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 February 5th, 2011

Obama Administration Held in Contempt for Violating Court Order

Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2011

Bloomberg News:

The Obama Administration acted in contempt by continuing its deepwater-drilling moratorium after the policy was struck down, a New Orleans judge ruled.

Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re-imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.

President Barack Obama’s administration first halted offshore exploration in waters deeper than 500 feet in May, after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig off the Louisiana coast led to a subsea blowout of a BP Plc well that spewed more than 4.1 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Overly Broad

Feldman overturned the initial ban as overly broad on June 22, after the offshore-drilling industry and Gulf Coast political and business leaders challenged it. U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar said later that day that he would “issue a new order in the coming days that eliminates any doubt that a moratorium is needed, appropriate, and within our authorities.”

In July, Salazar instituted a second drilling moratorium that was also challenged by an industry lawsuit claiming the ban was harming the Gulf Coast economy, which is heavily dependent on deepwater drilling activities. That ban was rescinded in October, before Feldman could rule on its validity.

Feldman later ruled that enhanced drilling safety rules Salazar imposed to permit companies to resume offshore exploration violated federal law, and he struck down those as well. Opponents of those rules complained to Feldman that regulators were continuing to block the resumption of drilling after Feldman’s rulings.

Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, said the government is reviewing yesterday’s ruling. He declined to comment further.

Informal Moratorium

The Offshore Marine Service Association, a group representing offshore service vessels and shipyards, urged the president to end what it called an informal moratorium on offshore drilling.

“President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months,” Jim Adams, the association’s president, said in a release after the ruling. “As a result, thousands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs.”

Feldman also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit. The company had described the fees as “significant.”

Hornbeck “was put to considerable expense, after Judge Feldman issued the injunction, contending with the government’s litigation posturing and defiance of the court’s order,” Sam Giberga, the company’s general counsel, said today in an e-mail.

“The government was not at liberty to impose its own will after the court struck down the policy,” Giberga said. “The government, like any citizen, had to obey the ruling, even if it didn’t like it.”

The case is Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, 2:10-cv-01663, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes | Leave a Comment »

WikiLeaks cables: Obama secretly gave Britain’s nuclear secrets to Russia

Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2011

UPDATE – The State Department is issuing a denial. They say that it is a part of the general reporting to Russia about the NATO deterrent, but would that include specifics to such a detail? If that was all then whey did the Obama Administration ask the UK for permission? Why did the UK say no?

A reporter in the elite media is saying that an anonymous source in England agrees with the State Department story, but it doesn’t make sense. We know after Tuscon that the elite media will say anything and will double down even when the facts come out otherwise when it come sto politically charged stories. An anonymous source won’t cut it amd so far Wikileaks has been accurate (because after all they are leaked American documents).


I realize that some people will toss around the word “impeachment” around rather loosely (Dennis Kuscinich comes to mind), but I have a personal policy against using that word unless something really severe comes to my attention to warrant it. This story, if true I believe may cross that line.

This is a complete violation of the public trust. The Unites States has a special relationship with England and always has, in spite of the fact that this administration denies it and has insulted England on numerous occasions.

[Offended the Queen of England and as a gift to her he gave an iPod with all of Obama’s speeches on it, offended British PM By snubbing him multiple times and offering state gifts that were a joke (25 DVD’s that wont play in England), offended the British People by returning a bust of Winston Churchill that they gave the United States (its like sending the Statue of Liberty back to France). – Editor]

I realize that Obama is an anti-colonialist and really does not like England, but even so this duplicity and act of treachery towards our best ally is shocking and disturbing. Our allies were already shaken up from Obama’s reneging on a missile shield agreement with Eastern Europe almost ending all relations with Poland and the Czech Republic (LINKS 1, 2), letting the Republic of Georgia twist in the wind after the Russian invasion, by siding with Hugo Chavez and Communist Fidel Castro against Honduras, by the constant bowing to foreign leaders, and by pushing Mubarak, a long time ally, out so quickly.


UK Daily Telegraph:

Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the Americans used British nuclear secrets as a bargaining chip also sheds new light on the so-called “special relationship”, which is shown often to be a one-sided affair by US diplomatic communications obtained by the WikiLeaks website.

Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

• America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.

• Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantánamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.

• David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.

• Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.

A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain’s nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia’s support for the “New START” deal.

Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.

Professor Malcolm Chalmers said: “This appears to be significant because while the UK has announced how many missiles it possesses, there has been no way for the Russians to verify this. Over time, the unique identifiers will provide them with another data point to gauge the size of the British arsenal.”

Duncan Lennox, editor of Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems, said: “They want to find out whether Britain has more missiles than we say we have, and having the unique identifiers might help them.”

While the US and Russia have long permitted inspections of each other’s nuclear weapons, Britain has sought to maintain some secrecy to compensate for the relatively small size of its arsenal.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, last year disclosed that “up to 160” warheads are operational at any one time, but did not confirm the number of missiles.

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

Jimmy Carter being sued for alleged anti-Israeli falsehoods

Posted by iusbvision on February 5, 2011

A  professor at IUSB used a Jimmy Carter book in a political science class, without balance. While I was Chief Justice many students complained that it was more of a propaganda class for one side. Of the students making this particular complaint, none would go on the record in fear of retaliation.

Of course the errors in this particular book became known rather quickly.


NEW YORK – A $5 million lawsuit filed in federal court in New York on Tuesday against former US President Jimmy Carter and publisher Simon & Schuster alleges that Carter’s 2006 book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid contains false information and was intended to deceive the public and promote an anti-Israel agenda.

The five plaintiffs in the suit, readers of the book, want their lawsuit, which seeks compensatory and punitive damages, to be deemed a class action, meaning that the plaintiffs would be seen to represent a much larger group – that is, everyone who purchased Carter’s $27 book.

The plaintiffs are Americans, with two of the five holding dual American-Israeli citizenship.

The suit alleges that the five plaintiffs in the suit who purchased Carter’s book, as well as others, assumed they were buying an accurate record of historic events relating to Israel and the Palestinians.

By claiming to be a Middle East expert, the suit claims, Carter and, by extension, his publisher, intentionally presented inaccurate information that was highly critical of Israel and therefore violated a New York law that makes it illegal to “engage in deceptive acts in the course of conducting business.”

According to a press release sent out by plaintiffs’ attorneys David Schoen and Nitsana Darshan-Leitner, the suit is “the first time a former President and a publishing house have been sued for violating consumer protection laws by knowingly publishing inaccurate information while promoting a book as factual.”

The complaint notes that former Carter aides and colleagues contacted Simon & Schuster with concerns about inaccuracies in the book, but that the allegations were not investigated further.

Schoen, in an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post, noted that there is precedent in New York for a class-action suit against writer and publisher “for falsely marketing as true and accurate a book that is neither.”

Similar suits, Schoen said, have been filed in New York against James Frey, the muchreviled author of the notentirely- accurate memoir A Million Little Pieces. Those suits ended in settlements.

“Ours is a much more serious subject I believe, because the book intentionally misleads and misrepresents about actual historic events and much of the public debate going on today about Israel is based on what people believe actually has transpired in past discussions, etc.,” Schoen wrote in his e-mail.

“For a former President to misstate these things obviously was anathema enough for his closest aides, supporters, and confidantes to quit over it and expose the falsehoods for what they were.”

Posted in Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Israel | 1 Comment »