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 17th, 2010

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 »

Palin blasts the make it up media: Research is your friend, News media. Try it sometime

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

The more things change, the more they stay the same with twisted media coverage of my comments. Stories from yesterday are littered with typical inaccuracies and half truths; and in our never-ending quest to hold the press accountable, here are the points that require correction:

1) I was not “interviewed” by ABC News. I had an ABC News camera in my face while I was signing things and greeting some attendees following the Susan B. Anthony List Breakfast.

2) My remarks at the NRA Annual Meeting regarding the anti-Second Amendment sentiments of Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi were as follows:

“President Obama and his allies like Nancy Pelosi have been relatively quiet on the gun control front – not because they don’t want to limit your rights, but because they’re afraid of the political consequences. Don’t doubt for a minute that if they thought they could get away with it, they would ban guns, and ban ammunition, and gut the Second Amendment.” (emphasis added)

That’s what I said. And here’s what Barack Obama himself once said: “Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress.” (emphasis added)

Now, what proof do we have that he would want to limit our Second Amendment rights? Well, he made some pretzel-like equivocating statements about our individual right to keep and bear arms, and he flip-flopped on his opinion in the Heller case and then still wouldn’t come out and say that the court made the right decision. But the real proof is his terrible anti-gun record as a state senator in Illinois, where he voted repeatedly in favor of banning guns and ammunition. He even expressed his support for state legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” (This outrageous position was declared in a questionnaire, which candidate Obama later claimed he “never saw or approved,” despite the fact that his handwriting was on it – a fact which he did not dispute.)

As for Nancy Pelosi – she’s a San Francisco Democrat. That should be proof enough. But if you require more: She has an F rating from the NRA and supports gun bans and registration laws.

As noted in my remarks, I don’t believe that it’s politically expedient for them to attack our Second Amendment Rights. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t like to do so if they had the chance.

3) Despite reporters’ claims to the contrary, Obamacare does allow for public funding of abortion in myriad ways, which is why the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (speaking as the voice of authority for the Catholic Church in America) unequivocally opposed Obamacare despite the Church’s long desire for health care reform.

4) As for the remarks I made yesterday about my beautiful son, Trig, I ask that you watch my speech here and judge for yourself my intentions.

– Sarah Palin

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

Who says that citizen candidates can’t make great political ads?

Posted by iusbvision on May 17, 2010

This is so entertaining.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton | 1 Comment »