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 November 19th, 2010

Ask a Democrat: Was Patrick Henry the Original “Bitter Clinger”?

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

We know how Obama would answer.


Patrick Henry

Patrick Henry

“This book [the Bible] is worth all the books that ever were printed, and it has been my misfortune that I have never found time to read it with the proper attention and feeling till lately. I trust in the mercy of Heaven that it is not yet too late.”

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?”

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Posted in 2012, Campaign 2008, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Leftist Hate in Action | Leave a Comment »

MSNBC Talker Calls Sarah Palin an “ASS”…

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

…and manages to get the only “factoid” she presented totally wrong. Video via The Blaze.

This is one reason why so few on the left are willing to go on Fox News or enter a setting where they will actually have to debate informed people.

You will notice in the video that random MSNBC talker, who is really no different than most MSNBC talkers, states that when Sarah Palin was asked who her favorite Founder was that she could not name one. This is a lie that many of the far left web sites have embraced such as Media Matters, News Hounds, The Young Turks, Huffintgon Post and the list goes on. They post the video and leave off her answer so it looks like she could not name one. Others just posted a long video of the interview while claiming she was “stumped” and simply counted on people not hanging around to watch her complete answer.

This is the level of dishonesty that the far left engages in regularly as of late. It reminds me of the whopping lies Joe Donnelly said about Jackie Walorski over the recent election. Certainly MSNBC has the video below, yet they seem happy with the lie. Fortunately MSNBC is such a small operation that they are not an electoral threat to anyone.

The video below shows the entire clip and it clearly shows that Sarah Palin answered “George Washington” complete with an explanation as to why.

I am not surprised that Palin would pick Washington, as most people of strong Christian faith do pick him because Washington’s faith was so strong that his men and many of his enemies believed that he could not be harmed in battle (read the history folks as this is mentioned by many at the time).

I watched the interview where Sarah Palin was asked this question live and even though I am much more familiar with the Founders than the vast majority of Americans, I had trouble answering. The thought of trying to decide who was “better” between Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Rush, Sam Adams, Noah Webster and the rest actually left me in horror for a few moments. I know full well that the Founders were truly great men with a special blessing, they are men that I am not qualified to judge. At the first moment the idea of ME picking one Founder over another left me feeling unworthy, among these great men who am I to chose who is best? To me it is like declaring who is better Moses or John the Baptist. Indeed it is the hope of enlightened students to be able to approach the wisdom of Founders who even played a lesser role. Sarah Palin was not resistant to answer this question not because she did not know something about them, rather it is precisely because she does, which her answer clearly demonstrates.

Eventually I settled on Sam Adams as a “favorite”. I did so because the way he carried out his passion and the way he spoke was the closest to me so I feel like I identify with him.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Dirty Tricks, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action, Lies | Leave a Comment »

Sarah Palin’s “refudiate” wins Oxford University Press’ “Word of the Year”

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

Hey pinhead lefty – yes they mean it and are 100% serious.

By the way, I noticed that “nom nom” was named as an honorable mention word. In MMORPG’s such as World of Warcraft the term is used exactly as Oxford indicates, an expression of delight while eating.

Oxford University Press:


has been named the New Oxford American Dictionary’s 2010 Word of the Year!

refudiate verb used loosely to mean “reject”: she called on them to refudiate the proposal to build a mosque.
[origin — blend of refute and repudiate]

Now, does that mean that “refudiate” has been added to the New Oxford American Dictionary? No it does not. Currently, there are no definite plans to include “refudiate” in the NOAD, the OED, or any of our other dictionaries. If you are interested in the most recent additions to the NOAD, you can read about them here. We have many dictionary programs, and each team of lexicographers carefully tracks the evolution of the English language. If a word becomes common enough (as did last year’s WOTY, unfriend), they will consider adding it to one (or several) of the dictionaries we publish. As for “refudiate,” well, I’m not yet sure that it will be includiated.

Refudiate: A Historical Perspective

An unquestionable buzzword in 2010, the word refudiate instantly evokes the name of Sarah Palin, who tweeted her way into a flurry of media activity when she used the word in certain statements posted on Twitter. Critics pounced on Palin, lampooning what they saw as nonsensical vocabulary and speculating on whether she meant “refute” or “repudiate.”

From a strictly lexical interpretation of the different contexts in which Palin has used “refudiate,” we have concluded that neither “refute” nor “repudiate” seems consistently precise, and that “refudiate” more or less stands on its own, suggesting a general sense of “reject.”

Although Palin is likely to be forever branded with the coinage of “refudiate,” she is by no means the first person to speak or write it—just as Warren G. Harding was not the first to use the word normalcy when he ran his 1920 presidential campaign under the slogan “A return to normalcy.” But Harding was a political celebrity, as Palin is now, and his critics spared no ridicule for his supposedly ignorant mangling of the correct word “normality.”

The Short List

In alphabetical order, here are our top ten finalists for the 2010 Word of the Year selection:

bankster noun (informal) a member of the banking industry perceived as a predator that grows rich at the expense of those suffering in a crumbling economy: trillions of dollars are flowing to the banksters in the form of near-zero interest loans.
[origin — 1930s: blend of banker and gangster]

crowdsourcing noun the practice whereby an organization enlists a variety of freelancers, paid or unpaid, to work on a specific task or problem: Kodak used social media crowdsourcing to engage its customers in their naming contest.
[origin — early 21st cent.: on the pattern of outsourcing]

double-dip adjective denoting or relating to a recession during which a period of economic decline is followed by a brief period of growth, followed by a further period of decline: higher food and energy prices could increase the risk of a double-dip recession.

gleek noun (informal) a fan of the television series Glee.
[origin — early 21st cent.: blend of Glee and geek]

nom nom (informal) exclamation an expression of delight when eating.
pl. noun (nom noms) delicious food.
verb (nom-nom) eat delicious food with obvious enjoyment.
adjective (nom-nommy) descriptive of delicious food.
[origin — imitative; popularized by the noises made by the character Cookie Monster on Sesame Street (usually as “Om nom nom nom”)]

retweet verb (on the social networking service Twitter) repost or forward (a message posted by another user): people love to retweet job ads.
noun a reposted or forwarded message on Twitter.

Tea Party a US political party that emerged from a movement of conservatives protesting the federal government in 2009.
[origin — allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773]

top kill noun a procedure designed to seal a leaking oil well, whereby large amounts of a material heavier than the oil—e.g., mud—are pumped into the affected well.

vuvuzela noun (also called vuvu) a long horn blown by fans at soccer matches.
[origin — South African, perhaps from Zulu]

webisode noun 1. an original episode derived from a television series, made for online viewing.
2. an online video that presents an original short film or promotes a product, movie, or television series.
[origin — 1990s: blend of Web and episode]


Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Palin Truth Squad | Leave a Comment »

People & Wealth Moving from High Tax States to Low Tax States

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

And it is changing the face of Congress via the Washington Examiner:

Migration from high-tax states to states with lower taxes and less government spending will dramatically alter the composition of future Congresses, according to a study by Americans for Tax Reform

Eight states are projected to gain at least one congressional seat under reapportionment following the 2010 Census: Texas (four seats), Florida (two seats), Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah and Washington (one seat each). Their average top state personal income tax rate: 2.8 percent.

By contrast, New York and Ohio are likely to lose two seats each, while Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania will be down one apiece. The average top state personal income tax rate in these loser states: 6.05 percent.

The state and local tax burden is nearly a third lower in states with growing populations, ATR found. As a result, per capita government spending is also lower: $4,008 for states gaining congressional seats, $5,117 for states losing them.

And, as ATR notes, “in eight of ten losers, workers can be forced to join a union as a condition of employment. In 7 of the 8 gainers, workers are given a choice whether to join or contribute financially to a union.”

Imagine that: Americans are fleeing high tax, union-dominated states and settling in states with lower taxes, right-to-work laws and lower government spending.


Posted in Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

Soros Funded Group to Obama: Enact New Progressive Policy by Executive Order

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010


George Soros and his Center are upset that the American people placed a roadblock in their plans when we rose up and painted the nation red. The Center now is providing a blueprint of ways Barack Obama can do an end run around the people’s will by resorting to methods that will strike many of us as being improper-to say the least. Relying on executive orders, interpretation of regulations, rule -making and the like they are collectively a recipe for even more power being assumed by President Obama.

From Tuesday’s Politico Playbook:

[The] Center for American Progress today is releasing a report, “Power of the President,” proposing 30 executive actions the president can take to advance progressive change in the areas of energy, the economy, health care, education, foreign policy, and national security. “The following authorities can be used to ensure progress on key issues facing the country today: Executive orders, Rulemaking, Agency management, Convening and creating public-private partnerships , Commanding the armed forces, Diplomacy.

The New York Times fleshes out these proposals with some suggestions about policy changes across the board. The ideology of George Soros shines through the Center’s report as it justifies this forceful approach to circumvent Congress when it states that:

[The] legislative battles that Mr. Obama waged during his first two years – notably on health care and financial regulatory reform – have created a weariness among the general public with the process of making laws. And it hints it has not helped Mr. Obama politically in the process.

In other words, when Congress passed a variety of laws Americans became dismayed by the horse-trading and bribes that were resorted to by Democrats to impose these policies on us. Instead of compromise and listening to the American people, Soros counsels that more forceful measures should be used to override the will of the American people.

And this is the man the Democratic Party has as their sugar daddy and who various Democratic leaders over the years have defended and praised (for example, as shown by this letter from 11 Democratic lawmakers).

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Government Gone Wild, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

Democrat Sugar Daddy #1 George Soros Explains The Anti-Capitalist, Pro-Marxist Tactics He Uses to Fundamentally Transform Countries

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

Via The Blaze

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

Klavan: Elites who think Americans are stupid should go to a place where there are no Americans… Harvard

Posted by iusbvision on November 19, 2010

A brilliant short lecture from famed author and Hollywood screenwriter Andrew Klavan.

Posted in 2012, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Culture War, Post 2010 | 1 Comment »