across Ohio to make job cuts instead of hiring additional workers. 

Tyeis shared a similarly concerning story about how the president’s health care law will affect her small steel fabrication and millwright business.  The new law will be a ‘logistical nightmare’ for small businesses like hers, she said, and the small business tax credit touted by the Obama Administration is of little to no use to small businesses like hers – a notion recently confirmed by an Associated Press story, which quoted one small business owner from Illinois as saying the fine print in the law that excludes many small businesses from a credit is nothing less than a ‘bait and switch.’ 

A proud member of the National Federation of Independent Business, Tyeis also talked about her support for the courageous efforts by American small businesses and 20 states to overturn the president’s health care law on the grounds that it is unconstitutional and will hurt small business job creation at a time when one out of every 10 Americans in the workforce is out of a job. 

  

These are the hoops that a small business must jump through to see if they qualify for some assistance. Of course since the assistance is less than the new costs it is like the government ordering you to buy a Pontiac while claiming it has given you the biggest tax cut in history because it did not require you to pay full price for a Mercedes. 

Ways and Means Committee Ranking Republican Dave Camp (R-MI) and Health Subcommittee Ranking Member Wally Herger (R-CA) released this road map [By the way, be sure to read what the grey box on the lower left hand side of the graph says – Editor]: 

ObamaCare Small Business Tax Credit Road Map *Click to Enlarge

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

Totally Awesome: Dennis Prager on the greatest threats to America

Posted by iusbvision on May 24, 2010

If you are a college professor or just a student this may be the most important video you may ever see.

Who is Dennis Prager?

He is a Media Fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. He taught Jewish and Russian History at Brooklyn College, and was a Fellow at the Columbia University School of International Affairs, where he did his graduate work at the Russian Institute (now the Harriman Institute) and Middle East Institute from 1970-1972. He has lectured in 46 states and on six continents and traveled in 98 countries and the 50 U.S. states. He speaks French, Russian, and Hebrew, and has lectured in Russian in Russia and in Hebrew in Israel. An avid classical music lover, he periodically conducts orchestras in Southern California.

Prager is also a Rabbi ,author of many books (see his AMAZON page) famed public speaker, a popular television and radio personality, syndicated columnist and founder of Prager University.

[In the interest of full disclosure IUSB Vision editor Chuck Norton is a contributor to Prager University and considers Prager to be perhaps the finest debater alive].

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101 | 1 Comment »

Video: Sarah Palin on the BP oil spill, the slow federal reaction, the contributions to Obama, and the elite media’s hypocrisy on all of it.

Posted by iusbvision on May 23, 2010

34 days into this and where is the critiques from the elite media? Where is Al Sharpton having a cow on TV. Gulf states have asked the EPA for waivers so that they can start building temprary barriers to stop the oil and the EPA wont respond for weeksd now. It is almost as if the elite media is trying to report on anything but this.

Previous – The Real Deal on the Oil Platform Accident. What you need to know (so far). UPDATED!

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Federal Law: Officers do not need reasonable suspicion to ask for immigration status. Under Arizona law, they do. Federal law allows race to be a factor…

Posted by iusbvision on May 23, 2010

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

O’Reilly Grills State Department Spokesman Over George Soros Funded Nuts Working There

Posted by iusbvision on May 23, 2010

Bill O’Reilly Grills State Department’s PJ Crowley over the fact that the State Department has hired several open borders zealots who used to work for George Soros. Crowley must have never seen The O’Reilly Factor before as he did the one thing that will instantly set Bill O’Reilly off: he started spewing a load of PR sounding feel good babble.

Crowley was obviously warned that this was going to be a tough interview, but obviously he did not do his homework before he appeared.

Previous – Bill O’Reilly goes off on Deputy Sec. of State Michael Posner over outrageous China/Arizona apology.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 6 Comments »

Governor Brewer Mocks Obama Officials for Trashing Arizona Without Reading the Law

Posted by iusbvision on May 22, 2010

Awesome!

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

Arizona Governor Brewer: Obama Administration has never returned our calls or answered our letters. We asked for help on the border and got nothing. UPDATE – Obama’s ICE Cheif all but says that he has no intention of fully enforcing the law.

Posted by iusbvision on May 22, 2010

Governor Brewer:

UPDATE – Obama’s ICE Cheif all but says that he has no intention of fully enforcing the law.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Mexican President Calderon Makes False Racial Profiling Accusation About Arizona Law. Mexican Law Allows Racial Profiling, Immigration Status Can Be Denied Based on Race, Denies Rights to Even to Legal Immigrants. Calderon Admits to CNN on Illegals We Fine and “Send Back Them”

Posted by iusbvision on May 22, 2010

UPDATE – Laugh of the day. Castro’s murderous regime says that Arizona law violates human rights. Hey Castro, stop executing and jailing librarians and artists and get back to me on this one ok? Thanks to Hotair for the heads up on that one.

 

This is the simple truth. Up until a year ago illegal immigration was a felony and anyone who helped an illegal was sent to jail. The new illegal immigration law is still tougher than the US law (the new Arizona mirror’s federal law and is nothing new).

Mexican police may racial profile and do not have the restrictions that American police have.

Now check out how Mexico treats LEGAL immigrants:

Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters [That is right legal immigrants may not own land].

Immigration must be deemed appropriate, and assimilate to the national average and their proper distribution throughout the country.{article 3, section 7} Foreign nationals are restricted when the national interest so requires.{article 3, section 8} Immigration to urban population centers can be restricted to ensure effective delivery public services.{article 3, section 9} The immigration of foreigners is allowed according to their potential to contribute to national progress.{article 32} Foreigners are subject to approval concerning appropriate activities they will pursue, and the location of residence.{article 34} Immigrants must be useful elements for the country and have the income needed for subsistence and persons under their economic dependence.{article 34} Foreigners may be denied entry for the following reasons, if: No international reciprocity, The national demographic balance is altered, It is deemed harmful to the national economic interests, he/she has violated national law or have a poor record abroad, deemed not physically or mentally healthy. For a foreigner to pursue other activities in addition to those that have been expressly authorized, requires permission from the Interior Ministry.{article 37} The authorities of the Republic, whether federal, local or municipal, as well as public notaries, are obliged to check if foreigners are legally in the country.{article 72} The judicial authorities are required to notify the Interior Ministry of defendants of foreign descent who are being prosecuted, and sentencing handed down.

 

In Mexico you can be denied immigration status based solely on race, you have to be wealthy enough to afford your own health care , education, retirement etc. You can be denied if you are sick, the law mandates that local law enforcement enforce federal immigration law (just like Arizona), they can check your papers on demand. Legal immigrants have no free speech rights and no right of redress of grievences and no due process rights.

Limbaugh blasts Obama and Calderon for this flagrant hypocrisy:

Here is the full interview Limbaugh is referring to. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer gets Calderon to admit that Mexico has tougher immigration laws than USA:

UPDATE – Our friends at FactReal have even more detail about the Mexican immigration laws, just in case you doubt me… – LINK.

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

Awesome: Ray Stevens song about how our illegal immigration laws are compared to the rest of the world

Posted by iusbvision on May 22, 2010

The song is pretty accurate, did you know that the USA is the only country that has the anchor baby law? It was passed to make sure that the children of slaves could never be deported so now it has outlived its purpose.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Fear of more government intervention in market sends stocks tumbling

Posted by iusbvision on May 21, 2010

It was government intervention in the mortgage industry and interest rates that by and large caused the mortgage crash. It was the governbment of Greece that had a welfare state with 1 worker in 3 working for the government that caused its collapse so what is the answer? More government of course!

Financial Times:

Markets take fright at political moves

By Brooke Masters and David Oakley in London and Aline van Duyn and Michael Mackenzie in New York

Fears of a disorderly regulatory crackdown on banks and financial markets triggered a crisis of confidence among investors on Thursday that sent share prices reeling in a global flight to safety.

US, European and Asian shares all tumbled in the wake of Germany’s partial ban on naked short selling and ahead of a crucial vote on the US financial regulation bill. The S&P 500 fell 3.9 per cent, bringing its losses since late April to 12 per cent and pushing it into “correction” territory.

Most Asian stocks, which this week slumped to their lowest levels in nearly nine months, continued to suffer on Friday. In Tokyo, the Nikkei 225 index dropped 2.45 per cent to 9,784.54, while Sydney’s S&P/ASX 200 index declined 0.26 per cent to 4,305.40. The Shanghai Composite, the worst-performing market in the region this year, rebounded 1.08 per cent to 2,583.52. The Hong Kong market was closed for a public holiday.

“The lack of clarity from the politicians has shattered confidence,” said David Owen, chief European financial economist at Jefferies.

Disappointing US jobless data revived fears that the economic recovery could prove short-lived, helping push Treasuries higher and German bond prices to a record. And in Greece there were protests over wage cuts.

Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, fanned fears of further political intervention in the markets after Berlin’s unilateral ban on naked short selling – the practice of selling securities such as shares and bonds that are not owned or borrowed.

 

Gee there is that same issue with investor and risk taker confidence that we here at IUSB Vision have been talking about for a year. With such regulatory uncertainty who is going to be taking risks in such an environment?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Is the cost of government high enough yet?, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Administration playing games with unemployment rate; elite media covering for them. BIG UPDATE!

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

We have seen it in the news, the unemployment rate went up to 9.9% from 9.7, ain’t this recovery grand? The pretzel like mental hoops the elite media has been going through for a year telling us how great the recovery is has most people just laughing at them. In story after story month after month the word “unexpected” placed is placed in front of month after month of bad economic news, followed by the assurance that the recovery is in full swing and the numbers are about to take a drastic turn around. Every month for a year that has been the story.

Check this out form the AP:

Burst of hiring aids recovery, but long slog ahead

The economy got what it needed in April: A burst of hiring that added a net 290,000 jobs, the biggest monthly total in four years. It showed employers are gaining confidence as the recovery takes deeper root.

But people who had given up on finding jobs are gaining confidence, too, and are now looking for work. That’s why the unemployment rate rose from 9.7 percent to 9.9 percent and will likely go higher.

Especially encouraging was that the job gains came largely from private employers, the backbone of the economy. They boosted payrolls by a surprisingly strong 231,000, the most since March 2006.

The new jobs, generated by sectors across the economy, are the first sign that the recovery is adding significant numbers of new jobs — even if not enough to absorb the influx of jobseekers.

“Companies feel more comfortable that growth in the economy and in their own sales is here to stay and that they can start preparing for the future and add to their payrolls,” said Joel Naroff, president of Naroff Economic Advisors.

As a recession hits bottom retailers and wholesalers will let their warehoused inventories fall to a point where they cant do business so they start buying to refill inventories. Those inventories are usually packed at that time because of inflation fears (look at how fast the Euro and Dollar have dropped). Consumers react much the same way as they will decrease spending as much as they can but eventually they need new things and have to restock their pantries with the savings they have built up from their decreased spending. The media did get this right about the inventory replenishing (LINK) and the result is an uptick in employment. This uptick usually doesn’t last long as inventories and consumer pantries are restocked. Remember that if .2% are looking for full time work again, it doesn’t mean they got hired.

The administration said that it is good economic news that the unemployment rate went up by .2% because it means that people who had lost hope and stopped looking for work are looking for work again and thus are “counted”.  Oh really?

Than why did the “real” unemployment rate go up by .2% as well? What is the “real” unemployment rate?

The standard unemployment rate is calculated based on people who are without jobs, who are available to work and who have actively sought work in the prior four weeks.

The “real” unemployment rate, also called the U6 rate, shows those who are available for work and want a full time job, but also have given up. That rate went UP by .2%.

Wall Street Journal:

The U.S. jobless rate rose to 9.9% in April, the first increase in three months, but the government’s broader measure of unemployment ticked up for the third month in a row, rising 0.2 percentage point to 17.1%.

The comprehensive gauge of labor underutilization, known as the “U-6″ for its data classification by the Labor Department, accounts for people who have stopped looking for work or who can’t find full-time jobs. Though the rate is still 0.3 percentage point below its high of 17.4% in October, its continuing divergence from the official number (the “U-3″ unemployment measure) indicates the job market has a long way to go before growth in the economy translates into relief for workers.

So how can people who weren’t looking for work restart looking for work by .2% and at the same time those who have given up looking for work go up by .2%? It’s fishy. The number of people who are out of work for six months or more also went up. Let us not forget that the Federal Government is on a hiring spree of IRS Agents and census workers.

UPDATE –  NEW ECONOMIC NUMBERS SHOW IUSB VISION ANALYSIS CORRECT

I have been behind on blogging and even though I got this article on paper a week after it was in my head even I did not expect to have nombers proving my analysis correct so soon. And as always there is that word “unexpected” when this was of course obviously and totally predictable.

AP: Jobless claims rise by largest amount in 3 months

The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The total was the highest since new claims reached 480,000 on April 10. It also pushed the average for the last four weeks to 453,500.

“Although no one expects this volatile series to go in one direction every single week, this is clearly a disappointment,” said Jennifer Lee, senior economist at BMO Capital Markets.

Stocks slid as investors’ already bleak view of the world economy worsened with another drop in the euro and the disappointing U.S. employment news. The Dow Jones industrial average fell more than 250 points in early afternoon trading.

In a separate report, a private research group said its index of leading economic indicators dipped slightly in April. It was the first decline in more than a year. Six of the 10 components on the Conference Board’s index deteriorated. Among them: U.S. residents filed fewer applications to build homes; vendors were slower in delivering supplies to companies; the unemployed filed more claims for jobless aid; and consumers’ confidence dropped.

 

Speaking of investor and consumer confidence we wrote about that HERE, HEREHERE, HERE, , HEREetc. This is happening exactly as we said, there was a bump in hiring due to inventory and pantry restocking but after the immediate bump high job loss would still continue.

More from Yahoo/AP News. Most of the top ten economic indicators down

NEW YORK – A private research group’s gauge of future U.S. economic activity unexpectedly slipped in April, the first decline in more than a year and a sign that growth could slow this summer, weighing on hiring.

The Conference Board said Thursday its index of leading economic indicators edged down 0.1 percent last month, the first drop since March 2009. Economists polled by Thomson Reuters had expected a gain of 0.2 percent.

The index is designed to forecast economic activity in the next three to six months.

“Slower growth is likely in store for the second half of the year as the boost from inventories fades away,” said Tim Quinlan, economist at Wells Fargo Securities, in a research note.

Goldman Sachs economists expect growth to slow to an annualized rate of 1.5 percent in the second half of the year from more than 3 percent in the first six months of 2010.

Factories have ramped up production in the past 12 months as customers restock shelves. Many companies cut their orders for goods during the recession and instead used up their existing stockpiles. Once inventories are restored to normal historical levels, growth in the manufacturing sector will depend on increases in consumer demand.

The recovery has spread more broadly through the U.S. economy this spring, with retailers and other consumer-dependent industries posting stronger first-quarter profits.

But a drop-off in the construction sector following the end of a government tax credit for homebuyers and a debt crisis in Europe may weigh on growth, discouraging employers from hiring.

“Unemployment claims remain too high to be supportive of lasting job growth,” Quinlan said.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 1 Comment »

Mark Souder will be missed.

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

Mark Souder has resigned amid rumors that he had an affair with a staffer. I respect Souder for resigning even though it is clear that no one could represent the district better. He had a personal failing, but as a public servant Souder served with distinction. The people who will be hurt the most by the resignation are the people of Indiana who lost one of the best representatives in Congress. There is talk that Marlin Stutzman may be chosen as Souder’s replacement. Stutzman would be an excellent choice.

Click HERE to see Souder in action on the House floor.

Marlin Stutzman for Indiana 3 Facebook page.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 2 Comments »

NBC’s Chris Mathews “lets nationalize the oil industry”

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

And he tops it off with an anti-capitalist remark to boot. If energy was nationalized there would be more accidents, less energy and oil would cost more.

Our coverage of the oil platform explosion is HERE.

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

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano admits she hasn’t read the Arizona illegal immigration law; trashed it anyway…

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

First Eric Holder, then Obama, now Napolitano…

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

Bill O’Reilly goes off on Deputy Sec. of State Michael Posner over outrageous China/Arizona apology.

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

When I saw what Posner did, I wrote on YouTube that a pinhead of this magnitude could have only come from leftist academia. Come to find out that he teaches at Columbia and Yale. Come to find out Posner and a list of George Soros funded very far left open borders types (read nuts) are now working in the State Department.

UPDATE IV – O’Reilly Grills State Department Spokesman Over George Soros Funded Nuts Working There

UPDATE III – The lovely and tenacious Michelle Malkin has more on Posner’s history.

UPDATE II – Here is the video of the State Department spokesman admitting that he has not read the law either (Thanks to Michelle Malkin for the video link):

UPDATE I – Greta Van Susteren now reporting:

Here is an idea….READ IT! Stop being DUMB !

Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner is reported to have likened Arizona’s new illegal immigration statute to human rights in China.

State Department spokesperson PJ Crowley defended Posner and Posner’s comments.  And then? He admitted he had not read the statute.

US Attorney General Eric Holder did the same thing last week. He criticized in harsh terms the new Arizona law and then admitted that he had not read it.

Is there any reason why the Administration is criticizing the statute without reading it ? That is intellectually dishonest (and plain dumb.)

It is one thing to criticize it AFTER reading it…but criticizing harshly without bothering to read it?  Is that really fair? or how about this, is it even smart?

Remember how the President found himself in some hot water last summer when he criticized the Cambridge, Mass police (said they acted stupidly) and then admitted he did not know what happened between the police and Professor Gates.  (Yes, dumb!)

Would his Administration not have learned from that messy experience?  First get the facts.  Second reach an opinion.  Third speak out.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | 2 Comments »

Greta with Kris Kobach, author of the new Arizona human trafficking law

Posted by iusbvision on May 18, 2010

A very good interview with some very informative details. This is why Fox is number one.

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

Newsweek already dismissing tomorrow’s elections…before they happen

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

Newsweek: Why Tomorrow’s Primaries Won’t Be a Big Deal—No Matter What Happens

The tone of this article is sarcastic and contemptuous. This is a glaring example of what is wrong with the elite media. I suppose we should thank Newsweek for giving us another example to point at. They are so predictable and that magazine seems to get thinner every week.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »

Heritage Foundation Submits Video to Obama’s “Show How Great Government Regulation Is” Video Contest.

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

They asked for it :)

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

In Honor of Calvin Coolidge, A Great President Few Remember.

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

The accomplishments of Calvin Coolidge are many and he was one of our greatest presidents. He helped lead the united states out of a depression caused in large part by the progressive policies of Woodrow Wilson, he helped to restore liberty and was the man largely responsible for making the “Roaring Twenties” roar. We featured him BEFORE. Coolidge’s accomplishments have been largely scrubbed from textbooks and he was the Reagan of his time.

Dr. Alan Snyder is professor of American history and chair of the Department of Historical, Legal, and Leadership Studies at Southeastern University in Lakeland, Florida.

Dr. Snyder:

Ronald Reagan admired him  a lot. In fact, when Reagan was looking over his new house—the White House—shortly after his inaugural in 1981, he entered into the Cabinet Room.

On the wall were portraits of Truman, Jefferson, and Lincoln. The White House curator commented at the time, “If you don’t like Mr. Truman, you can move Mr. Truman out.” Even though Reagan, a former Democrat, had voted for Truman back in 1948, he made his decision: Truman’s portrait was removed and one of Calvin Coolidge was dusted off and put in its place.

Nowadays, in all the “right” circles [to be found primarily among the academic elite], the person of Coolidge is a source of amusement, if not outright derision. Why, he was a do-nothing president, someone who didn’t use the power of the office as he should have. Probably his most grievous sin, in their view, was the way he put the brakes on destiny: he was a foe of the progressive movement that was intended to reshape American government and culture.

Coolidge, whose administration spanned a good part of the 1920s, was a throwback to an earlier time. He was not a Woodrow Wilson; rather, he believed in the vision of the Founding Fathers and their concept of limited government. He remained true to the principles of self-government and the sanctity of private property. The rule of law was paramount in his political philosophy. No one was above the law, a belief that, if followed, would keep the people safe from the power of an overextended government.

During the 1920s, the continent of Europe experimented with socialism. What might larger government be able to accomplish? What vistas await us once we unleash the full power of government intervention? Coolidge stood opposed to this false vision of the future.

Historians also like to make fun of his approach to speechmaking. Coolidge preferred to say as little as possible. As he once noted, he never got in trouble for things he didn’t say. Yet when he did speak, he made some very significant pronouncements. His words conveyed key ideas for American success. Meditate on this paragraph, for instance:

Calvin Coolidge

In a free republic a great government is the product of a great people. They will look to themselves rather than government for success. The destiny, the greatness of America lies around the hearthstone. If thrift and industry are taught there, and the example of self-sacrifice oft appears, if honor abide there, and high ideals, if there the building of fortune be subordinate to the building of character, America will live in security, rejoicing in an abundant prosperity and good government at home and in peace, respect, and confidence abroad. If these virtues be absent there is no power that can supply these blessings. Look well then to the hearthstone, therein all hope for America lies.

Notice Coolidge’s stress on what he called the “hearthstone,” which is a designation for the family. He saw the family as the cornerstone of  society, the place where character should be developed. Note also his subordination of financial fortune to the building of character. Fortune may come, but only if character comes first: thrift, industry, and honor—qualities in short supply at the moment.

America was prosperous during the Coolidge years. The Great Depression was just around the corner, but it didn’t occur as a result of Coolidge’s policies of tax cuts and economic liberty. The Depression was more a result of misdirection from the Federal Reserve [low cash reserves in banks; easy credit]; its continuation throughout the 1930s was due to government actions of the New Deal.

If there’s one thing most historians can agree on with Coolidge, it’s that he easily would have won reelection in 1928 had he chosen to run again. Yet he voluntarily stood down. Why? What prompted that decision? He tells us what led him to do so in his autobiography.

It is difficult for men in high office to avoid the malady of self-delusion. They are always surrounded by worshipers. They are constantly, and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness. They live in an artificial atmosphere of adulation and exultation which sooner or later impairs their judgment. They are in grave danger of becoming careless and arrogant.

Coolidge saw the problems associated with elected office. He knew that men often developed what might be called the “swelled-head syndrome.” He wanted nothing to do with that. If for no other reason, Coolidge should be honored for his willingness to set aside power and maintain his good character. Where are the politicians willing to do that today?

Coolidge’s thoughts on self-delusion mirror’s our critique of leftist academia and the political class that we have stated here at IUSB Vision, “they pat each other on the back and tell each other how brilliant they are….and after all it MUST be true because all of these PhD. types tell them so. Invariably this environment brings you to a point where you start to believe it. You internalize it and eventually you stop challenging your own assumptions. The end result is an atrophied thinking process”. The result as I have been telling people who are willing to listen for several years is self-delusion.

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes | 2 Comments »

Quote of the Day: Elitists hate it when the people speak

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

Via this terrific piece from Brian Garst at BigGovernment:

On Sunday’s Meet the Press, David Brooks described Bennett’s defeat as a “damn outrage.”  Liberal E.J. Dionne went a step further and called it “a nonviolent coup” because the Utah voters dared “deny the sitting Republican senator even a chance of getting on the primary ballot.”   Why, it’s almost like these voters think they’re allowed to choose their own representatives or something!

Brooks insists that Bennett is a “good senator” just “trying to get things done.” Unfortunately, what he was trying to get done was not what his electorate wanted him to get done.  While he was busy supporting TARP and advocating an individual mandate for health care, the people of Utah wanted spending restraint and less intrusive government.  On the most important votes regarding these issues, Bennett was too often on the wrong side for their taste.

It’s no damn outrage that voters would send a senator packing after serving three terms when he promised to serve only two. It’s no damn outrage that a Washington insider be sent on his following the mess Washington has created.  The real damn outrage is the disdain with which elitists like David Brooks treat voters who don’t share their sophisticated policy preferences.

Bingo. Of course this is not the first time David Brooks has put his foot in his mouth.

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

Obama Perverts Faith Based Initiatives to Push Green Religion, Eco-Extremism

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

Like we didn’t see this one coming. Via BigGovernment.com:

This month Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships issued its final report of recommendations and the result is nothing short of astonishing. (download .pdf file)

The question that immediately comes to mind, of course, is if the left will explode in excoriation of Obama’s faith-based policies as it did with Bush’s?

The left was out of its mind over Bush’s ideas. In 2004, for instance, the website TheocracyWatch.org hyperbolically said, “Under the Bush administration, our country is experiencing a major transformation from a secular to a religious government. The President’s faith-based initiative is central to this transformation and raises serious questions about church-state separation.” This was the left-wing talking points du jour on Bush’s faith-based programs.

It wasn’t just the left, but even from the libertarian side Bush’s ideas were attacked. Alex Epstein of the Ayn Rand Institute said that the faith-based initiative was a “direct violation” of the Constitution.

And the media universally hated the idea. Lew Daly of Boston Review magazine tried to color Bush’s program as a “seismic change in American politics,” and for The New York Times Ron Suskind breathlessly burbled that Bush had, “created the faith-based presidency.” And those were what passed for the civil proclamations, others were more nutty by claiming that Bush was a religious zealot that was destroying the country through that evil Christianity stuff.

Candidate Obama was widely expected to dispense with the faith-based office. But in 2008 when the AP reported that Obama intended to leave the Bush faith-based programs in place, the left was apoplectic. Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State criticized Obama over it. “I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” Lynn said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.”

After the AP’s report candidate Obama himself spun reports as a distortion. In July of 2008, Obama addressed the issue in a speech in Zanesville, Ohio.

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

As with most things that Obama says, this claim that was then. While Obama is following the left-wing penchant to eschew actual religiosity, Obama has apparently decided that his own special brand of religion would be what is promulgated with his continuation of Bush’s faith-based policies. The money he’s spending to “proselytize” his green ideas apparently doesn’t strike him as a violation of his 2008 proclamations.

Recently Meghan Clyne wrote an excellent piece in the Weekly Standard that detailed how Obama is using his faith-based program to push global warming, climate change, and green initiatives on America’s churches and he’s doing so by brazenly coupling his faith-based council with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Apparently, the president’s council envisions the “partnership” between government and religious institutions as a means of spreading the administration’s environmental warnings, rather than just a way to help churches feed the hungry and clothe the poor. Faith-based organizations, the report notes, can take “a prominent leadership role in influencing policy, education, and action in those areas.”

…The council hopes the new EPA faith office will also help churches and other nonprofits improve “access to financing,” including “establishing revolving loan programs or working with utility companies to help finance greening building projects.” The ultimate aim of all this government-supported retrofitting is clear: “Regional staff would work to engage local faith-and community-based groups to help meet Obama administration targets for greening buildings and promoting environmental quality.”

So, Obama wants to use federal subsidies offered through he EPA and his faith-based outreach to get churches to promulgate the green faith.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

President Obama should withdraw Elena Kagan from consideration – UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

First of all let me say that Obama won an election so if he wants to nominate a liberal that is fine. With that said Elena Kagan is no liberal. Read on for details.

I just finished reading Elena Kagan’s senior thesis (Thanks Rightscoop for hosting). It is about the socialist and militant socialist movement in New York from 1900 – 1933. It is a typical example of undergraduate work with lots of quotations and adjectives and poor on critical thinking which I have witnessed from those indoctrinated by leftist academia time and time again during my years at college.

Kagan’s thesis was for the history department, which I found ironic because she states that she is unable to explain the collapse of the socialist party and movement after WWI. Apparently she and some of the history faculty who helped her were unaware of what a disaster Woodrow Wilson was domestically and what a success conservatives like Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge were (we have talked about how this part of history has been largely scrubbed by the academic left).

Kagan’s thesis is no disinterested exploration of history. It takes an advocacy stance for radical and militant socialism which is important to keep in mind because in 1981 this was the height of the Cold War and militant socialism was the avowed enemy of freedom. Such regimes caused the deaths of over 100 million people.

But a college thesis by itself is no reason to keep anyone from the bench. It is more of an indictment of just how radical and subversive leftist academia has been for decades.

Kagan is hostile to the Second Amendment which also places her out of the mainstream because overwhelming numbers of Republicans, Independents and Democrats support the individual right to bear arms as did the Founders.  But while disturbing, this by itself is likely not reason that would keep anyone from the bench.

As Solicitor General she argued that at times it may be appropriate for the government to censor books and some other publications in support of the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which illegally restricted political speech. A case the court ruled against her on:

In a scathing concurrence to the opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts blasted Kagan’s argument.

“The government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern,” he wrote.

“Its theory, if accepted, would empower the government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations — as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion that Kagan was defending a law that represents an illegitimate attempt to use “censorship to control thought.”

He declared, “This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”

Washington Examiner:

A government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

While disturbing that any Solicitor General would dare make such an argument even while representing the views of President Obama, she was still representing someone else. So by itself this is not enough to make the case that she should not serve as a justice.

The Military Recruitment Scandal

As the dean of Harvard Law School Kagan argued that the First Amendment allowed her to ban military recruiters from access to the university career center (or any other university resources) because she did not like the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy of Bill Clinton and the Congress; she argued that the First Amendment gave her the right not only to censor the recruiters but to also take the federal money for allowing them on campus. The left is saying that recruiters were still allowed on campus and that political opponents are making this up because “recruiters were still on campus” and defacto were not “banned” The truth is that recruiters were forbidden from working with any aspect of the university administration to talk with students. A military veterans student club on campus provided access to recruiters. A student club has the right to freedom of expressive association and thus Kagan was powerless to stop the student club from providing this service.

Even Politifact got this story right:

Congress threatened to yank federal funding for schools that banned recruiters through a measure known as the Solomon Amendment, named for Rep. Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., and first passed in 1996. Schools and recruiters tried to sort out their differences in the intervening years, with some schools providing partial access. But eventually the issue came before the Supreme Court in 2004 in a case known as Rumsfeld vs. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, known as FAIR. FAIR was an association of law schools that opposed the Solomon Amendment.

In her role as a professor of law at Havard, Kagan signed onto an amicus brief (sometimes known as a “friend of the court” brief) filed by 40 Harvard professors that argued that the federal government should not be able to withhold funding if the schools applied the same policies to all recruiters. Harvard, for example, required all recruiters to sign forms indicating they would not discriminate against applicants based on sexual orientation. The withholding of funds interfered with the schools’ freedom of expression to oppose what they felt were discriminatory policies. [Ergo the First Amendment gives her the right to censor others who she feels “discriminate”  -Editor]

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed in an 8-0 ruling on March 6, 2006. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, ruled against FAIR and, in doing so, rejected the claims of Kagan and the other law professors that the school had the right to enforce non-discrimination policies against the military. “Under the statute, military recruiters must be given the same access as recruiters who comply with the policy,” the opinion said.

The court also rejected arguments that claimed that the law schools’ treatment of military recruiters could be considered expression under the First Amendment. If the action itself were purely expressive, the court reasoned, the schools would not have to issue statements explaining their actions. The court compared the situation to someone who says he won’t pay his income taxes because he disapproves of the Internal Revenue Service. The disapproval is protected speech, but the non-payment of taxes is not.

The opinion was supported by Justices John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer joining Roberts. Justice Samuel Alito did not participate because he had not yet been seated to the court when oral arguments were made.

This is likely enough to keep Kagan from serious consideration; her view is clear, the First Amendment gives her the right to censor others and that Congress does not have the power to raise an Army and a Navy if she objects. The court shot her down unanimously. Kagan’s view on this is so far out of the mainstream that it is the kind of “legal reasoning” that one expects to see from the court of a banana republic.

However, Kagan did express her First Amendment views in a Chicago Law Review article that is chilling.

CNS News:

Kagan Argued for Government ‘Redistribution of Speech’

Kagan expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

“The answer to this question involves viewing the Buckley principle [that government cannot balance between competing speakers] as an evidentiary tool designed to aid in the search for improper motive,” Kagan wrote. “The Buckley principle emerges not from the view that redistribution of speech opportunities is itself an illegitimate end, but from the view that governmental actions justified as redistributive devices often (though not always) stem partly from hostility or sympathy toward ideas or, even more commonly, from self-interest.”

Kagan notes, however, that such “redistribution of speech” is not “itself an illegitimate end,” but that government may not restrict it to protect incumbent politicians or because it dislikes a particular speaker or a particular message.

She argued that government can restrict speech if it believes that speech might cause harm, either directly or by inciting others to do harm.

Kagan also argued that the Supreme Court should not be concerned with maintaining or protecting any marketplace of ideas because it is impossible for the court to determine what constitutes an ideal marketplace, contending that other types of laws, such as property laws, can also affect the structure of the marketplace of ideas and that a restriction on speech may “un-skew” the market, rather than tilt it unfavorably.

“If there is an ‘overabundance’ of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action — which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate — then action disfavoring that idea might ‘un-skew,’ rather than skew, public discourse,” Kagan wrote.

Instead, the Supreme Court should focus on whether a speaker’s message is harming the public, argued Kagan in her article.

Stunning. This stands directly in the face of the obvious meaning of the First Amendment. Legal scholars have used the example of the marketplace of ideas is what allows and encourages freedom of conscience, expression, innovation and ideas. Kagan stands against the entire idea because the government cannot fully redistribute speech and power to enforce its version of equality on everyone ‘s speech. Do we want a government that restricts and promotes speech to ensure some bureaucrats view of “speech equality” which can mean anything? Does anyone want a government with that kind of power?

Actually there are people who want the government to have that kind of power as Kagan’s stated view is typical among communists, totalitarians and far left academics; for those of you who do not know legal action and the threat of legal action goes on constantly against public universities for illegally censoring/punishing constitutionally protected speech. Most universities have speech codes that are unconstitutional on their face, including IUSB.

This stated view of Kagan alone is more than enough to demand that the president pull Elana Kagan from consideration for the court.

There is one other aspect of this nomination that I find disturbing. The self proclaimed most transparent administration in history is keeping the press away from Kagan’s family and friends which is highly unusual. Former CBS News man Bernie Goldberg and Megyn Kelly report and ask what it is that the administration is trying to hide:  

I was able to at least in part get down to the answer to one of the brothers. Elena Kagan’s brother is mentioned in Elena Kagan’s senior thesis on page 3. The thesis is about the socialist and militant socialist movement in New York from 1900-1933. “I would like to thank my brother Marc, whose involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas.” As we stated above Kagan’s thesis is no disinterested exploration of history. It takes an advocacy stance for radical and militant socialism which is important to keep in mind because in 1981 this was the height of the Cold War. That brother is teaching students and the White House wanted to make sure that no one sat in on his class. It is no surprise as to why. Elena Kagan has two bothers Irving & Marc and both are academics, are their views the same? I can’t find much info on the net about her family other than that. Tips are welcome.

 

UPDATE – While Obama insisted that Bush give more access to Harriet Miers, its clams shut with Kagan.

Heritage:

Senator Barack Obama said the following about the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court according to Greg Sargent in The Plum Line (Washington Post) in 2005:

Harriet Miers has had a distinguished career as a lawyer, but since her experience does not include serving as a judge, we have yet to know her views on many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country today. In the coming weeks, we’ll need as much information and forthright testimony from Ms. Miers as possible so that the U.S. Senate can make an educated and informed decision on her nomination to the Supreme Court.

To comply with the Obama Standard, the Senate should be provided with information, through testimony and documents, to allow the Senate to properly assess Kagan’s views on “many of the critical constitutional issues facing our country today.” Elena Kagan wrote in 1995 that:

When the Senate ceases to engage nominees in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, the confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.

Both the Obama and Kagan Standard should be followed by the Senate during the confirmation process of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the high court.

MORE:

Elana Kagan argues for government book banning in front of Supreme Court. Elite media silent. Palin political enemy makes false book banning charges and elite media continues to say it after the story debunked.

Why President Obama should withdraw Elena Kagan from consideration – UPDATED!

Supreme Court Binds Second Amendment to States

Video: Kagan Declines To Say Gov’t Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat

Kagan: It is Fine if The Law Bans Books Because Government Won’t Really Enforce It

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »